Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 20 Jul 2008 01:34

What will the blond girls do in India?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 20 Jul 2008 01:42

paramu wrote:What will the blond girls do in India?

as cheer leaders during parliament breaks

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Jul 2008 01:43

Katare wrote:P.S. I still support the deal in its current form but not at the cost of the direction that our nation (and BRF) is being pushed.

"In the present form" meaning as-it-is word-by-word or with changes? this sentence seems to be self contradictory to me. I am still in the "I don't know" camp so I'm still trying to make sense of things. Man, this thing is confusing.
Party X comes out with numbers, party Y comes out with counter numbers. Sitting in the living room one cannot verify the ground situation and just "believing" one of them (on personal preference) isn't good enough for some like me. Who to trust - that is the question.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jul 2008 01:54

Muppalla wrote:
paramu wrote:What will the blond girls do in India?
as cheer leaders during parliament breaks

May I suggest...

'Manmohan! Manmohan! He's our man. If he can't do nuclear, nobody can!'

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 20 Jul 2008 02:01

joshvajohn wrote:Comment on the above news item...
PM is playing the right card at the right time. I think it is better for Advani to consider seriously about it if he is going to become a pm next time and give a handshake to Obama or McCain it would not a shameful act. It will save his face.

One needs to be very careful about what is for India in the next five years.

Ha ha... let them do that before confidence vote.
Looks like UPA is sure that they are not going to win the confidence vote and this suggestion came up to make BJP abstain from the vote.

BTW, what did UPA tell left about IAEA agrement?

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 20 Jul 2008 02:23

shyam wrote:
joshvajohn wrote:Comment on the above news item...
PM is playing the right card at the right time. I think it is better for Advani to consider seriously about it if he is going to become a pm next time and give a handshake to Obama or McCain it would not a shameful act. It will save his face.

One needs to be very careful about what is for India in the next five years.
Ha ha... let them do that before confidence vote.
Looks like UPA is sure that they are not going to win the confidence vote and this suggestion came up to make BJP abstain from the vote.
BTW, what did UPA tell left about IAEA agrement?

Why cant they shake hands before with all of the candidates so that there is no more mystery. No more loss of face

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2008 02:58

PM open to Jekyll law to blunt US Hyde Act

Perhaps he means he will formulate a law in privacy, vote on it by himself and call an Indian law?

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 20 Jul 2008 03:15

The trouble is, the only way they coud have got it through is to appeal to everyone to unite the country behind them. They should have rallied the nation on the national security agenda, but they have been apologising themselves silly over the real threat, to our North. So maybe they deserve to go. But will the next dispensation realise where the threat is from?

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 20 Jul 2008 03:45

Acharya, do you know if western sociologists are studying maturity of Indian politics in handling the nuke deal?

May be you can post your reply on some other appropriate thread.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 20 Jul 2008 04:01

Gerard wrote:
I would like to point out that 4/5 decades from today when India is the world's second largest economic power
When this occurs no Hyde, 123, NPT, IAEA etc will be able to restrain India.

Very very relevant observation.

But then, while India may be much bigger than France, yet it will not be stronger then the US/NATO/EU combination - i.e. the West. If India decides to "unrestrain" itself from the present deal, that may (or may not) invoke a harsh response from a powerful combine of the West plus China. In the past powerful nations have been defeated - Germany, Japan, former SU etc. India could face an unsurmountable barrier to breaking major agreements that it has signed.

Also, India (or other respectable countries for that matter) should not sign agreements with the thought that in future it can be broken. That is unprincipled.

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 20 Jul 2008 04:06

Katare wrote: I change my vote to No deal

P.S. I still support the deal in its current form but not at the cost of the direction that our nation (and BRF) is being pushed.

Katare:

Don't change your stance. You have been arguing eloquently, keep up the good work. If I believe the main concerns related to the deal could be whittled down to:

a) Explicit cost of next nuke test.
b) Costs on defense and foreign policy
c) Status of the spent fuel
d) Strategic fuel reserve and fuel supply guarantees
e) No interruptions to our closed fuel cycle and 3 stage program.
f) Access to Gen-4 reactor and safety tech
g) Perpetual and viral safeguards, rather than material based safeguards. Or delinking safeguards from fuel supply
h) Material and other costs to our strategic program.

There are two wild cards currently. One is the clean adoption of IAEA. The appendix to IAEA draft is not yet available for us to make conculsive judement on the whole draft, but from what we have seen its OK. My opinion is influenced by others who have done a deep reading of the IAEA aggreement (I have procrastinated enough to read the whole draft that my guilt meter is in dangerous levels).

The second wild card is a clean exemption from NSG.

If any country puts extraneous conditions, like US, we will simply wont deal with them. India's Jeckyll act can easily layout the ground rules on how the nuclear business has to be done in India.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 20 Jul 2008 04:08

A summary from an opponent to the nuclear deals.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/20/stories ... 731000.htm

Interesting quotes from the above link:

Earlier, Dr. Manmohan Sigh confessed, at Oxford, to an admiration of certain aspects of colonial subjugation all of which “we still value and cherish,” and which were the result of India’s meeting the “dominant empire of the day.”

The Act envisages India formulating “a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the U.S., and is working with the U.S. on key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation.”

In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to Congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and if necessary sanction and contain Iran if it pursues indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.

Article 14 grants the U.S. a unilateral right to require the return by the other party of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material of components transferred under this agreement, and any fissionable materials produced through their use. The “right of return” mentions “the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party” (Article 14.5) of this equipment and materials rather than their return. ........... which can even be interpreted as sanctioning military intervention?

The House of the People should not be degraded into a mere reporting body to ratify agreements of such epochal import.

As B.P. Jeevan Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, wrote in this newspaper on August 10, 2007: “There is no such thing as a ‘prerogative power’ of the executive, immune from parliamentary scrutiny.”

End of Quotes from the above link

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 20 Jul 2008 04:16

Katare wrote:Must let it go!

Katare ji,

The fundamental issue with deal is not about the merits and demerits of the deal itself because most can't figure it out by themselves and also dependent on the value placed on individual items in the pros and cons analysis. The issue is about the decision making approach spelt out in the beginning of the project undertaking.

MMS has spelt out in parliament that the decision will be taken based on *consensus* in the parliament. When you know clearly who the constituents are within the UPA and their ideological leanings (if you may call it that way) and that of the opposition, that approach should be scrutinized.

One must remember that mere spelling out of *that consensus* basis has potentially nullified all opposing arguments to *not even* entertain this agreement. MMS took the consensus approach and so everyone had no way but to remain calm.

So, the negotiations began and we put ourselves subject to all the circus we have seen over the past few years. Now, the *consensus* itself is elusive and do note that at every step there were voices clamoring that they do not agree on the direction of the deal. Both houses of parliament and thereby people of the country have spoken that they do not want to enter into this agreement.

In these circumstances we are left with only two conclusions: initial spelling out of the *consensus* based approach to decision making is either a bad judgement or a ploy.

It is entirely different issue to say that consensus is not the right way for these kind of agreements but that needed to be spelt out early and the party dealing with it should have necessary mandate from people to take such a decision.

That is my gripe.

My response to MMS is: boss, you are great and you are a visionary. You wanted to do something good for the country but the people don't seem to want it. Our country does not deserve a leader like you so let them get on with their programs. Further, I am confident that the fundamentals of the country are strong enough that we can develop alternatives to our energy woes and will get a better deal next time.

===

The above is ofcourse if we are to believe that Left and INC were really opposing each other and not the side show. We cannot rule that out either.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 20 Jul 2008 04:18

kshirin wrote:The trouble is, the only way they coud have got it through is to appeal to everyone to unite the country behind them. They should have rallied the nation on the national security agenda, but they have been apologising themselves silly over the real threat, to our North. So maybe they deserve to go. But will the next dispensation realise where the threat is from?

Instead they created the canard that the BJP is opposing the deal because it wants credit for the deal. This has become the mantra for all the deal pushers. Where did this thing appear first? Probably some article placed in the newspapers by the establishment. If BJP wanted credit, why did it not oppose the original J18 deal? Why did the opposition start only after changes to 123 and Hyde Act? Again, is there any evidence that the Congress started taking sole credit for the deal? I would like to see it if it is there.

Is this deal such a vote fetcher for the BJP to oppose national interest? BJP has its vote bank which will pretty much vote for BJP deal, or no deal.
From what I observed of the BJP they are more likely to act in the national interest than any other party in India.

--hanumadu

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2008 05:28

This deal will lead complete the Blunt project like nothing else.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jul 2008 05:29

Also, India (or other respectable countries for that matter) should not sign agreements with the thought that in future it can be broken. That is unprincipled.

Not at all.

That is called "acting in the supreme national interest". All the respectable countries do it. Russia did it when it withdrew from the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) treaty. The US did it when it withdrew from the ABM treaty and let the START treaty lapse. The respectable P5 put clauses in the CTBT and FMCT draft that allow withdrawal.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jul 2008 05:39

Article 14 grants the U.S. a unilateral right to require the return by the other party of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material of components transferred under this agreement, and any fissionable materials produced through their use. The “right of return” mentions “the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party” (Article 14.5) of this equipment and materials rather than their return. ........... which can even be interpreted as sanctioning military intervention?

So now the dastardly Hyde act allows the US to invade India. I wonder if there is a clause in it that allows the US to seize the centrifuges the Iranians have at Natanz? Surely the wicked Hyde act must have that in it also.
India must pass the Jekyll act that allows the Indian military to annex Florida. That will teach Henry Hyde (PBUH).

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 20 Jul 2008 06:58

Despite adhering to the NPT, Iran is now under all kinds of sanctions and being threatened with war.

It goes to show that these treaties are nothing more than toilet paper. Don't be fooled into thinking some piece of paper is going to save you. They will cut off the nuke fuel whenever it suits their interests.

None of this is being done through the IAEA. Its a bunch of countries with no authority who have designated themselves ayerthollas of who can do what in the nuclear industry.

----
GENEVA - A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.

In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_ ... iran_talks

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2008 07:12

Botched up deal
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Local politics versus global imperatives
It has been pointed with some irony that the future of the India-United States civil nuclear cooperation agreement will be decided by calculations far removed from the merits or demerits of a far-reaching diplomatic move. It is going to be shaped by whether Mr HD Deve Gowda wants an alliance with the Congress in Karnataka; by whether Mr Ajit Singh sees the need for a coalition in western Uttar Pradesh; by whether Ms Mayawati can poach enough MPs from the Samajwadi Party. Indeed, the electoral considerations of Mr Harish Nagpal, the independent MP from Amroha (a constituency in Uttar Pradesh), have caused him to take a position on the nuclear deal, not a deep study of the 123 Agreement or India's proposed arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the original turnaround, the Samajwadi Party's advocacy of the deal, was rooted in the realisation that it was better to take on the BSP in alliance with the Congress rather than fight alone in Uttar Pradesh. The turn of events has left strategic thinkers and foreign policy buffs aghast. In New Delhi they argue that such an agreement should not be reduced to base politics but judged in terms of broader benefits or otherwise to national strategic interest. Admittedly, the argument seems persuasive. Not everything in politics can be reduced to a beauty contest; serious concerns deserve more measured, calibrated thought.

Nevertheless, what is happening in India is scarcely unique. A quarter century ago, the then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mr Tip O'Neill, famously said, "All politics is local." That aphorism is both universal and perennial. In the past two years, if Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC, have cheered the Indian nuclear deal and voted for it on Capitol Hill, it is not because every single legislative backer is a global strategic expert convinced of the power of a rising India. Many have done so for local factors -- traded favours with the Bush Administration at the constituency level, listened to voters and pressure groups among them who have India connections and may be worth crucial campaign funds. Similarly, American politicians with a large Pakistani community in their constituencies have been swayed by electoral considerations and opposed the deal. Like India, America, too, is a nation of Harish Nagpals; every democracy is.

India's polity is marked by contention and variety. Does its very nature suggest that every major foreign policy initiative will be thwarted by some interest group or the other, by opposition for the sake of opposition, or driven by State or regional or even one-seat political considerations? If this were so, it would be depressing. It is here that the skill and maturity of politicians and Governments is tested. After the fiasco of the nuclear deal -- even if it eventually goes through, the Congress has expended so much political capital that it will never seem worth it to many within the party -- there is a lesson for India's political leadership. Never again should a Government allow a major agreement or move, one on which broader consensus is necessary, to be posited as the achievement of a chosen few. Indian democracy thrives on coalition-building -whether after elections are held or before nuclear deals are concluded.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 20 Jul 2008 07:28

Amber, R-man, N-man are right. The worst player in all this sordid N-deal mess (after the egregious left) is the BJP. They should've supported the deal at the end of the day instead of pushing it to this no-trust vote thing. So what if the UPA rebuffed their JPC demand (Isn't it obvious how ridiculous is a JPC demand on this issue?), and consulted them even less than they consulted their erstwhile left allies? Isn't national interest supreme? Shouldn't the BJP take the UPA's word they are dealing keepipng national interest supreme?? The BJP's partisan bickering and attitude will return to haunt it later down the line, am sure! In one sense, the BJP ois even worse than the left. The left doesn' t claim any nationalist pretensions at least, unlike the BJP!

And there's simply so much to learn from the Congress' principled, just and fair stand on the issue. And Dr manmohan Singh's personal integrity, his mammoth legacy in opening up the globe to India and vice versa economically and now in the energy security realm as well.... wow, we should count ourselves blessed that so accomplished, polished, suave, gentle and kindly intellectual has agreed to take over the steering wheel in this critical juncture of our nation's history. All those casting aspersions on Shri Shri Manmohan's vision and resolve likely have no clue to the man's greatness and benevolence.

/Etc etc etc.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 20 Jul 2008 07:37

Its a propaganda of "threat"(they will put sanctions on us if we don't do deal now!) done by media, to pull the weak minded people into SUPPORTERS lobby. Just think about it. Why america will kill american corporations by putting sanctions on india and indian contractors of american work now?

Thats stupid to say US will put sanctions. That only shows, weak-mindedness of few people in media. These are same people who started crying out and criticized Vajpayee for nuke tests and said, "its all over!"

Problem of India is not that we don't have power. Problem is IN OUR MIND. We have this thought firmly fit into our mind, that don't have POWER! For example, unless JANE's weekly or FORBES talks about our capabilities, none of Indian elite would believe that we have arrived!

So, first MMS should be taught how to stop doing GUBO and negotiate from a position of reality, rather than India's position built into his mind by foreign journals.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2008 08:08

Signing 123 Agreement amounts to accepting American hegemony opinion

Signing 123 Agreement amounts to accepting American hegemony opinion

M.P. Veerendra Kumar

If the 123 Agreement is not bound by the overarching Hyde Act, then what else is its purpose?

“At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom...” Thus spoke Nehru at midnight on August 14, 1947. Sixty-one years later, as India slept in the wee hours of July 9, 2008, the Congress-led government bartered away our sovereignty in the Japanese scenic town of Tôyako. On the sidelines of the G-8 summit, the repudiation of the Nehruvian principles of foreign policy found its culmination before the American President George Bush, with the brokering of the nuclear deal.

Legacy traduced

The legacy of the Congress party, which under the helmsmanship of the Mahatma delivered us from British colonial enterprise, stands traduced. Earlier, Dr. Manmohan Sigh confessed, at Oxford, to an admiration of certain aspects of colonial subjugation all of which “we still value and cherish,” and which were the result of India’s meeting the “dominant empire of the day.” Here it is pertinent to remember the recent observation of Nicholas Burns, the former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, that had Nehru been alive, such an agreement would have been inconceivable.

The ‘123 Agreement,’ so-called because it will amend Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, (titled “Cooperation With Other Nations”), which establishes a basis for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear agreements between the U.S. and any other country, aims at translating the India-U.S. nuclear deal into reality. The implication of the Hyde Act, signed into legislation by President Bush on Dec. 18, 2006, on the 123 Agreement has not been acknowledged by our government. If the 123 Agreement is not bound by the overarching Hyde Act, then what else is its purpose?

The Act envisages India formulating “a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the U.S., and is working with the U.S. on key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation.” In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to Congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and if necessary sanction and contain Iran if it pursues indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities. These stipulations in the Act constitute an intrusion into our independent decision-making and policy matters.

Threat to sovereignty

Certain clauses even threaten our national sovereignty. Article 14 grants the U.S. a unilateral right to require the return by the other party of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material of components transferred under this agreement, and any fissionable materials produced through their use. The “right of return” mentions “the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party” (Article 14.5) of this equipment and materials rather than their return. Have we publicly debated enough the nuance of this wording, which can even be interpreted as sanctioning military intervention?

The Prime Minister’s assurance that the IAEA safeguards agreement would be “India-specific,” and that we would secure assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply, and the rights to build a “strategic fuel reserve” and take “corrective measures” in case of an interruption in supplies, has also been challenged. The agreement circulated among the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not feature these in the main text. It occurs only in the preamble, which does not have any legal force.

Moreover, the body of the text is quite similar to the wording of the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states. This has invited informed criticism that it fails to defend India’s strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state, as Dr. Singh promised. The nature of the ‘corrective measures’ is also unknown. There is no explicit guarantee of uninterrupted fuel supplies — a role the IAEA cannot fulfil as it is not a fuel supplier — and is the preserve of the NSG. In the current international scenario, both these bodies are amenable to American influence. That such doubts have been raised by nuclear scientists of proven integrity like Dr. P.K. Iyengar, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, and Dr. A.N. Prasad calls into question the claims of the government.

Beyond these diplomatic and technical affairs, to those who value democracy the most disquieting aspect is the entry of crony capitalism into the hallowed portals of our Parliament. The government’s efforts to cobble together a simple majority to win the vote of confidence are tainted by brazen pandering to the demands of corporate interests. Invariably the agenda of corporates will be in conflict with the aspirations of the masses that have elected us. If instead of reverberating to public issues, were Parliament to be turned into an arena for the promotion of the mega-business agenda, it would be a betrayal of the ideals of the martyrs of our freedom struggle as well as of the sagacious framers of our Constitution.

Reckless zeal

It amazes the nation that the Prime Minister and his party should exhibit such reckless zeal in pursuing the 123 Agreement in the realm of foreign policy, superseding domestic dal-roti issues, to the point of staking the very survival of the government on a single throw of the nuclear dice. What could be the motivation behind taking into confidence America and not our own people and their elected representatives? On the contrary, can the sincerity and patriotism of those who suspect the government and its supporters of misleading the nation be doubted? Especially in the context of various organs of the government talking in different tongues, betraying a blatant lack of transparency. Here we have to pay tribute to our vigilant media that shamed the government into putting on their website the IAEA safeguards agreement, which till then was misleadingly termed as “classified.”

Reneged on CMP

Such shenanigans in keeping in the dark even allies led to the disintegration of the UPA. Through sundering its covenant with the Left, in its unseemly haste to pitch our tent in the American camp, the Congress has reneged on one significant aspect of the National Common Minimum Programme evolved in 2004. It was eloquent in the matter of this government striving to build a multi-polar world order. Signing this agreement amounts to accepting American hegemony in the ‘unipolar moment.’

An issue that calls for debate is the very rationale of nuclear power, which is costly. Hence, we need to review nuclear power as an energy option. After devoting a substantial portion of energy allocation to the nuclear sector, a measly 3 per cent of our needs is met by this sector. Moreover, worldwide it has been proved to be a discredited mode of energy generation, given the health-risks, environment damage, potential for hazards, and waste disposal problems associated with the industry. We should not allow our country to be turned into a dump of nuclear waste.

A possible scenario could be the emergence in another 10 years of technology to unlock energy from frozen methane, which can last for tens of thousands of years. Wind power, solar power, and tidal energy are other cleaner forms of power that should be encouraged.

We should conscientiously resolve to look at this vote not as an expedient means to tide over a temporary crisis, but as one that will have a bearing on our future generations, who will be yoked to the neo-imperialist design. Our billion-plus population expects us to be led by the spirit of non-alignment in this respect. Our rage at this indecent burial should reflect their anger.

My appeal to fellow parliamentarians is that when the final hour of democratic reckoning comes, we should stand tall and summon the courage to forsake narrow political differences. The House of the People should not be degraded into a mere reporting body to ratify agreements of such epochal import. As B.P. Jeevan Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, wrote in this newspaper on August 10, 2007: “There is no such thing as a ‘prerogative power’ of the executive, immune from parliamentary scrutiny.” Were it not so tragic, we could have appreciated the delicious irony that the Hyde Act mandates that the American Congress should be in 30 days of continuous session to consider the agreement, while here we dismiss it through voting on a one-line motion debated over just two days!

(M.P. Veerendra Kumar, Member of the Lok Sabha, is the Leader of the Janata Dal (S) Parliamentary Party.)

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2008 08:11

Chidambaram: Hyde Act can’t bind India

HYDERABAD: Asserting that the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal was aimed at ending the country’s “nuclear isolation” and gaining access to technology, Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said on Saturday that it would continue to pursue its strategic nuclear programme without subjecting itself to any safeguards or inspection.

The Minister sought to allay apprehensions over the impact of the Hyde Act claiming that the 123-Agreement, once voted “up” (ratified) by the U.S. Congress would be the last expression of the legislature and would prevail over any previous domestic law. And, “Article VI (2) of the U.S. Constitution mandates that all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the U.S. would be the `supreme law’ of the land.”

“In any view of the matter, the Hyde Act, which is a domestic law, cannot bind India and cannot interfere with the implementation of the 123 Agreement which, when ratified by the U.S. Congress, will be a bilateral treaty between two sovereign countries,” he said. Moreover, even after the 123 agreement came into force, India and the U.S. could enter into further agreements to fulfil the objectives on an industrial or commercial scale, Mr. Chidambaram, said, participating in the sixth annual convocation of the Nalsar University of Law here.

Following the nuclear isolation since 1998, capacity utilisation of the country’s nuclear power 4,120 MW had come down steadily from 90 per cent in 2001-02 to 54 per cent in 2007-08, he said.

It was decided to secure access to technology in return for the promise that certain civilian nuclear facilities – to be solely determined by India autonomously – would be segregated and placed under safeguards in a phased manner. An agreement with the IAEA and a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group were ‘indeed pre-conditions’ and the country could obtain civil nuclear cooperation with other countries.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2008 08:12

French envoy: BJP’s opposition surprising

-Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI: French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont on Saturday met Bharatiya Janata Party president Rajnath Singh here to lobby for the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

Authoritative BJP sources said Mr. Bonnafont told Mr. Singh that both Pakistan and China “in their own way” were lobbying with western countries against the deal being offered to India. He expressed surprise at the BJP opposing the deal.

Mr. Singh told him that the government had not taken political parties into confidence, nor did it properly brief the Opposition parties. “Politically it became difficult for the BJP” to support the deal.

The envoy is understood to have told Mr. Singh that their perception of the deal capping India’s military programme was misplaced. It left more than enough room for India to test in the event of Pakistan, China or some other country testing if it affected India’s security. Mr. Bonnafont further explained, the BJP sources said, that India was under international sanctions following Pokhran II, and in the worst-case scenario, sanctions would be imposed again. He is also believed to have pointed out that many American legislators in fact felt that U.S. had given away too much.

At the hour-long meeting, Mr. Singh said the deal failed to address the BJP’s strategic concerns although the party favoured closer strategic alliance with the U.S.

The future political scenario, including the next general elections, also came up for discussions.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2008 08:45

Deconstructing the Deal - P Chidambaram

Deconstructing the Deal
P Chidambaram
July 20, 2008
First Published: 00:14 IST(20/7/2008)
Last Updated: 01:58 IST(20/7/2008)

We swear by the rule of law, but we do so with little understanding of how law has entered every aspect of human life. Much of this is because there is widespread and appalling legal illiteracy in the country, and this is so even among those who are obliged to be legally literate in order to discharge their functions. I include in this category political leaders, elected representatives, civil servants and members of the media.

From my years of experience in government, I can say that law is the critical factor in any executive or legislative process. The whole edifice of governance stands on a set of rules and regulations that constantly undergo review and amendment. There is no aspect of government that is not dependent upon a thorough understanding of law and legal principles. Hence, the men and women who are in charge of government — as well as those who sit in the Opposition — are obliged to be legally literate. Alas, not all of them are. Consequently, when opinions are formed without adequate legal knowledge, and when such ill-formed opinions are expressed collectively, they cause enormous damage to political discourse, to the polity and to the future of millions of people.

I thought I might use this opportunity to discuss, objectively and dispassionately, an issue that has occupied centre-stage in the last few weeks. It is the debate on the civil nuclear cooperation between India and other countries including France, Russia and the United States.

Suppose this was a case that was before a court of law. What are the essential facts? They are that since 1998, India’s nuclear isolation has been complete and India has been denied access to nuclear reactors, fuel and technology. The total installed capacity of nuclear power in India is 4,120 MW. Thanks to our nuclear isolation, the capacity utilisation has steadily declined from a high of 90 per cent in 2001-02 to 63 percent in 2006-07 to 54 percent in 2007-08. India, therefore, wishes to end this nuclear isolation and gain access to reactors, fuel and technology in return for the promise that certain civilian nuclear facilities — to be solely determined by India autonomously — would be segregated and placed under safeguards in a phased manner. Simultaneously, India will pursue its strategic nuclear programme without subjecting that programme to any safeguards or inspection.

The further facts are that in order to access nuclear reactors, fuel and technology from the US and other supplier countries, India has agreed to enter into a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of which India is a founder member. The US has agreed to work with friendly countries to obtain from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) a waiver for India to enable nuclear trade and cooperation with India. Once these two steps are completed, then and then alone would India be able to seek and obtain cooperation in civil nuclear energy. France, Russia and the US have indeed promised such cooperation, and there is a likelihood of such cooperation from some other countries such as Australia, Canada, China and Japan.

...

I couldn't post the entire article as Hindustan Times is throwing up errors when I try to navigate to 2nd page or try to view page in single file format

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 20 Jul 2008 08:47

vishwakarmaa wrote:Its a propaganda of "threat"(they will put sanctions on us if we don't do deal now!) done by media, to pull the weak minded people into SUPPORTERS lobby.

Can you quote some media or links to show this threat. Did I miss it? Apologize if so.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jul 2008 09:04

Suppose the government falls.

Congress will be blamed for failing the nation by trying to hog all credit and not allowing the BJP political space to support or at least not oppose the government. Those are big mistakes for sure.

However, BJP will be remembered as putting prestige above national interest, especially when their own strategists supported the deal and also people like Advani blew hot and cold. BJP will be seen as putting political commitments so high that they stood alongside traitorous commies whose main goal is to de-nuke India. BJP never opposed J18, they only want to "renegotiate" the post Hyde thing knowing fully well that such a renogitiaition has zero chance for the next several years, probably longer.

Atleast the commies have been consistent in their position - to put China above India.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jul 2008 09:10

"Money is neither created nor destroyed it only changes hands"
Spinster uvacha.

Some times over the tables some times under the table.

Remember

Saraswathi is dhavala vsatra white robes implying wisdom knowledge
Laxmi is always Krishna paksha (hope people get the pun in krishna paksha)

So money in India is always Black and enjoys equal opportunity, ask any DRI officials they are so smart they don't know where the money comes or goes but they too are money changers/chargers

Why do you think they call it Swiss Miss, because the swiss miss the detail and just safe keep until another hand is stretched.

Unkil hears every conversation of our dadas, dadis, kokila, komala Ambani, Advani, Motwani, dawood bahi etc.

Remenber how we recorded in Dolby 5.1 digital stereo Mushy from Bejing talking to his general about down hill sking go towards TSP as gravity of the situation was in their favor. Kargil war

NSA is a mega Yam Raj ask Harrods London owner!

The Dodi and Diana Memorial stands at the base of the

Silver -- the people's money -- was assassinated by a simple stroke of the pen in 1873.

The Federal Reserve System is composed of 12 private banks which create money out of nothing and then lend it to the U.S. government at usury. It is the most colossal system of usury and fraud that has ever been invented by that old serpent the devil. It was founded by Rockefeller in 1913.

Inflation is the handmaid of the paper system. It is economic warfare and more deadly than an invading army because it comes from the enemy within.

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2008 09:36

Rangudu wrote:Suppose the government falls.

Congress will be blamed for failing the nation by trying to hog all credit and not allowing the BJP political space to support or at least not oppose the government. Those are big mistakes for sure.

However, BJP will be remembered as putting prestige above national interest, especially when their own strategists supported the deal and also people like Advani blew hot and cold. BJP will be seen as putting political commitments so high that they stood alongside traitorous commies whose main goal is to de-nuke India. BJP never opposed J18, they only want to "renegotiate" the post Hyde thing knowing fully well that such a renogitiaition has zero chance for the next several years, probably longer.

Atleast the commies have been consistent in their position - to put China above India.

Since you are so gung ho about this deal, let me ask you this. Lets roll the tape 5 to 10 to 15 years hence. Assuming all the rosy scenarios (from India's PoV that is) play out, what would an India under such a scenario look like? Contrast that with what India would like should the deal be cast aside?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2008 09:38

Suppose the government falls.

If only MMS had paid for that pound of blood and flesh ...............

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jul 2008 09:41

Rangudu garu, athirathis , maharathis

Is it not

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the Indo Italian Dream

when MMS is not even a elected PM, a hotch potch of govt, a PM who promised the parliament members and people of India complete transparency in dealings , Committe of MP to go over the deal, The IAEA deal is gratious courtsey of yours that we saw light.....

what is improporiety, where does his Juice (power) ooze from to Nuke power or Bust?

And all the more that French ambassador defacto threatens that US congress might tighten the noose if the Nuclear power bus is missed, the high power lobby, the Burns hosing of the deal on US, (incidentaly the whole Foggy Bottom seems to be full of Burns, the guy sitting with Iran is also Burns, looks like they Burn their way into Nukes every where...

we end up with burning injuries to our politicos and Rakshaks here

C. Montgomery Burns, Springfield's richest man, built his atomic energy fortune from the ground up after inheriting his father's atom-splitting factory. As owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, he has been able to control local elections, manage a championship-winning baseball team, hold a chair on the board of Springfield University and build a contraption large enough to block out the sun and plunge the town into complete darkness.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 20 Jul 2008 09:43

CRS,

Don't put words in my mouth. I have made my position on the deal very clear. I'll support it as long as the IAEA safeguards and NSG waiver are clean. The first one is okay. The NSG, we'll see. As to the future, it will depend on what we make of it. We'll have better options with this deal than without. If the same lack of speed we see in infrastructure projects, defence purchases etc. happens on the reactor front, the progress will be marginal. But the choice will be ours. I'd rather be in a job that has $1M max annual bonus than the one with $100K max bonus. At the end of the day, I may end up with a $35k bonus because of my laziness but the choice is mine.

Anyway, I hope you tore up your Prakash Karat fan club membership card after the last post.

Jumrao garu,

I like your uvachas but please post direct questions in simpler language. I cannot understand what you are asking. I mean that sincerely. Thanks.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Jul 2008 09:47

R garu here is the context you said

However, BJP will be remembered as putting prestige above national interest,

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2008 09:50

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 20 Jul 2008 10:03

If its not posted already..

This is mostly "psy-ops", equating India with "dozens" of nations. And then, apparently, "middle class" is all for it is and there is no other resistance but from left.

Beyond that, guess "Time" isn't technically lying if its referring to be the only sentiment that has some success, if at all.

Nuclear Brinkmanship

Even in the cacophony of Indian politics, there is one thing that everyone seems to agree on: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has absolute faith in his country's controversial civilian nuclear deal with the U.S. So unshakable is his commitment to the agreement, which would give India access to U.S. technology to help slake India's soaring demand for electricity, that Singh has bet his political future on it. "It's completely personal for him," says Prem Shankar Jha, a columnist for New Delhi's Outlook magazine. "The Prime Minister is determined to do this."

On July 22, Singh will find out whether his gamble has paid off — or if it has cost him his four-year-old administration. That's the date when Singh's centrist Congress Party faces a vote of confidence on the floor of Parliament, a vote brought about by the recent exit from Singh's coalition government of the country's two main leftist parties, which bolted in protest over the nuclear deal. Even if Singh manages to rally enough supporters to retain a majority and stay in office, there could be lasting fallout. In parliamentary elections expected to be held early next year, Singh's Congress Party colleagues could find themselves targeted by an angry electorate for putting so much effort into foreign policy while India's citizens face an economic slowdown and the worst inflation the country has seen in 13 years.

The agreement that has caused so much turmoil in Indian politics — and so much trouble for Singh — is a version of a pact that the U.S. has signed with more than a dozen other nations. It would open up nuclear-materials trade between the U.S. and India, with the proviso that some of India's nuclear reactors be open to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That's a big concession for India, which withstood international sanctions and withering criticism after its 1998 nuclear weapons tests and has chafed ever since at the idea of submitting its nuclear program to any outside review. But the country needs clean energy, and signing the agreement would be a first step toward joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) — the club of 45 nations committed to both nuclear energy and nonproliferation. With U.S. backing, the NSG may allow India to join even though the country has not signed the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What makes the deal so controversial in New Delhi is the antipathy many Indian politicians feel toward the U.S. During the cold war, India was a nonaligned nation but its leaders were friendlier with Moscow than they were with Washington. The country still has vibrant communist parties whose politicians reflect grass-roots anti-American sentiments that run through the country despite Indians' enthusiastic consumption of tight jeans, French fries and Friends. Doraiswamy Raja, national secretary for the Communist Party of India, accuses Singh of "succumbing to the pressures of American imperialism" by signing the nuclear deal, warning that the U.S. "has a grand design for Asia, especially South Asia. They want India as part of the global strategy, a military ally."

If they are to keep their jobs, Singh and other Congress Party members have to convince voters, as well as lawmakers who are sitting on the fence, that the leadership hasn't sold out and turned India into a U.S. pawn. The challenge is to spin the nuclear deal as necessary for the country's continued prosperity — and as a bellwether signaling India's rising stature in the global community. The agreement, writes columnist Seema Chishti in the Indian Express newspaper, is a step toward "deciding what kind of India would rise to engage with the rest of the world and its neighborhood."

Many middle-class Indians, who consider closer ties with the U.S. to be crucial to continued economic growth, support the deal, says Mahesh Rangarajan, a political analyst and professor of history at Delhi University. But India's middle class, while it is expanding quickly, is still not large enough to decide elections. That power lies with the rural poor and urban working classes who make up the vast majority of the country's voters. They are less concerned about geopolitical realignment than they are about the economy. "I don't know anything about the nuclear deal," says Khursheed Alam Siddiqui, an electrician in New Delhi. "For poor people like me, who work all day, eat two meals and go to sleep, it's rising prices that are the real issue. That's what I want the government to fix."

Ironically, the flap over the nuclear deal may give Singh and the Congress Party a chance to address some of those concerns by pursuing much needed economic reforms. Singh's allies on the left have generally allowed the Congress Party to set the agenda, but they opposed certain reforms that threatened their labor-union base, including a plan to liberalize the banking sector and changes to India's socialistic labor laws. Now that left-leaning lawmakers have bolted from the coalition, Singh, an economist, could find it easier to push reforms through — although his allies say they'll proceed with caution to avoid alienating the millions of Indians who haven't shared in the country's economic boom. "No policy should be forced down people's throats," says Kapil Sibal, a Congress Party stalwart and minister in Singh's government. "Growth with equity will be the mantra going forward." The Congress Party recently began running newspaper advertisements trumpeting its commitment to rural development.

With the confidence vote looming, it's unlikely Congress politicians will be drawing the public's attention to Singh's unpopular nuclear deal. The vote is expected to be close. Singh plugged the hole in his coalition created by the withdrawal of the leftist parties by teaming up with the democratic socialist Samajwadi Party, whose 39 seats almost make up for votes lost to the left. (One Samajwadi Party leader, Amar Singh, is a pro-American industrialist who has a framed picture of the Brooklyn Bridge hanging in his office.) With about a dozen lawmakers undecided, the Prime Minister can probably swing enough votes by making a few compromises. One compromise he will almost certainly not make: backing down on his deal with the U.S. Singh sees the pact as a path to India's future. Now he has to ensure that it does not turn his administration into a thing of the past.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 20 Jul 2008 11:43

Real reason why somnath chatterjee would not leave his speaker post

Notwithstanding the current uncertainty over the fate of the UPA government in the July 22 vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha, Speaker Somnath Chatterjee is slated to lead an Indian delegation to the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association(CPA) in Kuala Lumpur on August 1.

Foreign junket is more important for somnath da than his commie party.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2008 12:07

The latest numbers:

UPA
INC:152*; SP:33*; RLD:24; DMK:16*; NCP:11; PMK:6; JMM:5; LJSP:4; MDMK(Rebels):2; IUML:1; AIMIM:1; PDP:1; SDF:1; RPI:1; BNP:1; NLP:1; IND(SK Bwiswmuthiary):1;
= 261

Riders:
1. Unclear if Karnal MP Arvind Sharma (INC, Haryana) would support UPA. Had 1-on-1 meeting with Sonia Gandhi. MP Kuldeep Bishnoi could be the lone rebel.
2. Rebel List: MP Munawwar Hasan, MP Jaiprakash Rawat, MP Rajnarayan Budholiya, MP SP Baghel, MP Ateeq Ahmad, MP Afzal Ansari
3. MP Dayanidhi Maran will vote for UPA

Potential Supporters:
1. [2] National Conference would most probably support UPA
2. [1] TRS (rebel) MP Ale Narendra is inclined to back UPA also.
3. [2] 2 of the 4 may support: MP Thupstan Chhewang (Ind., Ladakh), MP Mani Charenamei (Ind., Manipur), MP Vanlalzamwa (MNF), MP Wangyu Konyak (NPF)
4. [0] There have been reports of MP Dr. P. Pookunhi Koya (JD(U), Lakshadweep) to have lent his support to UPA.
5. [0] There is speculation that some MPs from parties such as BJP, JD(U), Akali Dal, Shiv Sena, BSP and others may either abstain or vote with UPA.
6. [0] Janata Dal (Secular) of Deve Gowda would probably go with the opposition.
7. [0] Trinamool Congress of Mamata Banerjee will either abstain or vote against to precipitate early elections.

Total UPA = 266

It is however not clear if even more MPs from Samajwadi Party and RJD may desert their parties.

**********
OPPOSITION*
**********
NDA:169; Left Front(incl. JD(S):1; KC:1; IND:1; Speaker:-1):61; UNPA(incl. IND:1):8; BSP:17; SP(Rebels):6; INC(Rebels):1; MDMK:2; IND(Nagpal):1; TRS:2; RLD:3
= 270 Assured

Possible Opposition
JD(S):2; TC:1; IND+Small Parties:2
= 5 Possibly

Total Opposition = 275

This Opposition figure is calculated without all those who would abstain or vote with UPA.

In order to win UPA would have to engineer either cross-voting or absentation by at least 10 MPs from the Opposition. That may be asking for too much.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 20 Jul 2008 12:08

The opposition Congress in Punjab has also been reminding Akali Dal chief mentor and Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal that he has been using the Punjabi and Sikh card in getting things for Punjab from the prime minister.

"It is time for you (Badal) to repay the favour to the prime minister," former Congress minister Pratap Singh Bajwa said in a letter to the Akali leader.

http://www.deccanherald.com/DeccanHeral ... updatenews

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2008 12:11

Agreeing to permanent safeguards is on the basis of permanent fuel supplies: Kakodkar

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 20 Jul 2008 12:12

vsudhir wrote:Amber, R-man, N-man are right. The worst player in all this sordid N-deal mess (after the egregious left) is the BJP. They should've supported the deal at the end of the day instead of pushing it to this no-trust vote thing. So what if the UPA rebuffed their JPC demand (Isn't it obvious how ridiculous is a JPC demand on this issue?), and consulted them even less than they consulted their erstwhile left allies? Isn't national interest supreme? Shouldn't the BJP take the UPA's word they are dealing keepipng national interest supreme?? The BJP's partisan bickering and attitude will return to haunt it later down the line, am sure! In one sense, the BJP ois even worse than the left. The left doesn' t claim any nationalist pretensions at least, unlike the BJP!

And there's simply so much to learn from the Congress' principled, just and fair stand on the issue. And Dr manmohan Singh's personal integrity, his mammoth legacy in opening up the globe to India and vice versa economically and now in the energy security realm as well.... wow, we should count ourselves blessed that so accomplished, polished, suave, gentle and kindly intellectual has agreed to take over the steering wheel in this critical juncture of our nation's history. All those casting aspersions on Shri Shri Manmohan's vision and resolve likely have no clue to the man's greatness and benevolence.

/Etc etc etc.

...... and the dear leader loves us dearly (sic).
Aameen, Aameen.... . Allah-O-Akbar.

vsudhir garu: Satire is so wicked!