India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 20 Aug 2007 05:01

ldev wrote:A clandestine wink wink nod nod for a Chinese transfer of warheads/fissile material to Pakistan cannot be compared to an agreement being signed in the full glare of daylight with every comma examined and legal opinions sought on specific provisions including the potential if the US had given India what you are asking for that a possible legal interpretation of that one time waiver could be that the US had abrogated its obligations under the NPT.

ldev,

I am sorry to have to refute your statements once again, but unfortunately, the facts are otherwise. There was nothing clandestine or wink wink nod nod about the US-China 123 agreement which was debated publicly and exhaustively since the early 1980s, with specific reference to Chinese proliferation activities (and it was not just to Pakistan; other countries mentioned were Iran, Argentine, South Africa, etc.).

Please read CRS Report on China 123

This Report cites innumerable news reports, other publicly available reports and analyses of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), letters/statements by members of Congress/Senators, Congressional testimony by Admn officials, Congressional debates, etc. on the Chinese proliferation issue over a period of many years. All this debate actually led to Congress stipulating a requirement -- while approving the China 123 in 1985 -- for a Presidential certification on this issue before the China 123 could be implemented.

My point is: during all this multi-year debate about a very real and on-going Chinese proliferation issue, no one raised the question of whether the US would be considered in breach of its NPT obligations as a result of signing the China 123.

This whole NPT obligation thingy is something dreamed up to justify actions whose real purpose is to keep India on a very short leash indeed -- an objective that makes eminent sense from the US point of view; it just does not make much sense from the Indian point of view!! MMS/GoI need to be able to explain why they have gone along with this US objective!!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 05:15

disha wrote:
shiv wrote:... This is what the 123 deal means to India, if you replace "Country X" with India and change the numbers....


Shivji, that is a very simplistic analysis. Where are your facts for base number load and peak generation and what about the percentages - where did we get that from? :-p

Sirjee, just do not take offence. I wanted to make a tongue-in-cheek remark to an assertion by another member about simplistic analysis. I do want to see that member have a go at your post now - otherwise, that member's echandee is up for grabs :wink: :rotfl:

Note: Added later. Apologies if I have hurt or ruffled any feathers. I just wanted to inject some jest in the debate. If it has fallen flat, very many apologies again. And no, nothing personal.


No hurt no offence.. Thanks for reading it.

The viewpoint is a summary in my mind of a number of articles I have read from time to time suggesting the direction in which India is going.

In fact - after making that post and reading others posts (and doing some Googling) - it seems that "simplistic" is all that you can get - because the picture is very very murky. Nobody knows exactly how much what would cost. There are no clear and non simplistic breakdowns of the issue of what combination of nuclear and conventional power is "best" for a given country, or even a given nation. Any assertion can be countered.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 20 Aug 2007 05:16

Rangudu wrote:
sraj wrote:The complete quote from the US-China agreement is provided below. As you will note, the "right to cease further cooperation" is available in the very limited situation where "either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement". BC is specifically talking about the India 123 providing the US with "an unfettered and uninfringeable right to terminate cooperation with India at will".
Perhaps you cannot grasp the difference. If there is really no difference, perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123?


So "if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has not been possible or cannot be achieved through consultations" is unfettered but "either party at any time following entry into force of this agreement does not comply with the provisions of this agreement" is a very limited type situation? :shock:

For the US to break this deal, it will have to take the risk of damaging ties with a rising India for decades. To me that is not an "unfettered" right.

Try again please.

Please read the first sentence of Article 14.1 in the India 123 draft. It says:
Either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement prior to its expiration on one year's written notice to the other Party.

That is an 'unfettered' right.

As I said earlier, if there is really no difference, perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123? Any objections?

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 20 Aug 2007 05:19

perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123? Any objections?


Sraj:

Have you ever *personally* been involved in negotiating agreements?

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 929
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 20 Aug 2007 05:21

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/19ndeal2.htm

Strategic thinker K Subrahmanyam, whose line of thought on the nuclear deal can be said to be similar to that of the prime minister, told rediff.com, "If India does not proceed with the deal it is a clear message to Russia [Images], France [Images], Germany [Images], Japan and other powers who want to see a multi-polar world that India does not want to play a role in that world."

Subrahmanyam is worried that not only will India lose an opportunity, "It will also leave Asia to be dominated by China. It will allow Indian talent to be exploited by the US without giving India access to high technology in the international sphere," he says. "China has used Pakistan as a surrogate threat to India by arming it with missiles and nuclear weapons. Now our domestic opposition will come in handy in keeping India down perpetually."

Naresh Chandra, former Indian Ambassador to the US, told rediff.com, "There is no harm in the discussion as desired by the Left on the issue of the nuclear deal. Some of the issues concerning the future have to be addressed and that can't be a disadvantage. But the cancellation of the deal will have consequences. India will lose a golden opportunity. History will be harsh on how we messed up an opportunity.

"It will be a terrific achievement for China, which continues to get frontier technology while India is deprived of it. We will not get dual technology. We will not get missile technology, supercomputers and technology to expand the space sector."

However, many other diplomats rediff.com talked to were not so pessimistic.

Former foreign secretary K Raghunath said, "Nobody can give you an easy answer to this question. China has certain views. But India has to keep pressing its own agenda."

Raghunath is not worried that internal politics over the nuclear deal or any decision on the 123 Agreement will be a great setback of any kind on the international stage.

He said, "The world takes India seriously. It takes Indian politics as a stable entity. In some countries like China internal disagreements are a hidden process, while you know how debates in the US elections are going on."

Chandra, trying to paint a realistic scenario, says, "There is no doubt that if you are being seen as having adverse relations with the US, then some members of the Non Aligned Movement will be clapping, but that will have an impact on India's relations with countries like Japan."

There is nothing "legally binding" on India to scrap or delay the deal, but most diplomats are wary of it.

Brajesh Mishra, who is opposed to the deal, said, "I would not like to talk about the implications of delaying the 123 Agreement on the Indo-US bilateral relations, because at the moment it is a political game!"

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 20 Aug 2007 05:30

sraj wrote:As I said earlier, if there is really no difference, perhaps the India 123 could also use the same language as the China 123? Any objections?


Sure. While we are at it, let's say that we will not sign any deal that does not have the same language as a similar deal that might have been offered to China. Further, let's also insist on a Chinese language translated treaty, so that we can compare the wordings there as well.

BTW, how about incorporating the reprocessing language from the China 123? :roll:

The key point is that the right to abrogate the deal is NOT unfettered because there are REAL consequences for any party that chooses to do so. However, you seem to be overlooking that key point.

With your attitude, India will always have to approach the world as a damsel in distress rather than as a country with clout.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 05:30

NRao wrote:And, the hyphen wakes up:

Pak in talks with China for N-deal


oh please.. stop this!~.. i mean not their deal, but no mention here.

why does pak needs a deal with china? they can trade as many as they want without a deal.

we have crossed all hyphenated psy-ops threshold long back (pok-2).

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Postby Suppiah » 20 Aug 2007 05:45

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/211447.html

It seems we are building plants and running them hoping this deal comes through..perhaps the left knows this - without imported uranium the country's civilian as well as military (this is important) usage of nuclear reactors will come to a grinding halt sooner or later...that is exactly their objective BTW.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 20 Aug 2007 05:51

SaiK wrote:
oh please.. stop this!~.. i mean not their deal, but no mention here.



Stop what?

Wishing it does not exist?

Unless taken care of even the KSs of this world have to mention it to get a point across. (As an aside, IF TSP was taken care of, perhaps we would not need a weak 123 now.)

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7082
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 20 Aug 2007 06:18

www.deccan.com

Allies don’t want early polls


[b]New Delhi, Aug. 19: The Left ultimatum has thrown the Congress into complete chaos, with the UPA allies making it clear that they are not ready for early general elections. Sunday was spent by the Congress leadership in searching for a “face-savingâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 20 Aug 2007 06:23

Atleast the posters here dont have to keep blaming some other party for the down fall of deal or anything else.
The current govt and its coalition itself made this happen.
Last edited by svinayak on 20 Aug 2007 07:04, edited 2 times in total.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 20 Aug 2007 06:35

Sorry if this was posted already..I am in complete concurrence with this article and what it has to say.

Put the nuclear deal on hold - Editorial in Hindu

[quote]For a mild-mannered Prime Minister who leads a government dependent on external support for survival, Manmohan Singh is demonstrating obduracy of a strange and unreasonable kind. His current posture of ‘I-must-have-the-nuclear-deal-or-I-go’ suggests that the political objective of completing the elected term of the United Progressive Alliance regime has been subordinated to the greater goal of seeing the deal through. And herein lies a fatal contradiction. The guaranteed way of sinking the civilian nuclear deal, which this newspaper has editorially endorsed with some caveats, is for the government to go down, taking the 123 with it. What should be clear to anyone who is not on a high horse, with blinkers, is that given the deep political polarisation there is little chance of any other Prime Minister or government making a go of this deal in the conceivable future.

For at least two years now, Dr. Singh has been passionate in his conviction that the civilian nuclear deal he initiated with President George Bush in July 2005 was not just in the interest of India’s nuclear programme, which had suffered from a harsh international regime of sanctions and technology denial; it was a supreme national necessity because “nuclear power is critical to our energy security if we want to be a world powerâ€

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7557
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 20 Aug 2007 07:00

The CTBT — which opened for signature more than a decade ago and has been signed by 177 countries and ratified by 139 of them — has not yet been enabled to enter into force but there are hopes of reviving it


Oh.. I bet old Naxal Ram wishes India would sign the CTBT

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 07:04

The text of the 123 agreement is here
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/90157.pdf

I have had a brief read through it, wlthough more than a brief read is required to digest it. I say that accustomed as I am to reading complex and often unclear scientific texts.

Todays paper has Sharad yadav saying the agreement is "the worst possible" thing. Frankly I rate my ability understand such texts as being way ahead of the likes of Sharad Yadav

I suspect most people who comment on 123 have not actually read it, and many who read it will not understand it.

At first glance it has nothing objectionable in it. It requires a degree of study to see if anything objectionable can be conjured up. The text seems to leave plenty of room for maneuvering and negotiations, and it therefore makes the text of any future reactor/material import agreements signed even more important than the 123 or Hyde act.

The Hyde act does not find mention - naturally - the Hyde act is an internal US law.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 20 Aug 2007 07:08

shiv wrote:

The Hyde act does not find mention - naturally - the Hyde act is an internal US law.


Check for such words as 'Internal laws of the country', 'Laws of the country'

They are euphemism for Hyde Act

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Postby ksmahesh » 20 Aug 2007 07:15

shiv wrote:I suspect most people who comment on 123 have not actually read it, and many who read it will not understand it.



Infact most of the commies (I am sure) donot understand what is uranium/thorium. Understanding the deal is far above abilities of majority of b***y politicians. However this does not prevent them from opening their big mouth.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 07:20

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:

The Hyde act does not find mention - naturally - the Hyde act is an internal US law.


Check for such words as 'Internal laws of the country', 'Laws of the country'

They are euphemism for Hyde Act


Acharya - internal laws are mentioned. Of course they will be mentioned.
It was always known that any agreement will be subject to internal laws of both nations. That is what it says.

Does the Hyde act have anything new that was not already there? I will explain that.

The Hyde act itself is fully in consonance with US objectives - which were known and applied. The only difference is that the Hyde act allows the US to deal with India on the same grounds that it deals with NPT signatories. As a non signatory of NPT this was not allowed until the Hyde act alowed it to occur subject to US interests. It was up to India to agree to a 123 subject to its own interests.

The 123 agreement has been made to accommodate both US and Indian interests. after making US interests very very clear in the form of the Hyde act. The 123 does not appear to have anything that goes against Indian interstss - but there are a LOT of US internal laws that go against Indian interests.

India is not party to the Hyde act. India may become party to the 123.

AFTER India becomes party to the 123 it has to be careful about the wording of any agreement that it signs to that its interests are not compromised.
Last edited by shiv on 20 Aug 2007 07:31, edited 4 times in total.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 20 Aug 2007 07:21

If congress wallahs come down their high horses and start talking to NDA group, with a little horse trading then the commies will come up with a begging bowl.

I think ABV along with Pranab should hold 2 t(h)ier diplomacy and do some thing good for the country, then may be in another 6 months ( like Israel does so often) hold/have again mid term elections and spend some 500 crores . This is the best time as any way dollar is weak rupee is up.

National Unity government, or worst comes to worst buy some MPs . Ambanis can pump some cash into the economy to recover with intrest later. (this is also called Indian Hide Act)

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Postby rgsrini » 20 Aug 2007 07:31

John Snow,
Absolutely. BJP must bail Congress government out on Nuclear Deal. IMO, This deal everything they wanted and more. If they don't, IMO they are just a bunch of opportunistic politicians who don't care a hoot about what is good for India.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 07:33

rgsrini wrote:John Snow,
Absolutely. BJP must bail Congress government out on Nuclear Deal. IMO, This deal everything they wanted and more. If they don't, IMO they are just a bunch of opportunistic politicians who don't care a hoot about what is good for India.


Let me guess and tell you what will happen.

The Cong will sit and explain to CPI that we have not lost anything by signing 123. It will take 3 months for some people to digest the texts of the various acts and Indian interests. After that they will give ungli to BJP

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 20 Aug 2007 07:52

This is the proverbial 'storm in a teacup'. If MMS resigns, it will have it's repercussions on the broader economy ( remember the fallout of Bardhan's 'disinvestment Bhad me jai' on Dalal Street) and SG/left will be blamed for it.

So sit back and watch the fun....I am guessing that inspite of the most fervent wishes of the BJP, govt will be okay and MMS will retain the gaddi, the left will come around. The left will not want to face the music for derailing the gravy train.

However, these machinations will have broad after effects which will be seen in the run up to the 2009 elections.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Postby rgsrini » 20 Aug 2007 07:57

shiv wrote:
The Cong will sit and explain to CPI that we have not lost anything by signing 123. It will take 3 months for some people to digest the texts of the various acts and Indian interests. After that they will give ungli to BJP


You may very well be right Shiv.

BJP is letting go of a fantastic opportunity to play a constructive role here, instead of enabling the left to undermine Indian interests in the name of pseudo nationalism.

I have not seen a clear message from BJP indicating if they are for or against the deal. There are a lot of columns from their camp which are bordering scare mongering.

Of course there are concerns and many of them are valid. Why can't they lay it down in plain words and work towards resolving it or collectively come up with a plan to minimize the risk.

I think I am living in a dream world...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 08:03

How can the US, which has laws preventing it from having nuclear deals with non signatories of NPT start dealing with a non signatory?

It has to change its laws - or make a special one-off law to deal with a particular state.

The Hyde act was a special one-off law that allowed the US to do a deal with non signatory to NPT India, but the Hyde act insists that no other US laws must be broken and all US interests must be held up.

The Hyde act allowed the US to start negotiating a 123 deal with India. No Hyde act, no 123

The 123 deal was to reach an agreement with compromise wordings that allowed enough leeway for the US and India to deal in civilian nuclear cooperation without compromising their interests or breking each others laws.


That is all that the 123 has done. Even after the deal is done, 123 will not touch Indian nuclear weapons and India's Thorium based plans.

Is there a consonance of Indian and US interests at all?

Yes. US wants NPT. India does not sign NPT but sticks to all the provisions of NPT without signing it. Both want to do an energy deal.


Does signing the 123 mean that India is bound by NPT. No. India is no more bound by NPT than it has been all these years.- as it voluntarily bound itself.

What happens after the 123 is signed?

After the 123 is signed, India wil be allowed to enter into negotiations and sign hajaar deals. No such negotiations were entertained until the 123 was signed. Only NPT signatories got to do any deals.

Each one of these hajaar deals will be subject to 123. Under 123 every new agreement will have to meet with Indian laws (whatever they are) and US laws (Hyde act and any others)

Each deal will have to be scrutinized to see if india really wants the deal and whether India will suffer if the deal is broken off. In the meantime - India's 3 stage program will go on as usual. Indias weaponization and non tested nuclear wepons will be stockpiled as usual. But all this is after we sign 123 and after we decide to enter into a deal

Don't forget that a "deal" can involve as little as body radiation dose monitors for medical X Ray technicians, After 1998 - there was a shortage of these. Never again, hopefully.
Last edited by shiv on 20 Aug 2007 08:22, edited 1 time in total.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6468
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 20 Aug 2007 08:05

ksmahesh wrote:
Understanding the deal is far above abilities of majority of b***y politicians. However this does not prevent them from opening their big mouth.


No doubt this is true of the thugs and criminals in the Indian parliament. But do you think Henry Hyde on whose name the Hyde amendment is formulated, himself understand all the nuances of the deal? I have seen him on TV, and he appears nothing more than a right-wing Christian fundamentalist to me. But at least in USA, all politicians work towards national interest, and hence it doesn't matter whether or not Hyde understands, his excellent staff must have designed the text, given the key constraints: 1) US business interests ought to be served, 2) the SDREs should not be able to advance their strategic nukes, and 3) put in enough meat n the text so that slowly but steadily, as India is entangled through the deal, India is slowly but surely rendered nuke_nude.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 08:05

rgsrini wrote:I have not seen a clear message from BJP indicating if they are for or against the deal. There are a lot of columns from their camp which are bordering scare mongering.


I believe they haven't read it or understood it either, and like the Cong does to them, they do not want to accept that anything Cong does is good.

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Postby UPrabhu » 20 Aug 2007 08:07

Yeap, in national interest BJP asked for JPC. BJP has said it is not against the 123 itself but wants to study implications of Hyde act. But this was plainly rejected by the govt.. now left is opposing the deal albeit for different reasons (read instructions from the lizard) .. govt. should offer JPC to BJP..

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 20 Aug 2007 08:10

shiv: since you are wading through the legalese there, pls see if u catch what I caught:

Compare the India 123 with the China 123. I believe the China 123 reads like something written between Top Level Leaders - it makes a few statements of general principle, and that's it.

The India 123 seems to have been written by ppl used to writing business deals - very specific, covering some special situations, but very action oriented. The significance of the 1-year limit of negotiation delays becomes clear if you look at how the China-US deal has moved.

So the India deal has the distinct aroma of being written with a "push" towards ACTIVE cooperation by both parties. while the China 123 was more like "let's stop fighting".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 08:11

CRamS wrote:
ksmahesh wrote:
Understanding the deal is far above abilities of majority of b***y politicians. However this does not prevent them from opening their big mouth.


No doubt this is true of the thugs and criminals in the Indian parliament. But do you think Henry Hyde on whose name the Hyde amendment is formulated, himself understand all the nuances of the deal? I have seen him on TV, and he appears nothing more than a right-wing Christian fundamentalist to me. But at least in USA, all politicians work towards national interest, and hence it doesn't matter whether or not Hyde understands, his excellent staff must have designed the text, given the key constraints: 1) US business interests ought to be served, 2) the SDREs should not be able to advance their strategic nukes, and 3) put in enough meat n the text so that slowly but steadily, as India is entangled through the deal, India is slowly but surely rendered nuke_nude.


CRamS - it takes two to Tango. Your statement may be 100 percent accurate and true, but it necessarily supposes that Indians are stupid, naive and traitorous, allowing their intersts to be subverted by the West.

That is a very commonly expressed, cynical and uncharitable view of Indians by other Indians. If you believe that - it is your burden that you have to live with your belief.

I don't believe that and so I have a more optimistic view.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 20 Aug 2007 08:16

What is going on in India is the 3-2-1 deal. Bribe 3 people, talk 2 different lines simultaneoulsy, but all approve one final way of doing things.

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Postby UPrabhu » 20 Aug 2007 08:17

I think the onus is on govt. to take BJP into confidance, job PVN was very good at. straightaway rejecting somekind of oversight from BJP gives feeling of congress govt. wants to hide something... and also "BJP did Havans for me to die" statements from PM doesn't help either...

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6468
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 20 Aug 2007 08:20

shiv wrote:
CRamS - it takes two to Tango. Your statement may be 100 percent accurate and true, but it necessarily supposes that Indians are stupid, naive and traitorous, allowing their intersts to be suvberted by the West.



Not at all. I am refering to the large number of venal MPs. But imagine the Indian parliament was made up of BCs, BKs, KSs, AKs, AGs, ASs, etc; a diverse set of views pro and against the deal, but rest assured, we would have a consensus in synch with India's interests.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2007 08:25

CRamS wrote:
shiv wrote:
CRamS - it takes two to Tango. Your statement may be 100 percent accurate and true, but it necessarily supposes that Indians are stupid, naive and traitorous, allowing their intersts to be suvberted by the West.



Not at all. I am refering to the large number of venal MPs. But imagine the Indian parliament was made up of BCs, BKs, KSs, AKs, AGs, ASs, etc; a diverse set of views pro and against the deal, but rest assured, we would have a consensus in synch with India's interests.

CRamS - India is unique in this world because it is what it is. If it was what you said - it would be the US, or ant any rate, not India

If it must go that way - it must be made that way by the active participation of everyone concerned.

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby csharma » 20 Aug 2007 08:26

Why should the BJP bail the Congress out. The Congress has shown only contempt for the BJP and has shown itself to be ideologically closer to the Left. Congress has to deal with this on their own.

Didn't Ashley Tellis mention in an interview that this govt is giving them something that NDA govt didn't. What is it? We would like to know.

It is important to understand where the Hyde act stand wrt to the agreement. We can say that we have signed the 123 agreement. But the US can invoke the Hyde act whenever it wants.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Postby rgsrini » 20 Aug 2007 08:36

Why should the BJP bail the Congress out.

Because they initiated this Nuclear deal. because I expect the politicians to go beyond their political amibitions in matters of national interest.

Our politicians have always demonstrated that, as we have seen it in Agni and Nuclear weapon development in the past. The only difference now is that the left is too powerful like never before.

Having said that, I agree with Prabhu that congress is not making it easy for BJP to support the deal. MMS wants to ensure that Nuclear deal is his legacy. BJP wants to ensure that it had a role to play in this deal. Left is busy promoting anti-national interests.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2007 08:38

BJP is silent and in break the govt mood from seeing how the left behaves.. if they seek better behavior, they should not keep harping on hyde, instead come out with their plausible text that is agreeable or must haves.

I don't think they are talking anything else other than hyde.. I am thinking what would the BJP would have done if they were negotiating? may be lead to another 5-10 years of non compliance., quite a possibility after reading Shourie's articles.

BJP is all losing on its principles, and men having a robust thinking and strategic, dynamic young and average age politicians.. they all have become grandpas.

BJPs are the ones, who gave us confidence that we have a solid weapons program and the second test we did were actual weapons itself. Let Vajpayee say its not..?, he 'd get something else replaced.

This deal is all about politics.. right thinking people, like Mr. Snow has pointed out, should work towards bringing a movement to support the deal in the best way possible, non-partisan based.

If at all, that should really really matter about our losing sovereign, then BJP et al should not just bring that has a harp point, but what is the best way that needs that can help taking it to the next stage of implementation.

IMHO,.. they should have held onto Shouries articles being published in IE.. unless, they are sure about where they stand.. looking now, they would not get my vote, if I were to stop by the voting booth next time. They need to realize right thinking people are in the educated middle class, that is growing at a good rate standing at least near 300 million.

< / :(( >

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21084
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 20 Aug 2007 08:39

Acharya wrote:Atleast the posters here dont have to keep blaming some other party for the down fall of deal or anything else.
The current govt and its coalition itself made this happen.

Hmm,
MMS is not bluffing . He wrote resignation the same day he was appointed PM and is alwyas in his pocket . The Indian Chinese like Yechuri etc have no option but to reconcile or face election.

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Postby Kati » 20 Aug 2007 09:10

A Good interview

---------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Debate Won't Hurt India

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/19inter.htm

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 20 Aug 2007 09:20

Prem wrote:
Acharya wrote:Atleast the posters here dont have to keep blaming some other party for the down fall of deal or anything else.
The current govt and its coalition itself made this happen.

Hmm,
MMS is not bluffing . He wrote resignation the same day he was appointed PM and is alwyas in his pocket . The Indian Chinese like Yechuri etc have no option but to reconcile or face election.


IMO, we should focus on impact of 123 deal rather then why some MPs support it and why some MPs oppose it. The motives of MPs behind supporting the deal are personal and economic only, and many of those are opposing are only pretending that they are opposing. And admins have banned discussion of politics, for whatever reasons.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 20 Aug 2007 09:22

If this deal was such a panacea, why did it have to be executed in such a hush..hush way? Why has CCS signed off without even showing the text to main opposition? Does the current government has any mandate to enter into deals of such significance and in the manner it did?

If 123 agreement in its current wording was final goal, why did folks in the establishment had to threaten to resign? why change the so called interlocutor midway?

It is one thing to read text of the agreement but it is entirely other to read it beyond what it says and what their intentions are? The means by which UPA was getting into this deal provides vital clues in this area.

Also, Whether Hyde act is applicable in India is not the issue, but what Hyde act contains provides clues of the real intentions of USA. People here create a strawman by repeatedly saying that Hyde is internal...well, yes..but the text could have been different reflecting the emerging partnership. The current one is unbecoming of the partnership. It’s like signing on a partnership and at the same time badmouthing him behind the back by saying…‘’I will completely screw him of his stake and make sure that he will never be able to conduct any business with anyone (CRE)â€

Vinod Ji
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 26 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: Dubai U.A.E.

Postby Vinod Ji » 20 Aug 2007 09:29

I am one finger typer so please excuse short post!

I am a professional businessman. (btw Not owning few shops type) I am a firm believer that this is an opportunity for the country that left is putting this strong act.

End result will be govt will survive / the 123 will go through and few clarifications will be forthcoming from usa which will take away the duplicity. Certain unspoken understandings will come out in open which will make these understanding to be as good as written into agreement. USA has invested too much into this and can not afford to let it slip away because of future geopolitical assumptions . I see left squeezing the ba**s tighter into the vice. What is wrong for the country in this? I do not give a damn who is in power in India as long as this exercise brings some thing for the good of India.

If the purposed expert panel of left/experts/technocrats on hyde act can get some clarifications from usa declaring certain assumptions from this comitte are in accordance with the 123 agreement, so be it.

btw I believe (from what I have seen in the press and here) that it is good for India but if left can help us to get it better so be it.

Please do not expect any response to response(s). Reason is I am one finger typer(by choice)


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests