India Nuclear News and Discussion - August 20, 2007

[svinayak]

Pioneer, 21 Aug., 2007

BJP mustn't let Govt fall

The party must realise that it's least prepared for a mid-term poll, says Prafull Goradia

The BJP has erred in opposing so vociferously the India-US civil nuclear deal. In public perception, its opposition is largely political. This is not the time to let the UPA Government fall. The BJP needs a year or two to get its manifesto made sharp and clear before facing the national electorate. The Sangh Parivar would also need to arrive at a consensus on the prime ministerial candidate. Moreover, the State elections in Gujarat, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh should precede the Lok Sabha election and not follow them.

Why is the CPI(M) playing its cards the way it is? There has always been a method in its madness - realpolitik and not ideological. A Kolkata grapevine, located not far from the party headquarters, reported in late June that the nuclear agreement will not go through.

The CPI(M) is sensitive to Muslim sentiments. All these decades, the Bengali-speaking Muslims have stood four square behind the party. The faithful following has been soured across rural West Bengal by the Nandigram clash. Farmers and peasants have felt let down. They can no longer rely on the CPI(M) to protect their land. Signing anything with the US or even seen to be supporting an India-US deal could be playing straight into the hands of Jamiat-e-Ulema. Although the voters are over a fourth of West Bengal's electoral rolls, for the Left they comprise a third of its supporters.

Kerala, which is the second bastion of the CPI(M), also poses a serious problem. Christians are upset with the Left Front Government for interfering in their schools and colleges. The community comprises over 20 per cent of the population and are more resourceful than their numbers. The Syrian Christians are wealthy and the network of churches adds up to a great deal of influence.

The acquittal of Maulana Abdul Nasser Madani by the court at Coimbatore has made him a hero. Unexpectedly, he has resolved to abandon his extremism, sound reasonable and unite Muslims with Dalits. If he succeeds, he would have quite a sizable vote-bank. Why, therefore, annoy Muslims who support the CPI(M) either directly or through other parties? The least that the Left can do is to be seen to sabotage an India-US deal.

While there is need to avert the threats to the CPI(M) in Kerala and West Bengal, there are opportunities elsewhere. Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh offer potential. Bihar is ruled by a coalition which has a BJP Deputy Chief Minister. Whereas Uttar Pradesh has a Government which is seen as having come to power largely on Hindu support. The Samajwadi Party of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav continues to enjoy Muslim support but, when out of power, followers are liable to get dispersed. The Left can aspire for some pickings. In any case, the CPI(M) must appear pro-Muslim if it expects to align with the SP.

BSP leader Mayawati echoed this view last week when she said that the 123 Agreement with the US could hurt the sentiments of the minority community, which is bitterly opposed to American policy in Iraq and elsewhere. The BSP has been candid while the Left Front has been cagey. But the syndrome is the same.

The fortunes of both the Congress and the BJP have declined. The emerging vacuum is being filled by the rest of the parties who comprise 48 percent or 260 seats, of the current Lok Sabha. Since the 2004 general election, the two national parties have weakened. The Congress is caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, the Prime Minister has proclaimed his preference as 'Muslims First', of favouring development of Muslim majority districts, of modernising madarsas et al. On the other hand, he is widely perceived as an accomplice of the US. He lost sleep over the families of Islamists involved in the recent attack on Glasgow airport. Earlier, he had warmly hosted the visit of US President George W Bush to Delhi.

The BJP has got caught in a self-contradiction. Its cadre is steeped in Hindutva for decades. Yet, it abandoned even the expression at the chintan baithak at Goa in 2004. Earlier it had lost power in the general election despite offering to employ two lakh Urdu teachers. Committed Hindus, its only permanent supporters, find the party's silence on anti-Hindu issues and incidents, as deafening. A Hindu party in search of Muslim votes!

If the Left Front were to withdraw support to the UPA Government, the obvious consequence appears to be a mid-term poll. Its early advent would be inopportune for the BJP. On current indications, it would lose seats which, in turn, could bring a 'Third Front' to power. Whether the Prime Minister would be Mr Prakash Karat, Ms Mayawati or Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav or someone else is anybody's guess. But it would be neither Mr Rajnath Singh nor Mr Manmohan Singh. A coalition without a national party leading it would also be undesirable.

[SaiK]

MMS et al are shifting gears now.. assumes total control over 123! balls to the opposition.

[quote]INDIA-SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS TO BE DISCUSSED
N-pact: Show shifts to Vienna
New Delhi, DH News Service:

The next step to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal will probably be taken in Vienna in September when Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar raises issues related to India-specific safeguards with the officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Kakodkar will be in Vienna between September 17 and 21 to participate in the 51st general conference of the IAEA.

Sources said that the government had given him the “green signalâ€

[mandrake]

Acharya this is serious if ths 3rd front comes to power, this is absolutely serious....

I have said the first time in nuke thread, BJP are again playing their cards in wrong way, They should join congress...and form a coalition if that is ever possible.

[svinayak]

Acharya this is serious if ths 3rd front comes to power, this is absolutely serious....

I have said the first time in nuke thread, BJP are again playing their cards in wrong way, They should join congress...and form a coalition if that is ever possible.

BJP has to be invited by other groups. They have been kept outside for a long time by other parties and groups. Do you think it will happen. Will the people forgive all these leaders if down the road there are grave threats.

[UPrabhu]

I will die serving my masters attitude of this MMS.. doesn't he get it?.. that he has to work for carrying the consensus.... funny the govt. rejected JPC demand of NDA where there is a chance of forward motion... and offers special panel to the left, where there no chance of the same..


[quote="SaiK"]MMS et al are shifting gears now.. assumes total control over 123! balls to the opposition.

[quote]INDIA-SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS TO BE DISCUSSED
N-pact: Show shifts to Vienna
New Delhi, DH News Service:

The next step to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal will probably be taken in Vienna in September when Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar raises issues related to India-specific safeguards with the officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Kakodkar will be in Vienna between September 17 and 21 to participate in the 51st general conference of the IAEA.

Sources said that the government had given him the “green signalâ€

[ramana]

Why does Uday Bhaskar use the words "Sectarian Objective"? Usually it means one sec or a group? Which group is he referring to? And how are the group's interests affected by the 123 agreement?

I wish they dont hide behind euphemisms.

[putnanja]

MMS sure knows how to put his foot in his mouth. If trying to sound tough on the left in public bounced back, his attempts to potray BJP as trying to get him killed alienated the BJP even more.

Given that NDA kickstarted the repproachment with US, it would have made good sense for MMS to have involved them in the nuclear deal and being more transparent on the issue too. As many have said before, the lack of transparency has come back to bite them real hard in the a**. The PMO has been trying to manipulate the deal in a very aggressive way, like calling the scientists and Mr Raman opposing the deal as NDA agents etc. It appears that the PMO never tried to take all sections along ( not counting the rabidly anti-US left here). The opposition of the scicom earlier in the process had many people opposing the deal, and now even if the govt says that the deal is good, no one is willing to believe them. And with the PMO having alienated the scicom, no one will come to their rescue now.

Like the earlier economic reforms (pension reform etc)where NDA offered support but were spurned by congress, the congress by trying to keep an arm's length away for BJP is digging its own grave.

Looks like MMS' days are numbered!! Either he gets replaced and someone else ( shivraj patil?? ) with no mass base but loyaly to the family will become a pliant PM or the country will gear up for mid-term election.

[Prem]

Why does Uday Bhaskar use the words "Sectarian Objective"? Usually it means one sec or a group? Which group is he referring to? And how are the group's interests affected by the 123 agreement?

I wish they dont hide behind euphemisms.

Another question , how does the faliure of deal promote the supposedly secret "Sectarian Objective" overriding nation's strategic interests?

[Vick]

21/8/2007
Whose national interests is the Left protecting?
[quote]In a clear rebuff to Left parties’ claims of safeguarding the national interest, strategic analysts and diplomats say that delaying the implementation of the 123 Agreement will only benefit China and Pakistan.

Arundhati Ghosh, India’s former envoy to the Conference on Disarmament, told HT that “there’s nobody but the Chinese and the Pakistanis who are gloatingâ€

[Satya_anveshi]

Even after India gets nuked..people like Ronen sen will say..lets bygons be bygons..invite the likes of Dow Chemicals to India and give them tax subsidies and what not. Who needs military if we have diplomats like Ronen Sens who are eveready to sell not only their mothers but of others around them? Lanat hai..

[putnanja]

Operation Dr Singh

[quote]Why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh give the interview to the Calcutta paper? Opponents of the PM within his own party (who says there aren’t any?) have started a whisper campaign that the real problem is not with the 123 Agreement but with the prime minister’s interview given to a Calcutta paper where he “daredâ€

[putnanja]

Read the 123 fine print and rest easy - by Gen VP Malik( retd)

Given the widely divergent strategic goals and policies followed by India and the US in the past, particularly on nuclear non-proliferation, the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement was never going to be as simple as one, two, three!


The US, since the mid-sixties, has actively sought to deny proliferation of nuclear weapons/technology outside the P5 countries. It was the principal promoter of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). President Clinton revised the US nuclear strategy and doctrine for a more active role when new threshold states including India started emerging. The Defense Counter-proliferation Initiative of 1993 included eight functional areas: intelligence, counterforce capabilities, surveillance, inspections, passive defence, active defence, export control and counter terrorism. President George Bush upgraded it to a ‘forward policy’ in 2002 by including pre-emptive or preventive use of force in handling proliferation and ‘taking anticipatory actions to defend’.

For much of the Cold War period, India’s bilateral relations with the US had remained rancorous partly due to different perceptions of the world order but mostly due to US support to Pakistan. Some of those doubts continue to persist. When India blasted its way out of nuclear ambiguity on May 11,1998, causing a major setback to non-proliferation, the US reaction was immediate and severe.

Given this, the tight-rope walking involved in negotiating this deal can well be imagined, especially after

Dr Manmohan Singh committed in Parliament that India’s strategic autonomy shall not be compromised in any way, and the US Congress passed the Hyde Act in December 2006. It is evident that the 22-page ‘The 123 Agreement’, named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954, worked out after two years of tough negotiations cannot and will not meet every aspiration of the two parties in perpetuity. But I believe that, despite some doubts in a toothcomb analysis, India’s strategic autonomy has not been compromised.

One, the Agreement does not impinge on India’s military strategic programmes. Two, it does not deny us the right to carry out nuclear tests. The tests will no doubt cost us a lot, but that ought to be weighed against (a) our ability to build strategic reserves, (b) the strategic circumstance requiring further tests, and (c) our determination in worldwide sanctions imposed after the Shakti nuclear tests in May 1998. Given

India’s new stature, any sanctions even if imposed would be less effective. Three, the right to re-process the spent fuel is not denied. Again, there is some conditionality of ‘arrangements and procedures’. But even if there is a delay or denial in such ‘arrangements and procedures’, no one can walk away with the spent fuel from India without the government’s consent. Four, the Agreement does not grant or promise dual use technologies to India. But such inputs cannot be stopped once other governments and multinational companies, after NSG approval, begin investing in India’s nuclear power generation plants. Overall, the shadow of the Hyde Act notwithstanding, the 123 Agreement concedes more to India than what many had expected.

Given the nature of our polity, the debate on the 123 Agreement can be expected to carry on even after all pending steps are taken to make it operational. But the real difficulties in its implementation may arise in a crisis situation on which India and the US do not see eye to eye, or if there is a souring of bilateral relations. What matters then is not so much the fine print, but the political will to look after national interests. There are many political leaders and parties who believe that by signing the 123 Agreement, India would become a US camp follower. This is not necessarily the case. In the present world order, a nation of India’s standing can and should play a non-aligned, independent role and cooperate or compete with other nations, depending upon its national interests. However this too depends largely on political will.

Globalisation and India’s enhanced status will require a more active participation in international security issues. Have we developed the necessary strategic culture and political will to do this? Traditionally, India has seldom been demanding on strategic matters. It has been reluctant about using its hard power even when critical national security interests were threatened. One reason for this is the lack of political consensus.

While we discuss the 123 or other agreements, it must be realised that a nation’s strategic culture and political will to make effective use of its soft and hard power potential is an essential requirement for their implementation in national security interests. Also, while it is necessary to discuss national security concerns in politics; playing politics with national security can be harmful

[putnanja]

National consensus imperative on N-deal - by Natwar singh

More heat. Less light. More confusion. Less clarity. Only those endowed with clairvoyant insight or intuitive understanding can make sense out of the cacophonous chorus inside and outside Parliament. Not one in a hundred grasps the complexity, intricacy and scientific jargon of the nuclear deal and 123 Agreement. Varying degrees of ignorance are on rampant display.

So, how does one find one’s way out of this nuclear deal maze? The adamantine and worrying fact is that the nuclear deal has now become a political issue. Parliament is divided, the country is also witnessing a breakdown of the 60-year-old consensus on foreign policy. It is for the government to repair this grave damage. I, for one, get the distinct impression that members of the Congress are groping in the dark. The media is having a ball. Yesterday, an editorial in the Hindustan Times was not so gently critical of Dr Manmohan Singh. The Hindu had a blistering editorial yesterday. It was unsparing in its disapproval of the Prime Minister’s handling of this matter. Mr Prakash Karat’s article was even more strident.

The debate on the nuclear deal in Parliament should cause a break in the nuclear clouds hovering over Sansad Bhavan and beyond.

The UPA allies have not gone public but are obviously uncomfortable. They do not relish the idea of a mid-term election. Not many parties do. Those who think or wish that the UPA government will fall or that Dr Manmohan Singh will resign are mixing hope with facts. The UPA government may be wounded but not mortally. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is unlikely to resign. Nor is he going to be dumped. I say this with utmost respect, but I was surprised by his remarks to a Kolkata daily and a well known weekly magazine. He is a man who uses words with care and precision. Then why in his 76th year did he decide to embrace indiscretion? Why did the mild mannered Prime Minister go ballistic — "take it or leave it," "so be it"? Totally out of character. The interview to the weekly magazine was both baffling and bizarre. "Havans," "higher power," "destiny." The television is a cruel mechanism. It is merciless in focusing on "body language." The Prime Minister seems to have lost the well known spring in his walk.

The opposition in Parliament to the nuclear deal is not likely to disappear. The Left parties have taken a principled stand. So have the BJP and the UNPA. They do not support the deal. They go much further. They are opposed to growing American influence which is doing injury to India’s foreign policy. They ask: Why has government not made any statement on the continuing horror and tragedy in Iraq? Why is the sinister Hyde Act not being openly talked about? The other parties too have similar concerns. These must be addressed.

I do not, for a moment, agree with those who say that India is being sold. We are a great nation, a great people and a great civilisation. No one can browbeat us or even push us around. The proud people of India will never, repeat, never, tolerate a subservient foreign policy. Unfortunately, the impression has been created that the Prime Minister is bending backwards to accommodate President Bush. This impression is widespread. A corrective is needed.

The spokesmen of the government maintain that the deal cannot be re-negotiated. Why in the name of heaven not? Read history — US President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The US Senate shot it down. Mr Wilson did not resign. More recently, Bill Clinton was hellbent to sell the CTBT to the world. When he took it to Senate it too shot it down. Mr Clinton did not quit. The European Union had a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. France and Denmark voted against the draft. The whole thing was re-negotiated and an amicable solution was found. Treaties, agreements, deals etc., can always be re-negotiated, re-worked.

Will this adversely affect our international image? Not if we go about it the right way.

In the final analysis, the Prime MInister of India is answerable to the people and Parliament of India. Not to any superpower. Indian national interest is paramount.

The nuclear deal, dovetailed with the Hyde Act, has one very vital domestic dimension. The 150 million Muslims of India are totally opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form. The Left parties, the BJP, the emerging Third Front cannot but be mindful of this factor. This, I presume, is also the position of the vast majority of members of the UPA.

What is the way out? Take all political parties into confidence. Tell President Bush that we have to carry Parliament and the people with us. We are a democracy. We cannot railroad. For great countries the "loss of face" syndrome does not apply. Statesmen should not despair. They should not only contemplate problems, but find answers for them. The UPA government is not short of talent, or diplomatic experience. As I have often said, crisis management is our forté. Here is a momentous challenge for our diplomacy and foreign policy. Let us face it and overcome it as a united people and a united Parliament.

The Prime Minister must work to achieve national consensus on nuclear deal.

K. Natwar Singh is a former minister for external affairs

[Satya_anveshi]

The credibility hit that Ronen Sen is alluding to is a good thing for India. Next time a foreign country tries to slip a deal under the table, let them be known that they are dealing with a democratic country and such things may not work. Contrary to what Sen says, IMO, it is a sign of maturity of Indian democracy that will be noted with glee in many nations. It will be a net gain than otherwise.

[ramana]

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

[Tilak]

"What bothers me is that even 60 years after Independence, they lack so much of confidence and self-respect."

As if Govt. going by the way they did, is oozing of confidence.

Pran Chopra's last two paras are very significant as he asks GOI to clarify its stance on Hyde Act invocation.

But that makes it all the more necessary for India, and that without any avoidable waste of time, to draw the world’s attention to the many respects in which the Hyde Act goes beyond the limits of the Agreement. India must insist that before America begins to cross those limits it must clarify whether it is willing to comply with the 123 Agreement itself, and to sort out any gaps in interpretation which could be an embarrassment later to either country.

This responsibility devolves individually upon each member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. A decision by the group as a whole but equally binding upon every member can fudge the judgment of each member on the many-sided issue before us. The issue is whether India is violating the 123 Agreement or America is by insisting that the Hyde Act must take precedence over the Agreement. That issue must decide how much of the responsibility, and the penalty, for a breakdown of the 123 Agreement, if it were to occur, should fall upon India, as a joint custodian of that Agreement along with America, and how much upon America as the unilateral author of the Hyde Act.

This is precisely what I guess is happening, Unkil due to its "Internal Laws" isn't expecting any trade from India, [except may be a reproc "state of the art" facility], but is pushing the IAEA [intrusive inspections] and the NSG Poodles not to show any lenience to India [wrt. return of fuel or material.. there by undercutting India's leverage with France and Russia to get a better deal individually]. The same applies if in future, something goes wrong with the deal. US will approach the "NSG" on the basis of the same "Internal Law" and not the "123".

**I might be completely misrepresenting how things work wrt. NSG and IAEA, I would be glad to correct myself if .. **

Remember "Kangaroo is asking a Legal Commitment to return of Fuel in case of a test" [ie. Poodle is asking more than the Master when the latter is atleast giving India the option of consultations and redressal...]

China and Misc. Poodles[Unkil in the background] have similiar objective, when giving India anything other than bare minimals. The more all the above demand, the easier it becomes for Unkil to convince China and the rest. These are shared objectives.

I don't quite understand the Govt.s rush ..

PS: The rough draft of IAEA+ Safeguards agreement has already been passed around according to CNN-IBN. So I believe all the parties have seen it ..

[svinayak]

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

The IMs have kept the INC and other political parties of India subservient to their interest and not for National Interest. India has lost 50 years of relationship with the west for this fake ideology. And the rest of the society inside India had no clue to this betrayal and false promise.

[bala]

Natwar Singh is stuck in his Nehruvian mode of thinking. Notwar is a has been, useless politician. Why would 150 M Muslims vote in a block and think along the same lines. I am willing to bet money that not all of them think that the US-India Nuke deal is bad and perhaps think it is good.

I think General VP Malik (retd) best puts it.

Also, while it is necessary to discuss national security concerns in politics; playing politics with national security can be harmful

Dangerous politics and danger to national security is not what India wants.

[Prem]

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

The IMs have kept the INC and other political parties of India subservient to their interest and not for National Interest. India has lost 50 years of relationship with the west for this fake ideology. And the rest of the society inside India had no clue to this betrayal and false promise.

This is known in Islamic circle as "Joint Account" hold over India .
Its good thing that now clear boundaries are being drawn which might result in discrediting leftist,psuedo secularists, psuedo historians in one go.

Just the idea that there are some among ruling elites who hold Indian National Interests upmost is refreshing . Dair aye Durusat aye, this might be the New Deal, a new beginning denied to us for so long.

[Vick]

Natwar Singh is stuck in his Nehruvian mode of thinking. Notwar is a has been, useless politician. Why would 150 M Muslims vote in a block and think along the same lines. I am willing to bet money that not all of them think that the US-India Nuke deal is bad and perhaps think it is good.

Why the heck would 150 million Muslims not supporting it have any more weight over 150 million Hindus supporting it? If the Muslims don't have more weight, why mention it?

In any case, when in doubt use the Vick's WWLD method (patent pending) of cutting through the doubt. When confronted with a choice regarding Indian interests, just ask What Would the Left Do? What you think the Left would do, take the diametrically opposite view. Guaranteed to serve Indian interests in every situation. This method is also known as Vick's Principled Stand.

[ShyamSP]

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

The IMs have kept the INC and other political parties of India subservient to their interest and not for National Interest. India has lost 50 years of relationship with the west for this fake ideology. And the rest of the society inside India had no clue to this betrayal and false promise.

Was that the betrayal of Gandhi and Nehru or the strategy of the west to push them towards this pseudo-secularism. Congress legacy has been to make India to disprove the thought process of the division (Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). In that process they subjugated Indian civilizational ethos and natural strengths.

[svinayak]

This is known in Islamic circle as "Joint Account" hold over India .

Can you elaborate on this

[Pulikeshi]

BSP leader Mayawati echoed this view last week when she said that the 123 Agreement with the US could hurt the sentiments of the minority community, which is bitterly opposed to American policy in Iraq and elsewhere. The BSP has been candid while the Left Front has been cagey. But the syndrome is the same.

The nuclear deal, dovetailed with the Hyde Act, has one very vital domestic dimension. The 150 million Muslims of India are totally opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form. The Left parties, the BJP, the emerging Third Front cannot but be mindful of this factor. This, I presume, is also the position of the vast majority of members of the UPA.

Where is the data to show that India's 150 million Muslims (as a monolithic entity) are totally opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form? In a democracy, it is reasonable to expect a vociferous opposition to any issue. However, the political statements being made - artificially claim that minorities are the roadblock to the deal, and who gave these "left" politicians the exclusive right to speak on behalf of minorities anyway?
This is patronizing at best and dangerous at worst!

Will the "left" then denounce all relations with China for the inhuman treatment that the current disposition in China meets out to Tibetan Buddhists and other minorities? What about our Buddhist minority - do we care about them?

What asinine logic is this kind of thinking regarding foreign policy?

Makes one wonder if these politicians are paid agents of the Panda? {now , there is no data to prove that either!}

[svinayak]

Was that the betrayal of Gandhi and Nehru or the strategy of the west to push them towards this pseudo-secularism. Congress legacy has been to make India to disprove the thought process of the division (Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). In that process they subjugated Indian civilizational ethos and natural strengths.

It is more than that. When Nehru went to US asking for help and defence armaments in 1950s he was rebuffed. Nobody has figured out why is that.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/speditio ... 2.htm.html
"Pakistan's Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was the first elected head of Government of a Muslim State who I invited to pay an official visit to the United States of America in May 1950 and he and his wife, Begum Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan, made an excellent impression on us". These words were uttered by ex-President Harry S Truman when I interviewed him on October 5, 1957, in Kansas city while touring the USA under its government's Leader Exchange Programme. Speaking of Pakistan with warmth and friendship, Truman recalled that the US Government was one of the first countries to recognise the new State of Pakistan and he and his Secretary of State, George Marshall, had rushed the US Consul-General in Morocco to Karachi to represent the US government in the Pakistan Independence Day ceremony on August 14, 1947 with a message of warm greetings and good wishes from the White House.

The Pak Muslims and United Province Muslims in perticular (Represented by Liaquat Ali Khan) lobbied with the American power to not to entertain Nehru and India in the subcontinent right from 1950. The main purpose was not to give advantage to Indians and Hindus over the Muslims in the subcontinent(Similar views were recounted during the 2002 standoff).
This Indian Muslim Elite link to the US has been there from 1950 and Most educated Indians are not even aware of this.

[SwamyG]

150 million holding 800+ million by leash. What is the guarantee that the word "partition" is not raised again within the next 5 years! The political parties have already created the "logical partitioning".

[Vick]

150 million holding 800+ million by leash.

It has come to this because the 800 million might as well be 800 groups of 1 million each. The 800 million are a divided lot and the "real players" are taking advantage of that. It's the same old story.

[Satya_anveshi]

Again why does Natwar Singh, the diplomat and the torch bearer of non-alignment, bring in 150 M Muslims? Isn't this similar to Seema Mustafa's article. Is this the sectarian objective? I though they were in the INC camp with all its Sachar report, quotas and what not.

Was non -alignment all fake. Was it another pseudo-secular stance?

Natwar is simply administering a soft knife under the bottoms of congress by trying to make it a sectarian issue. By doing so he may be aiming to create polarization among those loyal to him and in the congress camp and that can have material effect in next election. Some people are getting desparate and making it an election issue that too involving muslim vote bank is a sure way of dropping the hot potato.

[Lkawamoto]

its communist party that is the main stumbling block to the 123 treaty, not the indian muslims. its true that the indian muslims might have supported commies expecting a better life (by believing false promises).

its not fair to say that indian muslims are opposing the 123 treaty.

its the pro-chinese commies that need to be sent to badlands of xintai.

of course it was foolish of congress leaders to spend time and energy to conclude the text of deal in hush manner without taking along the critical members of the alliance.

now MMS and sonia gandhi would pay a price for that.

communists are hell bent to hurt indian interests, and no one seems to notice. (except br-fites of course)

[shiv]

Hyde Act - yes. Internal - yes. 123 does NOT state that - yes.

NRao - even if we assume that there was no Hyde act, any Indian interaction with the US comes under US law for Americans.

If a US law states that the US may not export wheat between July and December, and India needs wheat in August, US laws will prevent that export unless the law is amended, or there is an exclusionary clause written in.

The 123 does not state that kickbacks are disallowed. A US entity might seek to gain an advantage with a kickback. Provided Indian laws kick in, India laws will act on that US entity and the Indians it has dealt with.

What is interesting is that the 123 agreement is not subject to merely the Hyde act - it is subject to every single law in the US and any one of these can be invoke if relevant. The same holds true for Indian laws.

The only difference is that India did not have a law that said "Do not buy or sell nuke material to the US"

The US had such a law preventing sale to non-NPT signatories. That law was changed by the Hyde act.

If India had laws that prevented dealing with the US - India as an ostensible law-abiding nation (and not a dictatorship) would have had to amend those laws by the means allowed under the constitution. That would have been an Indian "Hyde law"

As far as I know the Indian constitution gives the power to the cabinet to reach certain deals without consulting parliament. Members of Parliament do not appear to like this law, but the only way of getting around it is to protest - because they may well be fighting Indian law.

Members of parliament are demanding greater involvement in this deal, and MMS is not obliged to give them that.

It is equally true that if the Parliament takes a decision that the people don't like, the latter will be out on the streets. But surely, for a matter so important, shouldn't a referendum be held and 600 million voting Indians be asked what they want to do about the nuclear future of India? Why just Karat/Bardhan and co? The only problem is the wording of the referendum - because if you ask Indians whether they want power supply or nukes - I suspect they will vote for power supply. The law does not really allow for that.

Under the circumstances, it is up to the opposition and government to sit and understand the deal and stop yakking to the press like ignoramuses and allowing the press to have a ball by saying "Marriage on the rocks" etc.

The opposition can quietly say that we need more details about the deal. But in India - politics does not work that way. They will say that someone is a traitor, and anti-national and "appeal to the masses" to protest. And the masses too go around thinking that Parliament is like the court of some Raja where there is a traitorous vizier trying to undermine the Kingdom. And they bay for someone's blood or the other and root for whoever they think appeals to them.

I believe that there is an all round discarding of even a semblance of common sense.

Did anyone hear Cmdre Uday Bhaskar and Parthasarathy on DD News (Hindis) last night? These people must be traitors for their support to the deal.

[enqyoobOLD]

Did I slip into the Pakistan Enlightened thread by mistake?

[Tilak]

N-deal impasse: US ready to work with India
21 Aug 2007, 0058 hrs IST,
Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration on Monday pledged to work with the Indian government to see the civilian nuclear deal to fruition, carefully avoiding any comment on the political furor in India on the matter.

"We don't have any specific comments on discussions within India about the agreement. This is a determination for the Indians to make. We're going to be working with them to hopefully see it to fruition," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said at a briefing.

The remarks came amid domestic political turmoil in India which is being closely monitored in the US because of its potential to bring down the UPA government, which in a parliamentary democracy is far more vulnerable than fixed-term US administrations.

Gallegos said the US is coordinating with New Delhi and with the US Congress to move the nuclear agreement forward.

"I think that obviously this is an important agreement that we believe will help India reduce its energy shortfall and will allow Indians to gain access to advanced technologies that will improve their daily lives," he added.

[Muppalla]

Even 5% of IMs will not know what the heck is the deal. The 5% IMs are the RAPE class of IMs. This class, the media and the Left are partners in the crime called "anti nationalism" These elements creeped into INC over a period of time via leftism/socialism inside INC. The face of "anti nationalism" changes based on the issue at hand. If it is middle east issue then take "pro Islam" postion. If it is Nukes take "pro China". Unfortunately in the both the issues, the front end is "anti US" for some and "anti imperialism" for others.

[svinayak]

This was posted before.
Can somebody from pro-deal poster review this. Again no simplified answer.

[quote]
PRESS RELEASES
August 04, 2007


Press Statement issued by Shri Yashwant Sinha &
Shri Arun Shourie on Indo-US nuclear deal

Preliminary comments of the BJP on the Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the USA concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

1. The BJP has been expressing its reservations regarding the Indo-US nuclear deal from the very beginning. When the Joint Statement was issued at the end of the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington in July 2005, Shri Vajpayee issued a statement in which he expressed his reservations about the deal, specially with regard to its impact on our strategic nuclear programme. He had expressed his apprehension at the proposed separation plan of our nuclear facilities between civilian and military. Later, when the separation plan was presented to Parliament, we expressed our opposition to it. We warned the Government of India when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee of the US Congress adopted the draft bills for enabling this cooperation between the two countries. We protested strongly when the Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress. We have consistently opposed the deal in Parliament whenever discussions on this deal have taken place.

None of our fears and apprehensions was ever given serious consideration by the Government of India. No effort was ever made by it to evolve a national consensus on this vital issue of national concern before making commitments to the US.

The text of the bilateral 123 Agreement has been made public on Friday, August 3, 2007. We have looked at the text and our preliminary comments are as follows:

(i) Each party is required to implement this Agreement in accordance with its national laws and regulations and its licence requirements. There is no doubt, therefore, that the implementation of this Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of the Hyde Act of 2006, the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which are its national laws on this subject, and its licensing requirements relating to the supply of nuclear materials to India {article 2(1)}. The confidence with which US officials have asserted that the Agreement is Hyde act bound flows from this provision. Which act will India enforce on the US?

(ii) The Agreement is supposed to lead to full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries yet article 2(2)(d) talks of cooperation relating to “aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycleâ€

[SSridhar]

This was posted before.
Can somebody from pro-deal poster review this. Again no simplified answer.

PRESS RELEASES
August 04, 2007


Press Statement issued by Shri Yashwant Sinha &
Shri Arun Shourie on Indo-US nuclear deal

Preliminary comments of the BJP on the Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the USA concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

I am not going to give a detailed answer to this. However, a few things struck me. It appears that the BJP is trying to create a 'fear psychosis' by painting a picture of India losing its crown jewels or ability to pursue the strategic programme. I am sure that had this been the case, AK and several of his colleagues and certainly RC would have resigned from their positions. While most have no faith in politicians (Congress or otherwise), I do think the scientists of BARC/DAE still carry a lot of credibility and especially at the highest levels.

Secondly, BJP asks the rhetorical question if the agreement is between two equal parties. Darn it. It most certainly is not. Nobody in his right mind of frame will accept that the US and India are equal parties in nuclear technology. There should be no confusion between sovereignty and 'technological dominance'. In terms of the former, even tiny Mauritius is on par with the US. Most of our politicians are deluding themselves that India is equal-equal with the US, just as we do not tire accusing TSPians of a similar delusion. India an the US are unequal partners and as a dominant power, the US will demand its pound of flesh. What we have to guard ourselves against is that the redlines which are sacrosanct to us are protected.

The raising of the question on future 'tests' is immature and unwarranted at this stage. It is being deliberately raised to scuttle the whole deal. Evereybody knows that if we test tomorrow, we are going to become 'untouchables' before we announce the test to the world. It will not be the US alone that will treat us like that but almost the entire world and China will lead the pack as it did in 1998. We are not contemplating any test immediately either. God knows what will happen when the time comes.

The Government of the day cannot discuss everything, get a consensus and then sign the deal. The BJP did not obviously discuss whether it should detonate the bombs in 1998. They are just being opportunistic in pulling down the government without thinking about the consequences.

[enqyoobOLD]

Well.. in defence of the BJP, it must be said that they know quite well that there is no risk of their noise-making bringing down the government. They are doing this simply to make noise.

Of course, they have succeeded in causing a split between the Cong and the Commies. That's a "victory" in their blighted state of being total losers since 2004.

Net result is not that there is any danger of the govt. falling - there isn't any such danger. The net result will be that the BJP's credibility will plunge even further.

In the past few days, BC, BK, and now Arun Shourie, have all stepped on their own Little Cheneys.

[csharma]

How is the BJP pulling down the govt? It is the left pulling down the govt. Do you think that Left would stop screaming if BJP supported this deal. Or do you expect BJP to vote for Congress govt if left pulls out. That would be too much to ask for unless a national govt is formed.

While I do agree that BJP might be playing petty politics, it is unreasonable to expect them to bail out the Congress. Congress went out of the way to go for this deal. They were looking for glory and they are responsible for the mess they are in.

[Muppalla]

BJP is non-entity in this whole deal whether they support or not. They were not even asked to support as they were untouchables of Indian political spectrum.

The government has to fight it out to save the deal no matter what the BJP supports or not.

If their credibility is lost due to their behaviour, it will be lost among few BR types in India. No big deal politically. These credibilities does not matter in the elections.

Had BJP openly supported the deal there are other allies inside UPA that will go the left way and the Government would fall the next day. At least it will survive for another four months inspite of left withdrawing support(which is imminent).

2 cents!!

[SSridhar]

enqyoob,
Of course, they have succeeded in causing a split between the Cong and the Commies.

The Commies did not need the BJP to split their comraderie with the Congress. They have been opposing everything that in their jaundiced eyes amounted to cosying up to the US. They would have done the same thing had there been no BJP on the scene. If they could create a ruckus on the docking of USS Nimitz, would they let go of an opportunity as big as this ? All this exhortation by the BJP to the commies of 'walk the talk' would have been seen through by them as an attempt to 'sharpen the commie knives' which were already sharp under the prodding of their Chinese masters.

[rgsrini]

I have to say that MMS government is not even making an attempt to explain the deal to BJP. BJP has started to oppose the deal to score political points. Now they cannot back down without a "face saving" exit. Congress appears to be in no mode to do that. They want this to be a pure congress legacy, which is unfortunate as BJP is very much the initiator of the dance with the US.


Unless ('chankian' glasses on) all of this is orchestrated by the politicos to make an appearance that Govt has no room to maneuver during IAEA and NSG negotiations to accept additional commitments.

[Raju]

We are not really signing a deal with US, of there is this notional deal and 123/Hyde etc but the real deal is with the Rockefeller clique. Even the ambassador to India David C. Mulford is their pointman. He was sent to Saudi Arabia as investment advisor to Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency to divert petrodollars to Rockefeller owned banks in NY & elsewhere.

This deal is a distraction and an end to itself. India asked for this deal and the americans have given it, ofcourse they hedged their bets with Hyde, It's going to tire everyone out esp the opposition who will lose their leverage to threaten the govt and then the real game will begin, after expending all their energy on nuclear deal very little will be left for what comes immidiately afterwards. The quid pro-quo sought of India will be on three counts, firstly a follow-up to 'agricultural-deal/Agbiotech deal*' will be sought by US after probably an artificial hike in food prices in India/world and lot of anal-ysts making comments that India needs more production of foodgrains. Enter Monsanto & walmart which will retail GM products. Their advances have been resisted everywhere else.

Second quid pro quo will be defence, where India will be obliged to open up to high-ticket US weapon sales and India's strategic encirclement of energy/defence/food security will be complete. The third will be in the form of Iran which will necessitate a strategic compromise from India while US goes about its business there. Indian defence and energy are the final frontiers. This has been a long-term aim which will now achieve closure.

*this was again a hush-hush deal with Montek Singh Ahluwalia taking the lead here. The entire preparation of this initiative was highly secret affair with no consultations with any of the stakeholders