India Nuclear News and Discussion - August 20, 2007

Locked
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I was told that the CII folks had mentioned that the UPA should call the Left's bluff. There is an interview somewhere where the ITVTY heads call for that action. So MMS was not acting without support.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Don't blow up Indo-US nuclear deal: Karunanidhi

Chennai, Aug. 22 (PTI): Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi today described remarks by Indian Ambassador Ronen Singh that those who opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal were "headless chickens" as "unnecessary" and said "it is not good to blow up" the issue.

Writing in the DMK's mouth piece Murasoli, he said, "The issue had been maginfied and everybody should try to solve it amicably."

Press pause button on nuclear deal: CPI(M) to govt.

New Delhi, Aug. 22 (PTI): The CPI(M) today asked the UPA government to "pause" the Indo-US civil nuclear deal as the party's top brass met here to chart out its future steps amid a tense stand-off with the government on the issue.

"All we are asking from the government is to press pause button. It should properly evaluate all the implications before proceeding further," CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury told PTI.

His comments came as the Central Committee, the party's top decision making body, began a two-day meeting to discuss the issue amid signals that the government was not prepared to heed its ultimatum on the contentious issue.

Party General Secretary Prakash Karat, who had earlier warned the government of serious consequences if it went ahead with the deal, submitted a report of the Polit Bureau on the contentious deal before the Central Committee.

He is also understood to have apprised the Central Committee of his meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi to iron out differences on the issue.

The Left party is maintaining that negotiations with IAEA on the safeguards agreement would bind India in perpetuity.

The Central Committee is expected to finalise the party's position on how far it could go in its opposition to the government in the critical matter and is likely to authorise the Polit Bureau to take the appropriate decision at the appropriate time.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Nuke deal: US steers clear of political stand-off in India

Washington, Aug. 22 (PTI): Choosing to steer clear of the on-going political churning in India over the civilian nuclear deal, the US has said it was committed to working with New Delhi for the success of the agreement which will not be re-negotiated.

"... My understanding is that the Indian government is working through the issues internally. Obviously, we would have no comment on that. That is an issue for them to decide" State Department's Acting spokesman, Gonzalo Gallegos, told reporters here.

He said the Bush Administration was working with the Congress here to move towards this agreement.

"And we will continue that effort. We believe that this is an opportunity for India to have access to cheap electrical -- low-cost electrical power, and an opportunity for the people to have economic development beyond their capacities at this point. So we're working our side of the issue here. The Indian government is working their side," Gallegos said Tuesday evening.

"And we're committed to, hopefully, coming together and succeeding in this" he added.

The spokesman was asked if the United States is looking at re-negotiating the agreement. "No. I'm not looking to change any policy on that issue from this podium today.... or most likely the rest of this week," Gallegos said.

The official would not respond to a query on what India would do if countries like China and Pakistan conduct nuclear tests.

"I think you should probably ask the Indian government leaders about that issue, the Indian parliamentarians. I'll leave them to comment on that," he said.


Gallegos was asked whether his statement on "consulting" with Congress meant trying to change either the terms of the 123 agreement concluded a couple of weeks ago or that the administration is trying to change the provisions of the law that was passed in December that governs aspect of the agreement.

"No, that was more of a general statement that we're having conversations to express the position of the administration and this department on why we believe this is an important initiative and why we believe it should ultimately succeed," Gallegos replied.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:I was told that the CII folks had mentioned that the UPA should call the Left's bluff. There is an interview somewhere where the ITVTY heads call for that action. So MMS was not acting without support.
IBN show where they discuss the 60 years and the next 60 years with Azim Premji, Mukesh Ambani and Mittal.
Premji made that statement.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

CRamS wrote:
From whereever they will get their billions to sustain them now and the millions they get to buy F-16s.

Wrong. If the US is using Pakistan towards its ends, and is fully aware of what Pakistan is upto (and JEM posted a few links that indicate such is the case), do you think they will hand them nuclear material to a country where laws and safeguards mean nothing?

Please read all the objections that erudite folks like BC/BK/AS etc have regarding this deal.
Have you read the deal and other documents and made up your own mind? Why this outsourcing of thinking to "erudite folks"? There are aspects of (lack of) transparency to the Indian political system and complete secrecy at the Indian end that are indeed worrying. Why did this govt. continue sharing this text with the COTUS and the Americans, while (creating the perception) keeping the rest of the country out of the loop? (They did consult witj BJP folks during the deal, IIRC).

MMS and Co. have some explaining to do because they placed themselves in this situation because of their terrible media handling throughout this deal. Regular "press briefings", even if repeating the same issue, would have given the perception of openness.

This problem has to be addressed and is being addressed in our own chaotic way. Just repeating the objections of someone else just because they are "erudite" seems a tad silly, especially when all the source documents have been posted here on this thread for people to read and make up their own mind.
Finally, Uneven has the pulse on US policy. Read what he said. If TSP acquiesces to US demand on nukes they will get the same deal.
Uneven may be a "expert" who advises the COTUS on Pakistan, but that does not mean his wishes will become US policy. No one in their right minds in the GOTUS will hand over nuclear material to Pakistan today, where people carry "Dath to America" Placards on a regular basis.
Last edited by Rye on 22 Aug 2007 20:33, edited 1 time in total.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Does Premji have a seat in Lok Sabha?

No.

Then he shuold learn to keep his mouth shut on matters that he is not capable of. Or, he will start looking and sounding like that other Bangalorean-Big-Mouth.


----------
Philip:
One report says that he is surrounded by pro-US babus who along with him were shocked at the Left's opposition
MMS is himself a pro US babu. Or have you forgotten that? :P
UPrabhu
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Re: Opposition of the Deal

Post by UPrabhu »

Exacctly, what I am trying to explain, that if deal falls, PM is to be blamed. It is his duty to ensure the deal has mojority support. He cannot just go ahead otherwise. Because a large section is opposing it for being not taken in confidance.


[quote="bchatnani"]US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL GENERATES VEHEMENT OPPOSITION IN INDIAN PARLIAMENT & PUBLIC DEBATE: An Analysis

[quote]The Indian Prime Minister for some uncanny reasons was not really forthcoming on the progress of negotiations of the Deal as they became more complex and vexing. The whole process was mishandled in the sense that on such a sensitive issue as “nuclear programsâ€
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Interesting take by Karunanidhi. In earlier times he and his party have asked and gotten the heads of errant officials on paltters. Makes one wonder if he got his lifafa orders as his old party bosses used to get.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Why should this deal have been dicussed in Parliament?

Why not hold a national referendum?

After all many of us feel that some members of Parliament are jackasses, and some are criminals and we know better. Since we tom tom our democratic tradition, surely a referendum (OK - a plebiscite if you like) would be right?

Can anyone state any reasons why this was not done? I know of a reason which I will state after a few responses. I believe that a whole lot of noise is being made about issues regarding which noisemaking is now totally pointless - and akin to sticking needles into a Voodoo doll hoping that it has an effect on what the doll represents.

I just wonder if "headless chickens" was the most educated comment made by any official yet.
Last edited by shiv on 22 Aug 2007 20:23, edited 1 time in total.
Lkawamoto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 09:56
Location: zz_ota-ku

Post by Lkawamoto »

abhischekcc wrote:Does Premji have a seat in Lok Sabha?

No.

Then he shuold learn to keep his mouth shut on matters that he is not capable of. Or, he will start looking and sounding like that other Bangalorean-Big-Mouth.


----------
Philip:
One report says that he is surrounded by pro-US babus who along with him were shocked at the Left's opposition
MMS is himself a pro US babu. Or have you forgotten that? :P
so?

1) whats wrong with being pro-US?
2) its better than being like karat and yechuri (pro-CHINA)
3) how many indians have gone to US and made a better life?
4) US is using pakistan for its own interest, it also helps india indirectly by keeping pakis on their toes
5) US wants to improve ties with india, whats wrong with that?
6) indians in general respect US for providing a fair playing field for professionals and investors, indians respect US for its technological achievements, and innovation
7) there is much in common with indians and americans (more than indians and chinese or indians and srilankans)
8.) its about time we stop whining about US and start learning from US
9) there is a chance india, japan, and other like minded (AKA anti-chinese) democracy to form a military, trade, cultural alliance, to set a new standard in green technology, defense, space exploration, etc etc
10) stop complaining about US and start complaining about our own corrupt, gutless, spineless leaders.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Leadership has to be pro-India. There is too much schooming showing up.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Post by SSridhar »

ramana wrote:Interesting take by Karunanidhi. In earlier times he and his party have asked and gotten the heads of errant officials on paltters. Makes one wonder if he got his lifafa orders as his old party bosses used to get.
Karunanidhi is only a shade better than the Commies when India's interests are to be considered. He is not taking the side of Congress for nothing. There is a personal as well as a political angle to that. No need to go into all those in this thread though.
Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Opposition of the Deal

Post by Amitabh »

My dear sir, you are quite mistaken if you think the opposition was not taken into confidence.

Besides, did the Congress party refuse cooperation because it was not taken into confidence before Vajpayee responded to the Kargil intrusions or initiated the Pokhran II tests or deployed forces in response to the parliament attack? No, it took a decision based on its interpretation of the national interest.
UPrabhu wrote:Exacctly, what I am trying to explain, that if deal falls, PM is to be blamed. It is his duty to ensure the deal has mojority support. He cannot just go ahead otherwise. Because a large section is opposing it for being not taken in confidance.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Lkawamoto, you sound like a newbie.


I'll just say one thing to your incantations - I expect every Indian leader to be pro-India. He may have any other fault - all others are forgivable. But not being pro-India is a non-negotiable quality.

If you can't understand that, you can't understand why the oppostition to the deal also exists in people who are not commies.
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

shiv wrote:Why should this deal have been dicussed in Parliament?
One problem with the deal on Indian side has been the political management. Once you take parliament into confidence you ensure the stability of the deal when the government changes. The next steps in operationalizing the deal and sustaining the deal into near future would be jeapodized if you won't have public buyin from major players. They always will have excuse to committefy this deal.

I really miss PVN's political acumen after seeing the political mismanagement by the current UPA leadership.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

US law did not allow nuke trading with India.

US law had to be changed in order to allow trade with India.

How do democracies change laws?

By acts of parliament. The US changed the nuke trade law to accomodate India as per conditions they wanted.

What does India law say about agreements?

India law does not require the discussion in parliament before the signing of such deals. Perhaps the peopel who made these laws did not anticipate such a situation as we face now, but there you are - MMS has a fait accompli.

Basically anyone who thinks MMS is a traitor can stuff it. He may well really be a traitor - but there is bugger-all anyone can do about it other than strut around like a headless chicken because he has not broken any laws.

If we don't like an established Indian law, we need to change it by an act of parliament. But that won't change what has happened.

Oh yes we can protest and ask that MMS be lynched. But before lynching him we have to show how he has broken the law. After all we are so upset about the US sticking to its laws, but we don't like it one bit when an Indian PM sticks to Indian law.

Exactly what is wrong with the deal?
Last edited by shiv on 22 Aug 2007 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Ananth wrote:
shiv wrote:Why should this deal have been dicussed in Parliament?
One problem with the deal on Indian side has been the political management. Once you take parliament into confidence you ensure the stability of the deal when the government changes. The next steps in operationalizing the deal and sustaining the deal into near future would be jeapodized if you won't have public buyin from major players. They always will have excuse to committefy this deal.

I really miss PVN's political acumen after seeing the political mismanagement by the current UPA leadership.
No that is not my point.

Why stop at parliament? Why not a national referendum?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Kati wrote:A very Good Analysis by Dr. Kapila.

Hope this will stop the garbage spewing by many BRites, such as "Ban the Lefts" (like it or not, there are more than fifty MPs from these parties - elected by millions of aam-janatas), "Left is opposing it so it must be good" (ha! I wish things were so simple), "92% NRIS support the deal" (these NRIs love India so much that 90% of them relinquished the Indian citizenship),... etc.

If a deal is so good then why not have an open debate in the Parliament?

Enjoy:

http://www.saag.org/papers24/paper2339.html
indeed..
The Indian Prime Minister’s obdurate fixation to go ahead irrespective of the Leftists warning not only imperils the continuance in office of the Congress Government but also imperils the future of the US-India Nuclear Deal. A new political dispensation in India may not agree to go through with the Deal in the present form.
Just think about his greatest American pal.. "the best American President" India has got (Read MMS' mind).. Trivia: How did Mr. Bush got elected? What naatak he did to get his office against his opponent who just got only 1% of vote less. He started marching.. like a general!.


What has happened is that concurrently with the US-India Nuclear Deal negotiations, the Indian Government allowed itself to be drawn into US – sponsored security initiatives like the US-Japan-India Trilateral and the US-Japan-Australia-India Quadrilateral. This rang alarm bells across India’s political spectrum.


Yes.. Its exceedingly imperative that MMS govt should not behave like Bush govt taking unilateral steps.. MUST consult a joint parliamentary body to deal with all strategic and important India-Global initiatives. It has got more long term inputs rather short term.

This article must be greatly appreciated to bring these:-
Regular readers of papers by this author on the subject would recall that the Deal as originally conceived in July 2005 was welcomed by this author and others writing on this web-site. Readers would also recall that after the first six months itself, this author had begun injecting assessments and analyses that the future of the Deal was in doubt. In this connection besides other papers of this author, the following need particular highlighting with reference to what is happening today:

* “US-India Nuclear Deal Reviewed "(SAAG Paper No. 1670 dated 10.01.2006)
* “US-India Nuclear Deal Generates “Great Indian Divideâ€
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

shiv wrote:
Ananth wrote: One problem with the deal on Indian side has been the political management. Once you take parliament into confidence you ensure the stability of the deal when the government changes. The next steps in operationalizing the deal and sustaining the deal into near future would be jeapodized if you won't have public buyin from major players. They always will have excuse to committefy this deal.

I really miss PVN's political acumen after seeing the political mismanagement by the current UPA leadership.
No that is not my point.

Why stop at parliament? Why not a national referendum?
WOW...yes..why do we need democracy..why is all this hooye stuff called 'independence', 'representation'..YIKES!. Having a monarch or some people who know the best do what ever needs to be done. Please don't involve me, all this is too complex; My head is spinning. I am good with my head buried in sand..let me relax. Please!

Is it the contempt for democracy that is reflected in your comment or you feel Indian democracy week and cannot handle best interests of India?
Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Ananth »

shiv wrote: Why stop at parliament? Why not a national referendum?
Sorry for misunderstanding. When did we have national referendum last time?
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

Rye wrote: Have you read the deal and other documents and made up your own mind? Why this outsourcing of thinking to "erudite folks"?

Just repeating the objections of someone else just because they are "erudite" seems a tad silly, especially when all the source documents have been posted here on this thread for people to read and make up their own mind.
Yes I have. Part of being a good leader or managere is to nominate, outsource, and trust the views of experts on complicated matters like this one.

shiv wrote: Exactly what is wrong with the deal?
From my perspective, and that of others, this deal has been conceived and agreement written in a way to aggressively protect USA's nuclear proliferation goals visa vi India in spirit and form, and keep its business prospects alive. There may be enough verbal jugglery for MMS to say its not so, but the entanglements are there. Despite this, its still OK to go for the deal from India's PoV, its just that folks like myself do not trust USA to act in good faith. For me personally, I will begin to trust USA once I sense that it is no longer using TSP as an India containment tool. If I reach that comfort level, then I can live with the fact that 123 had to be written that way for sake of US domestic laws, but in reality US will act in good faith and be cognizant and sensitive to India's security concerns should the need arise for India to flex its military/nuke muscles.
Last edited by CRamS on 22 Aug 2007 20:57, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Satya_anveshi wrote: Is it the contempt for democracy that is reflected in your comment or you feel Indian democracy week and cannot handle best interests of India?
That is the exact question I am asking people on here.

What do they think of Indian democracy and laws?

India has certain laws that allow the election of certain leaders and those leaders have certain powers.

If those leaders legally use those powers and commit some action we might not like the action, but those leaders have been given that power by our constitution.

If it is a bad deal, it is a bad deal. If it is a bad deal, the bad deal has been legally arrived at by leaders constitutionally empowered by the Indian democracy.

If the leader who made the deal is a traitor, then Indian democracy has elected a traitor.

Assuming the deal is bad, where does the fault lie? The leader? The democracy? The people?

If the deal is fine then all these arguments are like headless chickens running around.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

CRamS wrote:
shiv wrote: Exactly what is wrong with the deal?
From my perspective, and that of others, this deal has been conceived and agreement written in a way to aggressively protect USA's nuclear proliferation goals visa vi India in spirit and form, and keep its business prospects alive. There may be enough verbal jugglery for MMS to say its not so, but the entanglements are there. Despite this, its still OK to go for the deal from India's PoV, its just that folks like myself do not trust USA to act in good faith. For me personally, I will begin to trust USA once I sense that it is no longer using TSP as an India containment tool. If I reach that comfort level, then I can live with the fact that 123 had to be written that way for sake of US domestic laws, but in reality US will act in good faith and be cognizant and sensitive to India's security concerns should the need arise for India to flex its military/nuke muscles.
In fact the Hyde act askes the US President to do to the US what MMS is being accused of doing to India - "giving assurances". If the US president gives assurances all will be well.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

shiv wrote: That is the exact question I am asking people on here.

What do they think of Indian democracy and laws?

India has certain laws that allow the election of certain leaders and those leaders have certain powers.

If those leaders legally use those powers and commit some action we might not like the action, but those leaders have been given that power by our constitution.

If it is a bad deal, it is a bad deal. If it is a bad deal, the bad deal has been legally arrived at by leaders constitutionally empowered by the Indian democracy.

If the leader who made the deal is a traitor, then Indian democracy has elected a traitor.

Assuming the deal is bad, where does the fault lie? The leader? The democracy? The people?
But those laws are not static. Indian constitution has been amended several times and we are a very young nation. So, if such a predicament where a nominated leader takes a decision that has critical underpinnings of national security, then that loop holes are to be corrected. It does not make the decision right. The current mess reeks of a ploy to take advantage of that loophole to feed whatever down the throats of Indians.
If the deal is fine then all these arguments are like headless chickens running around.
How you will know if the deal is fine or not without discussing it with people (or their representatives)?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Non sequitor. There is no provision for a natioanl referendum.

The angst is due to two reasons- UPA with MMS is a coalition stitched together after the elections with the active connivance of Anil Amabni who is well known Rockefeller hobnobber. The coalition is at war wtih itself most of the time. The Indian constitution always imagined that party in power will always be a single monolith body. The idea of single largest party falling short by over 140 seats was not envisoned. hence the precedents of previous PMs not informing the Parliament do not hold water. While Indian Constituion does not require taking the MPs into confidence so long as you have the majority, political acumen requires that they be convinced to ensure longevity of the deal and the bargain. That is why I wanted a debate to ensure buy-in for the deal.

There was and is excessive secrecy about the deal and the underlying subtext. The PMO was and is using Goebellsian tactics to push through the deal by tarring all dissenters.

The biggest angst is the memory of British rule is still there and there is relcutance to get engaged with the successor regime to the British. One may call these people headless chickens or other avian species but there is native wisdom at the root of this angst. The running form pillar to post to get clarificatiosn is because the PM is mum and is not taking the public into confidence even after the 123 agreement is negotiated. Secrecy in negotiations is understandable but not after they are over.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Satya_Avneshi wrote:
Is it the contempt for democracy that is reflected in your comment or you feel Indian democracy week and cannot handle best interests of India?

The point being made is that Indian constiution and laws are being followed by MMS and Co., and if people are going to complain about MMS, they should be complaining about the fact the India law does allow the UPA to legally sign up for the 123 without a parliamentary debate....so why is it all the opponents to the deal have no problem with the section of law that allows such a thing to happen, but want to rant impotently at various parties in the GoI?

What are those who are supposedly defending India doing about the fact that regardless of whether or not the deal is signed, Indian laws are going to remain just as weak, and are going to allow more 123-type agreements in the future.

If MMS and Co. should not be able to push through 123 without public participation, but the law allows them to do so for whatever reason, doesn't it point to a weak constitution and set of laws?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Ananth wrote:
shiv wrote: Why stop at parliament? Why not a national referendum?
Sorry for misunderstanding. When did we have national referendum last time?
As far as I know we have had no "single issue" referendums.

I don;t even know if there is any specific constitutional allowance for that. But that is my point. The constitution likewise does not ask for a parliamant debate.

It is apost facto demand that issues of national importnac eshould be discussed in parliament. But hey how come nobody found this loophole in teh constitution before?

And if its a loophole, it is too late. We are where we are. The Hyde act has been passed and a 123 deal done.

We need to pick up from where we are and see where we can go. Tearing apart MMS, or asking "why a parliamentary debate was not held" are diversions from the issue that are merely noise and should be done away with, or dealt with as a separate discussion to lynch MMS or screw the Congress.

We need to look at what we have and what we are going to do with it. Occams razor for the rants. The rants will look particularly stupid if the deal turns sweet, and any rants must be used carefully to pin blame accurately and control any damage.

I do not see that being done. We cannot "control damage" if we cannot define what damage has been done.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

It is not merely a question of following the law. It is correct that MMS had the low in his side when went ahead and signed the deal secretly. No one can argue with that. Law is only a lowest common denominator. A leader can & should rise above the mere requirements of the job. There is nothing in the law to prevent MMS from negotiating without the secretiveness. There is nothing in the law to prevent him from holding a discussion in the parliament after the deal is negotiated but not signed. Furthermore, MMS has given assurances in the parliament about the deal about a year ago which have come to be not true. There is more to it than simply following the law.

Surinder

added later: If Indira Gandhi or Shastri had gone beyond the law and let some element of national debate in the post war agreements, we may all be better off.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Satya_anveshi wrote:
If the deal is fine then all these arguments are like headless chickens running around.
How you will know if the deal is fine or not without discussing it with people (or their representatives)?
Aha! Precisely! MMS is not required to do that and everone is iritated about that. But it is a done deal.

By all means discuss the deal. But discussing why the deal was not discussed in parliament, and how MMS is a traitor is totally pointless.

The main discussion here seems to be hovering around how MMS did the deal, how he is a traitor and why the deal was not discussed in parliament.

This amounts to beating about the bush.

Could we stop that and dicuss the DEAL and not the mechanism or the dealmaker? Too late to discuss mechanism and loyalty of MMS.
Last edited by shiv on 22 Aug 2007 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Rye wrote:Satya_Avneshi wrote:
Is it the contempt for democracy that is reflected in your comment or you feel Indian democracy week and cannot handle best interests of India?

The point being made is that Indian constiution and laws are being followed by MMS and Co., and if people are going to complain about MMS, they should be complaining about the fact the India law does allow the UPA to legally sign up for the 123 without a parliamentary debate....so why is it all the opponents to the deal have no problem with the section of law that allows such a thing to happen, but want to rant impotently at various parties in the GoI?

What are those who are supposedly defending India doing about the fact that regardless of whether or not the deal is signed, Indian laws are going to remain just as weak, and are going to allow more 123-type agreements in the future.

If MMS and Co. should not be able to push through 123 without public participation, but the law allows them to do so for whatever reason, doesn't it point to a weak constitution and set of laws?
We have and should maintain our ability to change the laws if those laws are not doing good to us. You are seeing logic where there is only statecraft. Problem is that MMS came across as overtly taking advantage of that loophole which prevents people from giving him the benefit of doubt that he has good intentions and yet drawing public ire.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

finally {} ..SC will have to come to rescue !
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Satya_anveshi wrote:
We have and should maintain our ability to change the laws if those laws are not doing good to us. You are seeing logic where there is only statecraft. Problem is that MMS came across as overtly taking advantage of that loophole which prevents people from giving him the benefit of doubt that he has good intentions and yet drawing public ire.
It may well be statecraft. Coarse, blunderbuss statecraft that checkmated all opposition. The opposition and many others feel they have been "had". Perhaps they have - but that is peripheral to the issue.

There are two seprate issues:

1) The "done deal" 123 - what will it mean for us

2 The ability of an elected government to reach a deal without parliamentary consultation - this is a constitutional issue and not a nuclear issue.

Note the title of this thread.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

shiv wrote: Aha! Precisely! MMS is not required to do that and everone is iritated about that. But it is a done deal.

By all means discuss the deal. But discussing why the deal was not discussed in parliament, and how MMS is a traitor is totally pointless.
Aha! too. Which means if MMS is reluctant to discuss and build consensus before or even after pushing this deal down our throats, then he can be labeled as a traitor? This is the bloody murder that people are crying about.

And you totally ignored the possibility of flaw in the constitution argument which is central to this debate.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Satya_anveshi wrote:
shiv wrote: Aha! Precisely! MMS is not required to do that and everone is iritated about that. But it is a done deal.

By all means discuss the deal. But discussing why the deal was not discussed in parliament, and how MMS is a traitor is totally pointless.
Aha! too. Which means if MMS is reluctant to discuss and build consensus before or even after pushing this deal down our throats, then he can be labeled as a traitor? This is the bloody murder that people are crying about.

And you totally ignored the possibility of flaw in the constitution argument which is central to this debate.
Yes - but this is a nuclear issues thread and not a political rants thread.

Even if you burn MMS at the stake now, the deal is done.

What is anyone going to do about it?

Rhetorical points and rants are all fine but why not get to the deal itself?
I suspect that MMS and the Congress are laughing their pants off at this political coup, watching everyone else get his knickers in a twist.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

shiv wrote: There are two seprate issues:

1) The "done deal" 123 - what will it mean for us

Note the title of this thread.
I disagree with the statement that the deal is done yet. If the deal is not operationalized, the deal is dead. That will lead to the second issue which is why the discussion diverged into politics since the last few pages.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Shiv, The words in the deal are done. The deal gets done when these steps are taken:

India neogtiates safeguards with IAEA
India negotiates with NSG.
US Congress votes for the 123 agreement.

Till then the deal is not done.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Satya_anveshi wrote: That will lead to the second issue which is why the discussion diverged into politics since the last few pages.
Not on this thread - and I am saying that with my admin hat on.

I am asking that politics has no place on this thread.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

shiv wrote:Even if you burn MMS at the stake now, the deal is done.

What is anyone going to do about it?
yes... we can do something.. close the thread. deal is over :) . lets start a new chapter, under the heading "Indo-US nuclear done deal".
alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Post by alokgupt »

Sixteen years ago, the then finance minister was able to implement the first stage of financial reforms because of the acquiescence of the BJP, then as now the principal Opposition party. (The Congress lacked a simple majority and the Left Front was opposed to liberalisation.) What Manmohan Singh never grasped was the hard work that his prime minister, P V Narasimha Rao, put in with the BJP leaders.
Well said...that is why I regard PVN as the architect of modern India and not MMS. Had PVN suceeded in where he wanted to go congress will no longer be a family dictatorship. That is where Sonia extrated her price from PVN as she always does from anyone who "goes against the family." (God Father)!
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

shiv wrote:
Satya_anveshi wrote: That will lead to the second issue which is why the discussion diverged into politics since the last few pages.
Not on this thread - and I am saying that with my admin hat on.

I am asking that politics has no place on this thread.
Can you please elaborate on the boundaries of the debate as this is a burning issue in India and central to Indian nuclear deal with US? As this issue is the reason for ongoing political turmoil in India, it is very difficult to be in the boundary with out knowing the boundary conditions. Almost all articles and oped's on this issue have mixed agendas and cross references. Please clarify.

Thanks.
Locked