India Nuclear News & Discussion - 24 August 2007

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 27 Aug 2007 16:45

SaiK:

Yes. The BJP isn't against the deal. But they've been manoeuvered into a corner. And Congress doesn't seem in the mood to let up.

Do note their flat rejection of both the lefts pleas for so much as a symbolic pause to give the left the fig leaf to backoff and the idea of an Indian "Hyde Act counter".

Passing an Indian law would be trivial since both left and the BJP agree to it. And it would solve all the problems.

The Congress telling both to get lost and daring them to go to an election is precisely the point. Mindbogglingly, they appear to be willing to take on the Ashraf muslims as well.

This is not a trip up. KP Nayars article very obliquely implies that the Congress was aware of the left/ashraf resistance from the start. So does Pranabdas placement in that position and the removal of Nutwar, who, in hindsight, appears to be one of the old guard who was part of the Congress-Ashraf "understanding". (Which would, incidentally, explain how Nutwar wound up being the bagman for the ME from Saddam etc).

The real question is *what* makes the Congress so sure they can do this: i.e. take on the left, the BJP and the self-proclaimed muslim "leaders" simultaneously and take it to its logical end, i.e. to become the centre of the political system again?

I'll bet it's worth keeping an eye on Shri Pawar in what follows.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 27 Aug 2007 16:59

kgoan wrote:SaiK:

Yes. The BJP isn't against the deal. But they've been manoeuvered into a corner. And Congress doesn't seem in the mood to let up.

The real question is *what* makes the Congress so sure they can do this: i.e. take on the left, the BJP and the self-proclaimed muslim "leaders" simultaneously and take it to its logical end, i.e. to become the centre of the political system again?



Ahhh politcs again!! Lemme jump in too please::

BJP's being in a corner has very little to do with the Nuclear deal. This stems from a greater being manoeuvered into a corner for other reasons. They have already expnded their capital by taking a combatative positions which are difficult to get away from. Therefore their "principled" stands on various issues make it difficult for them to backpeddle. Congress generally standing in the middle without a clear cut ideology can change any which way without a bigger problem. BJP is making sure it stays in the news; I dont think they have any other option. If you can think of a alternate stategy which the BJP could have used; do tell; it will make for a fascinating discussion. End of the day; BJP will not sabotage the deal; what it wants is to make a better deal and be the one to do it. There problem is less with the fact that deal exists but more that they are not the ones signing it.

OTOH the fact that Congress is willing to neglect Ashrafs is more interesting; however in my reading of the politcal space it is simply because the ashrafs have stopped being useful.

The Muslim "mind" is out of control of Ashraf's and with other sections; both right and left of old middle ground position. These have been captured by other parties. There is no role for Ashraf to play.

However the question now is; can we more right without moving into America's lap. That is where the interesting debate lies.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 17:02

Interesting.

The present leadership of the congress seems to be a hostage to US geopolitical priorities.

A Hatchet man - no less.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 17:15

kgoan wrote:The real question is *what* makes the Congress so sure they can do this: i.e. take on the left, the BJP and the self-proclaimed muslim "leaders" simultaneously and take it to its logical end, i.e. to become the centre of the political system again?


With this statement, shri Kgoan solidifies his position as the Indian Johann.

What I don't understand is your need to spin that the 'ultimate objective' of the Congress is 'to become the centre of the political system again'. And on a foreign policy issue no less. :D

I thought that in a democracy, a party sought 'to become the centre of the political system' by creating a coalition of like minded interests. But obviously, India is something other than a democracy. (A Mango Republic? )

The unbelievable breakdown of relationships that the Congress has caused among its traditional supporters, if true, would cost it dearly in the next elections.


The breakdown of relations with the Ashrafs points to another geopolitical objective of the west - The desire of the Christian west to destroy Islam.
And their desire to use India's forces against the citadels of Islam.

Interestingly, the failure of US to 'take down' Iraq militarily is the prime reason why these things are being executed.



---------------------------
Is the need 'to become the centre of the political system' the only motivation that is driving the Congress? :roll:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 27 Aug 2007 17:39

abhischekcc wrote: Well, the KS-Doctrine (if may term it thus) has the following arguments:
1. Asia (politics) will become increasingly complex in the coming days, and the west will not be able to handle it properly.
2. The west will need a local partner if it has to manage its interests in Asia to its advantage.
3. India can reliably fill the emerging force gap that the west will experience in Asia.


These points seem reasonable to a person who only has a cursory understanding of western interests in Asia. To those who can fill in the blanks that KS conveniently left unspoken of in his doctrine - they make the following interpretation of KS-Doctrine.

The reference to 'Asian politics will become increasingly complex' refers indirectly to the rise of China. These is no other current geopolitical development that equals China's rise, and that is the greatest challenge that the west is facing since the fall of the USSR.

The reference to 'west will need a local partner if it has to manage its interests in Asia to its advantage' means that the west, on its own, will not be able to manage the rise of China - MILITARILY. And please do keep in mind - the main advantage of the west over the rest is still military power - not economic power. They still look at the world in 19th century prism.
But as the war in Iraq shows - the west has reached the zenith of its military power. They can no longer make viable military threats against Asia.

And that leads us to the third point of KS-doctrine - that India should do the west's dirty work in Asia.

THAT MAN IS PRACTICALLY BEGGING THAT THE WEST MAKE INDIA ITS HATCHET MAN.

--------
Acharya - its only when you fill in the blanks of the KS-doctrine that you realize what wool he has tried to pull over our eyes.


Really when this was rewinded again & again, it is mind boggling, mind crawling, mind skewing... If KS is a traitor, one who actually enacted the crime, i mean Anil K, should be traitor no. 1 as he is directly involved in the crime knowingly that he is plunging the nation into deep misery so status no. 1. KS did out of scene action so traitor no. 2. Party to this crime is Shiv sankar menon so traitor no. 3 and how can we leave Shyam saran so traitor no. 4. :lol: Having his team been branded as traitors, how can we leave MMS as well Pranab M; so they are traitor no. 5&6. :wink: Even if Sonia G is not a traitor no one is going to believe that, so defacto traitor no. 7. :lol: As an accomplise to this party who supported the deal, R. Chidambaram should be traitor no. 8. :cry: Dont who supported this act should be left alone :?: .. I think poll shows 40% :roll: of Indian population supported this deal. Ok let say wrost case 20% supports, so they too to be tried. Ah a whopping 200 millions. :wink: Even if they can be considered as minions, now BJP also supports the deal. :shock: what shall we do.... :roll:

Can we scrap the entire political system crap? :idea:

If suppose, if this case is registered, for giving judgement to hundred people in mumbai blast case it took more than a decade, what could happen in this case ? :oops: decades, centuries ? :roll: :oops:

PS: Pls pardon me, if I erred in giving the ranking. Anyone can give the ranking according to their taste. :oops: :lol:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 27 Aug 2007 17:54

kgoan wrote: Passing an Indian law would be trivial since both left and the BJP agree to it. And it would solve all the problems.


All problems :roll: mean what problems ? Will it solve the problem in clearing the NSG & IAEA hurdles or winning the vote in US-congress ?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 17:56

Since I have nothing better to do today, I was mulling over the anger of Ashraf types on the nuclear deal. As hinted at by shri Kgoanji.

But before I do, a quick recap of recent history.

-----------

The BJP has been, since the mid 90s, trying to woo the muslim masses.

After the 1992 'incident' :) , they have had a hard time living down their image as anti-muslim. So, the BJP had been trying very hard to win the muslim votes. A a result, they took a lot of steps which eventhe congress would have shrunk from, to appease muslims. For example, it was the BJP that gave university status to Jamia Hamdard, while Congress vehemently denied the same to AMU.

Muslims had been voting tactically against the BJP since 1992, supporting the strongest non-BJP local candidate against the BJP opponent, regardless of party affiliations. Mulayam was one of the biggest beneficiaries.

However, after the BJP took over, and the promised genocide did not occur, the muslims began to look at the BJP in a less negative light. The Vajpayee bus ride to Lahore was an eye opener for the community. And contrary to popular opinion on this forum, IMs do look at the state of INdo-Pak realtions as a kind of rough and ready barometer of that government's attitude to Indian muslims in general.

And then Godhra happened.

The work of a decade was destroyed in two months. The muslims have been shying away from BJP ever since.


And now the Congress has jeopardized the antipathy of muslims to the BJP with this deal.

Take a step back and recall the vote banks the congress maintained in the past, which sustained its power for four decades. It was the lower caste+muslim+Brahmin combine.
VP Singh destroyed the lower caste base of the congress by deploying Mandal artillery against it. Which led to the rise of leaders like Laloo, Mulayam and Mayawati. Brahmins sided with the BJP since the days of Ram Temple (with some recent movement away). That leaves the muslims, some of whom were taken away by local leaders like Mulayam, and some stuck with the congress.



So, the brilliant move by congress has left it with no particular political base in India (I am not sure whether they have lost support in the US though :lol: )

As kgoan brilliantly asks but doesn't answer:
The real question is *what* makes the Congress so sure they can do this: i.e. take on the left, the BJP and the self-proclaimed muslim "leaders" simultaneously and take it to its logical end, i.e. to become the centre of the political system again?

What indeed? Tampered Electronic Voting Machines? :P

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 27 Aug 2007 17:58

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/BJP_ ... 310071.cms

HYDERABAD: There is a qualitative difference in the opposition of the BJP and the Left parties to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu said on Saturday.

"The Left opposes the deal because they are anti-US always. But we are not against America. Our opposition is not to the deal itself, but against the contents of the agreement which gives upper hand to America. Under Hyde Act, the US President can recall the fuel supply to India under certain circumstances," he told reporters here.

"There is so much to hide in Hyde Act," he said. Naidu alleged that the UPA government has "surrendered" to the US over the nuclear deal. "Every country has the sovereign right. But, the UPA has surrendered itself to America. The Hyde Act contains many hidden provisions."

In contrast, the NDA government went ahead with the Pokhran-II nuclear test despite the threat of sanctions, he said.

Criticising the Prime Minister, he said Manmohan Singh castigated the NDA government for conducting the nuclear test. "The Left as usual criticised us".

"It was not just conducting the nuclear test. The NDA government successfully withstood American sanctions, domestic and international criticism. We re-established friendly relations with US too," Naidu added.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 27 Aug 2007 18:10

Really when this was rewinded again & again, it is mind boggling, mind crawling, mind skewing...


True. What is art to one is fart to another. Say hello to opinionocracy. But could we agree on the right to hold opinions, say?

What would you say, sar, to the opinion that says KS' thinking==papal infalliability? That KS, with all due respect for his enormous services to the nation, can *never* be wrong?

Don't get me wrong. Am not saying KS is wrong. I'd rather its more likely there's chankian cunning in his pronouncements, things not visible to the untrained eye, as yet. Hopefully.

But as far as janta questioning what they see and hear, in an opinionocracy, sab jayaz hai.

If KS is a traitor, one who actually enacted the crime, i mean Anil K, should be traitor no. 1 as he is directly involved in the crime knowingly that he is plunging the nation into deep misery so status no. 1. KS did out of scene action so traitor no. 2. Party to this crime is Shiv sankar menon so traitor no. 3 and how can we leave Shyam saran so traitor no. 4. Laughing Having his team been branded as traitors, how can we leave MMS as well Pranab M; so they are traitor no. 5&6. Wink Even if Sonia G is not a traitor no one is going to believe that, so defacto traitor no. 7. Laughing As an accomplise to this party who supported the deal, R. Chidambaram should be traitor no. 8. Crying or Very sad Dont who supported this act should be left alone Question .. I think poll shows 40% Rolling Eyes of Indian population supported this deal. Ok let say worst case 20% supports, so they too to be tried. Ah a whopping 200 million.... yap yap....bah bah...


Strawmen galore.

Perhaps you're trying to invoke ridicule or sarcasm or whatever. Valiant attempts, sincerely so.

There've been other strawmen/smearology too. Accusations of partisan hackery, of fundamental dishonesty (How can those NRIs who left India understand/speak for/have at heart the needs of India's poor's types? Yup, This was recently peddled in all seriousness in the N-thread), of dumbness, of bigotry and what not at opinion-opponents.

Its ugly but necessary, can't ban opinion itself, now, can we argumentative indians?

Disclaimer: JMTs and all that. Total IMVVHOs happening. If anybody insists on feeling offended, pls to lemme know.

/Have a nice day, all.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 18:18

Kanson, if you want the reasons, please read my posts on the last page of the previous nuclear thread.

Human being are complicated people, and decisions are not binary phenomenon.

I do not say like MMS that 'all patriotic Indians must support this deal'. Absolutisms are favoured expressions of tyrants.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 27 Aug 2007 18:18

abhischekcc wrote:So, the brilliant move by congress has left it with no particular political base in India (I am not sure whether they have lost support in the US though :lol: )


See they havent had one for ages now. No robust strong ideology or support base. What they have is people and organization left over from old days which sticks around primarly because it has no where else to go.

As such it gathers a bit of vote from all the old vote banks and hangs on, but no strong support base from a community any more.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 27 Aug 2007 18:31

haha..

vsudhir wrote: Strawmen galore.

if what i written can be termed as "Strawmen galore", what should be said of this post....
Well, the KS-Doctrine (if may term it thus) has the following arguments:
1. Asia (politics) will become increasingly complex in the coming days, and the west will not be able to handle it properly.
2. The west will need a local partner if it has to manage its interests in Asia to its advantage.
3. India can reliably fill the emerging force gap that the west will experience in Asia.


These points seem reasonable to a person who only has a cursory understanding of western interests in Asia. To those who can fill in the blanks that KS conveniently left unspoken of in his doctrine - they make the following interpretation of KS-Doctrine.

The reference to 'Asian politics will become increasingly complex' refers indirectly to the rise of China. These is no other current geopolitical development that equals China's rise, and that is the greatest challenge that the west is facing since the fall of the USSR.

The reference to 'west will need a local partner if it has to manage its interests in Asia to its advantage' means that the west, on its own, will not be able to manage the rise of China - MILITARILY. And please do keep in mind - the main advantage of the west over the rest is still military power - not economic power. They still look at the world in 19th century prism.
But as the war in Iraq shows - the west has reached the zenith of its military power. They can no longer make viable military threats against Asia.

And that leads us to the third point of KS-doctrine - that India should do the west's dirty work in Asia.

THAT MAN IS PRACTICALLY BEGGING THAT THE WEST MAKE INDIA ITS HATCHET MAN.


Atleast what I said is practically possible. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in terming another as traitor.. There are better way to agree or disagree or to make opinion..is it not ? Even by law, accused is not accorded criminal status unless proved.

abhischekcc: nothing wrong in discussing..why we are becoming so personal & started doing name calling ? So far there was a monotone that MMS is a traitor..now do the status is affliated to KS ?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 18:52

Well, if you read my post carefully, you will note that I do not use the word Traitor against KS.

I had used this word in the early days of the nuclear debate, but I do not use it anymore. Just one cursory glance at my post would have told you so, but... :)


What I did mean, and I have said so in the posts I asked you to read is this - that the pro deal wallah ( YBs ) are comfortable playing second fiddle to the US, while the ones opposing it are not. Now the difference between the BJP's opposition and the left/muslim opposition is simply that -

the BJP wants India to be independant, and the others want India to play second fiddle to China/ME, but not to US.

This essential fact is missed by YBs while lumping the two together. They ascribe motives to the BJP, coveniently forgetting that if BJP had not tested the weapons in 1998, we would never have got this deal in the first place.

Essentially speaking, KS believes that India playing second fiddle to the US is a good thing for India.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 27 Aug 2007 19:05

abhischekcc wrote: Just one cursory glance at my post would have told you so, but... :)
As "Trojan horse" doc is linked, it cant be considered as post ? :)

the BJP wants India to be independant
few post before, you only said, it is left who stopped BJP from agreeing to US wish in deploying troops in Iraq war. Suddenly in your words how it become independent ?

Essentially speaking, KS believes that India playing second fiddle to the US is a good thing for India.
Another way to say is, "By taking an opposing stand, India is not going to gain anything".

By the by, BJP also ogled US, is itnt? They unanimously supported BMD when everyone in the world opposed it..So how it is different than KS' second fiddle?

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 27 Aug 2007 19:24

abhischekcc wrote:There is one point that pro-american members often forget while castigating the left - It was opposition from the left that prevented the BJP government from sending Indian troops to Iraq to support the american occupation there.

All patriots should be grateful for that - regardless of left or right leaning.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 19:26

Kanson wrote:
abhischekcc wrote: Just one cursory glance at my post would have told you so, but... :)
As "Trojan horse" doc is linked, it cant be considered as post ? :)

Oh Ok. I see where that is coming from. I didn't who all have read that post. So, I was answering without keeping that in the context.

Anyway, I used the word there to confirm my wirteup to the Trojan Horse story, which I picked up wikipedia. The word traitor was used there, and I did not change it. Happy?



few post before, you only said, it is left who stopped BJP from agreeing to US wish in deploying troops in Iraq war. Suddenly in your words how it become independent ?

BJP was and remains friendly to the US, but they don't the snamke oil yankees peddle. Or at least don't buy it as much as this govt does.



Another way to say is, "By taking an opposing stand, India is not going to gain anything".

Not true. The answer to pro-Americanism is not anti-Americanism, but pro-Indiaism. Unfortunately, very few people can articulate what pro-India idealogy really is. Does protecting common Indians constitute a pro-India mentality? If yes, what would say of MMS who said 'Pakistan is aljo a victim of terror'? Did that statement depict a pro-India mentality? I am sure if you the nuclear deal blinkers many people are wearing nowadays, you would immediately know the answer.

There are many things about MMS's behaviour that indicate that he has no idea of what is expected of a PM. These points have been discussed so many times, there is no point wasting bandwidth again.


By the by, BJP also ogled US, is itnt? They unanimously supported BMD when everyone in the world opposed it..So how it is different than KS' second fiddle?

In fact, it was KS who shaped BJP's view on the BMD. The reason he gave then was - since we are in no position to stop it, why not show some support and curry favour in Washington.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 27 Aug 2007 19:41

abhischekcc wrote:And contrary to popular opinion on this forum, IMs do look at the state of INdo-Pak realtions as a kind of rough and ready barometer of that government's attitude to Indian muslims in general.


Very well put. I tried articulating this couple of years ago and no one bought it. But that is what it is. All political parties understand that. Therein lies the problem of India's dealing with Pakistan: to appeasa the IM's, India's TSP policy is highly muddled and basically irrationally soft.

Surinder

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 19:43

Ok Kanson. Since I know you are not going to read my earlier posts, I shall give it you in a nutshell:

The elite of India, especially the older lot, are diffident to the west becasue of habit. They subconciously believe that white man is superior to brown man. And so are grateful for any crumbs that the west throws our way. And that's one reason why I want this deal to fail. An India that can say no will be such a culture shock to both India and to the west, that we will get a better deal the next time. And that will happen sooner rather than later - because the west needs as the only sane country in an Asia which is virulently anti-west, and increasingly so.

The west has more or less lost control of the geopolitical scene. It is only a matter of time when the whole thing blows up in thier faces. (But that is a topic for the global economy thread :) ).

Here's a clarification before you jump on my throat. Loss of geopolitical control means the inability to militarily force situations. Iraq shows the impotency of American arms in the face of determined enemy.

So, the west has turned to using carrots instead of sticks. The nuclear deal lollypop is a syptom of that.


And I don't have to point out - that when a bully stops bullying and starts bribing, he is no longer powerful. This is the main shift in the geopolitical scenario right now.

These are interesting times. :)

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

Postby sraj » 27 Aug 2007 19:57

ramana wrote:That was PVNR's master stroke. there is an old issue of India Today where the interviewer asks PVNR why there is a need for such a resolution as Lok Sabha does not have to pass such an obvious resolution. He said it shows our resolve that J&K is part of India and cannot be undone without going back.

Many WKKs point to that as an obstacle to the 'peace' process.

Which is why history will rate PVNR very highly in his role as PM! the first half of the 1990s was one of the most challenging for India both on the external and internal fronts, and he successfully navigated those waters. Provided crucial cover to MMS as well to do his work, something that is often forgotten.

And here we are, in a much stronger position today, but giving up things at the negotiating table once again!

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 27 Aug 2007 19:57

abhischekcc wrote: Anyway, I used the word there to confirm my wirteup to the Trojan Horse story, which I picked up wikipedia. The word traitor was used there, and I did not change it. Happy?

ha.ha.. If a judge is hearing ur case, let say, :D, he may ask, "by not changing or objecting, r u agreeing to that stand" ? :lol: No hard feelings..its really fun when i read ur Chi-naa bashing post but..so probably thats reason i'm attentive to ur post.. :lol:

BJP was and remains friendly to the US, but they don't the snamke oil yankees peddle. Or at least don't buy it as much as this govt does.
Does it make it holier-than-thou. If u kill ten people or two people..it is a crime, ainit?

Not true. The answer to pro-Americanism is not anti-Americanism, but pro-Indiaism. Unfortunately, very few people can articulate what pro-India idealogy really is.
No one is taking abt pro-americanism, its all about betterment of pro-Indiaism with the help of pro-americanism, pro-russianism as well as pro-other-isms...and not just pro-americanism. India consulted with Russia several times before voting on Iran status. I never seen anyone saying India is peddling second fiddle to Russia, or both to America & russia? May i know why ?

Does protecting common Indians constitute a pro-India mentality? If yes, what would say of MMS who said 'Pakistan is aljo a victim of terror'? Did that statement depict a pro-India mentality?
Does it means anti-Indiaism ?

There are many things about MMS's behaviour that indicate that he has no idea of what is expected of a PM. These points have been discussed so many times, there is no point wasting bandwidth again.
Yes, i have see some of that ___. I'm not interested. By the by, Is ineptitude and traitor are synonyms ? By the by, He has not choosen his carrer as politician, but a technocrat.


In fact, it was KS who shaped BJP's view on the BMD. The reason he gave then was - since we are in no position to stop it, why not show some support and curry favour in Washington.
ha ha..so..Brijesh M, Arun S., J. singh and other illuminaries dont have individual hardware to think &choose what is good for India ?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 19:58

This article by Bharat Karnad (already posted) supports my view that it is the craven spinelessness of the Indian elite that is attached to a strategic partnership with US.

‘India First’ Alternative to Nuclear Deal

But why did successive governments (Atal Behari Vajpayee’s and Manmohan Singh’s) alight on a policy template that turned a "Rising India" into a supplicant? Two reasons; one, because of the entrenched "have not-ism" — a defensive and diffident habit of mind compelling Indian politicians, officials, and members of the intelligentsia alike to seek handouts, curry favour and to seek approbation from the West.



As for why calling MMS a traitor is not far off the mark, here are some:
With India having some 30%-40% of the world’s thorium reserves, nuclear energy is bound to play a big role in the future. So why has the Indian government since the Nineties when Manmohan Singh, incidentally, was finance minister, not invested massively in bringing the breeder reactor and thorium utilisation technologies on stream as quickly as is possible?
So, MMS first created the uranium shortage, then used it as an excuse to invite the Trojan Horse.

For reasons unknown, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continues to ballyhoo the deal as an energy windfall. But nuclear energy available from all power reactors, including 20 imported ones, according to a recent Planning Commission study, will account for only 5%-6% of the total energy produced in 2035 — a not very significant fraction.



Enhancing its role and leverage in the 21st century, it is dubiously argued, requires India to not only side with America on Iran, non-proliferation, and the emerging great power politics in Asia, but also cede Washington its strategic space.
This is something that some members even on BRF are propogating.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 27 Aug 2007 20:01

Kanson, you have started rambling.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest