India Nuclear News & Discussion - 31 Aug 2007

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 02 Sep 2007 22:18

Shankar,

-it is irrelevant the objection was made and a turn around was made too without any change in the basic understanding that is putting 2/3 of our nuclear fissile material making capability under safeguard for perpetuity


This is the second time that you have made this statement. You can not get more disingenuous and dishonest than this.

How much unsafeguarded fissile material do we need for both military and protected civilian research purposes? And how are we sacrificing the capability to get that under the separation plan?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Sep 2007 22:20

what annual certification process for India, pls?


I hope you have read the Hyde act.


Ah! Silly me! I thought u were referring to something that India had agreed to, or intends to agree to. I hope you have read the Constitution of India?

There is also the Barbara Act which is BINDING on the President of USA: :eek:

1.1 Gee Dubya shall brush his teeth every morning.
1.2 Gee Dubya shall not talk to any Heathain brownskins on way home from school, but shall wait at school for the Family Limo.....


Wonder why there is so little concern in India about this.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Sep 2007 22:31

Mohan Raju wrote:
All deals are re-negotiable, if you have the fight in you to do so. Let us say, put a BK or BC on the chair or even an ABV and see what happens.


I'll tell you what will happen: he will be sitting in the chair with no one on the other side to negotiate with.
You mean, how NSSP was operated upon by both sides, which forms the basis of the strategic partnership, to the deal. MMS took over in May 2004 and gave his colors to the NSSP. I am fairly sure that this deal would not have taken shape, at least in this form, were another leader to be, in power today.

My point is the type of leadership negotiating these things matters a great deal. This deal has MMS imprints, all over it. You can take it to the bank that an NDA leadership would not have, taken this type of a deal - and would have come up with alternative energy strategies, until such time a more suitable deal, would be on the table.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 03 Sep 2007 04:31, edited 2 times in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Sep 2007 22:40

enqyoob wrote:
what annual certification process for India, pls?


I hope you have read the Hyde act.


Ah! Silly me! I thought u were referring to something that India had agreed to, or intends to agree to. I hope you have read the Constitution of India?
I thought, you would come back with the same old that Hyde does not apply to India - a summarily head in the sand reaction.

A person comes to you to sell something and says, by the way by selling you this, let me tell you, I intend to spy on your house and in your bedroom and ensure that you behave with your neighbor. You may not grant me the right to do so, but just be clear that is what I intend to do. you also, should be behaving a certain way with that building across the pond or I will stop selling you this item. Not only will, I stop selling it, but I will make sure that if you do not agree to these conditions, I will make sure no one else will sell you the item.

Now, I do not know about you, but most will say, no thank you, unless you are desperate and have no other viable option. Something, which is not proven, yet.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3146
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 03 Sep 2007 02:56

Nuke deal could set free technological embargoes: Kakodkar

Mumbai, Sept. 3 (PTI): The Indo-US nuclear deal could lead to a possible "unshackling" of technological embargoes, further aiding the domestic nuclear programme of the country, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission has said.

"The possible unshackling of the technology embargo regime that has operated around us for decades without success is a welcome opportunity that we should be able to exploit without any adverse impact on our autonomous domestic research and development and implementation of our three stage nuclear programme," Anil Kakodkar said at a recent function.

Kakodkar said the nation would continue to pursue its three stage development programme for nuclear power.

The government, he said, was aware of the pressing energy needs, and was prepared to bring in additionalities through international civil nuclear co-operation.

The senior scientist, who was among those consulted during the negotiations for the 123 Agreement for the civil nuclear deal, had said on Friday that he could discuss the India-specific safeguards in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference to be held in mid-September in Vienna.

The agreement with IAEA would allow India to deal with countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group in order to obtain uranium to fuel its nuclear power programme.

Speaking at the function where Tarapur Power Units 3 and 4 were dedicated to the nation, Kakodkar said the fast breeder nuclear plants would be the second stage of the nation's nuclear programme which would allow production of fuel as well as power generation.

We would produce more fuel, propelling growth without dependence on mining or import of uranium," Kakodkar said.

"Fast reactors would thus enable large scale deployment of thorium based power generation systems which undoubtedly will remain the key element in our search for energy independence based on energy resources available within the country," he said.

India's nuclear power programme is presently dependent on uranium based reactors, but the second stage will involve the development of fast breeder reactors while the third will involve thorium-fuelled reactors.

A committee consisting of members from the UPA and Left are expected to discuss the clauses of the civil nuclear deal while a parliamentary debate is also to take place in the matter.

Speaking at a function in BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) recently, Kakodkar also cautioned that the country needed to be self reliant in its research and development.

"We must preserve and enhance this capability undistracted by the lure of readily external inputs which may bring constraints along with them. Safeguarding our domestic capability programmes has to be the touchstone in dealing with nuclear co-operation in the nuclear area," he said.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 03 Sep 2007 04:01


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 03 Sep 2007 04:50

Gerard wrote:Going critical


Some excerpts from the article:

Imports would become necessary only if the second stage, based on the FBRs, does not succeed as envisaged and consequently the third stage fails to take off.


But this crunch has arisen essentially because mining operations have not kept pace with the expansion of the programme, with short turnaround times (of around five years) and the highly improved performance (with nearly 90 per cent capacity factors) of the indigenous PHWRs. Some of the old mines in Jaduguda (Singbhum district, Jharkhand) were shut down and no new mines were opened in Jharkhand or in other exploitable sites in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya owing to lack of government funding on the one hand and public opposition on environmental grounds on the other. Also, the domestic uranium ore is of poor quality (0.07-0.1 per cent uranium content) and the cost of producing uranium is hence a great deal more than the cost of buying it (at international prices).

(One other reason was the shortage of enriched uranium to run the U.S.-built LWRs at Tarapur. India does not have adequate uranium enrichment capacity at its Mysore plant. However, as in 2001, Russia came to the rescue once again and in early 2006 supplied 50 tonnes of fuel on the grounds of operational safety – which NSG guidelines permit. Thus, the immediate Tarapur problem was obviated, albeit until the consignment runs out in a few years’ time. But this is not a critical issue as loading with mixed oxide (MOX) fuel up to 10 per cent has already been experimented with and, according to experts, higher MOX loading (even full) can be done. At the same time, work can be carried out to increase domestic enrichment capacity. Also, since India has reprocessing rights over Tarapur spent fuel, reprocessing should be undertaken. Plutonium from it can be used for MOX, and the depleted uranium (still good enough for the PHWRs) can be used to fuel the two safeguarded PHWRs in Rajasthan, thus partially offsetting the natural uranium squeeze.)

However, the uranium squeeze is likely to ease very shortly. Just two months ago, a new mill, with a capacity of 3,000 tonnes a day, was commissioned at Turamdih in Jharkhand to process mined uranium ore. The existing mill at Jaduguda can process 2,190 tonnes. In addition, a new open-cast mine was opened at Banduhurang in Jharkhand, and the foundation for a new underground mine was laid in Mohuldih. The current requirement of natural uranium for the PHWRs is about 600 tonnes a year and the current production is less than half that. However, the augmentation made will ease the crunch significantly in about six months, say DAE officials. According to R.B. Gupta, CMD of Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), in all, roughly Rs.3,100 crore will be invested to open new mines and set up processing plants in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya. In Jharkhand alone, Rs.650 crore is being invested. According to Kakodkar, an investment of Rs.1,800 crore is proposed for setting up two uranium mining and milling plants in the Nalgonda and Cudappah districts of Andhra Pradesh.



[quote]Thus, the driving force behind the India-U.S. nuclear engagement was not the DAE. Where did the push come from? Consider the following passage in the Mid-Term Appraisal (MTA) document for the Tenth Plan released in May 2005, two months before the George W. Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement of July 18, 2005: “Given the limited indigenous uranium resources, India must seek at least 20,000 MWe of additional [over and above the 20,000 MWe target by 2020 of DAE] nuclear power ca pacity on a turnkey basis, based on a competitive power tariff, to be built over the next 10-12 years [emphasis added]. Alternatively, India must seek nuclear fuel on competitive terms for a similar level of capacity to be built by NPC IL in the next 12-15 years.â€

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 03 Sep 2007 05:03

the above article is a good one but then why kakodkar and chidambaran are supoprting this deal?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Sep 2007 05:26

A person comes to you to sell something and says, by the way by selling you this, let me tell you, I intend to spy on your house and in your bedroom and ensure that you behave with your neighbor. You may not grant me the right to do so, but just be clear that is what I intend to do. you also, should be behaving a certain way with that building across the pond or I will stop selling you this item. Not only will, I stop selling it, but I will make sure that if you do not agree to these conditions, I will make sure no one else will sell you the item.

Now, I do not know about you, but most will say, no thank you, unless you are desperate and have no other viable option. Something, which is not proven, yet.


I thought you would come up with that line too, but you know quite well that this is not the situation at all.

The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.

As for spying, well, is it your position that without the agreement with the US, there is no US spying directed at the Indian nuclear and weapons programs?

So, from the American POV, reading the newspapers or the gazillion posts by postors like yourself on this forum, one would rightly conclude that this deal is entirely a scam by India to get nuke fuel and technology from civilized countries so that India can build nookulear weapons as fast as India can dig up uranimum ore, and also to produce weapons-grade fissile material from thorium reserves.

People like yourself have been working overtime, telling the world that this is what India is about - a bunch of yahoos intent on putting up a whole rack of nuclear missiles to threaten civilization, like Hitler did, or like Saddam tried to do. So that no one in their right mind would want to deal with India.

So that we continue to be isolated, and denied the opportunity to progress. So that you'll have more of a constituency for your soapbox to paranoia and xenophobia.

But, hey, you know what? The US govt doesn't seem unduly perturbed by this. Because - what matters is what is in the 123 agreement, not what yahoos rant about. And what is there is sensible stuff, which you have not been able to rebut or shake in any way, which is why you keep bringing up what Hyde or Jekyll or the Ku Klux Klan says about India.

There is no "annual certification" in the 123.

As for the Hyde, the "annual certification" is in the NON-BINDING part - trying to tell the President what he SHOULD do. NOT what he HAS to do. This is no more relevant than what the Shiv Sena tells the Prime Minister of India that he SHOULD do.

Again, if you read the Hyde Act, you should know this.

Mohan Raju
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Mohan Raju » 03 Sep 2007 05:41

Re. the cries to "renegotiate the deal":

There are two reasons why the deal, if it fails now, will not be renegotiated for at least another generation (say twenty years or so):

  • No one in the US would want to do it, and
  • No one in India would want to do it.


America: Many in America feel that they gave away too much to India in this deal. If it comes up for renegotiation there is no way in hell India will get better terms than it has now, because the powers in control at that time would want to correct a "mistake" made in the earlier negotiations, i.e. excessively easy terms granted to India (in the American view). The American terms in a new series of negotiations would be unacceptable to India. Further, the Americans would reason that regardless of the terms, it is clear (from rejection of this deal by India) that the Indian polity is hopelessly fractured and undecided -- regardless of which party is actually in power, any group of loud-mouthed yahoos can scream and raise a ruckus and defeat any deal. So "why the hell should we go through this negotiation farce again, when the chances are pretty high that India will ultimately turn it down? It is pretty clear that no Indian govt is capable of delivering a national consensus on approving the deal".

If this 2007 deal is turned down, it is hard to see any future American govt repeating this frustrating exercise.

India: Make no mistake, all political parties in India are taking note of what is happening to MMS. After long and arduous haggling with GOTUS he has come up with a deal which he thinks is good for the country. He is rewarded with vicious personal vilifaction ("MMS is a traitor", "MMS is a coward", "MMS has no b@lls") and the deal is rejected. Why should any future PM expect anything different if he negotiates a different deal? The Commies are a minority party, but they have (almost) shown they can thwart the will of any party in power. The Commies, in concert with the BJP, are about to bring a Congress govt crashing down. Why should the BJP, if they come into power, expect any different for any deal they may negotiate? Certainly the Congress will join forces with the Commies and anyone else, to bring the BJP govt crashing down. Who the hell would want to renegotiate some new deal under these circumstances?

For those claiming that ABV would renegotiate a different "good" deal with the US, just think back a few years to the way ABV himself was blasted on this forum ("Steel knees", "the cowardly poet", "Prime Minister Johnny Walker" etc.). Can you imagine what the Commies/Congress and their fans on this forum would do to a deal negotiated by ABV?

All this talk of "renegotiating a different deal" is a farce, a fantasy, a fairy tale. It is this deal or nothing.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Sep 2007 05:55

Oh, sure it can be renegotiated.

5 years from now: North Korea's nuclear program capped, rolled back, eliminated. Iran's reactors in ruins after an Israeli-American-British strike approved by the UN.

Kyoto-2 specifies that India and China are treated as developed countries, so now are subject to same Carbon Credits scam, and Indian exports are slammed with tariffs because of the huge dependence on coal. President Boxer (Barbara) imposes blanket sanctions on NPT holdouts. Michael Krepon, new Secretary of State, takes lessons from Madelyin 0.1-bright on how to deal with India, at the Robin Raphael South Asia Consultancy Institute.

IT outsourcing market slides because of competition for the low-wage end, and because Indian wages have risen by 50%. High-end competitiveness lags because of poor infrastructure and power cuts. Foreign exchange position deteriorates rapidly.

SURE the nuclear deal will be renegotiated. It will be called "CRE-India 2015: Cap, Rollback, Eliminate".

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 03 Sep 2007 06:06

joey wrote:the above article is a good one but then why kakodkar and chidambaran are supoprting this deal?


AK has not "supported" this deal. At best he has sat on the fence. For every time we feel that he supports India should sign it, he has stated that the deal is "satisfactory" and now ""The possible unshackling". And then,

Speaking at a function in BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) recently, Kakodkar also cautioned that the country needed to be self reliant in its research and development.

"We must preserve and enhance this capability undistracted by the lure of readily external inputs which may bring constraints along with them.


AK started with something in mind, he articulated it very clearly. That still has not changed.

I very much doubt a confident head would state:

Safeguarding our domestic capability programmes has to be the touchstone in dealing with nuclear co-operation in the nuclear area," he said.


His trip to DC - for that one week - IMHO, was a fig leaf trip. And, it is even today being used as such in arguments.

This deal is what India could get, it should be signed. But let AK deal with IAEA, for, there is no one in India that can replace him for that task.

WRT China, let them sink the deal - if they have the guts. My feel is that they will not. Those capitalists are only wearing a commi coat. Want all the $$, do not want to share the wealth. Lead will sink anyone.

Mohan Raju
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Mohan Raju » 03 Sep 2007 06:10

enqyoob:

Sure, all those bad things may happen, but at least we will still have our H&D. :rotfl: We will have avoided an agreement with the Americans, and we will have avoided making China/Iran mad. These things should count for something, no?

Seriously, we need to consider the possibility that India is not, and will never be, ready for prime time on the international scene. All this BS talk about "future superpower", and when the possibility arises of even tentative steps toward being a regional power, the patriots wet their drawers. :roll:

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 03 Sep 2007 06:58

Shankar wrote:
-it is irrelevant the objection was made and a turn around was made too without any change in the basic understanding that is putting 2/3 of our nuclear fissile material making capability under safeguard for perpetuity


Not really...you are pretending that India is not getting anything by placing 2/3rds of our *capacity* (as explained by ldev in the previous version of this thread), which only means the imported facilities will be under safeguard. The price for putting materials under safeguards was the open access to nuke fuel and tech.


-Truth does not become stale with passage of time .


"truth" is always withing a specific context, so let us cut the bullshit and you can stop pretending that the statements made by Indian scientists in 2006 were made in the same context as existed in 2007, after further negotiations. That is just false and anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest.


What the negotiations were and what extra benifits we had out of countless rounds of negotiation is still not understood by the majority of nation as reflected in the parliamentary objections.


Let us quit worrying about the "majority of the nation" and let each individual speak for themselves and their conscience. Since you claim to have understood all the "parliamentary objections"...just lay it out in the open, and I am sure we can all give your version of the truth a full body cavity search like everything else.


If you say so it implies the the lected representatives do not represent our national view which in its turn mean ours is not a democracy or the head of the govt ceases to respond to the elected majority once the election is over and any bi lateral agrement can be executed even if the nation do not agree to it .



Empty rhetoric. The ruling coalition gets to make the rules --- those are the rules. The opposition can bring up alternative viewpoints and try to keep the ruling party honest but there are no guarantees that either party will do so in good faith,

This is no secret military deal -it is an out and out civilian nuclear arrangement which needed to be transparent and open from the word go and an open debate both in parliament and outside was a pre requisite to such a deal being inked.



What is not transparent? Which part of this deal was conducted in secret?
Now that the text of 123 has been released to you and me, on what basis are you claiming that this deal was not done transparently.

Irrespective of lefts reasons and ideology they have in inadvertently done the nation a service by bringing the debate into open .We pride ourselves as the largest democracy but in practice behave exactly the opposite .


The left has a cork up their butt for TWO YEARS between J18 and 123 and are you now pretending that these lowlives who have never done anything in India's interest are suddenly our saviours because they make arbitrary objections?

The term non -negotiable in any treaty is absurd and adds an unacceptable flavor to the whole issue


Obviously, "non negotiable" only means that the current set of points that have been negotiated cannot be renegotiated in pieces -- this protects India from the NPAs as much as it protects the US from arbitrary political decisions made in the Indian govt.



why it can not be every time like china does.Iran should have been also part of the strategy of long term energy security why we are specifically giving it up on US say so?


This is agree with. Iran should be a "counterpoint" to India's relationship with the US under ideal circumstances, but Iran has placed itself in hot water by its nuclear sabre rattling -- India cannot fight on Iran's behalf, but India can surely take away the lesson that Iran's nuclear problems are of Iran's own making. India has nothing to do with it. So if Iran wants to let its PM claim that he if going to nuke israel, then India has nothing to do with that. India needs to maintain its relations with Iran, and I have no doubt that it is being done --however, what must be scaled back is the expectations people of India;s relations with Iran. Iran has not exactly been a "dependable partner" in energy, so let us not give Iran more credit than it deserves.



TODAY -we shall look very very stupid then . Afghanistan is already under us control and once Iran is grabbed up to where from the central asian gas and oil reach india .


Huh? what? Afghanisthan seems to be barely under the control of some of the groups involves....the above claim is just false.

Dont you see it is all part of a grand us game plan -to grab the worlds dwindling resources mainly crude for itself and let others fend for themselves the best they can .


That's the game, my friend. get used to it. Either you muster up an equal amount of deviousness to grab what Indian needs, or you just quit complaining.

If in the process few more iraq and afganistan is created so be it. India is a big stumbling block and a multi faced approach is being enacted from offering f-35 to nuke deal
so that our capability to oppose is just not there


So you think Indians are just dummies who will be lead around by the nose? I disagree.
Last edited by Rye on 03 Sep 2007 07:45, edited 1 time in total.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Postby Sanatanan » 03 Sep 2007 07:18

I believe any agreement can be renegotiated provided concerned parties agree.

Article 16.5 of the 123 Agreement says:


The Parties may consult, at the request of either Party, on possible amendments to this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended if the Parties so agree. Any amendment shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties exchange diplomatic notes informing each other that their respective internal legal procedures necessary for the entry into force have been completed.


Clearly, modifications to the agreement during its lifetime have been anticipated and so seeking changes (in the present discussion, even before the agreement enters into force) should not be an issue except for some chicken-brained negotiators.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 09:02

enqyoob wrote:

I thought you would come up with that line too, but you know quite well that this is not the situation at all.

The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.

.


Birathar; with the above great insight thou have not joined the the league of extraordinary gentlemen led by the great Kapil Seebal.

Congratulations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you show the light to some one who has forced his eyes shut? Deep piskological question eh.

PS> I have a bridge to sell; it is some where on Thames (I forget the location; been selling soo many bridges lately); available cheep; pls. send credit card details.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 09:05

enqyoob wrote:5 years from now: North Korea's nuclear program capped, rolled back, eliminated. Iran's reactors in ruins after an Israeli-American-British strike approved by the UN. etc..


Ah N^3 you let the mask slip: Your real views are now obvious---

CAPTIUALTE NOW!! SAVE CAPTILULATION AND SHAME LATER.

World is falling; US is rising; lick quickly Gunga Din.


-------------------------------------------------------

PS> So now the finally the real thoughts are in open of pro-dealites YB; they are shaking in their boots that India is on a false temp high; better to get the deal done now while the Great Satan is still under false impressions and later the real decaying India will emerge and the Satan will put our balls in a bench press.

BTW> The deal is such that if signed our balls will be in bench press anyway even if we grow. What will happen if we falter?
Last edited by Sanku on 03 Sep 2007 09:08, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby sraj » 03 Sep 2007 09:05

ldev wrote:The basic difference between the the US turning a blind eye and/or conniving in covering up Pakistan's proliferation shenanigans and the 123 agreement with India is that:

Any agreement with India has to be in the glare of broad daylight and totally transparent because:

The agreement with China, signed by the Reagan Admn in 1985 and approved by Congress in 1985, was also "in the glare of broad daylight and totally transparent" and in fact, signed and approved after an exhaustive public debate about China's on-going proliferation activities. No one in the US appears to have questioned whether US NPT obligations were being compromised by signing that agreement in light of China's track record of proliferation, or implementing it on the basis of a one-time Presidential certification.

So, whether it is undercover in the case of Pakistan or in broad daylight in the case of China, the conclusion of another poster that talk of "the NPT obligations of the US are just so much BS" appears, therefore, to be accurate.

There are other, more sensible reasons from the US pov for requiring annual certification in the case of India, such as keeping it on a very short leash and wishing to develop leverage on its internal decision making processes. The NPT obligations argument is disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

Again, it is for GoI to make the case domestically in an honest manner why this should be acceptable to India; they might succeed or they might fail in this effort. Denying that there is annual certification involved is not the correct response, and unlikely to enhance their credibility.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 03 Sep 2007 09:08

enqyoob wrote:The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.


The 123 agreement is NOT the hyde act. The 123 agreement is governed by US laws. Hyde is US law.
Can you tell us why Hyde is not relevant to 123? Is this based in fact (can you point to the 123 agreement, for example), or is it based on your opinion?


A president of the US may choose to enforce US laws (actually he has to). Your smorgasbord Jekyll act does not exist today and may or may not in the future. Nearly every policy statement within the US has stated the goal of CONTAINING indian nuclear potential, and bringing it INTO the nonproliferation fold (read BURNS for example). There is an ambiguity from the fineprint and a well-established history of American hegemony. Is it your view that the Americans are in the habit of entertaining their internal audience, while being India's trustworthy partner?


The Hyde act itself has been reviled left, right and center, and your contention is that it is not going to come into play because ultimately we can always walk out of the deal and that will cost the Americans too much. And you have no analysis of how it will not screw our own economy?


May be people with the most posts on this thread can really help out by working towards a common understanding? Perhaps by taking one contentious issue and just stating what is fact, what is uncertain -- and how the uncertainty can help or hurt us, and what is probable going by history and the current trend.

But coming off with a, ya schmuck can't you see this is a great deal ain't gonna work. It will keep us in dissonance and then we WILL have successfully divided.

If that is to be the case, this were the parliament, and I were in it, I would say, take your 123 and shove it. We know how to do nukes and we will get our darn thorium-cycle up and running. The Americans can sell us screws and nuts and we'll support their economy by opening some call centers in Boston, and an immigration policy for their graduates to come study at our institutes and universities. All this for 7% of our future energy needs?

So I am hoping we can take just one point at a time and understand what is fact, belief and fiction...rather than be treated to buckshot like this post.


S

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 09:14

Mohan Raju wrote:Why should any future PM expect anything different if he negotiates a different deal?

All this talk of "renegotiating a different deal" is a farce, a fantasy, a fairy tale. It is this deal or nothing.


Birathar; there are some things we hope the next govt. will have:

1) An ELECTED PM!!
2) A Govt. with MAJORITY
3) A PM for whom the British Raj is not the epitome of world civilization and for who does not think that emasculating India like JAPAN is a good idea.

And I can go on and on; but first and foremost remember; BJP is toothless today to stop the deal; if the deal is not going through it is because the Govt. is even more toothless.

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

Postby sraj » 03 Sep 2007 09:15

As for the Hyde, the "annual certification" is in the NON-BINDING part - trying to tell the President what he SHOULD do. NOT what he HAS to do. This is no more relevant than what the Shiv Sena tells the Prime Minister of India that he SHOULD do.

Again, if you read the Hyde Act, you should know this.

Here is a request: could you please post all the Sections of the Hyde Act which are NON-BINDING. Please do not forget to cite the authority on which you base your classification of these Sections as NON-BINDING. Thanks.

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

Postby kgoan » 03 Sep 2007 09:20

It appears that Enqyoobs Energizer Bunnies current tactics focus on a mish-mash of political fear and some amazingly vacuous rubbish on energy.

Fair enough on the politics. I have no problem with that, different strokes for different folks and all that. But the balderdash passing as "informed comment" on energy needs to be taken on.

So for those interested in a "good-faith-debate", (MR: Yes I know, there isn't much of the "good-faith", but there are lurkers genuinely interested), heres something you might find interesting.

Some of you folks may know that a bunch of physicists in Melb, Oz from places like the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and the University of Melbourne decided to sit down and take a good hard look at the nuclear power issue.

Their results are summarised at this website, hosted by the University of Melbourne, Physics folks:

http://nuclearinfo.net

Feel free to look around there please.

Every argument on energy is nailed down tight. Including estimates of nuclear costs that begin with mining building the plant, operation costs etc.

Oviously, it's difficult for some folks to follow these arguments. Consequently, some time back a summary was made of the arguments. The summary is based on some of the work done by Martin Sevior, and written by him, which has by now made its way raround the net. Martin's an A. Prof, at Melbourne Physics, and someone whom I'd recommend, (for those of you who get my drift), and who has been a real trooper and done most of the hard work for this.

That summary is available here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323

For those folks who get annoyed by upteen long posts on "energy", please read that summary. It nails everything down point blank.

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

Postby alokgupt » 03 Sep 2007 09:34

As far as I can tell this seems like carefully planned manufactured controversy by Communists and Congress to keep their vote banks and be both the government and the opposition at the same time. UPA is literally a third front (name for communist wish to rule India). You look at the list of usual suspects for third front and you will find them in UPA. The only person missing is Mulayam. I don't see any substantial reason for communist to suddenly raise the temperature other than a way to pretend of be the opposition before the upcoming elections.

LINK

The truce between the Left and the UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal is deceptive. It may have helped in prolonging the tenure of the government by a short period, but a mid-term poll in early 2008 appears to be a foregone conclusion. A number of measures announced by the government like the setting up of an Equal Opportunity Commission as a follow-up to the Sachar Committee report point towards poll preparations. In the coming weeks, a few more similar steps may be initiated.

The Left, which has been on the offensive ever since this government was formed in May 2004, are now on the defensive and CPM general secretary Prakash Karat seems to have mellowed down. In fact, he recently said in Calcutta that it was not a victory or a loss for either of the two parties. Realpolitik often helps in changing perceptions and the Left has recognised this. It is reflected in the body language of its leaders and in the fact that they have agreed to the appointment of a 14-member committee to deal with the concerns related to the treaty.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continues to maintain his original stance. In Mumbai on Friday, he emphasised that India should not miss the opportunity to get on to the global bus. The PM enjoys the full support of the Congress president and UPA chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, and is in no mood to give in to any kind of pressure. For him, India’s good is more important than political expediency.

The PM also has the support of the scientific community and statements made by Homi Sethna, M.R. Sriniwas and others should be encouraging.

For the first time, the Left perhaps knows that their so-called rationality does not find endorsement from large sections of the people and a world exists beyond the borders of Kerala and West Bengal, the two states where it has a good presence. But they should know that this support base could shrink if a pragmatic view of the situation is not taken.

With the BJP already on the backfoot and in no position to put up a spirited fight thanks to the differences within the Sangh parivar, the UPA must be seeing this as its best chance to renew and strengthen the mandate. The present issue is not about an ideological conflict, as some in the Left may be seeing it to be, but about looking ahead for the betterment of the country. The argument that India may become a global power even without the US is true but we need to accelerate the pace. The nuclear deal will be like an overbridge, which will help us reach our destination faster.

The Left, which talks about the treaty impinging the country’s sovereignty, must realise that all parties are equally concerned about our sovereignty. No party is more patriotic than others and to even assume that others are unpatriotic would be a political folly. Had the question of sovereignty been in doubt, the Congress would have been the first to raise objections
Last edited by alokgupt on 03 Sep 2007 09:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 09:36

kgoan wrote:It appears that Enqyoobs Energizer Bunnies current tactics focus on a mish-mash of political fear and some amazingly vacuous rubbish on energy.

.


As are YBs tactics " 123 deal the best now; at any cost; before India goes down the drain" -- do you agree with this position KG?

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Postby samuel » 03 Sep 2007 09:46

kgoan wrote:The summary is based on some of the work done by Martin Sevior, and written by him, which has by now made its way raround the net. Martin's an A. Prof, at Melbourne Physics, and someone whom I'd recommend, (for those of you who get my drift), and who has been a real trooper and done most of the hard work for this.


And what about folks here who don't get your drift but understand physics quite well? Will you enlighten us?

There's no debate on the utility of nuclear power AFAIK, but thanks for document.
S

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

Postby kgoan » 03 Sep 2007 09:52

alokgupt:

Could you please modify that url. It's wrecking the horizontal formating of the page.

Sorry Samuel. No can do. Nothing mysterious involved. Its just that it's an open forum etc, and I obviously can't add real names etc. That's all.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 09:55

Indian Express has been running a series of articles saying that how low uraninum stocks will kill our plants and how the thorium cycle will take 30 years to start working.

Given that Arun_S (during the time deal was being made); and others later had posted a lot of data to the contary; can we safely say these are lifafa articles?

System shut down

No deal, no uranium for even the first stage of India’s nuclear power programme


No one is claiming that technology to exploit India’s vast thorium resources, at the heart of the third stage, can be commercialised in the next three decades.


The last statement in nearly an obituary for the thorium cycle? Can we now deduce that thorium cycle is dead and RIP and turn full scale to importing LWR etc?

Is this what N^3 and others refer to as India going down the drain?

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 10:05

kgoan wrote:alokgupt:

Could you please modify that url. It's wrecking the horizontal formating of the page.

Sorry Samuel. No can do. Nothing mysterious involved. Its just that it's an open forum etc, and I obviously can't add real names etc. That's all.


The comments and discussion savaging the article are also fascinating :D; note the breeder reactor discussion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 03 Sep 2007 10:23

Sam,I have been harping upon the same theme,but there have been few serious reports on the same.A former Cabinet Sec. enlighetned us with his perspective on the energy angle (nuke power only 3%,the same as wind power today),that nuke power can go up only as much as 7% and that improving heavy distribution and transmission losses would improve matters,and is still essential even if our power generating capacity improves.

In this deal,there is nothing that is also going to improve our strategic deterrence-nothing that will be acquired by us can be used for that purpose and in effect,it will make it more difficult for us strategically ,as a division between military and civil facilities has to be made,with international inspectors being allowed a free run all over our civvie reactors and nuclear establishments,with their track record having the capacity for mischief and intrigue.The cost of importing this eqpt. and fuel from mainly the US and producing nuclear power per unit,far exceeds that if produced by using Indian coal in thermal plants! However,it is only understandable that our nuclear scientific community welcomes anything new in their discipline,overlooking the wider ramifications.

The self-restraint that we will have to show in future on the nuclear weapons/testing front and foreign policy (dump Iran,non-alignment and become US "contractors" for future wars) being demanded privately by the US,is the worst fact of all.An abandonment of India's independent thinking and action ,our sovereignity,after 60 yearsof independence only to become a US/foreign "dependence" and the promise of "great power"status, by Uncle Sam is shameful.

We ARE a great power,culturally and historically.We need no one to "make us" one,sponsor our case or bless our ambitions! Our influenece spread peacefully all over Indo-China and what today comprises the ASEAN nations centuries ago.The Europeans came to Indai because we were therichest country in the world and 500 years later,after they left it,in the immortal words of Mrs.Gandhi,"left us one of the poorest" .Our ancient underwater structures at Poompuhar and Dwarka have been carbon dated to 10,000+BC! The US has been independent for a mere two centuries and has yet to learn how to handle its military strength meaingfully,simply using it to bludgeon nations into the dust (Japan-Hirsohima,Vietnam,Iraq).

Since independence,we have made giant strides to become a powerful country on our own,both an economic and a military power-that too,more often than not without the help of anyone especially the US,which for most of the time at crucial periods in our projects like the ALH and LCA and Sea King repairs,imposed sanctions,whilst arming (and continuing to do so) our worst enemies!
It is morally bankrupt,weak leaders,with their babu mentality,who have been bowing and scraping to the white man for decades who have such an acute inferiortity complex that they falsely imagine that without the blessings of the butchers of Baghdad,India cannot assert itself internationally. What a disgrace! Yesterday our space scientists through the grand GSLV launch gave a fitting reply to these inferiority stricken leaders (or should we rightfull call them "camp followers"),that this success was thanks in the main to Indian technological skill and hard work and did not need NASA or whatever to launch our satellites.The Italians and the Israelis are using our launchers and there will be many more countries with every success lining up for an Indian sat launch.If we continue in this scientific vein,then in the future even Indian designed and built nuclear reactors being exported for peaceful purposes will arise,if we do not throw away our independence and sovereignity by going ahead with this insidious deal.
Last edited by Philip on 03 Sep 2007 10:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 10:30

^^^^^
Amen Philip!!

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 03 Sep 2007 10:49

enqyoob wrote:The US-India agreement is the 123, NOT the Hyde Act. What the Hyde tells the US President, is no more relevant to the international agreement than what the Indian Parliament tells the Indian PM.
Let the Parliament have its say then - without party whips. MMS did not even allow a sense of the Parliament, even to strengthen him in August 06, he dare not take a vote, without party whips now.

I promise if the democratic will of the people (without party whips) is expressed and it is for this deal, not one more post from me, on this subject.

As for spying, well, is it your position that without the agreement with the US, there is no US spying directed at the Indian nuclear and weapons programs?
The devil will keep on trying, no matter what. The last thing you do is, deal with the devil in a manner that allows him, inside your house, knowing fully well, what the intentions are. The devil has not hidden his face.

So, from the American POV, reading the newspapers or the gazillion posts by postors like yourself on this forum, one would rightly conclude that this deal is entirely a scam by India to get nuke fuel and technology from civilized countries so that India can build nookulear weapons as fast as India can dig up uranimum ore, and also to produce weapons-grade fissile material from thorium reserves.
It is quite easy, to broad stroke all in a single stroke and resort to sound bites. Saves you from meaningful debate.

As far as the AMERICAN POV is concerned, it is spelled out in full color as the Henry J. Hyde act.

People like yourself have been working overtime, telling the world that this is what India is about - a bunch of yahoos intent on putting up a whole rack of nuclear missiles to threaten civilization, like Hitler did, or like Saddam tried to do. So that no one in their right mind would want to deal with India.
Do you really think, it is that difficult for me to be calling you names, such as Mir Jaffer and a traitor, who sold out for a few crumbs? You are welcome to resort to your favorite epithets, in the hope that you may win the debate by hitting below the belt and scaring everyone away. I am afraid, this tactic, does not impress anyone. Try harder.

So that we continue to be isolated, and denied the opportunity to progress. So that you'll have more of a constituency for your soapbox to paranoia and xenophobia.
No one can beat you in the soapbox category. You are the uncrowned king, in use of sound bites to create a lot of heat and no light.

I am guilty of being paranoid. Paranoid about India's interests. But, finally, you charge me of being xenophobic! All this hate, just for having a different point of view. What is it N^3, you are either with me or against me? And, if you are against me, then here is a list of epithets, I will use against, you. And, I care for facts, not.


There is no "annual certification" in the 123.
Ever seen a contract, that references other contracts?

As for the Hyde, the "annual certification" is in the NON-BINDING
Care to enlighten us, exactly, where does Hyde say that these parts of this law, are not binding?

If you are referring to the Presidential signing statement, then care to elighten us the validity of these statements, as per US constitutional laws?

Care to tell us, if these signing statements last beyond the term of the President?

part - trying to tell the President what he SHOULD do. NOT what he HAS to do.
There is no such thing as "should" or "has". Please read beyond what the spin masters spin for you. COTUS makes US law, not advisories. The President conducts policy as per, US law. Yet, there is separation of powers and the President is ultimately responsible for the security of the country and hence holds wide latitude in interpretation and implementation.

My point is, there is no such thing as SHOULD or HAS to do. COTUS has its job to do, to make laws and the President has to implement policy.

The President is not waking up every morning to figure out, which Law is he going to break today. The President upholds US law. Plain and simple.

This is no more relevant than what the Shiv Sena tells the Prime Minister of India that he SHOULD do.
Have you lost it? You are now comparing the role that COTUS plays in the US constitutional process to the Sive Sena?

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Sep 2007 10:50

Sanku wrote:
As are YBs tactics " 123 deal the best now; at any cost; before India goes down the drain"


Sanku, that was to KGoan, but may I add a few cents. IMHO No, to your question above. And let me add another "No" to whether India goes down the drain if it goes ahead with the 123 deal. And heres the kicker - the reason would be the same for both. Lets think about that.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 11:03

pradeepe wrote:Sanku, that was to KGoan, but may I add a few cents. IMHO No, to your question above. And let me add another "No" to whether India goes down the drain if it goes ahead with the 123 deal. And heres the kicker - the reason would be the same for both. Lets think about that.


Thanks for the reply pradeepe; because my original points have been lost in the mass of replies; my position is::

This deal is just not worth it; it does not kill us (i.e. shove us down the drain) however the "potential" benfiets are clearly not worth the present clear price paid. We should not undersell; but make some internal laws and renegotiate; if it works out well; if it does not; :shrug: well :shrug:

I have outlined why I think so in painstaking details before; and have always invited debate with a view of understanding what we get from it in real terms. The problem is; NO person speaking for the deal has yet made a compelling argument in favor of why we need this deal at this cost. All I and others have faced is emoticons; mockery; tangential drivel; repeated acts of derailing the discussion etc etc. The "sign or die" position is one forced on us.

We need to get away from the hype and look at the deal from a purely "bania" mindset.

PS> One poster has already accussed me of being the typical "greedy Bania" types like the BJP is :lol:

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Sep 2007 11:30

So once we take away the fear of red-lines,
we are just arguing ACTION vs INACTION are we not.

Why fear it so much then. India needs to move away
from perennially staying inside the hut pretending to
be safe and it is IMHO. I have no illusions about unkil's
largesse. If Uncle can screw India and deems it in its interest
it will try it. IMO India is well prepared to handle it.
India is not the India of yesteryear and the India of
yesteryear was no slouch or a pushover.

So it just becomes a question of perspective. You dont
reap any benefits by staying on the sidelines.

Btw, I have not seen anything on the cut-off date for internal laws
as applicable to the 123.

Just my 2c.
Last edited by pradeepe on 03 Sep 2007 11:38, edited 2 times in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4620
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 03 Sep 2007 11:34

Considering the Union Carbide issue has never seen the light of justice, its almost a given that America can do as it pleases with almost zero consequences for itself.

It can and will cancel agreements when it suits their interests.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 11:43

pradeepe wrote:So once we take away the fear of red-lines,
we are just arguing ACTION vs INACTION are we not.


No we are not arguing action vs inaction; we are arguging one set of action vs the other. When have I (or most people with concerns) been saying abrogate the deal and do nothing? I have been saying; follow a different path. Just because we have barely stepped on one does not force us to tread on the same even if we realize early on that this is not the best path. Step back and try making your way to the right spot even if the way is hard.

Please note that this position is not one born of fear; it is one born of confidence.

In fact; I can argue that to go forward with the deal; in face of obvious concerns is actually a choice governed by "inaction"; one which lets the direction in which a momentum has been built to be pushed forward with.

The true action would be to reconsider and re-evaluate.
PS> Philosphically speaking; even inaction is a choice and hence an action. Because in not acting you are acting to do nothing. PVNR was a past master at this. Anyway this is not the kind of argument I need to resort too.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 03 Sep 2007 11:46

Yes,Why the "indecent haste" in singing the deal? Whyfore all this "missing the bus" talk? As if there is no other form of "transport" to nuclear or any other type of power for the country now or at any other time in the future.If we are as agreed going to separate our civil and nuclear installations as promised,why won't the international community spurred on by the international nuclear power industry not lobby the IAEA,etc. to sell India reactors and fuel in the future? Isn't Russia supplying us with reactors and fuel at Koodangalum right now WITHOUT India signing this deal? That too without introducing a demeaning Russian version of the Hyde act in the Duma!

Why is there a fear to debate it in full in parliament-especially as the two strongest non-Congress blocs from the opposite ends of the political spectrum,the Left and Right,both so vehemently oppose the deal. It therefore cannot be said that the deal is being opposed merely upon ideology.If both the Left and Right oppose it for the same reasons-as an attempt to put our nuclear policies,strategic deterrent and foreign policy in a straitjacket with a "made in USA" label, they both cannot be wrong!

It is also astonishing that 60 years after independence,which incidentally has been celebrated in such a disgraceful low key manner across the country,almost apologetically by this regime,when compared with how Britain celebrated "Trafalgar 200" with year long pageants and exhibitions celebrating Nelson's historic naval victory (which I was most fortunate to witness in person at Portsmouth).Instead,an Orwellian "Big Brother" syndrome is being imposed upon the voice of the people,Parliament House,by a compromised regime that takes its orders instead from another tainted "House" painted white.Denying the legitimate voice of the Indian people to be heard and a future jamming down Indian throats of this deal will spur the call for another post-independence freedom struggle from Indians across the political spectrum and a neo-colonial subservient class of political operators will like our former imperial rulers and their apologists,may very well be swept away into political oblivion,but not neccessarily in the same Gandhian manner.

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 11:52

^^^^^

And if there is a compelling reason; we are willing to hear it and debate it; but the approach of the Pro-deal faction of the congress (MMS-Sonia-Sibal?) seems to be:

>>>> "Shut up you fool; how dare you ask"

Till the left told them exactly what their "aukat" was.

Well as numerous analysts have clearly pointed; the size of Dr Singhs "balls" have been clearly felt by the left and they have let the world know about it as well.

Feel and tell; eh :wink:

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Sep 2007 12:01

Sanku wrote:
pradeepe wrote:So once we take away the fear of red-lines,
we are just arguing ACTION vs INACTION are we not.


No we are not arguing action vs inaction; we are arguging one set of action vs the other. When have I (or most people with concerns) been saying abrogate the deal and do nothing? I have been saying; follow a different path. Just because we have barely stepped on one does not force us to tread on the same even if we realize early on that this is not the best path. Step back and try making your way to the right spot even if the way is hard.

Please note that this position is not one born of fear; it is one born of confidence.

In fact; I can argue that to go forward with the deal; in face of obvious concerns is actually a choice governed by "inaction"; one which lets the direction in which a momentum has been built to be pushed forward with.

The true action would be to reconsider and re-evaluate.
PS> Philosphically speaking; even inaction is a choice and hence an action. Because in not acting you are acting to do nothing. PVNR was a past master at this. Anyway this is not the kind of argument I need to resort too.


I agree, thats a reasonable argument. But again as I have said, my perspective is different. In a democracy like India, every possible movement will be contested. In this case instead of asking for re-working the deal, what prevents the parties opposed from proposing an Indian Jekyll (abskcc would be happy). I would look to the BJP, Advani seems to have indicated the first steps for this. The less said of the left the better. Their version of the legislation would come wlapped in led papel AIRMAILED in (DO NOT BEND-VELY IMPOLTANT PAPELS ENCLOSED).

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

Postby Sanku » 03 Sep 2007 12:07

pradeepe wrote:I agree, thats a reasonable argument. But again as I have said, my perspective is different. In a democracy like India, every possible movement will be contested. .


Indeed; and that is why it is incumbent for a Govt to either have clear majority; or through open negotiations with the primary stateholders in the parliament evolve a system which is acceptable to all.

Clearly in case of Hyde; the US democrarcy did create a bipartisan bill which had the support of congress. The great PVNR has had done this before too. ABV did do this to an extent as well.

As you asked; what prevents Dr Singh/Sonia Maino faction to reach out and do the same?

My answer is : political hubris and deep seated hate that Dr Singh and Mm Sonia have for the BJP and some other sections of Indian polity. We have our own "Grand folly" in the making here.

PS (OT) > In fact I believe that BJP/NDA fell not because of India Shining; but because they were afflicted (temporarly) by the same hubris as well; which lead them to distance partners before they were strong. (/OT)


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest