Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 02 Jul 2008 00:54

ramana wrote:No need to discuss CIRRUS. Yes there was useful life left after refurbishment. Closing it was right thing to do to remove the stigma of diversion for PNE.. ....

ramana, if those are the reasons, I'm not convinced.

sentence two means public money was wasted.
sentence three means asking forgiveness for a sovereign decision taken long back. how does it matter now ? whatever we did, is already done, taking CIRRUS out of operation is not going to roll back PNE.
Besides its not relevant after POKII.

how so ?

Aryavarta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Sep 2005 06:29

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Aryavarta » 02 Jul 2008 01:07

The point I am trying to make is as the opponents of the deal cannot substantially prove that it is CRE or some kind of Western conspiracy to control, so do the supporters of the deal have not provided any substantial proof to back their claim that the deal is any more than providing Uranium.

If it is only Uranium that we need, is there a need to go for all this? I am trying to recollect a short narrative that I have read here on this thread. Buoyed by the success in NSSP (or was it some other incident) GOI approached US for Uranium fuel. Bush administration came back, telling Indians to ask for more? How much more, was the question from the Indian side? The answer was 'all of it'.

For all the charade of 'asking for more', we have ended up in this tangle, not getting substantially more than just the Uranium fuel. Is it worth it?

For those, who would claim that this is a very simplistic argument, and geopolitics is much more complicated than that, please do provide proofs that you are going to get more than the fuel. I may have missed some such analysis before, and will only be happy to be corrected.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prabu » 02 Jul 2008 01:13

Aryavarta wrote:I was trying to recollect the list of personalities who were removed ostentatiously for the threat they posed to the Nuclear deal.
1. Natwar Singh
2. Mani Shankar Iyer
???

PS. I am no fan of the above mentioned personalities, just trying to collate a list


3) UK's foreign minister !? (Jhon ....?)

Not on nuke deal , but for adverse remarks on Geroge W.Bush ! for remarks over Iran attack plans as 'STUPID' ! (also accused for not giving his bed to condi rice and made condi to sleep on floor, during a flight journey!)
Last edited by Prabu on 02 Jul 2008 01:25, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 02 Jul 2008 01:22

There are umpteen threads which discussed CIRRUS right after the separation plan. And these were the points stated.
- Still some useful life
- PNE utilization charge is mollified

The last one I stated is also true and most important.

Anyway its decision taken by MMS and I agree on this.

----------------
AV, there is qualitative cap due to the testing issue. To break out the costs are more severe and there is dejure status after the deal. But then as all are saying here, what was proofed is good enough at least to themselves.

As to quantitative cap there are provisions for cooperating on FMCO etc in the run-up to the deal. But on the other hand the number of reactors (8) on non civil side is something to think about. Indicates very slow production rate or very little stockpile and FMCO is catching up. So a de-facto cap is a risk. So some augmenting stocks after the deal goes thru by going all out with the 8 reactors till the FMCO might be a risk mitigation. Once FMCO comes into force then this civil and mil reactors separation will become moot. Then it becomes stockpile guardianship.


In big picture I dont think CTBT will ever get ratified by US. Only the US , Russia and PRC have test sites and its good insurance for stability. Can let off one once in a while to keep the jackals at the fringe.

And the FMCO will be on non verification basis for the P-5. Where does India be in this regime? Will they agree to the non-civil reactors to be non verified? Need to think about it.

The trend will be more new technology weapons not on this list.
.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 02 Jul 2008 02:01

Op-ed from Deccan Chronicle, 1 july 2008

From Pran Chopra, :shock:

Time to come clean on the nuclear deal
By Pran Chopra

It is time for the government to take the country in confidence regarding the "nuclear deal" with America. All that we have had so far are more or less uninformed bits and pieces of guesswork, with the blanks filled in only by what "sources" of various persuasions want the readers to believe. The "secrecy" about the deal has only become a cloak for a propaganda war between the supporters and opponents of the deal.

The absurdity of the situation is evident in the oft-repeated argument that India must finalise the deal before the presidency of George W. Bush ends in the inglorious termination which awaits it. Those who argue thus forget three undeniable facts.

First and foremost, the deal is not, and was never meant to be, an agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, or one between the Republican Party of America and the Congress Party of India (both of which are now lame ducks). The "deal", whenever made, can only be made under an agreement between two countries. Unless it is made that way, and is seen to have been made that way, it can never be a reliable basis for good relations between the two countries on a matter so important as nuclear policy. Therefore, it should not be treated as a pawn in the party politics of either country.

Second, the deal has been more thoroughly debated in India than any other foreign policy issue for many years. Yet some major facts about it have remained hidden behind a dense debate between variously motivated "interests".

Third, assuming that some of these interests do wish to be impartial, are well informed and are not only the public face of some caucuses in Washington or New Delhi, many of them also have a knife in their hands or held at their backs in the form of the Hyde Act, the most treacherous component of what is now known as the deal. 8)

The making of the deal began with a well publicised meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. After the meeting, the two leaders issued a joint statement which spelt out the broad principles upon which a further meeting would take place. The meeting itself as well as the joint statement were well received by Indian Parliament and by the country at large.

A second meeting followed at which the principles announced earlier were further elaborated as an understanding or an agreement. That too was approved by Parliament and by the Indian public. The agreement itself, as approved by the US Congress under America’s own legislative procedures, soon became widely known as the 123 Agreement.

Up to that point the American contribution towards the making of the deal was mainly made by the Republican Party, which till then had control of the Congress as well as the White House. But in the American Congressional elections which followed soon afterwards, the Republicans lost out to the Democrats. While the Republicans still held the White House, they, and in particular their leader President Bush, were reduced to a shadow of their earlier selves.

The Democrats’ opposition to anything like the "deal" which President Bush had negotiated with India has a history behind it. But while they could not directly oppose the deal so long as the author of the American contribution, President Bush, held the presidency, they succeeded in using their newly-won majority in Congress to plant a landmine in the form of the Hyde Act under the presidential table.

They also succeeded in attaching certain "switches" to the Hyde Act, which the opponents of the deal can press at any time, either to cripple the deal or to put severe restrictions on India’s deeply cherished independence of action on matters unconnected with nuclear issues. For example on India’s options in conducting business with Iran, including large-scale import of oil from that country.

This backdoor interference in India’s external relations is made possible by the "switch" which lays down that for the deal to remain in force the US President must, from time-to-time, satisfy Congress that India continues to abstain from actions and policies which would conflict with American interests.

In fact, according to some versions of the Congressional debate, the Act also requires that Indian actions in this field must support American policies and objectives. And if India fails to oblige, then America could not only stop all assistance but, whatever the damage such retaliation might cause to India’s nuclear economy, it could withdraw all nuclear assets it might have provided to India earlier.

Now, it may be in India’s interest to support the deal. But people must be given sufficient reasons to support the deal as it stands. The reasons must be given with the same degree of frankness and lucidity which had won our Parliament’s approval in the earlier stages of the debate on the subject.

The Bush-Singh agreements were clearly placed before Parliament, and its clear approval was obtained before proceeding further. But in the present case, a bland formula, and at that an incomplete one, is being paraded: "India needs development that needs energy. The deal is for energy, therefore, the deal must be supported."

But there is obfuscation on how much energy the deal will yield, over what period, beginning when, at what immediate and overall cost, and (most importantly) on what political and operational terms.

Nor is there sufficient candour in comparing the benefits of the deal with those which other forms and sources of energy might bring. This is an omission worse than the one committed by the absence of sufficient debate on the consequences of the possibility of an American ban on a future nuclear test by India.

There is obviously a lot on which Dr Singh might have something to say if and when he chooses to say it, but most important would be his reasons for letting the latest stage of the deal hang in the air so mysteriously and for so long.



I thought Pran Chopra was the Establishment.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Jul 2008 02:04

For all the charade of 'asking for more', we have ended up in this tangle, not getting substantially more than just the Uranium fuel. Is it worth it?

This I wish we all knew. For now I have to go on "gut feeling" that MMS and Kakodkar won't sell the country short. I know others :rotfl: :rotfl: at that notion. What gives me confidence is:
1. BJP walked away from Version 1.0
2. MMS liked Version 2 (July 18)
3. Dubya & Co fought reasonably hard to get Version 3 through COTUS. There was real political cost paid there.
4. MMS & Co balked at Version 3.2 and essentially walked away (repeat of Step 1).
5. Kakodkar's team was brought in and nailed Version 3.4. Seemed pretty happy as much as international poker would allow.
6. MMS & Co seem reasonably happy about IAEA (IAEA top mgmt seemed a heck of a lot more pro-India than Hyde & Co were, NSG may be not so).
7. At this point, signing "over the dead bodies" of the UPA seems to indicate reasonable level of confidence that MMS & Co are getting what they wanted. I mean, look at it this way - if they come out of this and say: "Look Ma! We gave away our mijjiles!" what are they going to do? Refugee status in CIA Defector Protection Program? I think there is enough domestic buildup that MMS could easily order the negotiating team to walk out citing "goal posts moved" or something like that, and he would be a national hero. Probably 75% of the intensity of the opposition may be precisely for this reason, like the story of ABV asking the Left to make noise.

Trouble is that I don't see the Left now being able to explain to the cadres why they are OK with the deal. But leave it to the Masters of Misinformation - maybe they'll turn it into a "NO ARMS DEAL WITH US" since the placards are ready, and insist on the 126-fighter deal being given to Russia. Win-win. Note that fighter decision won't be announced before the NSG has signed off, so the Oiropeans have to keep their patronizing mouths shut. :mrgreen: GE loses jet engine deal (maybe gets it on the LCA) but gains power plant turbine deals, which are bigger on margin. French shut up because they get to sell reactors.

As for "what will we get other than uranium" answer is, mainly, $$ of investment, and what it can buy. I am sure that every nut and bolt will have to be bought after wrangling over ITAR, NPT, CTBT, FMCT, WTO and all the other garbage. In return, every well that they need to dig or lamppost that they need to set up as part of their imported power plants, will be fought tooth and nail by the desi baksheesh and Red Flag armies.

But it is really upto Indians to learn and reverse-engineer the "technologies" and do what is needed, and not sit around :(( :(( about being obstructed. If the "brain drain" is 1-way from the strategic sector to the civilian, it is a dead loss. But with a little bit of smarts, it can become a huge win for both sectors. I am sure there are Indians who are smart enough.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 02 Jul 2008 02:08

The PM has offered no explanation to the nation for overruling the nuclear establishment and agreeing to shut down the Cirus research reactor, located at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.


India gave an undertaking to Canada that CIRUS would be used only for peaceful purposes. The 1974 test was a PNE (peaceful nuclear explosive as defined in the NPT itself) so technically India didn't violate this undertaking. There is however the little matter of where all the Pu it has produced has gone. India isn't telling and Canada isn't asking. So no problem there.

The Apsara reactor (which is civilian) is being moved from BARC and placed under safeguards. CIRUS cannot be moved and it cannot remain operational as civilian inside BARC since BARC is off limits to IAEA inspections. To openly operate CIRUS as non-civilian would be problematic for Canadian H+D. India would like Canadian tech and Uranium and CIRUS is simply the price for this.

Of course we jingos are impatient for a bigger brother to DHRUVA. One should have been funded when the decision to close CIRUS was made. Another example of a self-moratorium (like the refusal to test the Agni-3)?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 02 Jul 2008 02:17

good post n^3, made me change my vote.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prabu » 02 Jul 2008 02:27

[quote Why should Americans get all the credit for ridding the GOI of these two major embarassments, I wonder.. didn't anyone in India have enough common sense to push them out without US advice?[/quote]

Natwar was the architect behind J18 (equal equal )! That is why he was asked to be removed !

Iyyar was strongly pushing for the Iran pipe deal which was not liked neither by uncle nor by Mr.Singh.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prabu » 02 Jul 2008 02:44

enqyoob wrote: What gives me confidence is:

6. MMS & Co seem reasonably happy about IAEA (IAEA top mgmt seemed a heck of a lot more pro-India than Hyde & Co were, NSG may be not so).
7. At this point, signing "over the dead bodies" of the UPA seems to indicate reasonable level of confidence that MMS & Co are getting what they wanted. I mean, look at it this way - if they come out of this and say: "Look Ma! We gave away our mijjiles!" what are they going to do? Refugee status in CIA Defector Protection Program? I think there is enough domestic buildup that MMS could easily order the negotiating team to walk out citing "goal posts moved" or something like that, and he would be a national hero. Probably 75% of the intensity of the opposition may be precisely for this reason, like the story of ABV asking the Left to make noise.




Mr.Singh broke his long silence and said, he will come back to parliment !

I am also having such doubts, after seeing Mr.Sighs resolve/adamant to go to IAEA/NSG and then to come back to parliment.
This could be a grand move by the GOI to double cross uncle, if things at NSG goes out of prescribed limits. It would be great, if this game plan of GOI happenes to be true !

Ramanaji, You did indicate similar thing very recently, saying Mr.Singh is doing certain things possibly since he is well informed.

I hope this becomes true and India's interests are protected and uncle shown middle finger, if they cross Lakhsman Rekha in NSG.

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Ananth » 02 Jul 2008 02:55

Prabu wrote:Natwar was the architect behind J18 (equal equal )! That is why he was asked to be removed !

Iyyar was strongly pushing for the Iran pipe deal which was not liked neither by uncle nor by Mr.Singh.


Natwar himself said that he was not even aware of the J18 till the day he landed in Washington. Aiyar recently claimed that he "placed India on energy map for a few days" :mrgreen: Conducting foreign policy through back door w/o taking babus on board is a strict no no.

Aryavarta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Sep 2005 06:29

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Aryavarta » 02 Jul 2008 03:01

enqyoob wrote:What gives me confidence is:
1. BJP walked away from Version 1.0
2.
....
7.


Fair enough N^3, though two concerns. Nobody is going to give up the mizziles as u mentioned, but policy decisions taken now may cause a defacto give up at a later date. I guess this is the quantitative issue Ramana postulates above. (I have also read your analysis of hypersonic weapon systems, in the future testing thread.)

The second concern is with MMS's world view. I don't believe any true Indian, especially with the spectacular background that MMS has(I don't trust Sonia and family though), that he knowingly will sell out India. What if in his world view, certain strategic injunctions are not only OK, but also a required price that India has to pay. This is where a broad consensus based approach would have helped. The picture I get is of a divided house (even within congress).

Given the above two concerns, I may be willing to trust, but if I have a mechanism to verify. I would have prefered a step by step approach, for the only reason that risk will be smaller, as against the all or nothing approach that this deal presents.

One thing we can be absolutely certain about, the interpretation of this deal will depend upon how strong India (economically as well as militarily) is in future.

enqyoob wrote:... mainly, $$ of investment, and what it can buy.


On what grounds do you base this on. The scope to invest in infrastructure currently is huge. What international funds are pouring in for this? Real estate has seen funding, profit margins are huge, but then end-users are individuals who buy the houses directly. Government is not directly involved, and not a lot of public outpouring of sentiments. What are the chances that Enron will not repeat again?

Are we not working with an assumption that countries/businesses around the world are waiting to jump in with investments, and it is only the deal that is stopping them?

enqyoob wrote:...reverse-engineer the "technologies" and do what is needed, and not sit around.


Deal or no deal, engineering technologies is most important. But very recently, a huge budget-cut was made, although I have not seen anywhere and would love to read, what exact activities is this budget cut targeted. All in all it does not augur well for growth in nuclear engineering.

On a lighter note, your rolling/laughing smileys made me skip a beat. I thought you were on my case. Enqyoobji, I really admire and appreciate your analysis, at the same time I mortally fear being at the receiving end of your wrath. So a little wrap on the knuckles and warning to get on track will be more than sufficient.
Last edited by Aryavarta on 02 Jul 2008 03:50, edited 1 time in total.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby RamaY » 02 Jul 2008 03:22

Admins: pls delete if OT

Whether we like it or not, between 2010-2050, the next-gen super powers are USA and China. India cannot aspire to be a superpower atleast for another 20 years unless

It solves the problems of -
1. Pakistan/Bangladesh - Population/Islamism/Terrorism
2. Internal cohesiveness - get rid-off social cancers like Maoists, CPI/M, Mayavati, Karunanidhi, Lalloos,PDP etc, who encourage vote-bank politics, irresponsible fiscal policies, and corrupt civic behaviors
3. Poverty - Need to bring all the 'below poverty line' population to at least 2008-$3,000 (PPP) income levels
4. Infrastructure - To sustain the economic development and civic culture expected from a super power
5. Defense - the C3 structures, Infra, R&D and think-tank (decision supporting) mechanisms

And achieve following objectives Geopolitically -
1. (Abolish Article370) Occupy POK and buy out the small stretch of Afghanistan that stands between POK and Central Asian countries. Few $B will be worth the price and will help stabilize afghan economy.
2. Resolve Bangladesh problem. Dont know how, but a creative solution must be found before another artificial/real refugee crisis is created.
3. Free Balochistan will not be a solution unless India decides to absorb that portion into India as a 28th state. We made that mistake once with Bangladesh. At the same time India CANNOT have >15% muslim population in any single state.
4. Win back Aksai-chin by first creating a small portion of free Tibet (someone made this excellent suggestion) and bargain portion of it for Aksai-chin if needed.

So, India must align with one of the current-day super powers, unlike the failed non-alignment strategy. And China it cannot be (I don’t remember the article I read long time ago where PVN Rao allegedly suggested we should align with China this time). Every nation/society has its own momentum. Our post-independence leaders denied this place for us in our generation. We must not do the same mistake. It is better to move towards our destiny instead of hiding behind meaningless moral-obligations. (Self) enlightenment is different from cultural/social zenith. Ahimsa may achieve enlightenment for the true seeker. But it will not give protection for the society/culture. So it is in India's short-term best interest to align with USA (learn from Europe, China, Japan), with a reasonable price to pay.

In conjunction with enqyoob-sar’s post above, MMS is a reasonable price to pay for this deal to go thru. With that MMS, the INC’s only respectable PM candidate (he is still one of the very very few clean-image / loyal candidates INC has), goes. Even if Rajmata/Yuvraj becomes a PM (in 2014) they will not be able to survive more than one term in new India (by then).

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 02 Jul 2008 03:59

Every time I read enqyoob saars advice, I feel
Om parthaya prethi bhoditham
............

Narayaneni swayam
Sambhodhitam

I think this PM and his advisors are true patriots as they have called the bluff of AEC and BARC mangement and their optimystic projections.
The falling in line of various lumanaries in line with the deal is clear indicative of theb truth.

Only the bombastic LKg is still betting on DAE to redeam itself with out foreign maal.

I completely agree with Katare saab LKg is fighting a losing battle when he says he may rengotiate.

This explains the desperation of uncle to close this deal anmd gift wrap it.
PRC is playing asmart game of divide and conquer.
All my VVHO

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby sraj » 02 Jul 2008 04:01

Go, because you must
Statesman Editorial
India is a funny country. Everyone says Sonia Gandhi wields all power; that she is like the executive chairperson of a company of which Dr Manmohan Singh is managing director. As chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance, she is said to decide policy for the government, essentially we presume as an extension of her own will and intellect but after taking on board, and in that order, the views of her kitchen cabinet and affiliate parties.

It would seem to us that a civilian nuclear deal would be a matter of policy, especially for a country that successfully resisted for several decades all efforts to be brought within the umbrella of restraint of the developed world.
But it is Dr Manmohan Singh who is identified as the architect of the nuclear deal with the United States, not Mrs. Gandhi. How did this happen? Did Dr Singh act on his own? If so, Mrs Gandhi should sack him, because, puns aside, the Congress cannot be seen to be two-faced. If not, how is he the architect of the deal? Mustn’t it have been Mrs Gandhi, especially when we know she is not coy about accepting accolades for initiatives of relatively lesser import such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme?


The prime mover

If, therefore, as logic and common sense would suggest, it is Mrs Gandhi who is the prime mover of the nuclear deal, where is the question of saving Dr Singh’s face at Tokyo, Washington or anywhere else? He must only have followed instructions.

Ergo, the convoluted political exercise that has brought the Congress to a stage where its cadres have been asked to prepare for an election must be aimed at saving Mrs Gandhi’s face. But, as Mr Prakash Karat is said to have commented somewhere, saving an individual’s face ought, as a general proposition, to be of lesser import than preserving a nation’s integrity. We will return to this proposition in a bit.

If Mrs Gandhi were indeed the architect of the nuclear deal, as she must have been, why would she not admit her support openly and confidently? One obvious reason must be reluctance to be seen as being too friendly with the Americans; Dr Singh, a natural-born Indian, is having enough problems trying to live down whispered suggestions of being an American stooge. Imagine how much more untenable this Pizza Hut position would be for the Italian-born Mrs Gandhi.

But plausible, often barely plausible, deniability is a Nehru-Gandhi family tradition. Just as Krishna Menon took the fall for the Chinese debacle, or Zail Singh for creating Bhindranwale, or the Bhagats and Sajjan Kumars for the Sikh riots, without the faintest suggestion or hint that Nehru, Indira or Rajiv might, respectively, have been directly culpable, so too must Dr Singh prepare to be sacrificed if the nuclear deal goes bad. That is a matter of political style ~ identify the fall guy even before you enunciate the proposition.

We need though spare no tears for Dr Singh, certainly not on the ground that he seems a nice chap. He has clearly been a misfit as Prime Minister, and has achieved the highest political position in the country with the weakest political credentials ever. And sometimes a price has to be paid for getting more than what one deserves.

Now, let’s discuss the other interesting twist in this battle of political wits, the position adopted by Left parties. To their credit, and as acknowledged by this newspaper, they have been consistent in their opposition to the deal. More important, they seem to have had sufficient ammunition to back up their case.

It is now well accepted that the contribution of nuclear power to India’s energy needs, should the deal go through, will be small, if not negligible. It is also reasonably clear that signing on will compromise at least some of our freedoms, and make us amenable to American pressure, and that therefore the benefits of joining the international nuclear regime would come with a price.

Mr Karat has said the integrity of the nation is at stake, and that such integrity ought to be more important than saving an individual’s face. His colleagues in the Left and he have bravely stuck to their guns despite not-so-veiled suggestions that they are acting at the behest of Communist China, which, the argument goes, does not want India to reach a position of energy security or regional superpower status.

But they have gone along with the Congress’ charade. Instead of pulling the rug firmly and decisively when the first moves were made towards reaching agreement with the United States, they have waited until virtually the last moment, the fifth year of the current Parliament or in human terms, the eighth month of pregnancy before deciding that the baby must be aborted.

Surely, it cannot be the Left’s case that they saw government’s support for the deal as the extension of one man’s will, or as a policy conundrum needing resolution within the Congress. Surely, they must have been aware that Dr Singh could not act unless it was at the behest of, or with the stated consent of the UPA chairperson. Yet, they played along, painted Dr. Singh as the villain of the piece ~ continue to do so, in fact ~ and claimed they were addressing their case in opposition to Mrs Gandhi.

And why were they so irresponsible? Because, according to them, they were trying all along to avoid an election that might benefit the Bharatiya Janata Party. Using the same powerful logic he used to explain why national integrity ought to be paramount, Mr Karat must now tell us how having a right-wing fundamentalist party in power as the head of an alternate coalition (no one, not even the Left, can believe the BJP would win a majority on its own) is more damaging than a sacrifice of national integrity and a loss of national face.

Between the two of them, aided and assisted by the Sharad Pawars, Lalu Yadavs and other such self-seekers, the Congress and the Left have diverted our time and energies with this nonsensical charade. For that, if nothing else, this government deserves to fall.

Instead of the centralized venality of earlier regimes, the UPA has allowed individual satraps to milk the nation in their own ways. If the NCP has denuded agriculture and compromised food security, besides bankrupting the national airline, the RJD has regaled us with flim-flam to suggest that a railway running as tardily and as unsafely as ever before is now doing so profitably.

Distracting sideshow

Within the Congress itself, individual Ministers have each feathered small nests of their own, whether it is Priya Ranjan Das Munshi playing games with media policy ~ more foreign hands here, but that story must await another day ~ or Oscar Fernandes fooling around with labour policy.

We are reeling under the pressure of inflation and shortages. We are miserable at the rise in interest rates. We are shocked at the fall of stock values. The rich have grown richer, and the poor poorer but we are, most of us, distracted by a sideshow whose rules we don’t understand but whose outcome ~ the fall of a government ~ for some morbid reason interests us. This government deserves to fall, if only to put an end to this senseless assault on our attention.
The saddest part of the four years and more of UPA rule is that it hasn’t thrown up a single genuine hero, not in political life, government or opposition, and not elsewhere. And not even from amongst us ~ we, the so-called people! Trapped between “American stooges” and “Chinese stooges”, we have become stooges of our own lethargy. This government must fall, if only to give us another chance. We owe politicians nothing, but we owe ourselves at least that.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3594
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Paul » 02 Jul 2008 04:09

Is the Govt skilfully cornering the Left?

“All that I want”, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, is reported to have said on the sidelines of a book release function on June 30, “is the authority to proceed with the process of negotiations through all stages like the IAEA and NSG that will not tie down the hands of the country…you allow us to complete the process … I will bring it before Parliament and abide by the House.” The CPI(M) Polit Bureau Member, Mr Sitaram Yechury, has reacted to this by saying that “there is nothing new in his (the PM’s) stand...”

One wonders how Mr Yechury could say this with a straight face. Can it be that even a person as alert as Mr Yechury has missed out the deeper significance of the Prime Minister’s so-called ‘offer’? If so, full marks for the Prime Minister for his notable success in passing off a brand new proposition in an apparently casual manner on the sidelines of a function, as if in a reluctant response to media queries so that few notice its full implications.

Once all the stages of negotiations over IAEA safeguards and the modalities of getting the fuel, technology and equipment from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) are completed, the deal is as good as through, except for the US Congressional approval for the 123 Agreement, which can be assumed to be a mere formality.

In other words, the Prime Minister’s seemingly bland ‘offer’ is nothing short of a final push towards the operationalisation of the deal.

Ever since the UPA-Left parleys were set in motion a year or more ago, the Government, in retrospect, appears to have cleverly settled on the tactics of ‘incremental progression’, helping it to describe a circle which at every point looked like a straight line.

Mark the cleverly and methodically calibrated technique adopted by the Government vis-À-vis the Left. The first few UPA-Left coordination meetings were devoted to the fears of the latter over the Hyde Act and its bearing on the 123 Agreement. The exchange of notes as well as the medley of statements from political and diplomatic establishments of both India and the US resulted in a lot of heat and very little light.

Dialogues of the deaf
Somewhere along the way, the Left was persuaded to let the Government discuss India-specific safeguards in principle at the level of the IAEA secretariat and place them before the Left for coming to ‘findings’, presumably about their acceptability from the point of view of the country’s interest.

The Government went ahead and finalised with the IAEA the scheme of safeguards ready to be taken before the Board of Governors. The Left claims that the Government is committed to giving it an opportunity to have a say on the appropriateness of the safeguards, and that the Government has gone back on it.

In short, the Government could not have done better if its purpose was to kindle the sympathies of the people for a government being painfully squeezed by a political combine exploiting its strength in the Lok Sabha.

It has successfully reduced the series of meetings to dialogues of the deaf, and in the bargain, bought enough time to take the parleys as near the end of its term as possible, with sufficient margin to sew up the technical part of the deal and get the 123 Agreement through the US Congress.

The political climate also in the meantime has changed in its favour, what with the overture of Messrs Mulayam Singh and Amar Singh.

The Prime Minister’s is, therefore, not an ‘offer’ but a notice on where things are heading in the next couple of weeks, regardless of the stand of the Left.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Tilak » 02 Jul 2008 04:30

OT flamebait.
Last edited by Rahul M on 02 Jul 2008 05:50, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: repeated flamebait.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Neshant » 02 Jul 2008 04:41

MMS does not give a damn about India's nuclear deterrent. He's willing to reduce India to second rate nuclear power in exchange for a lot of fine print that hardly anyone knows the implications of.

He cannot safeguard basic rights of pilgrims in their own country, he won't be able to safe India's nuclear interests either.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby rocky » 02 Jul 2008 05:02

Neshant, however your categorization of MMS is not matched by his actions elsewhere. Kamal Nath's solitary but extreme hardline position in the Doha round of talks shows that India is not exactly about to roll over and play dead.

I'm not for this deal for this deal
1) due to the testing issue
2) the civilian-military bifurcation (they should've left only the new reactors to be imported as civilian, and opened existing reactors receiving foreign fuel under campaign-specific safeguards)
3) the 8-military reactor split is a quantitative cap, which the other P-5 don't have
4) if we are supposed to go for quantitative cap, our position in FMCT should be a gradual FMCT wherein the remaining P-5 are subjected to the same civilian-military bifurcation, with the civilian reactors and facilities in safeguards in perpetuity.
5) technology in the nuclear domain should be de-linked with dual-use technology in other domains, which the P-5 have ganged up to impose on India
6) there is no connection to energy, but this is a whitehorse that is being built up by the GoI. A single imported 1000MW reactor will cost upto 15B dollars. With the flux in the capital markets, there is no way India can crank up so much money to achieve the 2020 target mentioned.

And the above mentioned points have not yet been made clear by the GoI. In fact my opposition to the deal in the poll is primarily that if "don't know", because it is precisely unknown what the "deal" is all about.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 02 Jul 2008 05:24

sorry counselor wont buy that (as Bill O says on Fox).
This is international treaty, that is above petty national interest.
Long back SS siad Its a treaty of trust.
All that PM is saying entrust me, I will deliver India!
A treaty of this proportion can not be understood, just like that in one reading. It took nearly three plus years for the team India lead by brilliant minds and that too with out lawyers (on our side, every one of US is as can been seen on this forum, and are we not argumentative Indians?).

The full disclosure can be made and read in leisure later. There is economy to tend by the PM, there is looming energy crisis on the horizon, so opposition should focus on that not on some wheeling and dealing here and there.
just make up your mind, If you are not for the deal then you are against it.

Remember we are dealing with a leader who has deep insight and said this
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - George W. Bush
8)
Which floored our intellectual PM.
In the end everything will be fine, which economists say as "In the long run we are all dead, why need fusion bums?" :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Jul 2008 06:35

AV:

FD Investment in India is still limited to a few entities: Bharati Telecom, Reliance, Tata. Beyond that, the Indian stock market is a mystery to most people, esp. to foreign funds. So "India" funds are still exotic, "Emerging Market" things with very large fluctuation rates. I have to :(( :(( when I say that.. hard personal experience, continuing.

So good infrastructure investment like nuke plants are indeed going to be popular with major players. The sweet deal that ENRON got, shows the level of desperation in India when it comes to reliable power. In the US, major utilities are safe bets for pension funds and the like. In India they can probably come up with much better rates of return because competition is practically non-existent. Expected rates of return in India are quite large compared to what one can get with stable investments in the US, since Indian interest rates are higher than US ones. The amount of investment, as a result, can be quite huge, because institutional investors can get a different currency, decoupled from US economy, along with reasonable stability and excellent rate of return.
********************************************

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 02 Jul 2008 07:13

RamaY,

Busy man.

May I add Chittagong Tracts and perhaps a sliver of Burma/Myanmar?

I will stop there since this is the Indian Nuclear Thread.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 02 Jul 2008 07:27

Apologies for raking up an issue that has already been left behind in this fast moving thread.

However, all these conspiracy theories about Natwar Singh's "ouster" prompted me a do some elementary Googling since I don't have a razor sharp memory. :lol:

I found this 2005 report in the Hindu, which under no stretch of imagination can be called a Congress stooge paper.

The Government was keen on making the announcement of Mr.Justice Pathak's appointment before a National Democratic Alliance delegation called on President Abdul Kalam and demanded that action be taken against Mr. Natwar Singh. On Sunday night, the Centre had already named a former diplomat Virendra Dayal as its "special envoy" to "liaise" with the United Nations.

The two announcements were by way of honouring the promise the Prime Minister had made to the President (plse note President of India not the US of A :D ) that the Government would "get to the root of the matter."


Also:

The announcement that Mr. Natwar Singh stood relieved of his portfolio came at the end of a day of hectic activity. This included the announcement of the Pathak probe, the Congress's letter to the U.N. Secretary-General, the enforcement authorities' interrogation of Andaleep Sehgal, an NDA delegation's call on the President, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s positive response to the decision to get to the truth.


Another report quite a few months down the line, from Aug 5, 2006 in DNA has these quotes, which when read with the Hindu report makes it quite interesting.

Later in the day, he seemed to be more mellowed. He told DNA, “The Congress is my strength. Why should I go against it?”

The subdued mood lasted only a while. Singh was back on TV in the evening, taking pot shots at Finance Minister P Chidambaram. “He should first sort out his own life,” Singh said.


And:

But the Opposition is set to resume its attack in Parliament on Monday. The BJP and the Samajwadi Party enjoyed the ruling party’s discomfiture. Both fished in troubled waters by jumping to Natwar Singh’s defence. BJP leader LK Advani said the Congress had sacrificed Singh to protect itself. SP leader Amar Singh virtually accused the government of writing the Pathak report.


So in Nov 2005 NDA demanded a committee be set up to probe Natwar Singh's involvement. And in Aug 2006 Advani makes a statement: "Congress had sacrificed Singh to protect itself," when the committee indicts Natwar!

I suppose the US' tentacles reach deep into India. :eek:

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 02 Jul 2008 07:52

Aryavarta:

About your second point, re: MMS' mindset:

I agree that MMS' vision of his own legacy for India, may be very different from the vision articulated above by RamaY, for instance. MMS is not a weapon enthusiast, and his dream of India may be one that is largely at peace with the neighborhood. So he may be quite OK with eliminating nukes from the entire neighborhood, and having open borders to the north, west, east and south. He may not mind being credited with defusing the state of war between India and TSP, and between Indian and China, opening borders, replacing military fortifications with trading and tourist stations, and missile exchanges with train exchanges. A Nehruvian vision with visionary economic models superposed. May be naive in your opinion or mine, but may also be beyond what any of us can envision. India returns to its ancient Glory as a rich nation, leader in peace and economic progress and free enterprise.

The actual history of ancient Glorious India (when it existed) is not as a vast empire with guards standing at every corner armed with nyookulear mijjiles. It is a vast region with open borders, with free movement of people. With rishis (not 2 b confused with Brayatollah Rishi 8) ) going around engaging in deep debates on the Meaning of Life, wimmens traipsing around doing Bharatnatyams and Pakis sitting around peacefully getting high on their hashish hookahs. So there may be more than one way, in MMS' mind, of making Aksai Chin and Manasarovar and Mohenjodaro "part" of Greater India.

You or I or most BRFees may not agree with this. But MMS may be doing exactly what is needed in his view to get to this dream. And who is to say that this is not a better model than Dubya's "Noo Whirled Odor" with its demonstrations so far in Eyerak and Afghanistan?

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13686
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Suraj » 02 Jul 2008 07:52

enqyoob wrote:FD Investment in India is still limited to a few entities: Bharati Telecom, Reliance, Tata. Beyond that, the Indian stock market is a mystery to most people, esp. to foreign funds. So "India" funds are still exotic, "Emerging Market" things with very large fluctuation rates. I have to :(( :(( when I say that.. hard personal experience, continuing.

That would be foreign institutional investment (FII), not FD (foreign direct) investment. Yes, India and EM funds can suffer high volatility, though some funds have a more conservative investment philosophy and prefer value stocks to high profile growth stocks.

As far as foreign direct investment goes, see the following data from the DIPP/Commerce Ministry site. It is the FDI data for the year ended March 2008, and also lists cumulative FDI since 1991. During the last year, besides services and IT, telecom, housing, oil&natural gas, power and metals all received FDI of ~$1 billion or more. The first month of the current fiscal has already demonstrated strong FDI inflows even as FIIs exited: FDI inflow up 127 per cent in April'08 to 3.73 billion dollars

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 02 Jul 2008 07:56

enqyoob wrote:The actual history of ancient Glorious India (when it existed) is not as a vast empire with guards standing at every corner armed with nyookulear mijjiles. It is a vast region with open borders, with free movement of people. With rishis (not 2 b confused with Brayatollah Rishi 8) ) going around engaging in deep debates on the Meaning of Life, wimmens traipsing around doing Bharatnatyams and Pakis sitting around peacefully getting high on their hashish hookahs. So there may be more than one way, in MMS' mind, of making Aksai Chin and Manasarovar and Mohenjodaro "part" of Greater India.

You or I or most BRFees may not agree with this. But MMS may be doing exactly what is needed in his view to get to this dream. And who is to say that this is not a better model than Dubya's "Noo Whirled Odor" with its demonstrations so far in Eyerak and Afghanistan?


Ancient empires (of India) were an utter failure and could not prevent the later turko-mongol onslaught.
Whereas China with high walls and guards posted on them did just that.
So their civlizational memory is not as scarred as in our case.

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

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 02 Jul 2008 08:19

Oh my God or even better oh my Gosh. enqyoob saar revealations of Man mohak Sing's vision turned my eyes moist and I could only see vague outlines ( probably because of the tears in my eyes) of what future holds. In Leh instead of a air strip we may have strip maal, instead of having a forward air base in Ambala we may have a tourist spot for the tired Taliban in R&R, In dal lake there will be ready to go Dal Palak Paneer dhabas catering to Desi Videsi's running away from the heat in Austin or Tallahasee .

The army disbanded turned into an army of ecnomic activity like our friend Pakistani Fauji run factories real estate etc etc.
( if one looks back the PM for this precise reason in the 6th pay commision, did not even allocate a copper penny I mean char anne if that coin still exists, what a fore sight start with ex service and then turn services into economic hubs ....mind bogling wow wow, feel just like Bill Murry in what about Bob, Baby steps therapy...)

I have goose bumps when I think of that day, citizens hear no evil, see no evil,, speak no evil even in BRF, for that matter Bharat Rakshak Forum becomes Bharat Darshan Forum....

Yes We can, Yes we must embrace peace

Sajan re jhoot math bolo
Khuda ke paas jana hai
Na haathi hai na Ghoda hai
wahan paidal hi jana hai...

Narayanan namo namaha

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21172
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prem » 02 Jul 2008 08:43

JS

Chale hai dekho hum to ban ke barati
Sasure ne lene beja lohe ka haathi ( police van)
Chale hai bun thun ke , Sarakari Dulha ban ke
Chale hai chale hai chale hai Sasural(jail)

lets wait for NSG's nod and then decide.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 02 Jul 2008 10:09

sraj wrote:Go, because you must
Statesman Editorial

We need though spare no tears for Dr Singh, certainly not on the ground that he seems a nice chap. He has clearly been a misfit as Prime Minister, and has achieved the highest political position in the country with the weakest political credentials ever. And sometimes a price has to be paid for getting more than what one deserves.


how did you miss to higlight this one sraj ? MMS epitaph right there.
he was set up as the fall guy and he will now take the blow.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Singha » 02 Jul 2008 10:41

Raju, thats a very wrong interpretation of PRC history. the wall was unsuccessful
in keeping out the mongols and in its western parts was earthen and weak. so the
"Han" of today is of mongol ancestry and in turn the "Han" invaded and subjugated
the vast peoples of the south and center to impose Hanhood on everyone.

Walls lose you the advantage of mobility and surprise - you sit there with no
initiative waiting for the enemy to choose his time and place for a fight.

the vastest swathes of territory have always been taken by cavalry on the
open steppes and deserts.

India's faults lay in disunity and life being good here, nobody paid a thought to
walking across and looting afghanistan, caspian rim states and persia.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 02 Jul 2008 10:58

Singha wrote: India's faults lay in disunity and life being good here, nobody paid a thought to
walking across and looting afghanistan, caspian rim states and persia.


Singha,

Thought this is OT but you hit the nail on its head. What people tend to forget is that the Gangetic Plains has been one of the world's most fertile regions which for thousands of years have fed its inhabitants with diligence.

In anceint times, people migrated/looted or captured new territories because their life in their home areas were miserable and poor. New territories meant new riches, new slaves and most important more food.

In history there are very few people like say Alexzander who captured new territory for the just the glory associated with it.

Ancient Indians looked around at neighbouring countries and only saw poverty and misery, why the hell should they make the ardorous journey on horse back or elephant back or just plain marching to capture deserts and sandy dunes?

And off course disunity is the sad byproduct of independent thinking which is both the bane as well as strength of Indians. :D

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 02 Jul 2008 11:58

GDji, there are two kinds of walls. One is a natural wall as that provided by mountainous terrain and the other is a physical wall built in the plains. The Mongols took advantage of the walls provided by nature whereas the Han's built physical walls to imitate natural walls.

Wall is a necessity, but it is imperitive of those sitting behind those walls to venture afar and conquer virgin lands in the satisfaction that their own communities behind are walled behind some kind of defence. This is what is happening today vis a vis the west. Han and our failure was not due to walls but the failure was due to lack of foresight of those sitting behind those walls.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby RajeshA » 02 Jul 2008 12:48

RamaY wrote:Whether we like it or not, between 2010-2050, the next-gen super powers are USA and China. India cannot aspire to be a superpower atleast for another 20 years unless

2. Internal cohesiveness - get rid-off social cancers like Maoists, CPI/M, Mayavati, Karunanidhi, Lalloos,PDP etc, who encourage vote-bank politics, irresponsible fiscal policies, and corrupt civic behaviors


I think, you need to reconsider these opinions. Whereas Maoists are certainly a virus, and CPI/M hardly gives any thought to India's national interests, people like Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mayawati are politicians, even leaders, with a mass following and extremely important to keep the connect between national politics and Indian strategic interests on the one hand and the common man on the other. If these people were not there, the common man in the rural areas of India, would have no stake in national politics. Whereas these politicians and parties are necessary for India's vertical integration, coalition politics may be unwieldy, but it is important for India's horizontal integration.

By the way, Laloo is considered a very good Railways Minister, and Mayawati does not get bad marks as an administrator. Just because they are not products of elitist education, does not make them either dumb or irrelevant.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17033
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 02 Jul 2008 12:58

good post Rajesh.

the rural folk of the so-called backward/poor classes have only started to have representatives
in positions of power -- that is a must in modern India for its democracy to run smoothly.

the quality of these leaders certainly leave something to be expected but hopefully, the overall
quality will only improve, overtime.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 02 Jul 2008 14:32

SP shocker leaves no hope for Left

The shocker has also proved to the Left that nearly always, the mainstream of politics prevails over the fringe that the communists represent even if they manage to post the best ever performance in national elections.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20952
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Philip » 02 Jul 2008 15:02

Here is this viewpoint of the Left's opposition from Frontline.The missives from Condy Rice and others ,lecturing India on its foreign policy,ties with Iran etc.,only serve to underscore the US's crude attempts at armtwisting and coercing the Indian leadership into this deal,drawing much suspicion,especially as Dr.Singh has been far from truthful about the terms and real price that India will have to pay for such generosity from Uncle Sam,that threatens to scrap or cap our fast breeder programme and turn India into another "rent boy" of South Asia!

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 401800.htm

Strategic embrace

JOHN CHERIAN

It is not the text of the nuclear deal that the Left and the other parties and individuals have objected to but the context.

AIJAZ RAHI/AP

A Fighter aircraft takes off from the USS Kitty Hawk during the joint exercises involving the navies of the U.S., India, Australia, Japan and Singapore in the Bay of Bengal in 2007.

AN influential section in the Congress party, seemingly determined to see the nuclear deal through, has triggered a new crisis for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. The “technocrats” in the Congress, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have put the nuclear deal before key issues such as the rising inflation rate.

In the last week of June, despite the stated opposition of the UPA’s constituents and the Left parties’ threat to withdraw support, the government instructed officials of the External Affairs Ministry and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to go to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the finalised nuclear safeguards agreement.

New Delhi wants the IAEA Board of Governors to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the India-specific safeguards. The government wants to complete the formalities with the IAEA so that it can, hopefully, get the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the U.S. Congress to approve the deal formally. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee had not so long ago gone on record as stating that a minority government cannot go ahead and unilaterally sign a deal.

Most observers feel that it is a race against time for the Indian government if it goes ahead and tries to operationalise the deal. There are many sceptics in the NSG and their number is expected to grow when the Manmohan Singh government is reduced to lame-duck status. The Left parties have re-emphasised that they will withdraw support to the government if it goes to the IAEA.

With the political credibility of U.S. President George W. Bush at an all-time low, it will be difficult for the government to surmount the NSG hurdle and for the deal to go to Congress for its final approval. New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden are among the countries that are known to have reservations about the deal. Even South Africa, which has taken a principled stand on disarmament issues, seems far from convinced about the “special treatment” meted out to India by the West. (Abdullah Minty, the South African representative in the NSG, is known as the “ayatollah of disarmament” in diplomatic circles.)

New political leaderships are in place in Japan and Australia. The decision of the new Labour government in Australia not to supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), such as India, is a reflection of the changing international opinion on disarmament issues. If the India-U.S. deal does go through, it will be the first time a nuclear state outside the NPT has been allowed to engage in civilian nuclear trade.

A former Indian Foreign Secretary told this correspondent that the India-U.S. nuclear deal would happen but not under the dispensation of the Bush administration. He is of the view that it would be better for the nuclear deal to remain in “cold storage” for the time being. The diplomat, who is an outspoken supporter of the deal, said New Delhi should wait for a new administration to be in place in Washington.

According to him, even the next U.S. President, whether it is Barack Obama or John McCain, will push for the deal. He said the American political establishment, cutting across party lines, is aware that if the deal becomes a reality, New Delhi will remain strategically tied to Washington for the foreseeable future.

The Left parties, along with other parties, have been arguing forcefully for the past three years that the UPA government is leading the country into Washington’s strategic embrace. It is not the text of the nuclear deal that the Left and the other parties and individuals have objected to but the context.

Former U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns had said that the nuclear deal was “perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in 60 years of our relationship”. The Bush administration, with absolutely no foreign policy successes to boast of, desperately wants the India-U.S. nuclear agreement as part of its legacy.

Burns, during his visit to India earlier this year, repeatedly called on the Indian government to complete expeditiously the process of going to the IAEA. The U.S. Ambassador to India, David Mulford, also indulged in a bit of arm-twisting and bluster. He told an Indian television channel that if the treaty was not processed by Congress in June this year it was “unlikely that this deal will be offered again to India”.

A high-level U.S. delegation comprising Senators John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Joseph Biden, which visited India in late February, had the same message. The Senators urged the Indian government to conclude the mandatory agreements with the IAEA and the NSG by June, so that Congress could ratify the agreement by July. Another high-level bipartisan congressional delegation visited New Delhi in the end of June.

In the past few months the Bush administration has piled on the pressure almost on a daily basis. A day before the UPA-Left coordination committee meeting on June 25, the U.S. State Department spokesman warned that “every day that goes by is one less day on the legislative calendar” for Congress. “It certainly gets harder every day that it is delayed,” he said.

Recently, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez said New Delhi would have to make some “tough choices” to save the deal. Manmohan Singh, if not the Congress party as a whole, seems to have made the choice –sacrifice the government to save the nuclear deal.

The timing of the deal coincided with the intensification of a “new Cold War” – it came at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was being transformed into a new grouping that identified Russia and China as its rivals. At the Bucharest NATO summit, President Bush announced that NATO was “now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future for freedom and peace for millions”.

The Bush administration has announced plans for an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system aimed at neutralising the comparatively small intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programme of China and has threatened Russia by putting up missile bases on its borders. At the Bishkek summit in May, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement condemning the American ABM. The two leaders were also critical about the “double standards” in the Bush administration’s foreign policy, especially on its reliance on the unilateral use of force.

It is feared that a successful conclusion of the India-U.S. deal will make New Delhi a junior partner in Washington’s aggressive pursuit of its geo-political designs in Asia. India could end up supporting Washington’s game plan to monopolise the oil and gas reserves in West and Central Asia.

It is no secret that one of Washington’s primary goals in forging an alliance with India is to checkmate China’s rising power. Former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, who is now a paid lobbyist for India, said in a speech in New Delhi when he was holding his diplomatic post that both India and the U.S. should get together to face the challenges “from the enemy beyond the third mountain range”.

India’s traditional foreign policy has been noticeably affected, as is clear from its vote against Iran in the IAEA and its foot-dragging on the negotiations for the gas pipeline deal with that country.

The U.S. Congress, in the last week of June, passed a non-binding resolution demanding that the Bush administration impose “stringent inspection requirements” on trade with Iran. The strong language used is seen by many observers as a precursor to an economic blockade on Iran and a possible military campaign before the end of the year.

In the first week of July, Congress is expected to pass the resolution endorsing draconian sanctions against Iran. The resolution demands that the President initiate an international effort to “immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment activities”. The European Union (E.U.) has already succumbed to pressure from Washington; it has announced stringent sanctions on Teheran, including sanctions on Bank Melli, Iran’s leading bank.

New Delhi is under pressure to impose similar sanctions. According to reports in the Indian media, the External Affairs Ministry has recommended that New Delhi emulate the E.U. action. In May last year, key American Congressmen backing the India-U.S. deal wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressing “their grave concerns” about India’s ties with Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior U.S. officials advised New Delhi against signing the gas pipeline deal. Condoleezza Rice also controversially questioned the relevance of India’s membership in organisations such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

The UPA government, despite the commitment given in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) to follow an independent foreign policy, tilted towards Washington at the very outset of its term in office. Without consulting the Left, whose support was crucial to its survival, the government signed the U.S.-India Defence Framework Agreement of June 2005, the precursor to the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

This agreement provided the basis for the defence establishments of the two countries to collaborate in multinational operations without the consent of the United Nations. The agreement also includes the provision of India partnering the U.S. in its aggressive anti-missile programme aimed at China, Russia and Iran.

Reports in the American media at the time suggested that the Indian government had given tacit permission to the U.S. government to set up “lily pad” bases on its territory. The U.S. has such small bases in Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines and uses them to stock up arms to be used in contingencies.

It may not be a coincidence that the bulk of the major joint military exercises India conducts these days are with the U.S. Army. The quadrilateral military exercises involving the navies of India, the U.S., Japan and Australia held last year in the Bay of Bengal sent the wrong signals to Moscow, Beijing and other world capitals. During President Bush’s visit to India in 2006, the two governments signed a Logistics Support Agreement that gives the militaries of the two countries the privilege of using each other’s facilities for maintenance, servicing, communication and refuelling.

There is increasing pressure on the Indian government to sign up to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the Container Security Initiative (CSI). Both are American initiatives to interdict the clandestine movement of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) material. The 2005 India-U.S. Global Democracy Initiative is another illustration of the two governments cosying up, allegedly on the grounds of promoting “shared values”. The UPA’s CMP had only emphasised improving relations with the U.S., not a full-scale military and nuclear embrace of Uncle Sam.

Henry Sokolski, in an article in the U.S. Armed Forces Journal in May 2006, wrote: “Give New Delhi the nuclear technology it wants, our diplomats argue, and the U.S. gets access to India as a strategic partner of a billion citizens.”

The Left parties predicted at the time that India’s foreign policy would become “congruent” to that of the U.S. as a result of the Defence Framework Agreement of 2005 and the 2006 nuclear deal. The U.S. Hyde Act, which is inherently linked to the nuclear deal, specifically states that the U.S. government expects Indian foreign policy to be sensitive to American global concerns.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 02 Jul 2008 15:26

Philip wrote:Here is this viewpoint of the Left's opposition from Frontline.The missives from Condy Rice and others ,lecturing India on its foreign policy,ties with Iran etc.,only serve to underscore the US's crude attempts at armtwisting and coercing the Indian leadership into this deal,drawing much suspicion,especially as Dr.Singh has been far from truthful about the terms and real price that India will have to pay for such generosity from Uncle Sam,that threatens to scrap or cap our fast breeder programme and turn India into another "rent boy" of South Asia!

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/2 ... 401800.htm



Philip ji,

I'm not going to try to analyse the entire article, though there are a lot of points that I find issue with. It's a blatantly Leftist slant article coming out of N Ram's factory. :)

However, I would like to highlight the following paras:

Most observers feel that it is a race against time for the Indian government if it goes ahead and tries to operationalise the deal. There are many sceptics in the NSG and their number is expected to grow when the Manmohan Singh government is reduced to lame-duck status. The Left parties have re-emphasised that they will withdraw support to the government if it goes to the IAEA.

With the political credibility of U.S. President George W. Bush at an all-time low, it will be difficult for the government to surmount the NSG hurdle and for the deal to go to Congress for its final approval. New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden are among the countries that are known to have reservations about the deal. Even South Africa, which has taken a principled stand on disarmament issues, seems far from convinced about the “special treatment” meted out to India by the West. (Abdullah Minty, the South African representative in the NSG, is known as the “ayatollah of disarmament” in diplomatic circles.)

New political leaderships are in place in Japan and Australia. The decision of the new Labour government in Australia not to supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), such as India, is a reflection of the changing international opinion on disarmament issues. If the India-U.S. deal does go through, it will be the first time a nuclear state outside the NPT has been allowed to engage in civilian nuclear trade.


Doesn't the last para, which I've put in bold, clearly shows the author's NPA agenda? The last sentence especially gives the game away. I would have thought that if that happens it's a matter of rejoicing for India and Indians!

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby sraj » 02 Jul 2008 18:15

Raju wrote:
sraj wrote:Go, because you must
Statesman Editorial

We need though spare no tears for Dr Singh, certainly not on the ground that he seems a nice chap. He has clearly been a misfit as Prime Minister, and has achieved the highest political position in the country with the weakest political credentials ever. And sometimes a price has to be paid for getting more than what one deserves.


how did you miss to higlight this one sraj ? MMS epitaph right there.
he was set up as the fall guy and he will now take the blow.

I did not highlight this consciously. I think the "fall guy" thesis can be articulated without going into questions of whether MMS deserves his current position or not. In the past, MMS has served India with distinction, particularly in his role as Finance Minister during a critical period.

In my view, at this time, MMS should ask Bush to immediately convene NSG and show us what kind of Waiver Bush can deliver (remember all the talk of everything being "reciprocal").

This should happen before India goes to the IAEA Board of Governors. After that, India has no leverage and risks a repeat of the Hyde fiasco.

I reserve judgment on this deal until I see the NSG Waiver language.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby RamaY » 02 Jul 2008 18:39

RajeshA wrote:I think, you need to reconsider these opinions. Whereas Maoists are certainly a virus, and CPI/M hardly gives any thought to India's national interests, people like Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mayawati are politicians, even leaders, with a mass following and extremely important to keep the connect between national politics and Indian strategic interests on the one hand and the common man on the other. If these people were not there, the common man in the rural areas of India, would have no stake in national politics. Whereas these politicians and parties are necessary for India's vertical integration, coalition politics may be unwieldy, but it is important for India's horizontal integration.

By the way, Laloo is considered a very good Railways Minister, and Mayawati does not get bad marks as an administrator. Just because they are not products of elitist education, does not make them either dumb or irrelevant.


Rajesh ji,

I beg to disagree. That is the impression Laloo's and Mayavathi's are trying to give to aam-janta... but

1. If that is true and the common-man/woman believes them, then they should be winning elections every time. For example in UP who is the true representative? Kalyansingh/Mayavathi/Mulayam?

2. Unfortunately these regional parties are sending almost 200/540 MPs to Indian Parliament and enjoying key portfolios such as Agriculture, Defense, Finance, Commerce, Railways etc... So they should reflect the national mood as well. More over they are representing states that rival any normal European country. So we need more responsible leaders at state levels as well. And it will be our ignorance to believe that a leader has to fall to such low levels to represent aam-jantaa.... common man in India is many more time wiser than that... For Example: NModi, coming from a BC background, is able to demonstrate better Administrative, policy, national interest, and business mgmt ethos? so there are extremely good leaders who can represent the common man in Indian politics without weakening the nation state...

3. We are not dying tomorrow. We can definitely see how much Laloo (as an individual) contributed to Railway's success (we will see more case studies coming out soon), and how good Mayavathi's administration would be in next five years.. A true indicator of a leader is how well they lead the team (whatever it is) when things go unplanned and unmanageable.

NRao garu - I thought about it... but somehow i have a very bad feeling about touching BD. Looking at our current national ethos and leadership, I am worried touching BD would result in India losing more territories to BD (populace) and converting the border states into muslim (m not against muslims but islam) majority states. See what is happening in JK… we will have this discussion some other time, on some other thread perhaps…

Brining the discussion back to N-Deal - The "strategic embrace" with the USA should be the prime reason to sign this deal. Who said we have to buy N-reactors only from US? We need not buy anything if we want.. just sign the deal and keep quite... ask only the maal for civilian reactors... focus on developing Thoriam-cycle... complete the remaining phases of KundanKulam with Russian reactors... use the economy-slowing-down to your advantage... buy lots of Chinooks (Service ceiling 18,500 ft/5,640 m) and a used air-craft carrier from unkil by 2012 along with F-18s. Force China to show its cards.... we are not losing anything with this deal... like someone said "126 F-18s in 2010 are better than 500 F-22s in 2050"...

If you want to test, test it at the time of your choosing... Make sure you know and plan for the consequences... we will face sanctions if/when we test next time, irrespective of whether this deal is there or not...

enqyoob-sar: Why spiritualism should only achieved thru pacifism? If that is the only way, I prefer separating state from spiritualism. Let there be peace loving rishis spreading Sanatana Dharma, while a strong and aggressive leader leads Bharatavarsh towards its destiny as a nation and culture.

sugriva
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Exposing the uber communist luddites masquerading as capitalists

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby sugriva » 02 Jul 2008 19:08

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PM_m ... 189215.cms

NEW DELHI: Following a briefing by National Security Adviser M K Narayanan on the nuclear deal, the Samajwadi Party on Wednesday said it wants PM to clarify his stand before the public.

Party leader Amar Singh said, "Until Prime Minister makes a public statement allying apprehensions on the nuclear deal in Parliament or outside it will be difficult for SP to support the deal. I cannot dictate to Prime Minister what he should say. He can say in whatever way he wants."

Singh said that his party has told Narayanan the apprehensions on the deal as conveyed to it by the Left parties.
He also said the government must explain its vote against Iran in the IAEA saying that it compromised India's sovereignty.


Earlier, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and general secretary Amar Singh on Wednesday went to an undisclosed place for a briefing by NSA on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The government had decided to brief the SP leaders after they claimed that they did not know any "new" detail of the nuclear deal and hence could not decide whether or not to support the UPA on it.

SP has 39 members in Lok Sabha and they would be crucial for the government's survival if the Left parties carry out their threat to withdraw support over the deal.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests