Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Please continue here.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Sink or survive, deal ‘done’
Sink or survive, deal ‘done’
RADHIKA RAMASESHAN
New Delhi, July 15: The deal is “done”, whether the UPA survives the trust vote or not, the government believes.
A highly placed official said the safeguards agreement, to be put before nuclear watchdog IAEA’s board of governors at a special August 1 meeting, would stay on course, unaffected by politics back home.
“The (nuclear) deal will happen because the government is clear that it is in the supreme national interest. If the government has to go in the process, let it go,” the source said.
“The deal will happen because the G8 resolution has backed it and even (Democrat presidential designate) Barack Obama has supported it. It is not conditional on which government exists in India and which one comes in the US.”
The source made it clear that once the safeguards process was over, things wouldn’t be in India’s hands any more. “The only thing we could dictate was to speed up things at the IAEA. The rest is for the Americans to do.”
Earlier, sections of the government and a Congress spokesperson had hinted that if the government lost majority, it could withdraw the IAEA agreement.
But the source today said Manmohan Singh was neither crunching numbers nor seeking daily briefings on the political sensex. “His bottom line is clear. He is not desperate to stay in power…. There will be no JMM kind of drama,” the source said, alluding to the 1999 case when MPs were bribed for their support.
“The government has the numbers,” the source added. “There has to be a convergence of interest and, if that happens, it will sail through.”
The source said that for Singh, a big milestone in the deal’s chequered journey was getting the support of the G8, which, after Pokhran 1998, had enforced sanctions on India.
In an interaction with journalists this morning, Singh said the IAEA agreement would end the “era of nuclear apartheid against India” and added that it would in no way “impinge on our strategic programme, which is entirely outside its purview”. India, he asserted, would “never allow any extraneous interference in the conduct” of its “independent foreign policy”.
The source said “there was no meeting of minds” between Singh and CPM chief Prakash Karat, who took a “rigid” ideological position. Singh was also upset with the BJP for allegedly recanting on an “understanding” that it would support the deal.
“At one point, the Prime Minister was given to understand that the BJP was willing to change its position if he personally called on (A.B.) Vajpayee and explained things. He met Vajpayee, (L.K.) Advani was also present. But Advani told him, ‘I cannot change because I will not be able to carry the party with me’.”
If the government survives the July 22 trust vote, sources said Singh’s priority would be to implement flagship social programmes. This, they said, would be his way of thanking his party for rallying behind him.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
- Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
From the previous thread:
Raju saar,
We seem to be going into semantics at the drop of a hat here on the Nook thread. I suppose that’s only natural with everyone exhausted after a billion threads with a zillion arguments for and against the deal. Punch drunk would be a nice description.
Anyway back to the remark, which incidentally I wrote in a light-hearted post:
Just for your information. Though I have no idea of exactly how much money is being offered, I’m pretty sure that money is/will change hands on both sides of the fence - Treasury Bench as well as Opposition.
It’s really a sad day for India that such an important decision – which affects India so profoundly (could be both good or bad) – has to be decided on the basis of this.
amit, I have not made the 25 cr claim. A rebel Samajwadi Party MP has done it.
he mentioned it aloud while others were whispering quietly.
Let's keep it in perspective.
Raju saar,
We seem to be going into semantics at the drop of a hat here on the Nook thread. I suppose that’s only natural with everyone exhausted after a billion threads with a zillion arguments for and against the deal. Punch drunk would be a nice description.
Anyway back to the remark, which incidentally I wrote in a light-hearted post:
Now, if you notice carefully I said the information was conveyed by one of the BRF stalwarts (thank you for identifying yourself as one). My statement did not in any way imply that the said stalwart was himself the source of information did it? I really wonder why you need to issue a clarification to put things in "perspective"?(asking price is Rs 25 cr so I hear from one of the stalwarts of BRF)
Just for your information. Though I have no idea of exactly how much money is being offered, I’m pretty sure that money is/will change hands on both sides of the fence - Treasury Bench as well as Opposition.
It’s really a sad day for India that such an important decision – which affects India so profoundly (could be both good or bad) – has to be decided on the basis of this.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
you are losing no opportunity to pull your punches. Yet you talk of semantics.
take the response also in a similar light-hearted vein.
take the response also in a similar light-hearted vein.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Very very funny & apt
Might as well be apt to draw a cliff under him.
Give that cartoonist a "Tiger" beer !.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
- Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Raju Saar,Raju wrote:you are losing no opportunity to pull your punches. Yet you talk of semantics.
take the response also in a similar light-hearted vein.
Thank you for noticing that I "pull my punches"** and thus try to keep a level of decency going in the exchanges I have with other posters.
Don't worry I've taken things in perspective - that is I recognise that all you have written online has been in a light-hearted vein. Please also reciprocate when reading what I write as well. I'm not very good at understanding or conveying hidden meanings in what I read/write!
** Pull your punches:
Etymology: based on boxing, from the literal meaning of pull your punches (= to not hit the other fighter as hard as you can)
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
>> (= to not hit the other fighter as hard as you can)
the opposite of this was what was intended in your case. take out the hard part and make it 'as often as possible'.
*he missed every opportunity to pull back his punches and tried to land it as often as possible*
Sorry for the confusion.
the opposite of this was what was intended in your case. take out the hard part and make it 'as often as possible'.
*he missed every opportunity to pull back his punches and tried to land it as often as possible*
Sorry for the confusion.
he is positioning himself for respectable exit.But the source today said Manmohan Singh was neither crunching numbers nor seeking daily briefings on the political sensex. “His bottom line is clear. He is not desperate to stay in power….
Last edited by Raju on 16 Jul 2008 11:49, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
To keep its flock intact, BSP pledges all 17 MPs tickets for LS polls
http://in.news.yahoo.com/241/20080716/1 ... edges.html
Rebel Congress MP to vote against the UPA in trust vote
http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20080716/14 ... st-th.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/241/20080716/1 ... t-vot.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/241/20080716/1 ... edges.html
Rebel Congress MP to vote against the UPA in trust vote
http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20080716/14 ... st-th.html
NDA issues whip for trust voteI don't want to commit political suicide and, therefore, there is no question of my voting in their favour," Bishnoi, younger son of former Haryana chief minister Bhajan Lal, said here last night. Bishnoi, who has been suspended from the Congress, said he had recently written a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh citing ten objections to the Indo-US nuclear deal.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/241/20080716/1 ... t-vot.html
A meeting of the senior party functionaries took the decision to issue whips to all BJP MPs. ''All the NDA constituents are together and we are confident that the UPA government will fall. The BJP has issued a whip and we are talking to the NDA constituents like SAD, JD(U), BJD and others,'' spokesperson of the BJP parliamentary party VK Malhotra told reporters here. ''All NDA partners, including SAD and Shiv Sena, will vote against the UPA,'' Malhotra said adding that certain smaller parties and members of UNPA are also talking to the BJP to vote against the government.
"Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has changed his stand. He criticised the NDA government in 1998 in Parliament _ when he was leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha _ for Pokharan II," senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
- Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Sorry for causing so much conphusion!Raju wrote: Sorry for the confusion.
And I must say nice try!
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Reminds me of the angry letter in the Gwinnett Daily News (pbuh, shaheed 1989).
That's my complaint too. The Prime Minister simply does not have the moral turpitude to moon the Americans.
This Governor doesn't even have the moral turpitude to stand up for the good people of this State against them liberal commie pinko agitators and furriners and heathens....
That's my complaint too. The Prime Minister simply does not have the moral turpitude to moon the Americans.
Last edited by enqyoob on 16 Jul 2008 17:40, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
He Haw
Ifeel good so goood
I feel electricuted
I got the pawaar
I feel its flowing
Ifeel good so goood
I feel electricuted
I got the pawaar
I feel its flowing
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Continuing from previous thread:
NRao wrote (15 Jul 2008 03:49 pm)
I believe that insertion of this clause into the separation plan is the second of Mr Kakodkar's biggest positive contributions in this deal, the first one being the spotlight shone by him on the US's goal-post-shifting game.
NRao wrote (15 Jul 2008 03:49 pm)
In this connection, Gerard wrote (15 Jul 2008 05:01 pm)However, can military reactors be tied to the national grid? I think not.
Having said that, the safeguards issue is not as serious as the moratorium on testing. It is well known that India has the capability to develop its own nuclear plants. Moreover, despite the agreement it will remain India's right to classify future nuclear plants as civil or military, thus giving the country an escape valve.
I doubt that IAEA will even allow Indian non-military reactors with Indian fuel to be tied to the national grid.
Comments?
I believe, paragraph 8 of the separation plan presented to the Parliament by the PM on 08/03/2006 provides the answer to this:. . . .
IAEA has nothing to do with the national grid or what is connected to it. It cannot allow or disallow.
. . . .
My post (19 Jun 2008 07:21 pm) in these threads is based on the above aspect. Perhaps you may like top revisit it here.Implementing India's separation plan
. . . .
"8.Concepts such as grid connectivity are not relevant to the separation exercise. Issues related to fuel resource sustainability, technical design and economic viability, as well as smooth operation of reactors are relevant factors. This would necessitate grid connectivity irrespective of whether the reactor concerned is civilian or not civilian.
. . .
I believe that insertion of this clause into the separation plan is the second of Mr Kakodkar's biggest positive contributions in this deal, the first one being the spotlight shone by him on the US's goal-post-shifting game.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
With their decades of experience dealing with IAEA inspections, with perpetuity and pursuit clauses etc, AK, Grover et al are well positioned to negotiate with the IAEA.I believe that insertion of this clause into the separation plan is the second of Mr Kakodkar's biggest positive contributions in this deal,
Fears of pursuit into the military facilities are unfounded IMHO. India is moving APSARA and decommissioning CIRUS so that BARC is totally islanded off.
IAEA inspection teams include members from many countries. The IAEA archives were used by North Korea and Iraq in their bomb making pursuits. The very idea that the IAEA has any business inside a facility where thermonnuclear weapons are being designed and fabricated is absurd. That is a sure recipe for leakage of information to NNWS. A disaster for non-proliferation, world peace etc.
The agreement places the reprocessing plants under campaign safeguards, so that existing facilities can be used straight away for foreign origin safeguarded fuel. So Indian purchase of Uranium will entail either reprocessing rights or the supplier nations taking back their spent fuel.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4277
- Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
- Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
- Contact:
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
I find this news report ironic.
PMO forwards Amar Singh's spectrum suggestion to DoT
Because Sunil Mittal of Bharti Airtel was one of the backers of the nuclear deal. And now, his own project has come back to bite him.
PMO forwards Amar Singh's spectrum suggestion to DoT
Why?NEW DELHI/KOLKATA: The government has taken the first steps to appease the Samajwadi Party-its new partner at the Centre. The Prime Minster's Office (PMO) has forwarded SP general secretary Amar Singh’s demands to impose a windfall tax on private refineries and make GSM telecom operators pay for additional spectrum to the respective ministries and has asked them to look into it.
Because Sunil Mittal of Bharti Airtel was one of the backers of the nuclear deal. And now, his own project has come back to bite him.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
We will see more absurd demands like this before 20
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Symbolism Tops Substance in U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement
Here is an NPA acknowledging all the junk that was successfully incorporated into Hyde (making it a "tremendous improvement" over J18), and hoping that this would be replicated in the NSG Waiver.
Time, perhaps, for some of the more exuberant pro-dealers to acknowledge that there may be a point to some of the opposition to this deal as currently structured?
A tainted NSG Waiver will surely kill this deal!
Here is an NPA acknowledging all the junk that was successfully incorporated into Hyde (making it a "tremendous improvement" over J18), and hoping that this would be replicated in the NSG Waiver.
Time, perhaps, for some of the more exuberant pro-dealers to acknowledge that there may be a point to some of the opposition to this deal as currently structured?
A tainted NSG Waiver will surely kill this deal!
Now, what emerged as the final U.S. position because of the Hyde Act certainly was a tremendous improvement over where the deal stood when it was announced in July 2005. The Hyde Act built in penalties if there were further Indian nuclear tests and contained other provisions limiting the types and scale of nuclear cooperation India could receive from the United States. If all of these provisions were adopted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, then we'd at least have something in the plus column for nonproliferation. You would have taken a country that had, in effect, been totally free to do as it wished with its weapons, in terms of testing and the rest, and at least put a restrictive framework around it that made it more difficult to take the nuclear weapon program to new levels, such as developing thermonuclear weapons (that is, the H-bomb).
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
deleted
Last edited by shiv on 17 Jul 2008 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: See Nukkad thread for math quiz deleted from here
Reason: See Nukkad thread for math quiz deleted from here
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Left helping BJP in 'communalising' nuclear deal: Ravi
Sumir Kaul New Delhi, July 16 (PTI) With the ruling UPA battling for numbers to sail through next week's trust vote, the government today accused the Left parties of helping the BJP by giving a communal tinge to its opposition to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.
Accusing the Left of using BSP as a "link" to connect with the BJP, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi told PTI in an interview "the irony is that the Left parties are making the nuclear deal as something against a particular community, which is very unfortunate and is taking the help of BSP in doing so." "The Communists have accused the government of keeping them in dark over the nuclear deal, whereas the government had taken their consent at every step. Their own publication - Left stand on the Nuclear -- the notes exchanged in the UPA-Left committee on the India-US civil nuclear cooperation proves that they were always in the loop," Ravi said.
"When the government sought permission to negotiate the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA, they knew that it would have to be finalised. Otherwise, why should you negotiate at all," he asked.
Justifying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stand on the contentious deal, Ravi argued that the UPA government was trying to end the nuclear isolation faced by India since the 1974 Pokharan test.
"We have atomic plants which would run out of fuel if we do not get nuclear fuel. Russia, France and UK are ready with their Uranium supply," he said. PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.ns ... enDocument
Sumir Kaul New Delhi, July 16 (PTI) With the ruling UPA battling for numbers to sail through next week's trust vote, the government today accused the Left parties of helping the BJP by giving a communal tinge to its opposition to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.
Accusing the Left of using BSP as a "link" to connect with the BJP, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi told PTI in an interview "the irony is that the Left parties are making the nuclear deal as something against a particular community, which is very unfortunate and is taking the help of BSP in doing so." "The Communists have accused the government of keeping them in dark over the nuclear deal, whereas the government had taken their consent at every step. Their own publication - Left stand on the Nuclear -- the notes exchanged in the UPA-Left committee on the India-US civil nuclear cooperation proves that they were always in the loop," Ravi said.
"When the government sought permission to negotiate the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA, they knew that it would have to be finalised. Otherwise, why should you negotiate at all," he asked.
Justifying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stand on the contentious deal, Ravi argued that the UPA government was trying to end the nuclear isolation faced by India since the 1974 Pokharan test.
"We have atomic plants which would run out of fuel if we do not get nuclear fuel. Russia, France and UK are ready with their Uranium supply," he said. PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.ns ... enDocument
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/17/05hdline.htm
A betrayal of India’s constitutional vision
(Justice Krishna Iyer is the legendary former Supreme Court judge)
V. R. Krishna Iyer
Sovereign India is justly sceptical about the Manmohan Singh government’s specious nuclear strategy.
There are shining victories to be won in the cause of peace and social justice. We shall reach the new freedom by not submitting to economic slavery… forward with the people.
— From an editorial in Daily Mirror in 1945, as reproduced in Hidden Agendas, by John Pilger; Vintage, Great Britain, 1998.
The unity and integrity of India are tending to dwindle amid the divisive polemics over the ongoing dubious nuclear politics. But the real issue is not the import of enriched uranium, nuclear plant equipment or technology from the U.S.: it goes deeper. The issue involves U.S. suzerainty over India’s national economy and foreign policy, although the countrywide debate is currently centred on the nuclear deal. American nuclear big business is keen to make India its meg a-market, using for the purpose a willing and weak Prime Minister.
The grave implications of this business are profound, as is obvious from Dr. Manmohan Singh’s defiant do-or-die determination demanding a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha. He is staking his government’s very survival on the energy deal. Whoever wins the vote in the House, the nation has lost its solidarity, integrity and fraternity. George Bush’s stubborn hegemonistic strategy promoting U.S big business investment has become India’s national policy, facilitated by the Sonia-Manmohan commitment. This is virtually a reversal of the Nehru-Indira socialistic non-alignment stance and the principles of Panch Sheel. This basic battle is at the raging core of the controversy. The hideous hidden agenda could spell the de facto defeat of the Indian people’s historic tryst with destiny, the betrayal of India’s constitutional vision and mission.
We should not miss the real nature of the ideological war involved in this naively simplistic treaty dispute. Let us not be beguiled by the nuclear alibi. Are we a sovereign nation, or a mere satellite? Who decides our import-investment policies, the direction of swadeshi agriculture and native industrial development? Are we a ‘banana republic’ of sorts? The Sonia-Manmohanomic party is neither Indian nor national: the Congress has formally become the brand name of a political business corporation. We have politicking operators with no democratic swaraj ideology or crimson nationalism. Communal concatenation and power-crazy cliques are the shopping complexes in the Indian power bazaar. Mr. Bush browbeats or buys these political engineers as his proxies. The Constitution is now rendered irrelevant by logomachy.
Parties barter seats and votes and try to make Parliament an enterprise with commercial stakes. The media report of seats and deals for high prices, and micro-parties and independents as being available commodities. The Supreme Court’s stultifying jurisprudence on parliamentary bribery being immune to judicial discovery has made ‘horse trading’ a less risky operation than democratic decency would have tolerated. Appalling judicialese sometimes incinerates finer values, lets opportune alliances going and allows corruption inside the hallowed House.
My entreaty is to preserve undiminished the dynamics, dimensions and dialectical realities of our democracy without the authoritarian patronage and commanding directives of a big power beyond the Atlantic. Do not ‘nuclearise’ our freedom. We need no U.S. nuclear imports to attain energy swaraj. We have uranium of our own yet to be mined. We have large thorium resources. We have enough alternative resources and technology. But where is the will to tell Mr. Bush that we do not need him? We shall not surrender our freedom in disgrace. Parliamentary votes are not private commodities. Bondage to Mr. Bush and U.S. big business is nothing but colonialism.
At the recent meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Manmohan Singh, where the staggering mutual admiration was evident, it was stated in a spirit of (tragic) triumph that in the field of space, defence, educational exchanges and other strategic areas Indo-American “cooperation” has attained a new high status — which is but a euphemism for acquiescence by India in American domination.
The common Indian masses are totally innocent of this vicarious but unveracious appreciation by some people of the hated Mr. Bush. Mr. Manmohan Singh never consulted Indians by means of a referendum or a House debate, and the fake tribute paid to the Prime Minister by a lame-duck President is of little consequence.
To be fair to Dr. Manmohan Singh, I hold him as being personally simple, clean, gentle, non-communal and capable. What scandalises me as a puzzle, a riddle and pro-Yankee obscurantism, is his forsaking of the Indian have-nots. He is gravely neglecting his socialist, constitutional oath-bound commitment to liberate the poor and implement poverty economics and going for globalisation and privatisation, which are liberal with imports and investments. This drive is also marked by a Bush-friendly foreign policy and defence strategy and an extravagant addiction to American nuclear import dependence.
Do we require nuclear generation of energy? No. It involves the potential for dangerous radiation, high-cost generation, and the use of delicate technology that could be disastrous. After all, it feeds nuclear bombs in a world that faces instant annihilation with nuclear terrorism under big-power arsenals. Terrorists are everywhere and nuclear pilferage is a grave possibility.
Crime against humanity
The diabolic, dreadful immortality of nuclear waste that can cause lethal radiation after two or three decades of use of each nuclear power plant represents the gravest crime against humanity. The proposed deal violates the principles of nuclear non-proliferation. Let us be honest. Anyone who is knowledgeable in nuclear affairs will agree with the irony of the treaty. “It is almost as if the Titanic was going down, and the passengers were watching TV. India’s atomic energy programme has been subjected to a stunning managerial disaster over the past two decades, the results of which are visible now. We have known through the 1990s that India has all the uranium needed to run its nuclear power plants, currently running at half their capacity, wasting Rs. 16,000 crore of taxpayers’ money.” (Neelesh Misra, Hindustan Times, June 30, 2008)
Three great nuclear scientists who have been in high office without blame, Dr. P.K. Iyengar, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan and Dr. A.N. Prasad, have fiercely opposed U.S. imports for reasons they have spelt out in a signed statement. Sarkari scientists, looking out for personal prospects, will obviously sign away contrary assertions.
The cult of the atom, those who know swear, is the enemy of ecological safety and the good earth where humanity still survives in billions. The high priests of the nuclear religion are specialists in the art of misleading public opinion. Neither Russia nor the U.S. will dare have a nuclear power plant after their bitter experience. Chernobyl (USSR) and Three Mile Island (U.S.) remain sombre warnings to humanity. Most Western nations, save France and Japan, now avoid new nuclear power plants.
But the nuclear barons have the power of unveracious propaganda. The political economy of nuclear electricity is forbidding. A widening agenda of dissent and oppositional strategies are mounting against atomic fission. Leading research-oriented jurists like Ralph Nader regard the menace of the atom as a culture of global destruction. Then why go in for this terrible worldwide thanatos?
Our country has abundant solar energy and the technology is accessible. It is culpable default for the authorities in the States and at the Centre not to explore, exploit and execute projects that run on solar power — which is far less costly and far safer than the nuclear graveyard alternative. We have potential hydel power from rivers that range from the Ganga to the Krishna, and tidal power from the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. We have prodigious wind energy potential. We have thermal power and coal-generated energy. Astonishing is the discovery that we have unused uranium in mega-quantity but not yet mined.
Amid this opulence of energy resources, why beg for or borrow American stuff that has strings attached and involves unfamiliar technology? History will one day record the traitor-tainted guilt of those in state power who, drugged by dollar power, run after Mr. Bush and big business. Their offer is aggressively expensive. Their supplies constitute a big-power gamble. The technology they offer is unfamiliar.
Why is the U.S. itself not building nuclear plants? Every patriot in Parliament must examine the relative implications of swaraj and exotic nuclear raj from the angle of Indian autonomy and alternative energy sources. Why are we boneless satellites? Why is there such indecent haste? What is behind this undignified speedy mendicancy and this mad seppuku instinct? The nuclear deal that Dr. Manmohan Singh is in a hurry to sign is a fatal testimony of subordination, what with the Hyde Act and other prints brought out as proof by Ashok Partharasathi (The Hindu, July 15, 2008).
Parliament has supreme power. Here is my appeal to India’s parliamentarians. Beware. The secret deal constitutes a game against India’s autonomy. It involves a dubious alibi and a hidden agenda. To seek to hitch Bharat’s wagon to the U.S. star at this phase of eclipse for Mr. Bush is but seppuku. The Prime Minister should tell the House the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, any confidence vote that he may win will lose its value.
A betrayal of India’s constitutional vision
(Justice Krishna Iyer is the legendary former Supreme Court judge)
V. R. Krishna Iyer
Sovereign India is justly sceptical about the Manmohan Singh government’s specious nuclear strategy.
There are shining victories to be won in the cause of peace and social justice. We shall reach the new freedom by not submitting to economic slavery… forward with the people.
— From an editorial in Daily Mirror in 1945, as reproduced in Hidden Agendas, by John Pilger; Vintage, Great Britain, 1998.
The unity and integrity of India are tending to dwindle amid the divisive polemics over the ongoing dubious nuclear politics. But the real issue is not the import of enriched uranium, nuclear plant equipment or technology from the U.S.: it goes deeper. The issue involves U.S. suzerainty over India’s national economy and foreign policy, although the countrywide debate is currently centred on the nuclear deal. American nuclear big business is keen to make India its meg a-market, using for the purpose a willing and weak Prime Minister.
The grave implications of this business are profound, as is obvious from Dr. Manmohan Singh’s defiant do-or-die determination demanding a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha. He is staking his government’s very survival on the energy deal. Whoever wins the vote in the House, the nation has lost its solidarity, integrity and fraternity. George Bush’s stubborn hegemonistic strategy promoting U.S big business investment has become India’s national policy, facilitated by the Sonia-Manmohan commitment. This is virtually a reversal of the Nehru-Indira socialistic non-alignment stance and the principles of Panch Sheel. This basic battle is at the raging core of the controversy. The hideous hidden agenda could spell the de facto defeat of the Indian people’s historic tryst with destiny, the betrayal of India’s constitutional vision and mission.
We should not miss the real nature of the ideological war involved in this naively simplistic treaty dispute. Let us not be beguiled by the nuclear alibi. Are we a sovereign nation, or a mere satellite? Who decides our import-investment policies, the direction of swadeshi agriculture and native industrial development? Are we a ‘banana republic’ of sorts? The Sonia-Manmohanomic party is neither Indian nor national: the Congress has formally become the brand name of a political business corporation. We have politicking operators with no democratic swaraj ideology or crimson nationalism. Communal concatenation and power-crazy cliques are the shopping complexes in the Indian power bazaar. Mr. Bush browbeats or buys these political engineers as his proxies. The Constitution is now rendered irrelevant by logomachy.
Parties barter seats and votes and try to make Parliament an enterprise with commercial stakes. The media report of seats and deals for high prices, and micro-parties and independents as being available commodities. The Supreme Court’s stultifying jurisprudence on parliamentary bribery being immune to judicial discovery has made ‘horse trading’ a less risky operation than democratic decency would have tolerated. Appalling judicialese sometimes incinerates finer values, lets opportune alliances going and allows corruption inside the hallowed House.
My entreaty is to preserve undiminished the dynamics, dimensions and dialectical realities of our democracy without the authoritarian patronage and commanding directives of a big power beyond the Atlantic. Do not ‘nuclearise’ our freedom. We need no U.S. nuclear imports to attain energy swaraj. We have uranium of our own yet to be mined. We have large thorium resources. We have enough alternative resources and technology. But where is the will to tell Mr. Bush that we do not need him? We shall not surrender our freedom in disgrace. Parliamentary votes are not private commodities. Bondage to Mr. Bush and U.S. big business is nothing but colonialism.
At the recent meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Manmohan Singh, where the staggering mutual admiration was evident, it was stated in a spirit of (tragic) triumph that in the field of space, defence, educational exchanges and other strategic areas Indo-American “cooperation” has attained a new high status — which is but a euphemism for acquiescence by India in American domination.
The common Indian masses are totally innocent of this vicarious but unveracious appreciation by some people of the hated Mr. Bush. Mr. Manmohan Singh never consulted Indians by means of a referendum or a House debate, and the fake tribute paid to the Prime Minister by a lame-duck President is of little consequence.
To be fair to Dr. Manmohan Singh, I hold him as being personally simple, clean, gentle, non-communal and capable. What scandalises me as a puzzle, a riddle and pro-Yankee obscurantism, is his forsaking of the Indian have-nots. He is gravely neglecting his socialist, constitutional oath-bound commitment to liberate the poor and implement poverty economics and going for globalisation and privatisation, which are liberal with imports and investments. This drive is also marked by a Bush-friendly foreign policy and defence strategy and an extravagant addiction to American nuclear import dependence.
Do we require nuclear generation of energy? No. It involves the potential for dangerous radiation, high-cost generation, and the use of delicate technology that could be disastrous. After all, it feeds nuclear bombs in a world that faces instant annihilation with nuclear terrorism under big-power arsenals. Terrorists are everywhere and nuclear pilferage is a grave possibility.
Crime against humanity
The diabolic, dreadful immortality of nuclear waste that can cause lethal radiation after two or three decades of use of each nuclear power plant represents the gravest crime against humanity. The proposed deal violates the principles of nuclear non-proliferation. Let us be honest. Anyone who is knowledgeable in nuclear affairs will agree with the irony of the treaty. “It is almost as if the Titanic was going down, and the passengers were watching TV. India’s atomic energy programme has been subjected to a stunning managerial disaster over the past two decades, the results of which are visible now. We have known through the 1990s that India has all the uranium needed to run its nuclear power plants, currently running at half their capacity, wasting Rs. 16,000 crore of taxpayers’ money.” (Neelesh Misra, Hindustan Times, June 30, 2008)
Three great nuclear scientists who have been in high office without blame, Dr. P.K. Iyengar, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan and Dr. A.N. Prasad, have fiercely opposed U.S. imports for reasons they have spelt out in a signed statement. Sarkari scientists, looking out for personal prospects, will obviously sign away contrary assertions.
The cult of the atom, those who know swear, is the enemy of ecological safety and the good earth where humanity still survives in billions. The high priests of the nuclear religion are specialists in the art of misleading public opinion. Neither Russia nor the U.S. will dare have a nuclear power plant after their bitter experience. Chernobyl (USSR) and Three Mile Island (U.S.) remain sombre warnings to humanity. Most Western nations, save France and Japan, now avoid new nuclear power plants.
But the nuclear barons have the power of unveracious propaganda. The political economy of nuclear electricity is forbidding. A widening agenda of dissent and oppositional strategies are mounting against atomic fission. Leading research-oriented jurists like Ralph Nader regard the menace of the atom as a culture of global destruction. Then why go in for this terrible worldwide thanatos?
Our country has abundant solar energy and the technology is accessible. It is culpable default for the authorities in the States and at the Centre not to explore, exploit and execute projects that run on solar power — which is far less costly and far safer than the nuclear graveyard alternative. We have potential hydel power from rivers that range from the Ganga to the Krishna, and tidal power from the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. We have prodigious wind energy potential. We have thermal power and coal-generated energy. Astonishing is the discovery that we have unused uranium in mega-quantity but not yet mined.
Amid this opulence of energy resources, why beg for or borrow American stuff that has strings attached and involves unfamiliar technology? History will one day record the traitor-tainted guilt of those in state power who, drugged by dollar power, run after Mr. Bush and big business. Their offer is aggressively expensive. Their supplies constitute a big-power gamble. The technology they offer is unfamiliar.
Why is the U.S. itself not building nuclear plants? Every patriot in Parliament must examine the relative implications of swaraj and exotic nuclear raj from the angle of Indian autonomy and alternative energy sources. Why are we boneless satellites? Why is there such indecent haste? What is behind this undignified speedy mendicancy and this mad seppuku instinct? The nuclear deal that Dr. Manmohan Singh is in a hurry to sign is a fatal testimony of subordination, what with the Hyde Act and other prints brought out as proof by Ashok Partharasathi (The Hindu, July 15, 2008).
Parliament has supreme power. Here is my appeal to India’s parliamentarians. Beware. The secret deal constitutes a game against India’s autonomy. It involves a dubious alibi and a hidden agenda. To seek to hitch Bharat’s wagon to the U.S. star at this phase of eclipse for Mr. Bush is but seppuku. The Prime Minister should tell the House the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, any confidence vote that he may win will lose its value.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Whining about a good deal
As MPs from across the political spectrum brace up for the crucial trust vote being sought by the UPA over the nuclear deal, much fuss is being made by the left parties and the BJP on the nitty-gritties of the draft nuclear safeguards agreement sent by India to the IAEA.
The BJP says it will renegotiate the agreement if it comes to power. Politically, the party’s stance is the UPA has compromised India’s military nuclear programme. However, none other than Brajesh Mishra, national security advisor during the NDA regime, has gone on record saying the deal enables India to carry on with its military programme as well.
Mishra, who also headed the BJP foreign affairs cell, has asserted the safeguards agreement sent to the IAEA is the best possible India could get. It addresses the most important concern — of assured supply of fuel for the lifetime of civil nuclear reactors, which are to be placed under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. In fact, Mishra expressed surprise, in a TV interview, that such a good agreement, which gives India everything it had asked for, was not publicised earlier and kept under warps.
The left parties have raised a technical issue that assured nuclear fuel supply in perpetuity gets a mention only in the preamble and not the operative part of the safeguards pact. The Left must know that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not differentiate between the preamble and the operative part of such agreements.
It is, therefore, clear that both the Left and the BJP are merely raising technical issues to oppose the nuclear deal. Of course, neither wants to address the real issue of how the nuclear deal will give India access to the global high-technology market and do away with the current regime of technology apartheid operating against India.
It is unfortunate that a bipartisan foreign policy issue, which traditionally would have support from across the political spectrum, has got needlessly entangled in domestic politics. Both the Left and the BJP are making political capital out of it, at the expense of larger national interest that the deal could potentially serve.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Edi ... 242729.cms
The BJP says it will renegotiate the agreement if it comes to power. Politically, the party’s stance is the UPA has compromised India’s military nuclear programme. However, none other than Brajesh Mishra, national security advisor during the NDA regime, has gone on record saying the deal enables India to carry on with its military programme as well.
Mishra, who also headed the BJP foreign affairs cell, has asserted the safeguards agreement sent to the IAEA is the best possible India could get. It addresses the most important concern — of assured supply of fuel for the lifetime of civil nuclear reactors, which are to be placed under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity. In fact, Mishra expressed surprise, in a TV interview, that such a good agreement, which gives India everything it had asked for, was not publicised earlier and kept under warps.
The left parties have raised a technical issue that assured nuclear fuel supply in perpetuity gets a mention only in the preamble and not the operative part of the safeguards pact. The Left must know that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not differentiate between the preamble and the operative part of such agreements.
It is, therefore, clear that both the Left and the BJP are merely raising technical issues to oppose the nuclear deal. Of course, neither wants to address the real issue of how the nuclear deal will give India access to the global high-technology market and do away with the current regime of technology apartheid operating against India.
It is unfortunate that a bipartisan foreign policy issue, which traditionally would have support from across the political spectrum, has got needlessly entangled in domestic politics. Both the Left and the BJP are making political capital out of it, at the expense of larger national interest that the deal could potentially serve.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Edi ... 242729.cms
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
- Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Sigh!Philip wrote:http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/17/05hdline.htm
A betrayal of India’s constitutional vision
(Justice Krishna Iyer is the legendary former Supreme Court judge)
Justice Krishna Iyer contribution to jurisprudence in India is legendary. However, I really don't see how that makes him an expert about Nuclear power.
However, he does have some other qualifications outside jurisprudence to make him an "expert" in anything to do with Nuclear, including bombs.
Let me quote something which was written by our friend Praful Bidwal right after the 1998 tests:
FOR A CITIZEN'S MOVEMENT
This is how Bidwal starts his drivel:
So what? Just another day in the office for Bidwal right?THE tide has turned. The manufactured "consensus" over the Bharatiya
Janata Party-led Government's decision to cross the nuclear threshold
now stands exposed for what it was: flimsy, uninformed, reluctant
acceptance of the fait accompli that a particular political party with
a unique nuclear obsession had inflicted upon us all without the fig
leaf of a security rationale or a strategic review. Today, there is
sharp political polarisation on this issue. The Left has taken a
principled stand opposing nuclearisation. Large chunks of the
political centre have demarcated themselves from the BJP. At least
three former Prime Ministers have questioned the decision, or
expressed reservations about it
However, there's an interesting paragraph which is relevant to this discussion:
Since Justice Iyer has been annointed as an expert for anything to do with atoms. Then I suppose 1998 was also a mistake?The signs on the street are encouraging. There have been over 30
demonstrations and meetings in at least eight Indian cities, involving
diverse groups of people such as scholars, scientists, social
activists, human rights campaigners, feminists, trade unionists and
environmentalists, besides political activists. Highly regarded former
generals and admirals have joined this growing mobilisation. Those who
have taken a clear stand include former Chief of the Naval Staff
Admiral, N. Ramdas, Lt. Gen. Gurbir Mansingh, Air Marshal J. Zaheer
and Lt. Gen. V. R. Raghavan. Among nuclearisation's critics are former
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman M. R. Srinivasan, former Supreme
Court Judge V. R. Krishna Iyer, Gandhians such as Y. P. Anand (former
Chairman of the Railway Board) and Sidharaj Dhaddha, besides artists
and writers. No one dare accuse this movement as that of some kind of
a lunatic fringe of peaceniks unconcerned about India's security.
Afterall an expert is an expert, he cannot be accused of bias.
PS: Another little bit of trivia
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer was Home minister and minister for law, power, prisons, irrigation and social welfare in the Government of the State of Kerala following the victory of the Communist Party of India under E. M. S. Namboodiripad in the 1957 elections.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Ah, yes, I am truly impressed with this gem of reasoning, and dazzled by its awesome power:
Like Pakistan is "totally free to annihilate Israel".
You would have taken a country that had, in effect, been totally free to do as it wished with its weapons, in terms of testing and the rest,
Like Pakistan is "totally free to annihilate Israel".
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Hi Arun_S.. Any comments on my query (Sorry if I missed your response).
Basically:
1. How did you get 4 significant figures (while simply multiplying numbers of less precession) .. As it was mention before, and I am sure you will agree, that in scientific world that kind of calculation is laughable.
2. What is the relevance for 100 years for fuel supply (I can understand, if that number is taken for, say, civil engineering for construction of a reactor etc)? No one, IMO, would make a model where, one is using current technology reactors with current type of fuel being used in 100 years from now. (Other fuel plants (even Narayanan's Gobar Gas plant no one IMO would consider a 100 years fuel supply in their equation?
Thanks in advance.
(I ask because, if I remember correctly, you were still "standing by" those numbers. - correct me if I am wrong or if you have put some revised figures..)
Here are the figures for your quick reference: (4 significant figures are in bold)
Basically:
1. How did you get 4 significant figures (while simply multiplying numbers of less precession) .. As it was mention before, and I am sure you will agree, that in scientific world that kind of calculation is laughable.
2. What is the relevance for 100 years for fuel supply (I can understand, if that number is taken for, say, civil engineering for construction of a reactor etc)? No one, IMO, would make a model where, one is using current technology reactors with current type of fuel being used in 100 years from now. (Other fuel plants (even Narayanan's Gobar Gas plant no one IMO would consider a 100 years fuel supply in their equation?
Thanks in advance.
(I ask because, if I remember correctly, you were still "standing by" those numbers. - correct me if I am wrong or if you have put some revised figures..)
Here are the figures for your quick reference: (4 significant figures are in bold)
And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost[
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
The great curative properties of nuclear power is being touted as a panacea for all our power ailments (like snake-oil),by the good doctor,who did very little during his term as Finance Minsiter in this regard! Has George Bush secretly promised him the support for the Nobel Peace Prize,for service to non-proliferation,by effectively destroying India's nuclear deterrent? All the claims by experts on both sides of the debate say that only 7% at the maximum,can nuclear power produce for India's total requirement,that too at a phenomenal price.Where is the extra power going to therefore come from?No one has answered this question satisfactorily.While all the major nations are racing to produce power through a variety of means,including offshore wind farms and are heavily investing billions into solar enengy research,how many are actually building new nuclear plants? Therefore,this great magic bullet of nuclear power is in fact a load of bull.It is really meant to make money for foreign nuclear companies and more importantly,castrate India's strategic deterrent through the Hyde act.Once we sign,we will allow the invasion of hostile nuclear agents right into all our nuclear plants,where they can steal our indigenous technology,monitor covertly our weaponisation and progress in N-weapons technology,whilst simultaneosuly threatening us with dire retrtibution if we contemplate future nuclear testing or ICBM development.Snake-oil Singh and Sonia are selling us down the Ganges in style and manner that even Clive and John Company would doff their hats to in awe.The Empire has struck back thanks to our desi version of Benedict Arnold and the host of emulators of Jai Chand.
PS:I disagree with the peaceniks who wish us to strip before the rest of the nuclear weapon world does.If we are all going to the nuclear nudist camp,we must start removing our clothes one-by-one simultaneously!
PS:I disagree with the peaceniks who wish us to strip before the rest of the nuclear weapon world does.If we are all going to the nuclear nudist camp,we must start removing our clothes one-by-one simultaneously!
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Gerard wrote:US envoy to discuss Indian nuclear issue in Vienna
"Non-military", what happened to dual-use?
By the time it passes through the US congress nothing will be left of this deal!!
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
What a non sequitor! Who is talking about the safety of the nuke power plants or is the guy addressinghe liberal/jholawala brigade?
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
R - May be DDM's headline needs some cleaning up..What a non sequitor!
He talks about safety of Reactors (looks like main thrust of the talk, describing things likeIndia should shed its apprehensions over the safety of atomic power plants as well as reservations on the Indo-US nuclear deal and operationalise it.....a nuclear safety expert said here on Wednesday.
There are currently 400 nuclear reactors in operation in different parts of the world...Including in earthquake-prone places like Japan,
And sometime later: He adds:
Seems okay to me.On the deal, Krishnan asserts that India should go ahead with it as it provides access to buy 1000 mw reactors.
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
X posting
I have a question to Gurus
Let say India sign a deal with IAEA and NSGs. Everything goes fine. Inspectors come and start monitoring civilian reactors. India contacts Australia for Uranium they refuse asking to sign NPT first, next call Austria they do same, next Begium and they do same_____________ down the list and lastly USA says same thing. Now you have your 14 reactors under surveilance in perpetuity and still condition is same as before signing deal, nobody wants to give you anything. What India should do ?
I have a question to Gurus
Let say India sign a deal with IAEA and NSGs. Everything goes fine. Inspectors come and start monitoring civilian reactors. India contacts Australia for Uranium they refuse asking to sign NPT first, next call Austria they do same, next Begium and they do same_____________ down the list and lastly USA says same thing. Now you have your 14 reactors under surveilance in perpetuity and still condition is same as before signing deal, nobody wants to give you anything. What India should do ?
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
Nuclear Energy works on connections,
Bush to MMS DC Direct Current
IAEA to GOI Sheilded wire Three phase star delta connections not allowed
( That means you cant start your perpetual motor on star connection ( aka enriched U) for high torque and then swith to high voltage ( breeder) hence sheilding need (ie sepration and monitoring)
MMS to Sonia G Single Phase Grounded Earth
Mukesh to Sonia G Step Up transformer
Anil to Mulayam Step down Transformer
BJP to GOI Neutral wire
CPM to UPA Thunder Interference
All in all Deal unplugged (on BRF)
Bush to MMS DC Direct Current
IAEA to GOI Sheilded wire Three phase star delta connections not allowed
( That means you cant start your perpetual motor on star connection ( aka enriched U) for high torque and then swith to high voltage ( breeder) hence sheilding need (ie sepration and monitoring)
MMS to Sonia G Single Phase Grounded Earth
Mukesh to Sonia G Step Up transformer
Anil to Mulayam Step down Transformer
BJP to GOI Neutral wire
CPM to UPA Thunder Interference
All in all Deal unplugged (on BRF)
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
One plug seems to be showing the middle finger. NPAs?
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
yes indeed Non employed proliferation Aytollahs.
Also symbolic way of saying BRF unplugged!
Also symbolic way of saying BRF unplugged!
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
How about then showing the middle finger to the inspectors...jash_p wrote:X posting
I have a question to Gurus
Let say India sign a deal with IAEA and NSGs. Everything goes fine. Inspectors come and start monitoring civilian reactors. India contacts Australia for Uranium they refuse asking to sign NPT first, next call Austria they do same, next Begium and they do same_____________ down the list and lastly USA says same thing. Now you have your 14 reactors under surveilance in perpetuity and still condition is same as before signing deal, nobody wants to give you anything. What India should do ?
"If we dont get the fuel we signed up for, then you are welcome to visit the Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar when you come to India, just don't be found anywhere near our reactors."
Re: Indian Nuclear issues - News and Discussion 16 july 2008
IAEA is not a agency who sell N materials, they are just monitors, regulators and inspectors. They will say ""hay you have to go to a country who sells it, our job is to issue cert. weather you are good boy or bad boy."