Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 21 Jun 2008 18:19

BSP withdrawing support to UPA doesn't mean much. It wasn't essential. BSP had extended outside support after the UP elections to gain some favours from the Congress. What it does mean is that if the left parties withdraw support, UPA will have to garner support from SP and a large number of remaining non-NDA MPS.

UPA(218) needs 273 for a simple majority. So either UPA needs support of the left parties(60),or of BSP(19) + SP(36) together, or SP(36) + all other non NDA MPs (27) s.

If the govt falls due to the left withdrawing its support, then in future it will make Congress and left parties much more wary of each other. So far they have managed to gang up together citing "secularism".

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 21 Jun 2008 18:24

Without BSP in the mix it is just 218+36 (SP) which does not give them a simple majority.

Earlier Sonia was planning that even if Left does not support it or withdraws support from UPA, with SPs 36 they will still have simple majority. Now that dream will remain unfulfilled. That is the relevance of this statement.

Also Congress still cannot piss off the left because even after elections any alliance will need Left help. They cannot depend upon SP, BSP, RJD type parties alone. They are too fickle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2008 18:24

Raju wrote:Breaking News:

Mayawati's BSP withdraws support to UPA.

BSP has 19 MPs in Lok Sabha

This makes it really interesting. Mayawati has distanced herself from Kaangress and their valued allies the Left. She "will vote independently" if there is a vote of confidence.

Hah.

That means she will wait for someone else to bring the government down and try to escape the consequences of that

Meanwhile - deathly silence from the BJP but I suspect that they are also

is what the Left leaders are looking like on TV today. They have never been as important in the world since Mao did his thing.

I worry about dear Rahul in all this? Where is the cho chweet charmer?

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 21 Jun 2008 18:58

Given the hardline stance taken by MMS so far, he can't continue to be the PM after discarding the nuke deal. But UPA sees much wisdom in not going to elections right away.

So most probably, UPA will decide not to push for the deal at present, MMS will resign, Mukherjee will realize his life long dream of becoming PM even for few months. (Remember the Choudhary Charan Singh affair). And Arjun Singh will probably go mad seeing the PM-ship being stolen away from him yet again.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jun 2008 19:01

Rye,

Many excellent posts on this thread. Thank you, especially for the dry humour.

I don't know if I'm right, but on another forum or comment space, there was a tag team between one "Thakkali Rye" and a "Swede" known as "Bjorn Biglund"

against a bunch of Pakis or something... It was a hilarious ride. Some of the humour here reminded me of that.

On a separate note, awesome to see the way the forum has kept circling around this nuclear bone, with politeness being stretched to breaking limit even among admins.

Basically it boils down to one thing. Do we have balls, or do we not? If we do, this deal will be signed, we will take whatever we can out of it, and if we need to we'll tell the world "balls to you". We've done it before when needed. Who's going to do anything about it, and what precisely will be their motivation, five or 10 years down the line, or even now? Remember the world will have to act jointly to "sanction" us. (Just a thought, does Zimbabwe have uranium?

)

Or, we can say, hmm...maybe we'll get screwed by clause x, underline y, fullstop number 45. And we can continue as we are doing now. We'll live either way. Question is can we live a little better if we get our foot into the door of the nuclear club a little further. I think we can. Remember those few million guys who cannot afford the third meal? Maybe some of them will get it now.

Capping and all the rest of it is bs. Nobody can cap us. We can crap ourselves though.

Meanwhile, if India is bound by the Hyde Act, by which American law is India not bound? My question about the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act has not yet been taken up...

Why are Russia and France encouraging us to sign the deal? Do they want to screw us just like the Americans do? In that case, why is China not encouraging us? Are they looking out for our interests in places other than Sikkim? Or, is it one grand plot involving the whole world (or lets just say the P5) secretly planning and tag-teaming with each other just to ensure that India does not test again? Ever.

Could be.

Ya allah the world is so confusing. I'm losing my moral compass and my ethical divider. How am I going to pass the patriot exam?

Never mind. As a frequent-flyer card carrying member of the "rootless elite", out to screw India blind, I must restate here that I am in favour of the deal and hope it goes through.

Fortunately, the much of the serving traitorous nuclear establishment and past strategic enclave, the lying thieves who are in power as per our constitution, several key opposition figures, and laloo seem to be in favour of the deal too. That's some consolation.

BTW, has anybody heard a public peep out of any senior BJP figure on the issue in recent weeks? Has anybody put a gag order on them? God forbid, could it be "them" through the others here? Or could it be that the BJP did what it had to do, drew the running dogs of communism to the nuclear bone, and left them yapping there...

I figure that if all these guys are sold out, might as well join the bandwagon as nothing is going to save the country.

But not to worry, I figure there is room for further threads on this issue before we can call it a day...

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 21 Jun 2008 19:26

JE Menon wrote: BTW, has anybody heard a public peep out of any senior BJP figure on the issue in recent weeks? Has anybody put a gag order on them? God forbid, could it be "them" through the others here? Or could it be that the BJP did what it had to do, drew the running dogs of communism to the nuclear bone, and left them yapping there...

I heard big consignments of Amul Butter and khalis Punjabi popcorn were delivered to TV rooms in the BJP head offices. Their eyes and ears are riveted, mouths are full will popcorn, they can't speak coherently while

Re: Congies and Lefties, it took nukes to break asunder what "psecularism" had put together.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2008 19:28

Shankar wrote:)
A deep feeling of inadequacy of the power of India's tests and a conviction that they are nothing until they are at the very least visibly equal to the nuclear bombs of the P5

2) A sense of deep disappointment and anger that the deal does not give India equal status with the P5 - which is what was somehow expected of the deal (even if this expectation was unrealistic)

3) A deeply felt need that India must stop at nothing less than a visibly large arsenal that sends a signal to anyone that we can burn them up if they so much as try to hint any superiority over India.
1) not exactly -it is more from the knowledge that all known data available from the test and its subsequent review does not prove beyond doubt that indian thermonuclear weapons are fool proof and will be usable for the role intended should the occasion arise .They can never be equal to the bombs of Russia and US even in quality but it need to be demonstrated beyond doubt that it works in a more conclusive way rad full yield test in a warhead configuration .Unless that is done the so called nuclear deterrence we talk about does not hold much water except with respect to Pakistan .The scientists know they need to test quite a few more models before accepting a moratorium but afraid to speak out against the government who after all pays their salary and decided on promotions.

2) not an equal status but in the same catagory as a weapon state which again is not possible unless we do quite a few more round of tests and prove to the world we have the capability beyond doubt -the ambiguity need to be removed .It has served us well in past but is counterproductive now

3) when you ask for a nuclear weapon state status from world body -ofcourse you need quite a few nuclear weapons not just six like south africa which was forced to give it up .When you say you are a nuclear weapon state you better show what you got in good quantity enough to stop anyone from even thinking to take them out by force

All are correct explanation of the 'deep feeling and deep emotional needs'. All the current P5 took at least few decades to reach such capabilities. India has just passed 10 years since it has declared an overt program. It has many decades to go and it can build a credible practical capability to its needs.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2008 19:32

satyarthi wrote:
Re: Congies and Lefties, it took nukes to break asunder what "psecularism" had put together.

will the public understand this

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 21 Jun 2008 19:32

PM still unwell, Mukherjee puts off Aussie visit as nuclear stalemate in Delhi continues
Onkar Singh in New Delhi | June 21, 2008 09:16 IST

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] continues to be unwell, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee has postponed his visit to Australia by a day and Communist Party of India-Marxist General Secretary Prakash Karat has warned that the Left will withdraw support to the United Progressive Alliance government by Wednesday if the UPA continues to pursue the India-US nuclear deal.

Dr Singh is still ill and resting, his media adviser Dr Sanjaya Baru told rediff.com on Saturday morning. The prime minister, who is reported to be running a viral fever, has cancelled all his appointments since Thursday, June 19, giving rise to speculation that he may resign if the nuclear deal is abandoned by his Congress party and its UPA allies to avoid an early election.
....
.....

Pranab meets PM over nuclear-deal row
June 21, 2008 12:50 IST

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Saturday met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] and briefed him about the situation arising out of the government's standoff with Left parties on the India-United States nuclear agreement.

During the 40-minute meeting with the Prime Minister, Mukherjee, who is also the government's chief negotiator on the nuclear deal, is understood to have apprised Singh about the deliberations he and Defence Minister A K Antony had with leaders of the Left and United Progressive Alliance allies in the last few days.

Mukherjee did not speak to reporters after the meeting.

He, along with Antony, had a two-hour long meeting with Congress chief Sonia Gandhi [Images] on Friday night.

The government has been trying to end the face-off with Left parties on the nuclear deal, which showed no signs of abating.

Mukherjee had said last night, "There is no improvement or deterioration in the situation. It is a standstill."

UPA allies like the Nationalist Congress Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, who were firmly backing the government on the deal, have said that the agreement was in the interest of the nation.

The allies have, however, said the government should take in due consideration the viewpoints of Left in the matter.

The Left parties have already made it clear that they will vote against the government if it moves ahead with the pact.

Mukherjee had met Communist Party of India - Marxist General Secretary Prakash Karat and Communist Party of India National Secretary D Raja in a bid to find a way out of the current imbroglio. The two Left leaders asked the government not to go to the International Atomic Energy Agency for finalising the India-specific safeguards agreement, which they felt amounted to operationalising the nuclear deal.

Sonia as committed to nuclear deal as PM: Congress
June 21, 2008 11:22 IST

Congress president Sonia Gandhi [Images] is as committed to the India-United States civilian nuclear agreement as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] and the party will not let him down on the issue, senior leader and Union Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi has said.

"Mrs Gandhi as the head of the party and the United Progressive Alliance is fully committed (to the deal)... there is no difference between Mrs Gandhi and the Prime Minister."

"There are attempts in the country by a section of the media to create a mischievous difference between Mrs Gandhi and the PM, including on the nuclear treaty," Dasmunsi said in an interview to a television channel.

He was replying to a question on whether the Congress president was as committed to the deal as the Prime Minister.

"I am absolutely clear in my mind that in coalition politics,where the government is seeking support from others, such kind of confusion and things may come, but we shall not let down our Prime Minister," he said.

"We stand firmly by the Prime Minister come what may the situation," Dasmunsi said.

He further said that UPA allies like the Nationalist Congress Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam stood by Singh on the nuclear deal issue.

Side-stepping questions on whether the UPA government will complete five years in office in the wake of the Left parties threatening to pull it down if it went ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal, Dasmunsi said, "The government is completing full five years. No question about that. The government is already in the fifth year and it will complete it," he said.

He expressed confidence that the deal will get through the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Supplier's Group scrutiny and will be given back to the US Congress before this year's end.

"The way things are moving, it may soon happen," Dasmunsi said.

BJP expects Lok Sabha polls by November
June 21, 2008 17:46 IST

The Bharatiya Janata Party expects the next parliament election to be held by November as the 'fall of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government is imminent," senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu said on Saturday.

Naidu claimed that the UPA government would fall in August and elections would be held in November.

Referring to the inflationary trend in the country, Naidu said the Centre could not blame the inflation as global phenomena and it was the 'creation of the Centre's wrong economic priorities'.

On the India-United States nuclear agreement, Naidu said the BJP would oppose any deal that would 'harm the nation's interest'.

"The BJP will not allow any deal to materialise if it hurts the country's interest," he said. In this regard, Naidu said the BJP was with the Left parties in opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Should Congress sacrifice UPA Govt for N-deal?
CNN-IBN : Video

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2008 19:37

This is the day of conspiracy.
Were is R-man?

We have another conspiracy
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holn ... 211850.htm

Left will oppose US 'conspiracy': Brinda

Ranchi (PTI): The Left would oppose US 'conspiracy' to make India its strategic partner through the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, CPI-M Politburo member Brinda Karat said on Saturday.

"We will oppose the US conspiracy to make India its strategic partner through the deal. We will not support it ... The deal has no consensus in Parliament," she told a press conference here.

"At a time when the people are worried over price rise, we ask the UPA government why is it worried over US?" Karat said wondering why the Centre was again seeking to move forward the deal.

On BJP President Rajnath Singh's accusations of the Left parties being worried more over protecting Chinese interests than those of the country, she said "it seems BJP is speaking the language of America."

"Rajnath Singh is the President of a party which has a policy of double standards. Strobe Talbott (former US deputy secretary) himself revealed that a BJP leader talked to him secretly," she said.

"Whatever BJP might say with an aim to put pressure on Left parties, we will oppose the US making India its strategic partner through the Indo-US civil nuclear deal."

Asked whether the UPA government at the Centre would complete its final lap in office, Karat said "that is a question you have to ask the UPA leaders."

India-Press-Headlines
The following headlines appeared in the major Indian newspapers on Friday:

***THE ASIAN AGE
- Lalu, DMK back N-deal; polls loom in November-December
- Left worried at Muslim fallout
- Air ticket prices to go up from today
- CPM: Clinch Iran gas deal
- Iran joint hands with the West to save cheetahs

***THE HINDU
- Congress, Left reach out to allies
- Supreme Court notice to Delhi Govt. on regularisation of unauthorised colonies
- Leaving India as Indian-Afghanis
- Indo-French nuclear accord `technically ready'
- Colombo warns Lanka IOC of takeover

***THE TIMES OF INDIA
- PM ready for N-gamble, but allies baulk at polls
- Tonnes of dead fish in Punjab waterway
- India world's largest remittance recipient
- India to raise Sikkim incursion with China
- Govt to oilenergy ties with CIS, Russia

***THE INDIAN EXPRESS
- Pak loses 2 soldiers as militants trying to sneak in pushed back by Army
- Allies make Cong's job tougher: we like deal, we like Left - CPM has a way out: do energy deal with Iran
- Shrine row: Hurriyat unites, PDP takes Sinha secy to court - India, Pak agree to increase freight trains
- Koirala yields, makes way for Prachanda

***THE STATESMAN
- `TV viewing linked to obesity'
- Boundary issue sensitive: Beijing
- Bhopal gas tragedy: `Govt's inaction blot on Indian democracy' - Syrian leader wraps up visit to India
- India lags behind China KPMG

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 21 Jun 2008 19:55

satyarthi wrote:I heard big consignments of Amul Butter and khalis Punjabi popcorn were delivered to TV rooms in the BJP head offices. Their eyes and ears are riveted, mouths are full will popcorn, they can't speak coherently while

Re: Congies and Lefties, it took nukes to break asunder what "psecularism" had put together.

Please don't bring up internal issues and pray this, is not what it has come down to. There is nothing to celebrate about, if it is indeed the demise of the deal. It's a sense of bitterness that pervades, all around wrt. a missed opportunity, due to complete mishandling (secrecy, political vendettas, spin & rhetoric, limelight... ).

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Jun 2008 19:56

JEM, thanks. You are right about tagging with Biglund. Biglund and I share the same outlook to this very day.

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 21 Jun 2008 20:07

Why everyone is presuming this is the demise of the deal?

BJP has said they want to "renegotiate" it. They haven't said they want to kill it. If elections happen by Nov, BJP might still have time to evaluate the deal and approve it if found that Indian strategic interests are well protected.

This govt hasn't delivered even in one area where it was supposed to be strong, economy. If they couldn't judge how messy things will turn out in 4 years economy wise, given all the great economics minds at the helm, what should convince me of their rosy projections about the deal? In every other area of governance, this govt has been walking haphazardly. Why should I presume they know their way regarding the nuke deal? And since secrecy appears to be a big part in the affair, we don't have much to judge the situation by, other than reading 123, J18, Hyde etc and also looking at this Govt's record in general.

Personally I want another fresh set of eyes in the GOI to examine this deal carefully, other than the present set up.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2008 20:11

satyarthi wrote:
Sridhar wrote:I am still not clear why the scientists have signed on to the deal if it is so bad and constrains us so much.
Sridhar,
That question is on many minds. There are two possibilities:

1. As you mentioned, there may be a hidden aspect of the deal which makes it attractive to the scientists. Which may also explain dogged opposition to the deal from China (through its proxies in India). If true, then there may be a net benefit in the deal, but somehow powers that be, think, maintaining secrecy is important.

Even then it still leaves the bothersome question as to why BJP hasn't bought into it, or why BJP hasn't been brought on board by sharing of information.

2. The deal is very finely balanced like a cylindrical container filled with water exactly till the midpoint mark.

Optimists will see the glass half full and support the deal, pessimists will see it half empty and oppose it. Such a finely balanced deal also implies that in the long term India will have to pay commensurate price for every gain made through the deal. It won't be an outright net benefit. Optimists of course will see a "possible" net benefit in the future, while pessimists can continue to see a net loss in the future.

Without further info, it is hard to judge which of these is true.

I asked similar question to one leading scientist who was involved in 1998. One of the answers was that India still had strategic independence as what Nehru had when he was the PM. But there is no clear answers to these questions.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 21 Jun 2008 20:14

I think people have misunderstood my remark about the state having to intervene in order to make sure that DAE and others are not starved of talent. As I see it, before 1991, within India, jobs in the DAE and other scientific institutions were among the best (even monetarily, relative to the rest of the population). During that phase , a scientist who spent say, three years as a postdoc abroad could save enough to build a house for himself after returning to one of these establishments. He/she was then assured of a fairly comfortable existence thereafter. The situation has changed dramatically now. An IT/BPO type makes an order of magnitude more money than a scientist. While disparity is there everwhere , in places like the US, a scientist makes about 1/2 the money a similar member of the private sector makes. The disparity is therefore, within manageable limits there. In Europe, it is likely to be lower.This situation is bound to lead to a withering away of the states strategic-scientific/technical (that includes nuclear) capabilities.

I remember reading a Rajya Sabha report on the Demand of Grants for the Department of Space (2008-2009) -it is available online. There too, an analogous issue is raised. Foriegn companies pay five times as much as ISRO does. This causes a talent drain for ISRO that does set back some of its projects. The DAE should be protected from this. Reliance is not going to do research to contribute to the breeder program, for example.

I also pointed out that another way of ensuring that this disparity is not as big as it is now is to raise salaries for people in key govt scientific-technical sectors. If a direct salary raise is not possible because other govt employees in not so crucial sectors will start demanding more, special yearly grants could be given to DAE/DRDO/ISRO personnel. Arrangements could also be made for perks like subsidized plots of land, etc that are worth vastly more in the open market.

This concern definitely does not put me in the "Prakash Karat school of economics". It is not a concern that can be brushed aside. Liberalization of the Atomic Energy sector, if inevitable, has to be done only after adequate steps are taken to address this issue. One can ask why DRDO and ISRO have not collapsed yet. The answer seems to lie in the fact that they draw from a much larger, less specialized pool of personnel than DAE seems to do. Even if the deal goes through, until all precautions are taken on the personnel front, all civilian power projects should be under the NPCIL only. Of course, L&T and others will get a good share of the business, but in a supporting rather than lead role.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 21 Jun 2008 20:24

Tilak Sir

The deal has ultimately come down to internal issues. Whatever the merits/de-merits of the deal, it is the votebank which will decide the fate of the deal. The left opposes simply because the deal is being signed with US and not China, they would have opposed even if the Americans gave us Deigo Garcia,Alaska and Hawaii in return for signing the deal. One only needs to watch the clowns on TV to know that their understanding of the deal does not go beyond the " down with american imperialism" kind of understanding. The left by publicly worrying about muslim fallout has infact made it clear that they consider IMs as incapable of thinking in national interest.
I completely agree with Shiv, the congress has played its cards really well, deal or no deal, the congress is on its way out but they haven't left the door open for the BJP either.
I am sure the common Ram on the street isn't too much stressed over the deal, he doesn't understand the deal and goes by what his newspaper tells him, it isn't a major election issue
IF this govenment is brought down over the deal, it will only take attention away from the failures of this government on the economic and security front. The congress given its shoddy performance will be ones

watching the various scenarios unfurl. The left will not gain much by banking on the assumption that their muslim vote bank's percieved hatred of America is stronger than their love for their motherland. The BJP with it's doublespeak on the deal will not have much to gain either.

satyarthi · Post by **satyarthi** » 21 Jun 2008 20:55

I don't think the deal will have any bearing on the elections. I don't see any gains by BJP or Congress in the elections by either supporting or opposing the deal. I also don't see why people will be "upset" if whichever party causes this govt to fall. As it is, people are distressed about the inflation etc, why wouldn't they actually be happy if someone pulls this govt down?

The deal is important to MMS because he probably genuinely believes it to be a good one, and that it could be one positive for his legacy during an otherwise rather lackluster PMship. I don't think the constituents of UPA or even other Congies share the same enthusiasm.

The present "bitterness" has its source in Hyde. Lefties are just obeying their masters, and BJP is enjoying the tamasha. No point in blaming them for the bitterness. Since the BJP has been at the receiving end of a "secular" combine meant only to oppose it, I wouldn't deny them their entertainment. Especially since all this blood-letting makes it much harder for Congress and Leftists to come together again merely on "secular" grounds.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 21 Jun 2008 21:04

My only quibble is that in the agreement , there is no mention of Unkil making us super power in time bound period.
Remember Dear(ness allownace) Rice promised that one day Indian will be made a super power.
My question is
1) Is it for only one day
2) Is it meant to be one of these days, when uncle is bored he will his kindly turn on US and we become super power.
3) does the one of these days is right after signing this agreement, hope they are not Hyding any more amendments to US becoming super power.

Thanks in advance for knowledge.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 21 Jun 2008 21:13

Given that luck played a large role in bailing us out after 1998, what would be the basis for predicting the actions of France and the USSR.

Shiv: you are, of course, entitled to your view but I would say that the most important role in "bailing us out after 1998" was played by the fact that our very limited integration with the global economy at the time meant that US sanctions -- which were not followed by any other nation except for a small group of the usual suspects -- did not have much bite across the broad Indian economy (except for specific projects such as LCA which were delayed).

This is exactly what would change once there is a $100 billion investment in our energy sector open to be switched off at the whims of a 45-nation cartel.

If the NSG waiver language has any of the 'testing/FMCT/"in perpetuity" safeguards without corresponding fuel supply assurances' stuff in it, then the US has managed to convert unilateral junk which it put into its domestic laws without India's consent into a 45-nation multilateral commitment again imposed on India without its consent. The cost of exercising the testing option rises to prohibitive levels as a result.

Note: a clean NSG waiver could obviate these concerns. what is stopping the US from producing one today instead of putting the onus on GoI? the NSG waiver does not have to come into effect until after India signs the IAEA safeguards.

It is interesting to note that BOTH France and Russia had not ratified the CTBT by May 1998, But France ratified it in June 1998, (What a coincidence!!) and Russia in 2000. They are both treaty bound now and there is no reason to expect that they will go easy on India for testing just because India has not signed this deal.

As a matter of fact, CTBT has not entered into force as of today, and cannot until India signs and ratifies it. The question of any nation being bound by a treaty which has not entered into force would appear to be moot, wouldn't it? Pls see Article XIV of CTBT below:

ARTICLE XIV
ENTRY INTO FORCE

1. This Treaty shall enter into force 180 days after the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification by all States listed in Annex 2 to this Treaty, but in no case earlier than two years after its opening for signature.

2. If this Treaty has not entered into force three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for signature, the Depositary shall convene a Conference of the States that have already deposited their instruments of ratification upon the request of a majority of those States. That Conference shall examine the extent to which the requirement set out in paragraph 1 has been met and shall consider and decide by consensus what measures consistent with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process in order to facilitate the early entry into force of this Treaty.

3. Unless otherwise decided by the Conference referred to in paragraph 2 or other such conferences, this process shall be repeated at subsequent anniversaries of the opening for signature of this Treaty, until its entry into force.

4. All States Signatories shall be invited to attend the Conference referred to in paragraph 2 and any subsequent conferences as referred to in paragraph 3, as observers.

5. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the 30th day following the date of deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2008 21:36

satyarthi wrote:I don't think the deal will have any bearing on the elections. I don't see any gains by BJP or Congress in the elections by either supporting or opposing the deal. I also don't see why people will be "upset" if whichever party causes this govt to fall. As it is, people are distressed about the inflation etc, why wouldn't they actually be happy if someone pulls this govt down?

Great logic.

But several points.

No party is talking of bringing down the government over inflation. It is OK to continue contentedly in government if there is inflation. The opposition too does not want to make a noise - because if they got power by some magic, they would no be able to control inflation either.

All talk of brining the government down revolves totally around the nuclear deal and ONLY the CPM is talking of bringing the government down.

These are useful pointers to guess who is going to blame whom and for what. After all kaangress is not going to lose its gaddi and then admit tearfully that CPM are correct, and that it was their fault. Every party MUST blame someone else for every problem and try and gain power.

Kaangress will want
1) continue in power
2) sign the deal
3) Screw BJP and CPM if possible and get re elected

CPM will want
1)Continue to be power brokers
2) ditch the deal
3) Screw BJP and Kaangress if possible

BJP will want:
1)Screw Kaangress. Screw CPM
2) get power after elections
3) Deal?? The BJP is sitting on the fence IMO. If they play a good political game they can screw CPM today and end up looking good in time for elections. By supporting CPM on the deal they are only bringing the govt down and helping CPM. Are they helping themselves?

Ananth · Post by **Ananth** » 21 Jun 2008 22:06

JE Menon wrote: Ya allah the world is so confusing. I'm losing my moral compass and my ethical divider. How am I going to pass the patriot exam?

JEM:

I sense mental fatigue, is that so? Too much of something brings in bad after taste, this nuke deal and the debates have also left one with us.

This business of US establishment setting up deadlines and GoI feigning urgency is getting too much. Why are the people so worried about the timing and not endurance of the deal? India through the debates have conveyed all the redlines, may be its our way of communicating rather than putting it on paper. The reason for waveriness in India is that main party pushing the deal does not have political capital. Just because a piece of paper is signed are we going to be bound by that?

On the BJP, I frankly don't have any clue how they are going to renegotiate. What gives them the confidence to say that? Is that the only solution they can come up with? Yeah they are free to pass a jekyll act and some more, but how are they going to renegotiate.

The best recourse now is to chill out, leave the deal for the next government. If the whole drama of UPA Left is to kill time, I am fine with that.

Use the timeout to build the political consensus. That is a primary lesson from the whole process. The price of political upmanship is rudderless policy.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 21 Jun 2008 22:24

Btw, what was true earlier in that the aam junta being clueless about the deal is not valid anymore. The nuclear deal has been consistently making page 1 headlines even in the vernacular media. So if the govt falls because of it, I would expect most folks to know why.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jun 2008 22:27

sraj wrote:If the NSG waiver language has any of the 'testing/FMCT/"in perpetuity" safeguards without corresponding fuel supply assurances' stuff in it, then the US has managed to convert unilateral junk which it put into its domestic laws without India's consent into a 45-nation multilateral commitment again imposed on India without its consent. The cost of exercising the testing option rises to prohibitive levels as a result.

Right now there is a 45-nation multilateral commitment that says India gets nothing... no fuel.. no reactors, no technology.. nothing (with the exception of reactor safety hence occasional Russian Uranium to keep Tarapur alive). The US has already done this. India gets nothing, irrespective of whether it signs the FMCT, CTBT, tests or does not test. Nothing.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 21 Jun 2008 22:41

Gerard wrote:
sraj wrote:If the NSG waiver language has any of the 'testing/FMCT/"in perpetuity" safeguards without corresponding fuel supply assurances' stuff in it, then the US has managed to convert unilateral junk which it put into its domestic laws without India's consent into a 45-nation multilateral commitment again imposed on India without its consent. The cost of exercising the testing option rises to prohibitive levels as a result.
Right now there is a 45-nation multilateral commitment that says India gets nothing... no fuel.. no reactors, no technology.. nothing (with the exception of reactor safety hence occasional Russian Uranium to keep Tarapur alive). The US has already done this. India gets nothing, irrespective of whether it signs the FMCT, CTBT, tests or does not test. Nothing.

Since when was this and why did the GOI not go for NPT CTBT FCMT etc right away to mitigate the current problem for electric cities of the nation?

We could have gotten free uranium then no?
Just ignorant, not for the deal or against the deal like Shivji and mavericks of the world.
*****
All those who are opposed to the deal, notice the adverse effects of not deciding to sign. All the sign are there to see

The very prospect of not signing the deal made the PM sick and suddenly the power went out of him to the Congress president resident out elsewhere and remotely controlling GOI. See Congress president won't stab Pres Bush in the back, where as all opposing the deal are back stabbers!

We need power pronto otherwise the PM becomes sick, the industry becomes sick, never mind relying on reliance huge gas findings in Krishna Godavari basin, cauvery basin, elsewhere. That is only gas after all. no?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 21 Jun 2008 22:46

NSG was established after 1974 and its members have all agreed not to sell any nuclear material to a country that has not signed the NPT. Russia joined NSG in the 1990s but was allowed to fulfil deals before it joined NSG. That is why we get Uranium for Kudankulam (along with the reactors).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jun 2008 22:47

Since when was this

The NSG adopted its full scope safeguards policy in 1992

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Jun 2008 22:59

Shankar,

India can't get any more reactors and fuel from Russia or any other country unless IAEA deal is signed. Russia has backed out of the deal to meet its international obligations. Kudankulam was results of a loophole exploited too far anyhow.

Infact if the nuke deal is signed Kudankulam would be the immediate and largest beneficiary.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/19/stories ... 160100.htm

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jun 2008 23:10

India can't get any more reactors and fuel from Russia or any other country unless IAEA deal is signed

The current IAEA INFCIRC66 and campaign safeguards would do for non-NSG fuel. India can in fact purchase fuel from non-NSG members. The new IAEA agreement is to placate the NSG members. The real problem is the NSG and its requirement for full scope safeguards (i.e. at all nuclear facilities everywhere in India).

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 21 Jun 2008 23:14

Folks,
Increasing work load and family commitments preclude me from active participation in the forum threads. However I will continue to monitor on an inactive basis.
-Jai Bharat.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jun 2008 23:15

Ananth,

>>I sense mental fatigue, is that so?

Not at all, that was my attempt at humour... So, ouch!

>>This business of US establishment setting up deadlines and GoI feigning urgency is getting too much. Why are the people so worried about the timing and not endurance of the deal?

Worry about timing is political on both sides. There are genuine concerns that once the opportunity passes, it may take a while before momentum can be built and political forces aligned.

>>India through the debates have conveyed all the redlines, may be its our way of communicating rather than putting it on paper.

Maybe, but that does not really matter.

>>The reason for waveriness in India is that main party pushing the deal does not have political capital.

I do not necessarily agree, but even if that were right, who does? And who will? We cannot wait for political capital to materialise (I suppose you mean a parliamentary majority) before signing any strategic agreement...simply because it might not for a decade or more...

>>Just because a piece of paper is signed are we going to be bound by that?

If we sign it, yes we are bound by it, until we decide we are not. Any decision to reject it will be a strategic one, not driven by domestic politics. Of course, there is always a first time. I doubt this is it though...

>>On the BJP, I frankly don't have any clue how they are going to renegotiate. What gives them the confidence to say that? Is that the only solution they can come up with? Yeah they are free to pass a jekyll act and some more, but how are they going to renegotiate.

The BJP is playing a clever political game, and they will benefit from it IMHO. There will be no renegotiation shenegotiation in fact. Brajesh Mishra has come out in favour of the deal and, as far as I know, since then no one senior has talked negatively on it to the extent that it creates waves. Brajesh Mishra is obviously not acting without some sort of consensus in the background. Slowly it seems our red friends are beginning to realise that. This probably at least partly explains the shrillness of the Karats on the issue. Those two will be the biggest losers in all this.

>>The best recourse now is to chill out, leave the deal for the next government. If the whole drama of UPA Left is to kill time, I am fine with that.

This may or may not be the case. A very short time will tell.

>>Use the timeout to build the political consensus. That is a primary lesson from the whole process. The price of political upmanship is rudderless policy.

There were some political missteps on the part of the Congress. But this is India boss... These things are never irredeemable.

krishnasr · Post by **krishnasr** » 22 Jun 2008 00:05

shiv wrote:Every party MUST blame someone else for every problem and try and gain power.

This is the core principle of politics, and also applies to move up the chain of command in many capitalistic places as well. This applies to individuals as well.

Of course, we do support cyclical concepts, hence one person or party can leave, and the other can take the driver seat for a while till he/party is given the injections.

Issues are forgotten and people take any frivolous aspect for gaining power making the other meek for having say hit the break hard or killed a cattle on the way. Why would we keep relying on a setup that totally gives a veto power to such elected representatives, who are chosen not for solving the issues they have been elected. Perhaps, we need to elect/vote specific to issue based and elect persons to take matter without having to be associated with any party or organization. They would be our true representatives to carry on with what we have entrusted them to do on by just voting on the issues.

Organic change is the answer.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jun 2008 01:23

Growing up as middle school student I was impressed with Congress leadership, with slogan and solutions for Roti Kapada aur Makaan. To be fair congress and the other political parties were tired of being pushed humilated by world with PL480 funded food being given to us, so they harnessed the people power to get out and achieve self sufficience in food, kapada, but makaan was kind of difficult because our own territory was being gobbled up PRC and TSP. Even our own people like Pundits from J&K became refugees because we were told let India be strong once we have food, kapada, dushman ko maarenge goli...

Come 2008 after even after adah shakthi, and full roti, kapada, some Makaan, we now forced to consider
economy, because we are now into Roti Kapada aur DUKAAN, and the new way to go is the new more stringent PL 420 ( chaar sou beesi) Hyde bound act.

Our Kangress is merging with US congress! Wah kay baath hogayi
Dushman DUshamn jo Doston se pyara hai, Main Dekha Tu ne dekha Sub nahi Dekha
Kya dekha Kya Dekha?
Dushman DUshamn jo Doston se pyara hai,

by the way where is MaalFord saar to stich back the coalition?

Again I am not for or against the deal like Shivji, Rye saar, JEM ji or more informed enqyoob guru.

But just some middle age crisis I guess.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 22 Jun 2008 02:47

Why rush N-deal now? Govt wants quick IAEA, NSG nod
22 Jun 2008, 0008 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi,TNN

NEW DELHI: Is there any particular reason why the Prime Minister - otherwise perfectly willing to be walked on by his Left allies - is being stubborn on the nuclear deal? Apart from inflation figures on the rise, what has changed between the last UPA-Left meeting in May and now?

The second is easy to answer - the PM doesn't want to go to Hokkaido for the G-8 summit on July 8 and mouth empty rhetoric on "consensus building" on the deal.

It's pretty clear to the whole world that he cannot get an international agreement of the scale and scope of the nuclear deal through his own government. His credibility is at an all time low.

Although he has delayed things for too late, what the PM wants is India should be able to hand over the safeguards text to the IAEA board of governors latest by July, so they can complete ratification within 45 days, which they have asked for.

Since August is a month-long holiday in both US and Europe, even if the board of governors goes through the document at lightning speed, the earliest the US and others like France and Russia can call an extraordinary plenary of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) would be September-October.

This part will be the hardest sell. For starters, the US and other supporters of the deal would have to fight off countries who will demand a meeting of the consultative committee of the NSG before the plenary.

Now, Indian and US officials have briefed the consultative committee several times already, the latest being May in Berlin. So they would push for the plenary, but it remains to be seen whether others like China and Japan want to go for the plenary straight off.

The best case scenario is that the NSG will take at least two to three sittings to decide on an exemption for India, and that too under tremendous pressure not only from the US, but also France, Russia and UK. Here lies one of the weak links of the timeline the UPA government is banking on.

This is the place where the Bush administration will have to mount its strongest showing - but with the administration haemorrhaging top officials every day, America is getting weaker and weaker. In fact, the Left rightly calculated that the longer they take over the deal, the less would be its chances of going through.

Everybody likes to believe that once the government goes to the IAEA for the ratification it's a cakewalk from there on. They couldn't be further from the truth. Many countries have asked for more time to study the agreement which may be based on a template, but has enough unique features in it to warrant closer inspection.

Mohammed El Baradei, the director of the IAEA, may be a friend of the deal, but he can in no way stop countries from taking their time with the agreement. Any attempt to ram through the agreement will have deleterious effects.

Besides, just like the Left, its mentors in the international arena , China, would do its damnedest to delay the deal further. So nobody in the government really believes this can be done at the drop of a hat.

The costs of Indian delay is already being felt - as the Left intended them too. As one analyst put it, "The government is incompetent, the Left is malicious and the right downright petty."

The government thought it could ride out the inflation crisis and the food prices issue by just waiting for the storm to pass.

It's not going to do that any time soon. Oil prices will remain high, food prices will go up further, because among other things, flooding in Iowa and Mississippi and a burgeoning fertilizer crisis in India will adversely impact food prices.

Closer home, the uranium shortage is already hitting India's power plants - they're functioning well below capacity and it won't be long before the first ones are shut down, though we will be told its for maintenance only.

Externally, the Bush administration with its overt goodwill for India cannot really bat for India any more - it's winding down, its international standing is low and the rest of the world is already looking beyond Bush.

Tony Blair has gone in the UK and Gordon Brown is too busy with his own standing to worry too much about expending energy for India. Dmitry Medvedev in Russia just doesn't have the same thing for India that Vladimir Putin developed (however little) .

And Nicolas Sarkozy - well, nobody's quite sure whether he would step up to the table. In Japan, the Indophile Shinzo Abe's gone and Yasuo Fukuda is not enamoured of India in the same way. In Australia, Kevin Rudd has an open love affair going on with China. So where's the easy support?

Which is why it's even more important to get the IAEA ratification over with as soon as possible. There is a then at least a fighting chance that India can clear at least to more crucial steps - with the IAEA and NSG - before the year is out. The US Congress in a new administration will be a challenge but with an NSG exemption under its belt, India can arguably look at other partners for nuclear commerce.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 22 Jun 2008 03:13

US asks India to move ahead on nuclear deal
Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 09:18, Updated at Sat, Jun 21, 2008

New Delhi: The United States of America has warned that any more delay in moving ahead on the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement will make the deal with India difficult.

US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack reminded India that time is running out for deal.

"We are talking to them (India) about it (deal), in as much as they are briefing us on their efforts. I think it's more they're coming to us to say," McCormack was quoted as saying by PTI.

"This is what we're trying to do to resolve internal political differences that are holding up the deal moving forward. "...And every single day that the Indian government delays and has delayed is a day that makes it much more difficult to get this done," he said.

"All of that said, you know, we'll, of course, continue to work very closely with Senator Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as others on that committee, should the Indian government get to a different place," the spokesman said.
...
....

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 22 Jun 2008 04:02

Are they talking about stock price or mortgage rate that everyday wasted would make it difficult for party involved?
If GoI takes like 10+ years to just buy submarines and helos, why would somebody expect GoI to get this done in three years?
Given the magnitude, it at least requires 30 years of negotiation.

krishnasr · Post by **krishnasr** » 22 Jun 2008 04:09

What was the last stance on our part on the fast breeders? Did we surrender all installations to the list, or still we have restrictions what is in the civilian list against military ones. BTW, If there are 20% of the nuclear entities in India that is not in the list, is enough confirmation that Bush adminstration has OKed Indian emergence as a nuclear weapon state.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jun 2008 04:32

Stalemate over nuclear deal continues
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holn ... 220326.htm

New Delhi (PTI): The stalemate between the government and Left parties on Saturday showed no signs of resolution as the CPI(M) maintained its hardline on the nuclear agreement with the United States and the UPA coalition suffered another jolt when BSP withdrew its support to it.

Government's chief negotiator on the deal, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who leaves for Australia on Saturday night, met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the morning and apprised him of his discussions with the Left parties and UPA constituents on the stand-off.

Hectic activities are expected to resume when Mukherjee returns from his visit on June 24, a day ahead of the next crucial meeting of the UPA-Left Committee on nuclear deal.

Compared to the frenetic pace of consultations between government, UPA constituents and Left parties in the last two days, there was lull on Saturday.

NCP spokesperson D P Tripati called on CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat here while his party boss Sharad Pawar said in Pune that Left parties do not want to push the UPA government over the brink.

Pawar said there are signs of finding a way out of the current impasse over the contentious Indo-US nuclear deal.

However, the CPI(M) issued a strong statement accusing the government of mounting a "massive disinformation campaign" to promote a "bad" nuclear deal, which it said, was only a cover to promote strategic ties with the US.

"Mythical energy claims are being made in order to promote a bad nuclear deal. Energy is just a cover. The real intent is India-US strategic ties," it said.

The party also accused the government of "dragging its feet" on the Iran gas pipeline project "at the behest of the US and in consideration of the Hyde Act".

Amid the nuclear deal stand off with the Left, UP Chief Minister Mayawati carried out her oft-repeated warnings of withdrawing the support of BSP accusing the UPA government of "neglect, step-motherly treatment and negative approach" towards her state and on the issue of runaway inflation.

The withdrawal of support by BSP, which has 17 MPs in Lok Sabha, does not really threaten the existence of the UPA government as such.

But, if 59-MP-strong Left parties choose to withdraw support, then the BSP decision could put pressure on the UPA to look for support from other sources like BSP's rival SP which has 39 MPs. In a House with an effective strength of 543, the UPA enjoys support of 237 members and is 35 short of simple majority.

Meanwhile, Union Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi expressed confidence the deal would go through the IAEA and NSG stages and be given to the American Congress by this year's end.

"Well, I do so. The way things are moving, it may so happen," Dasmunsi said.

Asked if the Government was committed to completing the deal while George W Bush was still the US President, Dasmunsi said, "That point I can't answer, but I can tell you whatever PM committed, whatever PM promised with the whole concurrence of the Cabinet, we are not letting down our PM till the last day of the tenure."

"We are not letting our PM down," he said when asked if the Government would defy the Left and go ahead with the deal. Dasmunsi also said Congress president Sonia Gandhi was as committed to the deal as the Prime Minister.

Take a final call on deal: BJP
http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/22/stories ... 040800.htm

Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party on Saturday asked the government to end uncertainty and take a “final call” on the nuclear deal for, it had the power to take an executive decision.

Earlier, the BJP demanded the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee on the deal, followed by parliamentary approval. Now it emphasises the government’s power to decide on the deal through the Cabinet.

However, officially it continued to say, “There is no change in our stand on the nuclear deal.”

Party spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad said in a statement: “The important fact remains that whether to conclude or not to conclude the deal finally remains in the realm of the executive decision of the Government of India.” However, “in its present form, the deal seriously compromises our security concerns and strategic nuclear deterrent autonomy.”
Criticises Left

The BJP was critical of the Left, charging it with being hostile to the United States. “They would have welcomed a worse deal with China,” Mr. Prasad said. He made it plain that his party wished “good and friendly relations with the U.S.”

The party said serious and complex foreign policy issues had become the subject of a political drama being played out in public. This, Mr. Prasad said, was not a healthy or welcome development. The publicly played out farce was hurting India’s relations with some countries.

The BJP said its opposition to the nuclear deal arose from its view that it would bar India from further nuclear tests when the country found itself in a “hostile environment” and nuclear-armed neighbours.

Privately, a senior party leader told The Hindu that U.S. Ambassador David Mulford, in his earlier interactions with Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K. Advani and BJP president Rajnath Singh, said the conditions proposed in the deal in the event of a nuclear test by India were virtually impossible to implement. It would not be feasible for America to take back used nuclear reactors.

Mr. Prasad justified the BJP’s continued opposition to the deal — although on Saturday it almost seemed to urge the government to go ahead with it — despite the green signal to it from the former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and the former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 22 Jun 2008 04:41

Gerard wrote:
sraj wrote:If the NSG waiver language has any of the 'testing/FMCT/"in perpetuity" safeguards without corresponding fuel supply assurances' stuff in it, then the US has managed to convert unilateral junk which it put into its domestic laws without India's consent into a 45-nation multilateral commitment again imposed on India without its consent. The cost of exercising the testing option rises to prohibitive levels as a result.
Right now there is a 45-nation multilateral commitment that says India gets nothing... no fuel.. no reactors, no technology.. nothing (with the exception of reactor safety hence occasional Russian Uranium to keep Tarapur alive). The US has already done this. India gets nothing, irrespective of whether it signs the FMCT, CTBT, tests or does not test. Nothing.

Gerard, True. Currently, India gets nothing unless it accepts "full-scope safeguards" on "all" nuclear facilities. After this NSG waiver is passed, NSG commits itself to i) breaking all nuke cooperation if India tests; or ii) if India withdraws facilities from IAEA safeguards under any circumstances; or iii) if India is not seen as 'cooperating' on FMCT. All of these are India specific. I am sure you can see the difference.

Note: the above is all hypothetical since we do not have the NSG waiver in front of us, but is based on US pronouncements about NSG following Hyde etc; hence the calls for the US piloting a clean NSG waiver now so we can judge after examining the NSG waiver language what this whole deal is about and then make up our minds on whether it is worth it. Ever wondered why the US is inexplicably resisting getting the NSG waiver today? It does not need to wait for any Indian political consensus to do so. In fact, a clean NSG waiver would be the single biggest step to strengthen all pro-deal voices in India.

Here is a proposition: Let NSG amend its guidelines stating it mandates stopping all nuke cooperation with any nation which tests (including the 45 nations which are members). Then let's sit back and watch how many nations within NSG line up to support this amendment.

I think the above will illustrate clearly what a backdoor CTBT-plus commitment by India looks like!!

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 22 Jun 2008 04:45

Rangudu wrote:NSG was established after 1974 and its members have all agreed not to sell any nuclear material to a country that has not signed the NPT. Russia joined NSG in the 1990s but was allowed to fulfil deals before it joined NSG. That is why we get Uranium for Kudankulam (along with the reactors).

And how would the above situation change if the reports about China supplying Pakistan with Chashma-III and IV are correct?

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 22 Jun 2008 04:51

Prime Minister in high dudgeon

The Prime Minister, by all available accounts, is in high dudgeon. Having promised the Americans that he would ensure the bilateral agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation is signed, sealed and delivered before President George W Bush vacates his current lodgings, Mr Manmohan Singh finds the deal foundering on the rock of Communist obstinacy. Ever since the July 18, 2005 joint statement, which was issued after his meeting with Mr Bush at the White House, Mr Singh has pursued the deal with single-minded determination, caring little for national pride and even lesser for national interest. He has had no compunction keeping the Opposition in the dark on so momentous an issue; at the same time, he has craftily invoked Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee's name to convince the BJP into supporting what is patently an unfavourable deal, not least because it serves American commercial and strategic interests, subsuming those of India.

Three years down the line, with time running out rapidly both for him as well as his mentors in Washington, DC, Mr Singh, under increasing American pressure to deliver on his promise, is now desperate to conclude the nuclear cooperation agreement. So, though not for the first time, Mr Singh has slyly let it be known that he is prepared to resign from office rather than see the deal die its deserved death. At a time when the national economy is in the doldrums and prices of essential commodities are shooting through the roof, all that he can think of is appeasing the Americans at any which cost. He is least concerned about the appalling performance of the Government he heads or the shenanigans of his Cabinet colleagues. The fact that governance, and along with it India's development story, has virtually come to a grinding halt does not appear to bother him. Nor is he particularly perturbed about the gloomy internal security situation.

All that he wants is the draft 123 Agreement to be converted into a bilateral arrangement that will severely compromise India's strategic interests even while serving US commercial interests by reviving the out-of-business American nuclear power industry, without fetching us any tangible gains. Since propagandists have been claiming that the deal will allow us access to American technology, it needs to be said, and said again, that this is so much bunkum and no more. The ban on transfer of dual-use high technology shall continue to remain in place and the commercial nuclear power technology that will be provided will be under restrictive safeguards. Of course, Mr Bush will be able to claim a foreign policy 'success' and his end-of-term report card shall not be drenched in red ink. The Democrats, who are slated to seize control over both Capitol Hill and the White House after this November's elections, will then use the agreement to further their non-proliferation agenda: Forcing India to sign the CTBT is only the thin end of the edge; the crushing blow will come in the form of the missile technology control and fissile material cut-off regimes to which we shall have to abjectly surrender.

In this wondrous land of ours, such fine details are of little or no consequence. You are either with America or against America. If you are with America, and believe that it is in India's interest to have a strategic relationship with the US -- which is indisputable -- then you must support the deal. What if you do believe in forging a strategic partnership with the US but are opposed to the nuclear deal in its present form for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology but national and strategic interest?

The Left's obstruction of the deal stems from its ideological opposition, call it posturing if you will, to 'American imperialism'. For evidence, look at the CPI(M) Polit Bureau's statement issued on Saturday: "A massive disinformation campaign has been mounted that nuclear energy is a solution not only to the shortage of electricity in the country but also an answer to the oil price rise. This is nothing but a cover to promote the strategic ties with the US." Earlier last week, the CPI(M) had berated the Government for trying to forge an India-Israel-US axis, which to the Marxists would be evil personified. But there are also those who are opposed to the deal as much as they are opposed to the Left's anti-imperialism sloganeering and its bogus anti-Americanism. Most, if not all, of them belong to the same middleclass which our politicians mistakenly believe unequivocally and blindly supports everything American.

It is entirely possible that the Congress, or at least certain sections of it, faced with mounting disquiet over rising prices -- inflation now stands at 11.05 per cent, the same level as in 1995 when Mr Singh was the Finance Minister in PV Narasimha Rao's Government -- has come round to the view that it can mollify the middleclass by pushing through the nuclear deal with the US. It may not be entirely coincidental that the latest effort by the Prime Minister to conclude the agreement follows the publication of the results of the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which shows that 55 per cent of Indians support Mr Bush; 66 per cent view the US favourably; and, 90 per cent are gung-ho about trade with America. What it does not highlight is that these findings reflect the 'attitudes' of 2,056 Indians who live in chrome-and-glass cities, many of whom would do whatever it takes to see their children migrate to the US and become American Green Card holders if not citizens. The remaining more than a billion Indians do not necessarily agree with them, which, however, does not suggest India hates America.

The fact of the matter is Mr Singh is as clueless about prevailing national sentiments and concerns as the Congress. Cocooned in the sanitised world of 7, Race Course Road and South Block, he has no idea about the anger that is boiling over in India's cities and villages as people struggle to keep their home fire burning. It will be hugely entertaining to hear Congress leaders, and their lackeys in the UPA, tell voters at election rallies that while the Government may have failed to hold the price line, it has succeeded in securing cockamamie guarantees of nuclear fuel supply, which in turn, at some distant date, will provide the people with nuclear power. What they will not mention is that nuclear power, when new reactors go critical more than a decade later, will be frightfully expensive and never contribute more than a tenth of India's requirement of electricity. So, never mind if you are hungry now, vote for the Congress.

Meanwhile, I have missed the deadline hoping to hear that the Prime Minister has made up his mind.