Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2008 06:02

Neshant wrote:MMS can't even defend Hindus right to basic facilities for a pilgrimage in their own land.

What hope does he have of defending India's interests against the US.

I no longer trust him or his ilk.

Neshant watch what you post here. People may have all sorts of resentment about all sorts of people about all sorts of subjects. But there will be a restriction on the number of unrelated grievances that are brought up to oppose or support the nuclear deal.

Recall that nobody else is trustworthy - nor is your opinion on the issue, leave alone the PM and "his ilk". So your trusting or not trusting someone is only worth as much as someone else trusts your word.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Jul 2008 06:57

Shiv:

Don't you think thats the crux of the matter? If a bunch of Paki sponsored fanatics take the streets and MMS caves in to their demands, where is the hope that MMS will stand up to the mighty US and do what is needed on the nuke front should the situation arise? Its a reasonable fear based on extrapolation of MMS's actions.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 07:14

enqyoob wrote: Acharyaji, I bow to that masterpiece. So the child in the picture is holding a sign saying "NO TO INDO-US ARMS DEAL" with a US missile effigy in the background, because the CHILD KNOWS that it is the same thing as the "INDO-US CIVILIAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION DEAL".

IOW, the child "knows" that if the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal is approved, the US Imperialists are going to supply big nuclear rockets to India. Or maybe drop them on India?

In Mallostan there is a saying that is ruined in the translation, but the best I can do is:
"Roll around where you fall". This is to show the audience that you didn't fall, you just decided to So the June 2008 goes to Acharya.

N^3 boss,

To anyone who's followed how the Leftists in India operate, the plackard and the imagery conveyed in the picture holds no mystery.

While the other parties are still trying to figure it out how things will pan out. The Left is already preparing for elections.

Just look at it from the Left POV and think what they consider their personal vote bank would be swayed by?

Now, if the Left were to talk about how a Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal is bad for India, what is the likely reaction? Yaaaaawn! from most and a few questions about how many hours of loadshedding will we have, etc. Rite?

However, if the Left can gently twist the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation to Indo-US Arms deal (afterall who among the aam janata take time to spot just diferences - the Indo-US part is important) then there's so many interesting possiblities.

The Shias can be told that because of the deal India is going to send troops to Iran when US decides it's time for some action. (Don't be surprised, remeber Prakash Karat gave politicial credibility to a Shia rally against George Bush by attending it and giving a speech).

The Sunnis can be told that India is now going to send boots to Iraq and Afghanistan because of the deal.

And the peace loving "bhadraloks" of West Bengal can be told the CPI(M) just prevented India from being dragged into the imperialist camp.

Why even the Kandle kissing brigade can be told that this opposition to the Indo-US Arms deal would result in more Indo-Pak bhai, bhai.

And off course certain Chinni Masters will look on to all this tamasha approvingly.

Another point:

Apart from the Left and to a certain extent the BJP, which is the other interest group that has linked the Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation with Nuclear weapons?

Why our friendly NPAs off course. I'm sure if HalfBright and his pals saw this particular picture - which has so moved Acharya Ji to comment on the glowing intelligence and perception of India's children - they would have been pleased with the imagery conved. Arms Deal, a big fat mizzile in the background and an innocent child's face to give the impression of a Rape of the Innocents.

The picture conveys a very dishonest message.
JMT.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 01 Jul 2008 07:16

shiv wrote: Excuse me. I recall seeing posts of MMS being called a traitor and certain nuclear scientists being recommended for being slapped on their backsides by 1 billion Indians for being liars. That business has now ended. It will not restart. But the only way it will not restart is by not forgetting that it occurred in the first place. The past will certainly be forgiven, but if you believe that it will be forgotten - you are mistaken.

That's what I am saying. If it is forgotten, why it is being repeated (not that I have an issue) by some here are making it as their only point. There is bad blood on either side so the 'forgiven' thing can be played by both sides.

Could you explain what you mean by this eebee and whybee business? This seems to be some code language that I missed.

I have suspecion that you get it so don't want to perpetuate the same. I was only referring to the nomenclature used in the past for deal supporters and opponents (EBs/YBs). I now recall that they was a call to even stop that. Will do so.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 07:21

CRamS wrote: Its a reasonable fear based on extrapolation of MMS's actions.

CRS,
Extrapolation doesn't really work.

For example, if I were to extrapolate that the BJP will never do a Pokharan III based on the fact that they hastily declared a unilateral moratarium and also did not test again when - according to some experts here - by 2003 they knew that India's N-weapons were not as powerful as assumed?

I'm sure you wouldn't agree to such extrapolation. In fact I only use this as an example and wouldn't necessarily agree myself. But this just shows the problems with extrapolation especially in something like politics.

What MMS may due to stop rioting by a bunch of extremists within India, cannot be construed as showing he will develop cold feet when he would need to take a tough call on a matter of national security, knowing fully well that the whole India would back him on such a step.

JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 07:38

Satya_anveshi wrote: That's what I am saying. If it is forgotten, why it is being repeated (not that I have an issue) by some here are making it as their only point. There is bad blood on either side so the 'forgiven' thing can be played by both sides.

Satya_anveshi,

Since you're the second person to raise what I made as a passing comment in a discussion I was having with Shiv, I think it is necessary to give the fulll context of what was discussed for the benefit of the rest of BRF readers. (Since you noticed it, I'm assuming you are fully aware of the context).

Shiv wrote (about the N-deal):

And because of that it has become primarily a political issue with everyone using technical arguments to try and bend viewpoints this way or that.

And in response I said:

That's the biggest tragedy for the nuclear deal. It's become a political hot potatoe. Otherwise how can one explain the kind of language that's been used against the deal proponents. One usually hears those kind adjectives during no-holds barred political campaigning. It's still a shock to me how they found their way into BRF.

So you will (hopefully) see that I was generally talking about the kind of language that was being bandied about in the newspapers and among the political chattering class.

There was only one line about my surprise that some of those adjectives finding their way into BRF.

I fail to understand how you construct that to be whinning about what was written against the PM? (As an aside, please note that my objection to the use of such langauage is not because I adore MMS but because I respect the chair that he occupies).

And yes you're free to think that, that's the only worthwhile point I've raised. I can assure I'll not wither away in shame because of that.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2008 07:40

Satya_anveshi wrote:
shiv wrote: Excuse me. I recall seeing posts of MMS being called a traitor and certain nuclear scientists being recommended for being slapped on their backsides by 1 billion Indians for being liars. That business has now ended. It will not restart. But the only way it will not restart is by not forgetting that it occurred in the first place. The past will certainly be forgiven, but if you believe that it will be forgotten - you are mistaken.
That's what I am saying. If it is forgotten, why it is being repeated (not that I have an issue) by some here are making it as their only point. There is bad blood on either side so the 'forgiven' thing can be played by both sides..

read again

It is forgiven. It is NOT FORGOTTEN and will not be forgotten

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2008 07:46

CRamS wrote:Shiv:

Don't you think thats the crux of the matter? If a bunch of Paki sponsored fanatics take the streets and MMS caves in to their demands, where is the hope that MMS will stand up to the mighty US and do what is needed on the nuke front should the situation arise? Its a reasonable fear based on extrapolation of MMS's actions.

Since I believe that commenting on all this is not your personal area of expertise how am I to believe that you are not talking complete rubbish? The same standards that we apply to your view of MMS apply to my view of you.

Get the picture? If you are allowed to post all sorts of derogatory views of people based on your personal viewpoint, I will do that about you personally and claim that I am being fair. You know about MMS. I know about YOU. BRF member xyz says MMS is stupid. I say xyz is stupid. BRF member xyz says MMS is a liar. I say xyz is himself a liar. Equal-equal

Once we decide to send the discussion downhill there are many ways to go about doing that. I am demanding that nobody goes down this route.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 07:54

Mihir wrote: Amit, I believe that is 1.5 GW of peak capacity. The capacity factor of those devices will probably be about 20%

Mihir Boss,

You're absolutely right. I used the REC plant's "theoretical" load capacity as just an example and didn't go into the actual technical feasibility.

Apart from capacity factor, there are other issues as well like cost per Kilowatt of power, the sheer area that has to be covered with the solar panels in order to harvest the sunlight etc.

That's why I made the point that even the PV lobby never claims to be an alternative player to Fossil fuel and N-power. Rather they are positioning themselves as niche players in areas like Intelligent Buildings and stand alone power source etc. We are far, far away from being able to hook up a Solar power plant to the National Grid in a big time manner.

Yet a lot of "experts" are writing in newspapers that Solar energy is a perfectly alternative pathway to Nuclear power!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Jul 2008 08:15

Shiv:

Lets agree to disagree. Its a strange claim IMO that one cannot deduce reasonable future positions a person would take based on his/her past actions and worldview.

Amit:

Let me ask you this. The crux of the fear that nay sayers like me have is that MMS has no real interest in India's strategic nuke programme; and there is a fair amount of evidence to support this. Thus, we fear that once the deal is signed, then given the costs attached to any hanky panky on India's part, just as MMS caved in to a bunch of Muslim extremists because he believs that is in India's interest to do so, he might shy away from assuming an aggressive stance. Do you believe that MMS will pursue India's staretgic nuke programme with the same vigor as he is pursuing the nuke deal? And if yes, do you have evidence that would give you such confidence in him?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Jul 2008 08:19

Not only that - that cubic kilometer of seawater after being sucked clean of heavy metals would provide 1 cubic km of drinking water for Mumbai (5 minutes supply for Dharavi and the Ambani residence).

All because of lack of R&D which will start one femtosecond after the nuke deal is rejected.

Minor nit pic.. it will be about 1 trillion liters ... about 1 year supply of bottled water enough for the whole India.. and , I suppose, a good argument some might use to pooh-pooh some hypothetical deal proposed by, say, a bottled water supplier, to say "we have much cheaper alternative- water supply policy. needing only R&D"..

Just a minor point... any relationship/analogy to nuclear deal is just in the eye of the gentle reader.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 01 Jul 2008 08:22

amit wrote: Satya_anveshi,

Since you're the second person to raise what I made as a passing comment in a discussion I was having with Shiv, I think it is necessary to give the fulll context of what was discussed for the benefit of the rest of BRF readers. (Since you noticed it, I'm assuming you are fully aware of the context).

I fail to understand how you construct that to be whinning about what was written against the PM? (As an aside, please note that my objection to the use of such langauage is not because I adore MMS but because I respect the chair that he occupies).

And yes you're free to think that, that's the only worthwhile point I've raised. I can assure I'll not wither away in shame because of that.

Amit bandhu, I don't deal with personalities; only posts. My post was in response to what I thought was the pattern with complete ignorance of the "who posted". So, please get off that ride.

Up one reflection, it could be that the posts on poll thread, this thread and may be some other threads, were playing gimmicks in my head. If it matters to you, I like your posts and the balance it provides to the debate. Cheers!

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 01 Jul 2008 08:24

here are other issues as well like cost per Kilowatt of power, the sheer area that has to be covered with the solar panels in order to harvest the sunlight etc.

Among other good features, Photovoltaic cells are made from silicon using large amounts of sulphuric acid, IIRC. They take up a huge amount of energy to make, and cause a lot of pollution.

I say cow dung is better any day.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 08:31

I say cow dung is better any day.

Biogas plants is the way to go. I'll write a letter to Sam (Rajappa) suggesting that! I have a feeling he just might listen to me.

But seriously, Biogas plants in certain situations can provide viable street lighting in villages. It's been tried before.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 08:35

Satya_anveshi wrote: Amit bandhu, I don't deal with personalities; only posts. My post was in response to what I thought was the pattern with complete ignorance of the "who posted". So, please get off that ride.

Fair enough, my apologies Boss.

Human nature I guess but I did have a rather spirited discussion with another poster on exactly the same issue and so I guess the adrenaline rush was still on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2008 08:40

CRamS wrote:Shiv:

Lets agree to disagree. Its a strange claim IMO that one cannot deduce reasonable future positions a person would take based on his/her past actions and worldview.

But that disagreement will not spill on to the forum because I have to wear an admin hat and cannot make a special case for your posts because I have "agreed to disagree" with you. You will still have to comply with my view. Sorry if that seems harsh

You may have missed all the posts I made about personal comments before I started the "test or no nuke test" thread. However let me repeat my views as far as BRF is concerned.

On BRF personal vilification of members is called ad hominem and constitutes trolling

However personal vilification of public figures has gone on unabated and is rationalized by erudite members such as yourself that " Its a strange claim IMO that one cannot deduce reasonable future positions a person would take based on his/her past actions and worldview."

This is a clear double standard in which we insulate ourselves from personal criticism while we are free to criticise others.

This will not do and it will not be allowed. You are welcome to hold your views. Implementing them on here will be noted and dealt with as trolling. Thank you if you actually read this.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 08:46

CRamS wrote: Amit:

Let me ask you this. The crux of the fear that nay sayers like me have is that MMS has no real interest in India's strategic nuke programme; and there is a fair amount of evidence to support this. Thus, we fear that once the deal is signed, then given the costs attached to any hanky panky on India's part, just as MMS caved in to a bunch of Muslim extremists because he believs that is in India's interest to do so, he might shy away from assuming an aggressive stance. Do you believe that MMS will pursue India's staretgic nuke programme with the same vigor as he is pursuing the nuke deal? And if yes, do you have evidence that would give you such confidence in him?

CRS,

All this is a matter of perception. You don't have confidence in MMS. I have as much, or as less, depending the way you look at it confidence in him as I have in any other political personality in India who could at some point of time become the PM. Off course one notable exception would be Prakash Karat.

I believe the Indian system does not depend on a single individual - be it the PM - to decide on matters of National security.

When you make a statement like MMS has no real interest in India's startegic nuke programme you are assuming (please note I'm not even commenting on whether I think this statement is true or not) that everything depends on MMS whims.

Fortunately the Indian system does not work that way and I don't think even a PM as powerful as Indira Gandhi was in the early 1970s can move against what would an internal consensus between the political, strategic and beuracracy power brokers.

India survived OK with weak PMs like Gujral, Deve Gowda and VP Singh. Why is that you think it can't survive MMS?

I guess it all boils down to how much confidence one has in the Indian political process. I happen to have reason to have great confidence in it - that there's enough self correcting mechanism built into it to prevent too much deviation from the internal consensus.

It could be that you don't share that same confidence. But then that's fair enough. That's what democracy and free society is all about.

Cheers!

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 01 Jul 2008 09:15

It is interesting to note that Amar Singh went to US from where he extended SP support for nuclear deal.

which is the lobby that he met and what was he promised in return for extending support to UPA ?
why is it that he needed to go to US to reaffirm his support to UPA when he could have done so from India itself.

I have as much, or as less, depending the way you look at it confidence in him as I have in any other political personality in India who could at some point of time become the PM. Off course one notable exception would be Prakash Karat.

I strongly object to the vilification of a national leader of the stature of Prakash Karat.
Why are anti Prakash Karat statements and personal attacks kosher on this forum.

it is deeply offensive to my sentiments to see comments that question the nationalism of the communist leader.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2008 09:18

Raju wrote: I strongly object to the vilification of a national leader of the stature of Prakash Karat.
Why are anti Prakash Karat statements and personal attacks kosher on this forum.

it is deeply offensive to my sentiments to see comments that question the nationalism of the communist leader.

I did call him Bhishma Pitamah, which is praise, not vilification, but there were objections to that.

Calling people names is a problem, and if members start calling people names, I can make the game really interesting by being an admin who joins the game to call people names.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jul 2008 09:21

amit wrote:I believe the Indian system does not depend on a single individual - be it the PM - to decide on matters of National security.

Are you sure about this? J&K to the UN was by consensus? Ceding of Aksai Chin was consensus? Indian not deciding to go nuclear till 74 was by consensus? India not weaponizing till TSP did was by consensus? How many individuals decided these things?

When you make a statement like MMS has no real interest in India's startegic nuke programme you are assuming (please note I'm not even commenting on whether I think this statement is true or not) that everything depends on MMS whims.

Have you tracked the genesis of this deal? How many great analytical reports can you cite asking for such a deal?

Fortunately the Indian system does not work that way and I don't think even a PM as powerful as Indira Gandhi was in the early 1970s can move against what would an internal consensus between the political, strategic and beuracracy power brokers.

No, no. You completely underestimate, what she would have done. She was the kind of person, who changed the entire consititution to suit her whims and immediate wishes, the 39th and 42nd are examples. If it were her, she would have had Advani for breakfast and Karat for lunch and did what she wanted, based on her whim and fancy, enjoying a nice dinner with Bush.

I guess it all boils down to how much confidence one has in the Indian political process. I happen to have reason to have great confidence in it - that there's enough self correcting mechanism built into it to prevent too much deviation from the internal consensus.

Like what?

That's what democracy and free society is all about.

Like, our MP's treated as sheeps led by a shepherd, where the sheeps cannot look left or right, without getting their heads cutoff?

Cheers!

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jul 2008 09:25

Inside sources on the condition of anonimity tell me that the song for the season in PMO office is
"
Don't know why I am surviving every lonely day
When there's got to be chance for me
My office term would end.

I gave it all too early to you
My love to dream never will come true
If I can't have you
I don't want nobody baby
It doesn't matter how I try
....
"

Hit song from Saturday Night Fever by Yvonne Elliman ( though name ends in man, please note she is a female

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 01 Jul 2008 09:26

shiv wrote:
Raju wrote: I strongly object to the vilification of a national leader of the stature of Prakash Karat.
Why are anti Prakash Karat statements and personal attacks kosher on this forum.

it is deeply offensive to my sentiments to see comments that question the nationalism of the communist leader.
I did call him Bhishma Pitamah, which is praise, not vilification, but there were objections to that.

Calling people names is a problem, and if members start calling people names, I can make the game really interesting by being an admin who joins the game to call people names.

Sir,

I was speaking about Amit's comments about Karat.

Your stance on Prakash Karat is the correct one. i.e. he is Bhishma Pitamaha
I am not questioning you. You are a sporting loser.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Jul 2008 09:39

Kashmir matter was a state subject it has nothing to do with central govt or PM.

Gujjar protest was a Rajsthan govt issue it had nothing to do with PM or Advani ji.

MNS beating Biharis was a state issue advaniji or MMS did nothing and had no power.

So first you'll have to learn that their is a clear division of power in India and no state govt will tolerate center butting in it's internal law and order issues. PM is PM not a dictator who can do everything and decide on every/anything. PM of India is head of state with a lot of executive and legislative power but he is not as powerful as say President of USA, France or Russia who are elected directly or President of China, King of SA or Mushy who have power by force.

In India it's not PM who decided or have power it’s the federal cabinet that has power. Every decision is taken by federal cabinet, which has representation of all the UPA allies and major congress stalwarts.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 01 Jul 2008 10:09

Meanwhile in a fictional country, the capital of which is Lutyenabad,
there appear to be rumblings in the pro-deal contigent itself.
Calculated media leaks are the order of the day.
Witness the following http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... nd+the+gap
written by Maulan Neel-al-esh in the official akhbaar of the ruling jamaat.
Article questions why mines weren't operationalized over the years.
Meanwhile the qazis at the rival akhbar seem to be egging on/instigating the
enemies of the deal, to junk the pact with the jamaat and force a vote in the
majlis -e -aam, with inflammatory stuff life
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 182712.cms
NSN Lutyenabad asks, who benefits from this posturing.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 01 Jul 2008 10:23

India is a constitutional democracy. In a democracy like India, each elected official such as PM, CM, MP, MLA, etc have a specific role to play. The role they play is governed by Indian constitution. Being a PM does not make him the boss of every chief ministers or MPs or MLAs or so on. PM cannot dictate his/her terms even to an elected official of a humble municipal ward. It is not about division of powers. It is about very precise role an elected official has to play within the framework of Indian constitution. Elected officials have no bosses. Their only accountability is when they are up for election unless they are stupid and break a law or two. It is people who hire and fire a PM or CM or MP or MLA.

Man Mohan Singh has his role to play and we have to respect his role as a PM.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 01 Jul 2008 10:56

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/30guest2.htm

The commentariat, so aptly named by Vir Sanghvi has begun sounding the
last post for MMS. For the first time somebody from the commentariat
writes that "there is also weight in the countervailing arguments -- that the nuke
deal may have a bearing on India's sovereign decision making."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2008 12:26

Amar Singh has been hanging out in USA for 10 days, even though there is a lot of politicking going on in India, and his presence in India may have been desired. Now he has been keeping Pranab Mukherjee waiting for the briefing. The UNPA is also slated to meet on 3rd July on the question of the nuclear issue, so it was of some urgency that SP arrives at a position quickly.

Alone the fact, that Amar Singh was in the USA, gives hope to those who are looking for hope, that his stance on America is not as antagonistic as that of the Commies. However it would be interesting to know whether Amar Singh has himself been in contact with Americans on this issue. Are there any nuclear lobbyists who have been working on SP's stance on the nuclear issue? Perhaps if such lobbyists had visited Amar Singh here in India, people would have looked upon it strangely, especially if they were some white Americans in black suits. In USA, that would be less of an issue and less of the media following your every step.

It is abundantly clear for some time, that the nuclear agreement would not survive as long as the Communists would have something to say about it. So a question of some interest would be to know, how long has Congress and all others in favor of the agreement been working on alternative scenarios, which can only mean on the Samajwadi Party.

Could it be, considering all the mutual suspicion between Congress and SP, that Mulayam and Amar did not think that Sonia's and Manmohan's word would be sufficient assurance, that the nuclear deal would indeed not only be in India's favor but also of the pocket books of the parties supporting the deal.

Could it be, that under such circumstances the nuclear deal lobby in Delhi arranged a meeting between Amar Singh and the nuclear deal lobby in USA, so that he can convince himself of the booty waiting for the supporters at the end of the rainbow?

After all, SP has started giving positive signals to the Congress for quite some time. This can hardly be the consequence of an upcoming meeting between Amar Singh and Pranab Mukherjee. OK there have been a couple of meetings between Sonia and Mulayam recently which could have helped with SP's turnabout, but is that all that was required.

I am glad, that SP has helped break the lock of the cage in which the reformer Manmohan Singh has been kept captured by the Left for the last 4 years. Manmohan Singh would probably now bring out a slew of reformist legislation through the Parliament including the nuclear deal.

It would still be fascinating to know, how exactly Amar Singh was swayed to dump his communist buddies for the sake of sharing power at the Center with the Congress!

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 12:57

Raju wrote: Sir,

I was speaking about Amit's comments about Karat.

Your stance on Prakash Karat is the correct one. i.e. he is Bhishma Pitamaha
I am not questioning you. You are a sporting loser.

Now, now Raju Saar,

Is saying that you don't have confidence in a particular politician - Prakash Karat - the same as calling him a traitor? Why put the word of this very ignorant poster - Moi - on such a pedestal?

My humble question to you saar is: Do you have confidence in MMS as a leader?

Please don't find hidden meanings in my posts. They are those of a dimwit and if they don't make sense to you plse ignore!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2008 13:02

shiv wrote: On BRF personal vilification of members is called ad hominem and constitutes trolling

However personal vilification of public figures has gone on unabated and is rationalized by erudite members such as yourself that " Its a strange claim IMO that one cannot deduce reasonable future positions a person would take based on his/her past actions and worldview."

This is a clear double standard in which we insulate ourselves from personal criticism while we are free to criticise others.

This will not do and it will not be allowed. You are welcome to hold your views. Implementing them on here will be noted and dealt with as trolling. Thank you if you actually read this.

This is clearly a very high standard, that is being set up here. While personal vilification of BRFites is definitely a waste of forum real estate, not being able to question the motives and character of public figures, who are by their own volition - "public figures", would be quite difficult as they carry responsibility which affects national destiny.

On the other hand, one can argue, BRFites also have to abide by a code, but that code's responsibility goes only as far as enabling a fruitful and structured discussion on the forum.

As an anology: the demands of security in a country should not go as far as throttling the very feature of the country, that needs to be secured, i.e. life and freedom.

Similarly the code of conduct on a forum should not go so far that any fruitful discussion is made difficult, because of such a code.

Double-standards cannot always be avoided. In politics, these "public figures" have bigger roles to play, than the common man. That is a double standard. On Forums, the members too ought to be able expect a double standard, where public figures motives, character, etc. are questioned, but the member's are not.

Just my two eurocents.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 01 Jul 2008 13:16

RajeshA wrote:Amar Singh has been hanging out in USA for 10 days, even though there is a lot of politicking going on in India, and his
presence in India may have been desired. Now he has been keeping Pranab Mukherjee waiting for the briefing. The UNPA is also slated to meet
on 3rd July on the question of the nuclear issue, so it was of some urgency that SP arrives at a position quickly.

And what do you make of this
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/30inter.htm

Read between the lines and see what is being thought about the deal in the govt. itself.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 13:42

Are you sure about this? J&K to the UN was by consensus? Ceding of Aksai Chin was consensus? Indian not deciding to go nuclear till 74 was by consensus? India not weaponizing till TSP did was by consensus?

ShauryaT,

Regarding Kashmir, much as I abhor the policy decisions that were taken, are you seriously trying to say those (wrong) decisions were taken by Nehru alone?

Sure there were dissensions but I haven't yet read anything that shows that Nehru acted alone. Can you point me to the source of your information? I'm always willing to learn.

Again the Indian decision not to go nuclear till 74 was undoubtedly a bad mistake.

However, can you show some sources, which claim that it was the result of individual decisions taken by the PM of that time? It could very well be a collective decision making failure and the ultimate responsibility of that failure rests on the PM of that time. However, can we claim that the decision was taken without a consensus? Again can you point to a source?

As to not weaponizing till TSP did, whom are you blaming for that? There were several PMs between 1974 and the time when we actually weaponized. Who is to blame?

And if they are all to blame again how can you say it was an individual decision and not a collective decision of the strategic community, government and bureaucracy?

How many individuals decided these things?

Yes indeed I would like to know your take on this.

Have you tracked the genesis of this deal? How many great analytical reports can you cite asking for such a deal?

What you would consider "great" and what I would consider "great" or for the matter what someone else on BRF would consider "great" depends on perception doesn't it? So let’s keep “great analytical reports” out of the ambit of the discussion.

Again the question of "good" or "bad" (deal that is) is not what I was getting at.
My post, which you go to such great lengths to analyze, did not pass a value judgment on whether the deal was good or bad.

What it said was that strategic decisions are not taken in India, as they would be in a Banana Republic by just the leader of the country.

There are various stakeholders who give their views and what decision is to be taken - again note I'm not value judging the quality of the decision making - comes after an informal consensus.
Sad to say the views of people outside the government is not a part of that decision making process.

For this current deal, again without judging its merits, I would like to point out that people representing the strategic community like KS have come out in support of the deal.

People representing the bureaucracy like Arundhati Ghose have come out in support of the deal and off course there are scientists as well as politicians have come out in support of the deal.

Again I know that there are an equal number of eminent experts who have spoken out against the deal.

But my intention was to just show that it’s not a pet project of MMS alone. That was what I wrote in the post, which you quote. I hope you will not try to put words in my mouth or try to find hidden meanings in my post.

No, no. You completely underestimate, what she would have done. She was the kind of person, who changed the entire consititution to suit her whims and immediate wishes, the 39th and 42nd are examples. If it were her, she would have had Advani for breakfast and Karat for lunch and did what she wanted, based on her whim and fancy, enjoying a nice dinner with Bush.

My dear friend, I agree with you 400 percent regarding Indira Gandhi. To use a previously favourite word on this forum, Indira had more cojones than all the rest of the PMs after her put together.
However, you are talking about domestic politics and not high-level strategic decision-making. There’s a big difference here.

Do you think she went to war to liberate Bangladesh on a whim and the strategic community, military and the beauracacy was not with her on that plan? Do you think 1974 happened because she got up from the right side of the bed and decided to celebrate Diwali early?

Like what?

Let me ask you a counter question.

The deal first surfaced in 2005 and it’s pushing 2008 and there’s still no guarantee that the deal would go through and there's a good chance of the Congress government falling.

Do you think all this would have happened if there were no internal checks and balances that ensures naysayers (to policy decisions) have enough say?

Like, our MP's treated as sheeps led by a shepherd, where the sheeps cannot look left or right, without getting their heads cutoff?

And I suppose you know of a promised land where there's a free society, democracy and MPs don't follow party diktats? Could you tell me the name of that promised land?

Finally I see a good natured and civil Cheers! produced a

from you.

Fine I assure you I will not use a Cheers! with you. And in any case it wasn't meant for you.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2008 13:44

sugriva wrote: And what do you make of this
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/30inter.htm

Read between the lines and see what is being thought about the deal in the govt. itself.

All Mr Shahid Siddiqui, General Secretary of SP, is saying here is that the govt itself sees the deal as more than a question of nuclear commerce. That is a generally accepted fact. Every party knows that it brings India and USA closer.

However "closer" does not make India an American pithoo. Considering that India and US were on different sides of the Cold War and that is the starting point, we have to consider, anything that normalises Indo-US relations brings us closer. At the moment, India has had to dance to US tune in case of Iran, etc. simply because there are several minds in US Congress, whose cooperation is required for the deal, just like there are many shades of opinion in India like BJP, Left, UNPA, etc. who may be averse to a deal, and every time US makes a comment on the deal, everybody pounces on the comment and says US is trying to exert pressure on India. So yes, India has been showing conduct, that it bows to US wishes, but this would seem to me, particularly short-termed, as long as the ball remains in the courts of US legislators. Once the deal is signed, India would re-exert an independent foreign policy.

As far as military cooperation is concerned, India seems to be the only major arms market, of which the Americans are pretty sure, that one day those weapons, would not target US interests and as such can be sold to India. It is a strategic issue but also a business matter.

However that still does not mean, that India would somehow give up its independent foreign policy, just to accomodate US. That is paranoia. It is true, that India would not be incessantly questioning the international system built by the West and democratic values they espouse, like maybe countries like Russia or China, but only because India feels, we can progress in the international system, that it is not intrinsically anti-Indian, and where it is, India can correct the system, e.g. w.r.t. Nuclear Regime with the nuclear deal, and later on UNSC permanent membership.

But if Mr Siddiqui feel, that a rabid demonstrator against US policies can be the only credentials for an independent foreign policy, than that is not going to happen.

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 01 Jul 2008 13:45

Excellent analysis!

http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFri ... 29540.html

Pratap Bhanu Mehta

The desire to salvage a few remaining slivers of self respect may still impel the Congress to push for the Indo-US nuclear deal. But it is important to be clear about the nature of this push. To call the pushing for the deal at this stage an act of statesmanship is to engage in something of a hyperbole that only a politics with as low expectations as ours can let pass. A willingness to give up a mere few weeks in power is hardly a great sacrifice. It would have been something to have pushed for a faster follow-up to the deal a few months ago. The government has had more than two years to bring this deal to fruition: to change people’s minds, to court new allies, to cut new deals. But it has postponed these decisions till the last minute, where the risk of losing power has very few consequences.

It is hard to decide whether the Congress’s courting the Samajwadi Party is a case of intentionally risking something or a typical piece of political misjudgement. On the surface, aligning with the SP will further diminish the Congress’s chances of expanding its base amongst Dalits and the poor and will contribute to its longer term decline. And it is more likely that this alignment will be remembered for the opportunism it represents more than the good it might do.

The Congress’s postponing the moment of reckoning has already compromised the deal in several ways. First, it is not entirely clear that India will approach the NSG with the strongest possible hand. Contrary to official spin, our standing amongst NSG countries has already been compromised. Second, the Congress’s argument that the last weeks of the Bush administration are the last chance we have for this deal is, in a peculiar way, paradoxical. For, as everyone knows, the really contentious issues are not the text of the 123 Agreement itself. They have to do with the surrounding context in which it is embedded. On the US side, it is the political price the United States intends to extract for the deal and the ambiguity over how the agreement will in future be interpreted in relation to other US legislation.

A case could be made that these are not matters that can be resolved through legal nit picking; they essentially turn on how future American administrations interpret and follow up on the deal. If we suppose that the favourable interpretation given to the agreement will depend upon the contingencies of the administration in the US rather than upon the structural logic of the deal, then this attenuates the deal’s attractiveness. This would have mattered less if we had put in place the other contracts and legislative protections that would have operationalised this deal while the supposedly favourable Bush administration was in office. But now the case of those who think that the deal should be reconsidered in light of the new political winds blowing in the US becomes more plausible.

On the Indian side, the benefits of the deal depend on our capacity for follow-up: how we nurture our indigenous scientific establishment, how we manoeuvre our foreign policy independence, and how we create the regulatory framework that will enable a nuclear industry to take off. On the first, we have been a dismal failure, progress on the second is debatable, and the prospects of getting an appropriate domestic regulatory framework for exploiting the full potential of nuclear power domestically look thin for the next few years. Domestic uranium mining and potentially giving access to the indigenous private sector remain a distant gleam. In short, the government consistently gave signals that it was more interested in the deal than it was in doing all the things that secure independent nuclear power. It is its lack of initiative on so many other related fronts over the past couple of years that leads people to wonder whether the deal is more important to us, or the objectives it is meant to serve. Have we not confused ends and means?

This question becomes more pressing in light of the fact that there has not been a single issue of abiding national importance on which the prime minister has asserted his authority. The prime minister’s own agenda was consistently sidelined, whether it was administrative reform, new paradigms of delivery of services to the poor, further push on economic reform or fiscal responsibility. He was a silent spectator on issues of overwhelming national importance, like the handling of the poison of caste, or the decimation of higher education. Even his potentially interesting initiatives on Pakistan or Kashmir are threatening to unravel because of a lack of follow- through. In short, it was naive of the prime minister to suppose that he could abdicate an assertion of power on other issues of national importance and carry credibility on this one issue. All those who fuelled rumours about the PM being in relative incommunicado for three or four crucial days last week did him a disservice. Instead of finding an opportunity to take his case to the public, instead of showing visible public leadership in a moment of serious economic crisis, he gave the impression of going into a private sulk over the deal.

The following question has been raised, rightly. Should not the word of the prime minister of India mean something in the international context? The answer is yes. But there is a larger question behind this one. Should not the office of the prime minister mean something more generally? The Congress, whatever it may say outwardly, has over the last four years systematically destroyed the stature of this office: itinerant ministers have upstaged him on policy issues, and even at the best of times the PM was made to look like an official in waiting. Is it any surprise that the question of the prime minister’s authority does not evoke any excited resonance?

For four years, the Congress has dug itself into a deep hole, frittering away a golden opportunity to transform both politics and policy in this country. And the tragedy is that it did this when circumstances in the country were very propitious. If the Congress has the minimal degree of self respect, it has no choice but to push for the deal. But let us not harbour the illusion that this is about statesmanship or sacrifice. Those require both a credible vision of a larger purpose and a willingness to take genuine risks.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi pratapbmehta@gmail.com

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 01 Jul 2008 14:16

RajeshA wrote: All Mr Shahid Siddiqui, General Secretary of SP, is saying here is that the govt itself sees the deal as more than a question of nuclear commerce. That is a generally accepted fact. Every party knows that it brings India and USA closer.

However "closer" does not make India an American pithoo. Considering that India and US were on different sides of the Cold War and that is the starting point, we have to consider, anything that normalises Indo-US relations brings us closer. At the moment, India has had to dance to US tune in case of Iran, etc. simply because there are several minds in US Congress, whose cooperation is required for the deal, just like there are many shades of opinion in India like BJP, Left, UNPA, etc. who may be averse to a deal, and every time US makes a comment on the deal, everybody pounces on the comment and says US is trying to exert pressure on India. So yes, India has been showing conduct, that it bows to US wishes, but this would seem to me, particularly short-termed, as long as the ball remains in the courts of US legislators. Once the deal is signed, India would re-exert an independent foreign policy.

As far as military cooperation is concerned, India seems to be the only major arms market, of which the Americans are pretty sure, that one day those weapons, would not target US interests and as such can be sold to India. It is a strategic issue but also a business matter.

However that still does not mean, that India would somehow give up its independent foreign policy, just to accomodate US. That is paranoia. It is true, that India would not be incessantly questioning the international system built by the West and democratic values they espouse, like maybe countries like Russia or China, but only because India feels, we can progress in the international system, that it is not intrinsically anti-Indian, and where it is, India can correct the system, e.g. w.r.t. Nuclear Regime with the nuclear deal, and later on UNSC permanent membership.

But if Mr Siddiqui feel, that a rabid demonstrator against US policies can be the only credentials for an independent foreign policy, than that is not going to happen.

There are many points that I could pick on if I wish to. However there are 2 that I would like to argue.
1) The "vision" of your post, rather the vision of what the USA has in mind for India. It looks more like turning India into Japan. While not bad in itself there should be bigger things that India should aspire for, shouldn't it?

2) How does not wanting to sign the nuclear deal make for a "rabid demostrator against US policies" ?

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2008 14:34

sugriva wrote: 1) The "vision" of your post, rather the vision of what the USA has in mind for India. It looks more like turning India into Japan. While not bad in itself there should be bigger things that India should aspire for, shouldn't it?

You know Sugriva,

The example of Japan is brought up quite often here in comparison to the alleged trap being set up by the US for India.

When you are talking about bigger things that India should aspire for, it implies that Japan had also aspired for bigger things but somehow failed to achieve them.

You've got to understand there's a big difference what a country of aging people and just 128 million folks can achieve and what a country of more than 1 billion people with one of the world's youngest populations can achieve.

Have you talked with any Japanese regarding this? Have you noted any angst among them - I'm not talking about the lunatic fringe groups that Japan has in plenty - but ordinary Japanese.

I've had a lot of intereactions. I haven't come across any Japanese who feel they are somehow styimed from achieveing their rightfult place in the world. In fact I get a sense of superiority and smugness. I really would be interested in knowing what is the veiwpoints of others.

Having said that I don't think India should aspire to be any other country be it Japan, China or even the US. India will be India. And when you have 1 billion people, a free society and (soon to be) a mamoth economy, no other nation can guide what you are going to be or should be.

If India falls by the wayside, then it will because of it's own fault and not because someone (country) tripped it.

Cheers!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2008 14:43

sugriva wrote:
RajeshA wrote: But if Mr Siddiqui feel, that a rabid demonstrator against US policies can be the only credentials for an independent foreign policy, than that is not going to happen.
There are many points that I could pick on if I wish to. However there are 2 that I would like to argue.
1) The "vision" of your post, rather the vision of what the USA has in mind for India. It looks more like turning India into Japan. While not bad in itself there should be bigger things that India should aspire for, shouldn't it?

2) How does not wanting to sign the nuclear deal make for a "rabid demonstrator against US policies" ?

1) What USA's vision is for India, concerns me the least. What concerns me, is whether India has the strategic, political and economic backbone to form our own independent foreign policy.

A system is vulnerable to both carrots and sticks. One can discuss sticks too, but in this case, I would just like to stress the vulnerability on carrots. Once India has made up her mind, that she will act within the international system and not try to usurp it, it is clear that the present international system does not allow India a fair play, because of the nuclear apartheid of NPT, NSG, MRTP, etc. So if and when there is a carrot dangling out there, that India may be accommodated within the system, like in this case, with the nuclear deal, then of course, India would be open to pressures of "good" conduct for such and such to materialize. Same is the case with UNSC membership. We need to get rid of carrots of accommodation first. Nuclear deal is a major means for that happening.

India is not Japan. Japanese fought a war with US and were beaten into submission. Neither is India planning to go to war with US, nor would the outcome of such an hypothetical match be similar, so the question of a similar submission does not arise.

2) You are equating "Not signing the nuclear deal" with "independent foreign policy for India". One does not imply the other.
It was a matter of how does one assures the "non-believers (in the nuclear deal)", that just because one is signing the nuclear deal on offer, does not mean that one is giving up India's independent foreign policy. So the rhetorical question is: Would one need to be a "rabid demonstrator against US policies" for such "non-believers" to accept one's credentials of following an independent foreign policy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jul 2008 15:00

RajeshA wrote: This is clearly a very high standard, that is being set up here. While personal vilification of BRFites is definitely a waste of forum real estate, not being able to question the motives and character of public figures, who are by their own volition - "public figures", would be quite difficult as they carry responsibility which affects national destiny.

step back and think for a moment what you are saying here.

You can most certainly disagree with his way of taking India forward but you can't question his/her's motive without irrefutable evidence supporting the same.

BTW, if you are really convinced that Your PM/Minister etc is acting against India's interests intentionally , what the hell are you doing producing storms on a keyboard ??

You should be out in the streets trying to bring about a revolution against him/her !!

On the other hand, one can argue, BRFites also have to abide by a code, but that code's responsibility goes only as far as enabling a fruitful and structured discussion on the forum.

As an anology: the demands of security in a country should not go as far as throttling the very feature of the country, that needs to be secured, i.e. life and freedom.

Similarly the code of conduct on a forum should not go so far that any fruitful discussion is made difficult, because of such a code.

what the code is has already been decided and it's current form should be clear from shiv's posts and mine.

Double-standards cannot always be avoided. In politics, these "public figures" have bigger roles to play, than the common man. That is a double standard. On Forums, the members too ought to be able expect a double standard, where public figures motives, character, etc. are questioned, but the member's are not.

sorry, not going to happen here anytime soon.

Just my two eurocents.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 01 Jul 2008 16:39

Lot of confusion here. Let me try to clarify:
1. "Pro-Deal" (that means someone who wants India to sign the NUCLEAR civilian cooperation deal, a.k.a. "Cap, Rollback, Eliminate, Surrender" (CRES). Someone may be "pro-deal" because if India signs it, that fact can be used to beat up the ruling party in the next election.
2. "Anti-Deal". This means,

No reason needed. Supported by People's Republic of China, Federation of Atomic Scientists, Prime Minister of Australia, President of the Enlightened Nuclear Islamic State of Pakistan, Field Marshal Joseph Atemydaddy, Dictator of Fiji, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, and Comrade Prakash Karat.
3. "Anti-Imperialist": Someone who is against the US in everything except visas for themselves and their offspring. Example: Comrade Nayanar, ex-Chief Minister of Kerala. Was on Frequent Visitor Program of US Consulate and New York Kennedy Airport.
4. "Sovereign Interests of India": Freedom to TALK about Indo-Iran Pipeline Through Terrorist Pakistan, and Indo-Myanmar Pipeline Through Bangladesh and ULFA-held territory.
5. "Indo-US ARMS DEAR": Officiar postel made in Peopre's Lepubric of China fol rittre chirdlen in New Derhi to hord, saying "NO TO INDO-US ARMS DEAR!" Means India should not continue to give alms to US any more (like $100M per F-18 fighter plane with the bullock-cart engines made by GE), but instead should give to China. A USIS glant to CPI(M) AKG Bhavan would be good too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2008 17:37

India likely to clinch IAEA pact by mid-July

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 01 Jul 2008 17:45

likely to be clinched by a minority govt.

The four Left parties are scheduled to meet in New Delhi on July 4 where they are expected to take a unified decision on their withdrawal of support to the 50-month-old UPA government.

http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=6914