India nuclear news and discussion

[NRao]

Forgot to add, RU during the Georgian fiasco, explicitly stated that RU will support the US on the nuclear front.

And, of course, FR has stated that they feel that India is not ready - mature enough - to join the club.

[ramana]

From Ram Narayanan

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... trParentID

Growing up

K Shankar Bajpai, Hindustan Times

September 07, 2008

First Published: 20:07 IST(7/9/2008)
Last Updated: 20:12 IST(7/9/2008)

Few issues have generated such concentrated, prolonged controversy as our ‘nuclear deal’. Kashmir, the China boundary, various Pakistani crises were actual happenings. The deal is about what may happen.

Like our economic reforms, the agreement is a means to an end — curiously, provoking the same divides and inspired by the same leader. What has passed for public debate is essentially over means. It has unfortunately ignored the connection between means and capabilities.

What may happen, depends on your power. And the nuclear deal must be seen — and should have been better projected — in the perspective of its authors: a step in India’s emergence as a major power.

It is still a matter of potential. The world considers India as the next great power because of our economic and military achievements. But it assumed that we have the necessary decision-making apparatus. How our political processes handled the nuclear deal has greatly shaken that assumption. We hardly lived up to our thousands-years-old tradition of rigorous intellectual discipline, or showed ourselves ready to think as great — or as indeed all serious — powers do.

The energy aspect is not minor: 5 or 8 per cent. We need so much, and every little bit matters. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approval was obtained formally on energy grounds. But in domestic polemics, it’s smallness exposed it to sarcasm: why sell out for so little? That charge carried two innate questions: what sell-out; and is it really so little?

Opponents make two basic accusations: we have abandoned rights to test, and we have fallen under American control. Other criticisms include: fuel supply uncertainty and ENR (enrichment and reprocessing) ambivalence. These are supplementary. Unquestionably, such fears could prove true — if you let them be true. After decades of independence, do we still lack self-confidence so badly?

We have paid heavily and repeatedly by naively clinging on to theoretical rights without having the power to obtain them. We demanded Independence instead of Dominion Status, and launched a Quit India movement without any planning that ended up with a bloody Partition. We let our legislature micro-manage the China boundary issue — ‘not an inch of our territory to be surrendered’ — and lost several thousand square kilometres. Kashmir must be no different from other states; so where do we go now? We must have the right to test. But does that right not depend also on our power?

Nobody — not even our best friends — will agree that we can test. America, Russia, France — almost all countries in the world adhering to the NPT — will not only react to any Indian nuclear test according to their declared positions, but they will also react according to how they see us at the time. Vienna just showed us that India’s future was almost decided by six countries with a lower combined population than Delhi’s. We want the same rights as the Nuclear Five, who got them simply because they exploded their devices by a certain date. We ignored power politics (dare one mention the unrealised scientific hopes?) and missed that cut-off date. We are similarly ignoring the power politics in regard to our testing rights now.

We might also ask, why test at all? To refine our technology as others have done. But how can we do that if we can’t even get fuel for our existing plants?

The 123 agreement seeks circumventing automatic termination, providing for consultations on the circumstances leading to the test. The ‘know-betters’ sneer at this figleaf. Of course, it will all depend on the state of our relations at the time. Even the most explicit agreements are interpreted according to need.

Which raises the ‘American duplicity’ question — Washington telling the US Congress one thing and us another. We betray our naiveté about how the world ticks. International negotiations inevitably involve differences. In this case, it was between what will work with us and what will work with the US Congress. It is the very essence of diplomacy to find solutions for such differences. Deception is wrong. Indeed, it is self-defeating, always betraying itself. But calculated ambiguity is an essential tool. It has risks. It may produce agreements, meaning different things to different people. But later interpretations depend on relations at the time — which, again, depend on power equations.

As for surrendering to American goodwill (read: diktats), nobody has any illusions. The US is not giving us this deal without expecting something in return. Specifically, it sees a strong India as an asset in a world in which China is the second world power. Is that beyond our comprehension or ability to accept that, while retaining our freedom of action? One can accept American help in becoming strong without ganging up against China. Thoughtful Americans, who have pushed this deal, realise that it serves no Indian interest to enter into any confrontation with China. But neither does an Asia dominated by China. We look for better relations with China, hoping it will be an internationally cooperative power, not an assertive one throwing its weight around. But can we ignore its worrying actions — nuclear help to Pakistan, naval bases in Myanmar and Gwadar and its open obstructiveness in Vienna?

The hypocrisy of a blatant nuclear proliferator opposing our nuclear deal for being a danger to non-proliferation should not nauseate us. This is the way the world works. The Chinese understand — more clearly than us — that the ‘deal’ is to strengthen India. Do we understand that, having disdained us as not being in their league, the Chinese does not welcome a strong India?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposite ideas in the mind without losing the ability to act.” We Indians constantly entertain contradictions, but fail Scott Fitzgerald’s test of action. It is essential for effective involvement in world affairs to be able to manage contradictory pressures. Iran provides the most immediate example. Objectively considered, Iran has done nothing for us. But adding to civilisational ties and our Shia sensitivities, there are solid reasons to have good relations. But do we want a nuclear Iran?

We won in Vienna not because of our record on non-proliferation, but also because it is in India’s vital interest that no more countries go nuclear. Those most likely to will add to our security problems. We must learn to be able to seek improved relations with Iran and yet stick firmly to our non-proliferation credentials and interests. And the more powerful we are, the better we can manage such dilemmas.

With China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia as well as with the US — we will have points of congruence and points of disagreement. Without mastering the complexities of statecraft, there can be no Great State.

K. Shankar Bajpai is former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. He was also the Indian Ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US

_______________________________________________

Please also read:

**THE TIMES OF INDIA EDITORIAL, "Joining The World" http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Edit ... 456186.cms

**INDIAN EXPRESS EDITORIAL, "Savour the change" http://www.indianexpress.com/story/358600.html

**The most surprising editorial is from THE HINDU. It is unusually pro-India and pretty well balanced, "Post-Vienna scenario" http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/09/stories ... 031000.htm

**THE TIMES OF INDIA "LEADER ARTICLE: Nuclear Pariah No More" by C Uday Bhaskar http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Edit ... 460297.cms

[Suppiah]

Our shameless press has been going around asking the OZ FM whether they will supply us with dual-use materials. In this context, one wonders why we have to demean ourselves by begging from each and every pipsqueak and UncleSamPoodle. Amongst the 45, which ones really have technology we need?

If OZ is not willing to supply U we should discuss cricket, tourism, and the like and just send him back politely

[SSridhar]

NSG Waiver will do more harm than good- Krepon

Whereas before, nuclear commerce with India would need to proceed by consensus, now it will have to be stopped by consensus. The chances of this — even after India resumes nuclear testing — have been reduced, because the two biggest beneficiaries of new nuclear deals with India, Russia and France, will want to continue business as usual.

If and when New Delhi resumes nuclear testing, in all likelihood Washington will impose penalties, while others pursue profits.

India has tested a Hydrogen bomb design only once, and it is very hard for any state to certify this capability after a single test. India’s lone H-bomb test may not have been fully successful.One likely consequence of the NSG’s waiver will be to extend the timeline when New Delhi tests again. In the meanwhile, the triangular nuclear competition among China, India and Pakistan will gain momentum

[Katare]

EU nations eye single nuke pact with India

The European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.

Doesn't the European Commission also take decisions by consensus ?
Looks like Ireland, Austria et al get another bite of the apple...

What is the need for signing any pact with any country or group of country? We should simply refuse this, let them loose business to Russians and American's they will come around.

[Sanatanan]

From The Hindu, Online edition Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008

“Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports”
R. Prasad
Big potential for India: NPCIL Chairman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here”
We should tie up with fuel supplying countries: S.K. Jain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENNAI: The waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a great opportunity for India to become a major exporter of critical and non-critical nuclear components to both the developed and developing countries.

“There is limited manufacturing capacity in the world today,” said S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

India already has 100 per cent capacity to manufacture all components of a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), he pointed out. {I think this does not square up, for example, with reports of imports of steam turbine / generator parts for Kaiga 3&4.}

In the case of the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), India has the capacity to manufacture 40 per cent of the critical components, 50 per cent capacity to manufacture turbines, generators and other auxiliaries, and about 80 per cent capacity with respect to other components.

“But the real attraction is the lower cost when reactors are manufactured here. It will be 20-25 per cent cheaper when they are manufactured in India,” Mr. Jain said.

With more than 30 countries seriously looking at the PWRs, the opportunity for India to become a manufacturing hub was promising. Developing countries were looking at small and medium-size reactors.

“We do not have the capacity to manufacture the reactor vessel and other critical components for a PWR. {The Steam generators of a PHWR are similar in size to the reactor pressure vessel of an 1000 MWe LWR; I doubt if India has existing capacity to manufacture these forgings for its PHWRs.} But we can fabricate them by importing some parts,” he said.

“We jointly assessed our capability and found that we can upgrade our facilities to manufacture all the parts for a 1000-1600 MW PWRs with proper technological tie-ups,” he said.

The joint assessment involved NPCIL and companies such as Areva of France and General Electric of the U.S.

No such import of any parts was required for the manufacture of PHWR reactors, as the Indian industry was fully equipped to manufacture all components. {Perhaps he is referring only to the manufacture -- that is, welding, heat-treatment, machining etc operations -- of just the PHWR's reactor vessel. PHWR, being of low pressure moderator and high pressure coolant tube type, might have the reactor vessel's cylindrical shell made of plates rather than forgings. I am not sure if these plates are, as of now, made in India. The closures at the two ends of the reactor vessel might need thick walled plates or forgings, which again I believe may have to be imported, at least for the present. India needs to enhance its "heavy" manufacturing capacity. These things can be imported, of course, for all the reactors placed in the civil list.}

“We are a very strong contender for small (300 MW) and medium (600-700 MW) size reactors. India is the only country in the world to have a vibrant industry to manufacture a PHWR. So there is a big potential for us,” he said.

Word of caution

But with the possibility of enriching plutonium when the PHWRs are used, India should be more careful to which country it was exporting. “It would be safe to export these reactors to countries that have no existing nuclear programme.”

Mr. Jain said supplying reactors to developing countries alone would not suffice.

“We should have joint tie-ups with fuel supplying countries for the programme to take off.” Such a tie-up may not be required when countries already arranged for fuel supply.

URL for an image of PHWR reactor vessel's cylindrical shell from the photogallery at NPCIL's web site:
http://www.npcil.nic.in/photogallery/ga ... gn=134.jpg

URL for an image of PHWR reactor end closure from the photogallery at NPCIL's web site:
http://www.npcil.nic.in/photogallery/ga ... gn=074.jpg

There are some other nice PHWR and related images also in NPCIL's photogallery. (http://www.npcil.nic.in/photogallery.asp)

[Sanjay M]

From The Hindu, Online edition Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008

“Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports”
R. Prasad
Big potential for India: NPCIL Chairman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here”
We should tie up with fuel supplying countries: S.K. Jain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENNAI: The waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a great opportunity for India to become a major exporter of critical and non-critical nuclear components to both the developed and developing countries.

“There is limited manufacturing capacity in the world today,” said S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

So doesn't this then point to the fact that we don't have to become pure customers of foreign nuclear tech, but that we can also go in for tie-ups and partnerships with foreign suppliers?

They say that Indian companies are rising faster than Chinese ones were able to, since the Chinese co's had to claw their way up in their home market first before going abroad, but Indian co's are instead jumping into global M&A's to find the best opportunities and technologies to climb up with.

While I'm sure that nuclear partnerships would be more restricted due to their sensitive nature, it's still a fact that money talks in this world. Cost advantages matter, and if you turn down Indian outsourcing opportunities while your competitor doesn't, then they will make gains at your expense.
We could use our cost-advantages to steadily make inroads into the nuclear tech market.

[svinayak]

OPINION

Nuclear Distraction
By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
September 10, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220988 ... lenews_wsj

The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal came one step closer to final approval over the weekend, as the international Nuclear Suppliers Group granted its imprimatur. Yet the controversy over the proposed pact remains as fierce as ever, not least in India. As a result, ironically, it's still possible the deal could end up distracting both sides from the hard work of deepening their relationship.

This is mainly a consequence of how the deal has been oversold by politicians both in New Delhi and in Washington. From the time it was unveiled more than three years ago as an agreement-in-principle, its backers have framed the deal in terms of broader strategic objectives. Supporters in India have argued it will cement U.S.-India ties and facilitate technology transfers in fields beyond commercial nuclear power. Backers in the U.S. have argued the deal will make it easier for Washington to call on India as a counterweight to China's influence, and expand commercial opportunities for Americans.

But none of these claims is entirely realistic. In fact, these arguments merely distort the debate. In India, the nuclear deal has become a flashpoint for partisan debates about India's place in the world and how it should manage its relationship with the U.S. This will make the deal, and possibly the relationship, less stable if power changes hands between parties in a general election in India due at the latest by next April. And it's created unrealistic expectations in Washington.

In short, the hype over the nuclear deal needs to be tempered by certain realities.

First among these is that a durable U.S.-India partnership cannot be built on strategic opportunism, but rather must grow from shared national interests. In coming years, India will increasingly be aligned with the West economically. But strategically it can avail itself of multiple options, even as it moves from nonalignment to a contemporary, globalized strategic framework. In keeping with its long-standing preference for policy independence, India is likely to become multialigned, while tilting more toward the U.S.

Some clarity on this point from the deal's backers in New Delhi might have made it easier to secure support. It would also have helped had Prime Minister Manmohan Singh done what he had repeatedly promised: "build the broadest possible national consensus in favor of the deal." He should not have turned the deal into an openly partisan issue, for it will have to be implemented well after his government's term.

The danger now is that if the opposition wins the national election, it may re-open negotiations on the nuclear deal. That could risk sending the wrong signal about India's general commitment to maintaining positive relations with the U.S., given the significance this particular deal has assumed in that relationship.

The deal's backers in Washington have also been guilty of overselling it, albeit in different ways. On the strategic level, they have argued that the deal will bring India into the U.S. camp as a regional counterweight to China's growing influence. But it appears unlikely that India would allow itself to be used as a foil against an increasingly assertive China, lest Beijing step up military pressure along the long disputed Himalayan frontier and surrogate threats via Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh. India, as would any country, will continue to craft policy based on its own interests.

The Bush administration is also going overboard in touting the commercial benefits. As Bush administration letter to Congress, released last week, states, the deal is supposed to help revive the U.S. nuclear-power industry through exports and "access to Indian nuclear infrastructure," allowing "U.S. companies to build reactors more competitively here and in the rest of the world -- not just in India." With its acute shortage of nuclear engineers, the U.S. intends to tap India's vast technical manpower.

But not all of this is entirely realistic, especially expectations that India will be a boom market for U.S. nuclear exports. Even with the deal, nuclear power will continue to play a modest role in India's energy mix. With the proposed import of eight 1,000-megawatt reactors within the next four years, the share of nuclear power in India's electricity generation is unlikely to rise above the current 2.5%.

The Indian economy will probably not get much of a boost from the deal as a result. Furthermore, private investment in nuclear power will be hindered by many factors. The messy terms of the deal itself, with its many eclectic provisions designed to assuage nonproliferation concerns, will still impose many barriers on the transfer of nuclear fuel and technology, and not all of the conditions are even explicitly spelled out. Political uncertainty in India will also remain given the strong partisan opposition. And time is short to ratify the pact in Washington before elections in the U.S. bring in a new Congress and new administration.

The nuclear deal does play a role in bolstering U.S.-India ties (albeit not as much as politicians would have you believe). India has agreed to fully support U.S. nonproliferation initiatives, for example, and to consider participating in U.S.-led multinational military operations. And as a thank-you for the role President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally played in securing the suppliers group's approval, Prime Minister Singh is expected to sign shortly three agreements that U.S. officials say are critical to forge closer bilateral military ties. These will facilitate cooperation on logistical operations, provide for monitoring of the end uses of transferred weapons systems, and enhance communications interoperability. But the two sides could have made progress on all these fronts independent of a civil nuclear deal.

The deal may also benefit ongoing negotiations over sales of military equipment to India. In addition to the orders it recently placed for American maritime reconnaissance aircraft and military transport planes, India -- one of the world's biggest arms importers -- is gearing up to buy other American weapon systems. If Congress ratifies the nuclear deal, America is most likely to clinch the intense international competition to sell India 126 fighter-jets in a $10-billion contract. In this contest, Lockheed Martin has pitched its F-16 against Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Yet such progress isn't dependent on a civil nuclear deal. Indeed, that may be the greatest danger of the current discussion. Because it has become such a controversial issue, the nuclear deal is threatening to overwhelm the broader dialogue India and the U.S. need to sustain about their relationship. The raging controversy hasn't done anyone any good.

Mr. Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author, most recently, of "Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan" (HarperCollins, 2007).

[svinayak]

Australia PM faces backlash denying uranium to India
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/27091258.htm

MELBOURNE: Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is likely to face tough time in maintaining his stand on not allowing uranium sales to India especially after his government favoured India's waiver at the Nuclear Supplier Group meet at Vienna.

While, the Australian government still maintains its stance on not selling uranium to India, until Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Government joins the NPT treaty, The Age reported today, ''This stance may sound like a grand contradiction.''

Writing in the paper Robert Ayson, Chief Investigator of Australian Nuclear Choices Reasearch Council Project said, this stand would be difficult for the Rudd governmnet to keep up for long as US-India deal would help put in place defacto NPT treaty that is being built around India as it is welcomed as a nearly official member of the nuclear club.

He said India will also have a separate safeguard arrangement with IAEA and has also agreed to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities. Keeping in view that India's signing NPT is impossible as the treaty does not recognise India as a nucl ear weapon state and because New Delhi is unlikely to disarm anytime soon, “This might be the best chance we get,'' Ayson felt.

The paper also said that the Rudd government would come under increasing pressure from the opposition as the previous Howard government during its last months had advocated uranium sales to India. The opposition coalition is now accusing the new governm ent of missing a fine chance to improve relationship with India. – PTI

[clay]

NSG waiver means India has arrived as a power

....In 2005, the US first took the initiative to help in India's efforts to become a major power. This was because of India's high growth rate, its nuclear and missile capabilities, its trillion dollar economy, its IT prowess and its off-source contributions to global economy. There was world wide recognition of India as one of the six global balancers of power. Though India was an emergent power, it was not seen as a threatening power by the international system. Not only the US but France, Russia and the UK came to the conclusion that India should be incorporated in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, especially in view of the fact that in spite of technology denial by the NSG countries, India on its own had developed into a country with advanced nuclear technology, with reactors of its own design, fast breeder reactors and is attempting to develop uranium-233 from thorium.....

Apologies if already posted.....but the above is a good read with an interesting POV.


Regds, Clay

[Neshant]

> Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here

Whatever reactor India buys from the US, insist that they (US) too build an equal number of such reactors in their own country. It might just be the new wave of outsourcing.

[Philip]

The immortal words of JFK have been with me for these last few weeks.How I wished that dear Pranab M uttered these at Vienna instead of his long winded speech-and we all know what Mao said about "long speeches"! JFK said these words when he chose LBJ as his running mate,an act that horrified his closest advisers.When asked why,he said....
I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out,than outside the tent pissing in!"

In similar fashion,it appears that to many doubting nations of the NSG,it was far better to have fellow democrat India inside,on their side,rather than outside and with India's nuclear capacity to cause endless problems if it chose to do so.The end however is still a tricky busines,as within the US there are very powerful forces who do not want India to be treated as an equal.

[RajeshA]

EU nations eye single nuke pact with India

The European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.

Doesn't the European Commission also take decisions by consensus ?
Looks like Ireland, Austria et al get another bite of the apple...

The Treaty of Lisbon, which was to change voting rights from consensus voting (27 countries) to a double majority system where a decision can be made if at least 55% of countries having at least 65% of EU population vote for it in certain matters (competences). EU was to have a new High Representative for the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (sort of a Foreign Minister). That is EU was supposed to speak with a single voice.

However the Treaty of Lisbon was never adopted. Why? Because The Irish People turned down the new Treaty for Europe in a referendum.

If a Treaty of Lisbon had been in place, even then I can't imagine France allowing any other European Member Country to have a say in all matters nuclear. Even if France had allowed, Ireland, Austria and Netherlands, the only EU Members from amongst the Pipsqueak, do not make 15 countries and certainly not 65% of EU population to force a joint EU opinion.

In fact the Pipsqueak could be forced to allow their own companies a much more liberal policy.

The Treaty of Lisbon may come into effect sometime in 2011, when the Irish may get another chance to vote for it. Till then India would be having a bilateral agreement with the French, with no irritating non-proliferation clauses. The UK would agree to a similar agreement. Should Germany also agree to the same agreement, which is possible considering that the Social Democrats and the Greens are not going to be forming a Govt. in Germany any time soon, then these treaties would form the de-facto model of Treaties for the Rest of EU Members.

Once Treaty of Lisbon does come into effect, and the bigger countries allow a single Agreement on this issue (which would not interest France on bit), taking into consideration the prevailing previous agreements, it will be the Pipsqueak, which will have to allow more liberal conditions to its own companies for nuclear trade with India. Such Irony!

[RajeshA]

Regardless of the above comment, the nuclear deal is not only about foreign policy, non-proliferation and security but also about nuclear commerce and as EU has a common market and common export policies, it could become necessary to have a single agreement with EU as a whole.

In which case, I would certainly implore MMS to speed up a treaty with France and UK, before something like a unified agreement gets even more traction.

The other countries in EU would be wary of their own companies moving to France and UK to do better business with India, so they too would want agreements with India on similar terms.

Come to think of it, I would consider a bilateral agreement between India and France to be of utmost urgency. The Agreement should, unlike 123 Agreement, put down in writing exactly under what conditions the agreement would be terminated, and not simply the parties can terminate the agreement with one year's notice or something like that.

The point is that there should be no EU-India Nuclear Agreement later on, which is more stringent than the Indo-French Nuclear Agreement on the question of nuclear testing, or transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology. The Agreement with the most liberal terms of nuclear trade with India would become the Template for the EU-India Nuclear Agreement.

Again, an EU-India Nuclear Agreement would come about simply because it is a TRADE AGREEMENT and trade is a EU subject.

India needs to move on this very very quickly, before the Pipsqueak can start the process of REVIEW OF PARAMETERS OF NUCLEAR TRADE WITH INDIA IN EU PARLIAMENT OR EU COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

[harbans]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9148

This guy Jim Freeman really takes off on India.

A nuclear powered North Korea is a precursor to war, but nuclear powered India is just good sense and good business.

Wow so this guys brain puts India and NK in the same league..maybe less.

And now India huh..compared to Iran???

As almost any neocon can tell you, Iran is a terrorist state. Actually, Iran fashions itself a sort of religious democracy, but the point is hotly debated even within Iran. It is however, a nation of 70 million, with the youngest and most pro-American population in the Muslim world. Meanwhile;

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the deal will let his country, which refuses to sign either the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, take "its rightful place among the comity of nations."
Singh has an interesting take on comity (an atmosphere of harmony, mutual civility and respect). Sign the treaties, Manmohan.

So, the politics are flawed, the science is opposed, the next Cold War is a likely result, India will remain a beggar state, China is disturbed and Russia (who we claim to be mad at over Georgia) will profit. All in favor, signify by saying ‘aye.’

Expect some stiff opposition in the Congress. Some Americans haven't got it just as yet. This sort of thinking is what will lead to the arms race and countries like NK, Iran and Pakistan legitimizing their nukes. India has to guard against these vipers and destroy the credibility of these people in their own countries.

[Philip]

It is disheartening to see an experienced diplomat like Bajpai so cynical about Indians looking after their own interests in the past.So "Quit India" should never had taken place until we had decided (a few centuries later) what to do next! "Strike while the iron is hot".That's how we fought and obtained partition,not through the contours of innumerable national conferences and confabulations and years of long-winded speeches which would've made our colonial masters die of either boredom or laughter.Perhaps that was the strategy that Bajpai was looking for!Admittedly,we have failed to objectively evolve a national consensus on many issues,the first one that resulted in partition.A century of conferencing can be achieved on this one subject alone,but as many say,it was perhaps best to have said "good-bye and good riddance" in good time.

For those who have served under colonial masters,it is an alluring and heady experience that the memory cherishes,where decisions were made in swank and style of the upper class elite,wihtout the tamasha and belly-dancing that our current politicos indulge in.The crudeness and vulgarity of the Indian politico offends the senses,it nauseates the aesthete indeed ,but we are returning to our ancient style of doing things through chaos and confusion ,hoping for an enlightened king or queen to rule,with the dear Lord looking after the nation's interests somehow due perhaps to the piety of the ordinary Indian.That is why this species of diplomat/babu longs for the firm hand and clipped command of a white master who "knew" how to run an empire and rule the world,while India today has been reduced in stature to such an extent that even in the fora of the Non-Aligned ,we behave like Lilliputs!

The aging gerontocracy of the Congress party in their twilight years,who could never enter the hallowed portals of a British club unless as bearers,despite the hoary heritage of many of their leaders,are before darkness overtakes them making a final Freudian fling,symbolically to gain admission and membership into that supreme edifice of western excusivity,the nuclear club;willing to do anything,even a strip tease-the "full Manmohan' in the bargain to be rogered inside!

[renukb]

India throws open a $100bn nuclear bazaar

MUMBAI - The deal is all but done and dealers are already in. The anticipated US$100 billion worth of nuclear power infrastructure deals are buzzing across India Inc after India last week became the only country to be allowed to trade in nuclear material without signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Last weekend, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) gave India a waiver allowing it to engage in nuclear commerce without signing either the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, paving the way for the US Congress to ratify a potentially lucrative civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi.

Nuclear power plant infrastructure companies from the US, Russia, France and Britain are expected to fight for chunks of India's fat nuclear business pie. Investments worth more than $20 billion could now be made in infrastructure related to nuclear power plants, as India moves towards its goal of generating 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2020.

That increase, from the present 3,500 megawatts, will raise the nuclear share of energy production in the fast-growing economy to between 5% and 7% of the country's total energy output from the present 3%.

The size of India's nuclear business potential, with US firms being promised preference, gives ample indication of the kind of American pressure that went into getting approval from reluctant countries such as Ireland and New Zealand in the 45-nation NSG. The waiver agreement follows strong lobbying by groups such as the Washington-based US-India Business Council vowing to secure congress ratification to "clear the way for US companies to participate in India's nuclear renaissance".

The Confederation of Indian Industry was also quick to indicate the expectations of Indian and US companies, with a statement released on September 8 entitled "Important role for industry to play in clean energy sector". The statement began with David Bohigian, the US assistant secretary of commerce, saying nearly $17 trillion would be invested in clean energy technologies by 2025, and that "India and the United States can be active partners in this drive towards sustainable and green industry".

India's communist parties (which withdrew parliamentary support to the government on July 9 after the government pressed ahead with the nuclear deal with the US) were left impotently screaming about India having surrendered its nuclear sovereignty, and suspicion gave way to satisfaction that it is now in a club of one: the only country that can trade in nuclear fuel material without signing the NPT.

Two years of heated, divisive debate on the nuclear deal also gave way to a buzz across the country on how much India stands to gain. The stock markets gained 3% as plans by India's largest engineering firms such as Larsen & Toubro took a huge jump towards becoming reality.

Over 400 Indian and foreign firms are expected to gain from the NSG waiver, according to leading industry bodies such as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The 2020 goal for the country's nuclear power generation industry requires a minimum investment of $45 billion, estimates the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.

While most of the new nuclear power plant deals are in the near future category, Larsen & Toubro has already struck a $750 million joint-venture deal this past July with the government-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) to manufacture forgings for nuclear power plants.

Another engineering major, government-owned Bharat Heavy Electronics Ltd, and L&T are together expected to garner contracts worth $10 billion of the estimated $100 billion worth of deals over the next two decades.

Mumbai-based NPCIL, which spearheads India's nuclear power program, says it has 17 nuclear reactors in operation and five reactors under construction.

The $1.2 billion GVK group, another leading infrastructure-developing Indian company, has plans to buy reactors and equipment from American companies such as General Electric and Westinghouse Electric.

Other companies standing to benefit include consumer durables giant Videocon, which has recently forayed into the power sector. It is one of at least 40 companies, which include Tata Power and Jindal, in contention for contracts to build nuclear reactors and ancillary infrastructure.

The tricky part lies in the fact that current laws have to be amended to allow the private sector into the nuclear trade, with India's Atomic Energy Act of 1962 declaring that only companies that are government-owned with over a 51% stake are allowed to enter the nuclear power sector.

The 40 companies have formed a pressure group to lobby the government to allow private companies to get involved in the sector. "These 40 companies have already started negotiations with the government and their foreign counterparts," Videocon chief Venugopal Dhoot told the media.

India's three biggest industry bodies - the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and and the Confederation of Indian Industry - are pushing the government to make appropriate amendments to the law to let the companies get a share of the pie.

The government, though, has put such hopes on hold, with the junior cabinet Minister for Power Jairam Ramesh declaring there was "no hurry" to let private companies into nuclear power projects.

The first priority, the minister said, would be to have government-owned companies such as the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd establish more nuclear power stations and in having existing nuclear plants run at full capacity.

India's nuclear power plants are estimated to be running at about only 50% of capacity. The country has been starved of sufficient nuclear fuel for the past 34 years after being banished into the nuclear cold after its first atomic weapons test on May 18, 1974, at Pokhran in the desert sands of Rajasthan in north-western India.

Growth in the nuclear industry will benefit more than just companies building the plants and their suppliers. The US-India Business Council points out that India suffers severe shortages of energy, leading to power cuts and low power use. At the same time, it imports more than 75% of polluting hydrocarbons it uses.

"India's energy utilization is fractional compared to most countries," a US India Business Council statement noted, with India "consuming only 600 kilowatt hours of electricity per person per year as compared to 14,000 kilowatt hours per person consumed in Europe and the West." With even the capital New Delhi suffering from daily power cuts, ordinary folk and unrelated businesses will be grateful for any improvement.

To get India's nuclear power plants running at full throttle, the government is investing heavily in sourcing more uranium within India, as well as picking up equity in uranium mines abroad. Efforts could include a $1.2 billion investment in a Canadian uranium mine, and mining in African countries such as Namibia, Niger and Gabon.

Major nuclear power plant infrastructure providers such as Rosatom, General Electric, Westinghouse - as well as political delegations from their countries - have been anxiously scurrying in and out of India over the past two years expecting the Indo-US nuclear deal to win the nod. With that struggle nearly over, the fight begins to share the spoils.

India has refused to sign the NPT, forged in 1968 and signed by 189 other countries, on the grounds of universal nuclear disarmament, pointing out that the treaty is discriminatory in allowing the US, Britain, France, Russia and China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council) to retain their nuclear arsenals.

The NSG exemption granted at the weekend is also being seen as a reward for India's clean record at non-proliferation, unlike Pakistan, North Korea and China, which have long been accused of entering into dirty deals to illicitly swap nuclear technology.

US Congress ratification is considered a formality, despite the tight scheduling required before its session ends on September 28. Even so, questions by American legislators or public watchdogs on the full range of hidden Indian assurances and commitments to the George W Bush administration could be damaging politically to the government in Delhi.

[renukb]

Nuclear deal to establish U.S. hegemony over Asia: Vijayan

KANNUR: CPI (M)'s Kerala unit today said the move to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal was aimed at bringing India closer to the U.S. to enforce American 'hegemony' over the Asian nations. The U.S, which does not like China's emerging stature as another economic super power, apprehends that it cannot impose its hegemony in Asia if India, Russia and China forged closer ties, CPI-M politburo member Pinarayi Vijayan, who is also Kerala unit secretary, said here.

America wanted to "strike the nuclear deal" to turn New Delhi as its strategic partner, he said The American initiative to see through the nuclear deal was a clear ploy to get India's support for its 'secret imperialistic designs; at a time when others, including the Latin American nations, "are found to be refusing to toe the U.S. line," Vijayan said.
Alleging that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was formed to protect the U.S interests, Vijayan said the External Affairs Ministry's affirmation that India would continue to maintain moratorium on nuclear tests amounted to "deviating from its traditional and independent foreign policy."

"However, a few corporate media (units) have willfully failed to highlight where the country was heading to by opting to remain submissive to the U.S. designs and it is time the entire media reflected the adverse and long standing impact of the emerging scenario", he said after inaugurating the city bureau of CPI-M mouthpiece 'Deshabhimani' here.

[amit]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9148

This guy Jim Freeman really takes off on India.

Harbans ji,

Expect more frothing in the mouth from the NPAs and their apologists in the media. No one likes it when a cozy arrangement, perpetuated over decades is broken. There is bound to be rona dhona. So just open the champagne and relax in your favourite chair and watch the tamasha.

Here's one interesting one, an editorial from New Zealand Herald

But the decision leaves New Zealand's nuclear-free posture looking narrow, opportunistic and ludicrous. We are against anything nuclear in our patch but we are prepared to bless a serious breach in the integrity of the global attempt to contain nuclear proliferation.

If Labour finds itself back in opposition after this election it might be tempted to resume thumping the anti-nuclear tub, especially if the improving relationship with the US continues to a point that the next Government can revive naval exchanges and have our military invited back to exercises under Anzus. The decision on the India waiver might help bring that day closer. If it arrives, the Labour Party ought to remember its realism in office. Nuclear puritanism is finished.

Welcome to the real world dear Kiwis!

And here's what gave the Canadians so much last minute common sense:

TORONTO: Calling his country's backing for India in getting the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) last week a "turning point" in bilateral ties, Canadian foreign affairs parliamentary secretary Deepak Obhrai has said his country will now focus on a free trade agreement with New Delhi.

Interesting to note that the Kiwi Governor General and the Canadian Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Secretary share a common trait - Indian origin.

[amit]

Nuclear power plant infrastructure companies from the US, Russia, France and Britain are expected to fight for chunks of India's fat nuclear business pie. Investments worth more than $20 billion could now be made in infrastructure related to nuclear power plants, as India moves towards its goal of generating 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2020.

Over 400 Indian and foreign firms are expected to gain from the NSG waiver, according to leading industry bodies such as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The 2020 goal for the country's nuclear power generation industry requires a minimum investment of $45 billion, estimates the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.

While most of the new nuclear power plant deals are in the near future category, Larsen & Toubro has already struck a $750 million joint-venture deal this past July with the government-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) to manufacture forgings for nuclear power plants.

Another engineering major, government-owned Bharat Heavy Electronics Ltd, and L&T are together expected to garner contracts worth $10 billion of the estimated $100 billion worth of deals over the next two decades.

The $1.2 billion GVK group, another leading infrastructure-developing Indian company, has plans to buy reactors and equipment from American companies such as General Electric and Westinghouse Electric.

Other companies standing to benefit include consumer durables giant Videocon, which has recently forayed into the power sector. It is one of at least 40 companies, which include Tata Power and Jindal, in contention for contracts to build nuclear reactors and ancillary infrastructure.

The above quotes from the link posted by renukb ji nicely highlights the so-called "economics argument" in support of the N-deal that many posters, including myself, tried to put forth.

It's not just about electricity generation and how much as a percentage Nuclear generated electricity is going in our total electricity production - though of course that's an important point.

Hopefully this deal (provided there's no nasty surprises in the US Congress) will help to ramp up our indigenous capability and give our private sector companies a new area of growth where they can aspire to be world leaders. If that happens the US$100 billion that's being touted will be well spent.

JMT

[amit]

Businesses push Congress for US-India deal

U.S. businesses and the Bush administration are pushing Congress for speedy approval of an agreement between the United States and India on civilian nuclear cooperation.

Ron Somers, president of the U.S.-India Business Council, said there has never been a time for the two countries when the stars have aligned so favorably for this kind of agreement.

“Time is tight,” Somers said. “This is an issue of international consequence.”

However, the report also says there a major hurdle in the form of our good friend Howard.

In order for Congress to take up the deal during the tight legislative calendar at the end of this session, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) will have to support a resolution to speed consideration.

But Berman, who conferred with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday, has argued against the waiver, saying that exemptions would not legally bind India to ban nuclear weapons tests or follow rules for the transfer of sensitive technology — conditions that were spelled out in the Henry Hyde Act passed in 2006.

Berman said Congress should take time to study the NSG decision and check for any agreements that might have been made behind the scenes to get it. And he said the president needs to convince him that there is a reason to speed approval.

Now it's time of reckoning for the US-India Business Council. Let's see if they are something more than a tandoori chicken eating talk-shop

JMT

[amit]

Interesting:

http://keralaonline.com/news/india-sove ... _3670.html


India has sovereign right to conduct nuclear test: US

New Delhi, Wednesday, September 10, 2008: In remarks that would put the Manmohan Singh government on solid ground and help it sell the Indo-US civil nuclear deal at home without any apprehensions, the US Ambassador to India David Mulford on Wednesday said that New Delhi retains the right to conduct nuclear tests.

Mulford also sought to clear the doubts that many in India have over the US’ Hyde Act, saying the nuclear deal is governed only by the 123 Agreement signed between the two governments.

He further said that both the Presidential nominees – Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain – support the landmark pact, and described it as a watershed event in the relations between the two countries.

The remarks assume significance in view of the speculation that the US Congress might not be able to pass the deal in its ongoing short 17-day session. Some in New Delhi and Washington even believe the deal might not be passed at all before the expiry of President George W Bush’s term. In that case, the deal would still be alive as the incoming government of either Obama or McCain would not try to block it.

Earlier in the day, Mulford had revealed that the Bush administration would present the nuclear deal in the US Congress later today for “approval”. He also emphasized that India had got a clean waiver from the NSG.

[RajeshA]

Does anybody know whether NSG or NSG-Adherent countries may import from non-NPT countries, like Israel?

[Philip]

Of course India has the sovereign "right" to conduct any nuclear test! Why,has MMS sold our sovereignity earlier? Rubbish!That's an absurd deception from the US ambassador.What he deliberately failed to mention though is what the US would do if we tested.How would India be punished by the US (return of fuel and eqpt.) and would it also pressurise the other NSG nations to stall their nuclear sales to us? WE have the sorry examples of Tarapur and the post P-2 sanctions still sharp in the memory.A future non-Congress govt. will definitely view the terms of the deal differently even if it supports in principle a "deal".

[Gerard]

Does anybody know whether NSG or NSG-Adherent countries may import from non-NPT countries, like Israel?

The US, South Korea etc have bought heavy water from India (non-NPT).

[sunilUpa]

Does anybody know whether NSG or NSG-Adherent countries may import from non-NPT countries, like Israel?

The US, South Korea etc have bought heavy water from India (non-NPT).

AFAIK for US/SoKo can use the heavy water only for non-nuclear purpose!

[Manny]

Of course India has the sovereign "right" to conduct any nuclear test! Why,has MMS sold our sovereignity earlier? Rubbish!That's an absurd deception from the US ambassador.What he deliberately failed to mention though is what the US would do if we tested.How would India be punished by the US (return of fuel and eqpt.) and would it also pressurise the other NSG nations to stall their nuclear sales to us? WE have the sorry examples of Tarapur and the post P-2 sanctions still sharp in the memory.A future non-Congress govt. will definitely view the terms of the deal differently even if it supports in principle a "deal".

Why would you expect the US to give up their sovereign "right" to implement sanctions?

[Philip]

That's the entire crux of the deal,which was sold to the Indian people and MPs,that we were being accepted as a "full nuclear weapons state" with all the privileges that came with it.There was no bar on testing,which is required to prove the status/condition of the warhead.For those priviliges,we were expected to act in confirmity with NSG nations regarding N-proliferation and not behave like a rogue nuclear nation-N.Korea/Pak. with its clandstine n-export rings.

The US,Russia,etc., have carried out hundreds of such tests over decades and have perfected their warhead designs,have a mountain of data too with which they can dsign anything in the future.The success of our H-bomb test itself is disputed in certain quarters both within and without the country.As we develop ICBM and MIRV capabilities,the need will arise for us to test,especially if China,Pak or any other state starts testing again.

In brief,what is now emerging is that there is a vast difference as to how the US views the terms of the deal and how India views it,with some sceptics Indian and US,saying that the PM has been "economical with the truth" of the matter.

[CRamS]

Philip:

What you are expecting is a pipe dream, and for once I must say, Brahma Chellaney is blowing nothing but hot air in that WSJ piece.

Look, at the end of the day, in the guns Vs butter argument, butter won out. Its now clear to me that either we accept this deal with the associated encumberences (which we did) and play foxy, wily depending upon the environment in the word, and advacne its nukes to the best it can (thin chance of this happening with someone like MMS in power, and a very very tall order even with a nationalist govt in power), or forgo it altogether. I am not persuaded by BJP argument that it could have got a better deal, or BC's arument that India-US relations are on the upward swing, and sooner or later, India would have got a better deal. That argument is rubbish.

[RajeshA]

Confusion over uranium sales grows as Stephen Smith reaches India by Bruce Loudon and Mark Dodd: The Australian

CONFUSION surrounding the Rudd Government's "puritanical" stand over India's civilian nuclear deal intensified last night as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith arrived in the country and said he doubted he would even have a conversation about Australian uranium supplies.

Mr Smith's assertion contrasted sharply with the expectation of senior Indian officials. "Uranium is the No1 issue between us, and hopefully he will be willing to talk about it," said one senior official.

Another added: "Mr Rudd's affection for China is well known. Clearly China is influencing their (Australian) policy towards us over uranium supplies."

As he landed in the southern city of Chennai at the start of a five-day visit, Mr Smith said he expected to include in talks with Indian leaders last week's historic decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow the country access to the global trade in nuclear supplies.

But he did not expect to discuss Australia selling uranium to India.

Mr Smith is expected to arrive in New Delhi tomorrow and, unusually, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made time to see him.

The Indian Prime Minister does not normally meet foreign ministers of mid-ranking powers such as Australia, but his decision to make himself available to Mr Smith is seen as underlining India's priority to acquire uranium supplies.

The Indian leader's Government has come close to collapse over the nuclear deal with Washington and sees it as one of the most important developments in the country's history.

Mr Smith insists there is no conflict between the Australian position within the NSG and its ban on yellowcake sales to India as long as New Delhi refuses to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

In Canberra, the federal Opposition is revelling in the Rudd Government's discomfort at having to refuse to sell uranium to India -- a decision that will cost Australian miners billions of dollars in lost export income.

Opposition trade spokesman Andrew Robb said yesterday: "For Mr Smith to say he wants to advance the relationship with India while saying at the same time that Australia will never sell uranium to them is a massive contradiction and an insult.

"India's energy security and needs are the major issues in the relationship between our two countries.

"This issue can strategically make Australia a very important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is the big issue."

The Rudd Government was acting hypocritically by supporting the Washington-backed decision of the 44 member suppliers group to sell uranium to India for its energy needs but at the same time refusing to sell India Australian uranium, Mr Robb said.

It made no sense to sell Australian uranium to China and Russia but not to India -- the world's biggest democracy, he added.

Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium but will only sell uranium to NPT signatory nations. India says it needs Australian uranium not for military purposes but to satisfy its growing dependence on civil nuclear power to provide for its insatiable domestic energy needs.

The Australian Press is really taking Kevin Rudd and his leanings towards China apart. Now that India has stopped being the whipping boy for NPT's shortcomings, and is all of a sudden the country with an impeccable non-proliferation record and the world's largest democracy, one can hope Non-Proliferation Ayatollahs looking for another country to whip. A steady increase in propaganda about China's proliferation activities and dictatorial tendencies would do some good in keeping China in check and under observation by media and think-tanks.

[NRao]

June 1, 2008 :: US steps up demand for heavy water from India

Higher demand foreseen for ‘superior purity’ of Indian product

The US is emerging as the biggest customer for Indian heavy water exports

While India has exported some quantities of heavy water in the late 1990s to South Korea and China, prior to the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests, the exported quantities were quite insignificant and there were no repeat orders.

[John Snow]

Sanctions establish the fact that there is superior, subordinate relationship.

Sanctions are the adhesive force that binds unequal relationship.

Sanctions with out a just recourse is a unilateral pronouncement.

Sanctions and Sovereignty are contradictory hence can not coexist.

Spinster

[Rangudu]

A country that cannot forestall or withstand sanctions has no right to expect any sovereignty.

[sunilUpa]

June 1, 2008 :: US steps up demand for heavy water from India

The US is emerging as the biggest customer for Indian heavy water exports, while South Korea has also ordered a consignment, even as the firms from these countries that have placed orders are using the compound largely for non-nuclear purpose.

[John Snow]

A country that cannot forestall or withstand sanctions has no right to expect any sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not a expectation or grant, it is exercised and conducted.

[Rangudu]

So we can excercise our right to do what we want and the US can excercise the right to do what it wants.

Regardless of what type of "embrace" we have with the US, the latter will always have the ability to mess with us when our interests diverge.

[SureshP]

"Taller than the tallest mountain, deeper than the deepest sea", friends should surely come to thier aid.

Chashma Nuclear Power Plant shut down for 5 months
Updated at: 2120 PST, Wednesday, September 10, 2008
ISLAMABAD: The government of Pakistan has decided to shut down the Chasma Nuclear Power Plant for a period of five months, according to Geo News.

Earlier, the plant was closed for necessary maintenance on August 7. Chashma Nuclear Power Plant has a capacity of producing 300-mw electricity and is controlled by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=54820

[ramana]

A few points. What Philip is trying to say, but isnt because he is furious, is that tests by acknowledged nuke weapon states do not invite sanctions amonst themselves for its accepted that such states have to test. This was the provison prior to the CTBT which for all practical purposes is in abeyance. Yes when RPC and France tested prior to agreeing to the CTBT all they got was whines and a few bad words. But no sanctions. When MMS stated that India would be an acknowledged nuke weapon power this was the expectation. So the prospect of sanctions and all those punitive measures if India tests is not in conformance with that expectation. Hence the angst.
If BC and all the maximalists realize that th NPT structure is still upheld- ie those states who tested prior to its cut off date then we can understand that Indian nukes at their level of sophisitication are allowed. Had POKII realized full value instead of what was achieved for whatever reasons (proximity of civilian population, underperformance what not) this angst wouldnt be there. So ther was a lack of realism of what the tests were about when the test articles were functioned. It was not just a scientific endevour but a political breakthrough.

So what was achieved was isolating the NPT pole/zero and conformal mapping around the discontinuity to overcome present or current time. When transformed back to real variables that discontinutiy still exists now and in future and it can be overcome or undercome(!) based on the sum total of the political, economic, military and cultural security at that time of decision.

KS Bajpai and the whole lot of thinkers have a different vision of India than the aspirations of others. Maybe its more what is achievable, but if one has visons of only the achieveable then its is most likely to be under perform.

I tell my kids to study to be docs and lawyers for then I am sue they will become engineers. If I tell them to study to be engineers they will become sociologists!

[svinayak]

It is disheartening to see an experienced diplomat like Bajpai so cynical about Indians looking after their own interests in the past.So "Quit India" should never had taken place until we had decided (a few centuries later) what to do next! "Strike while the iron is hot".That's how we fought and obtained partition,not through the contours of innumerable national conferences and confabulations and years of long-winded speeches which would've made our colonial masters die of either boredom or laughter.Perhaps that was the strategy that Bajpai was looking for!Admittedly,we have failed to objectively evolve a national consensus on many issues,the first one that resulted in partition.A century of conferencing can be achieved on this one subject alone,but as many say,it was perhaps best to have said "good-bye and good riddance" in good time.

For those who have served under colonial masters,it is an alluring and heady experience that the memory cherishes,where decisions were made in swank and style of the upper class elite,wihtout the tamasha and belly-dancing that our current politicos indulge in.The crudeness and vulgarity of the Indian politico offends the senses,it nauseates the aesthete indeed ,but we are returning to our ancient style of doing things through chaos and confusion ,hoping for an enlightened king or queen to rule,with the dear Lord looking after the nation's interests somehow due perhaps to the piety of the ordinary Indian.That is why this species of diplomat/babu longs for the firm hand and clipped command of a white master who "knew" how to run an empire and rule the world,while India today has been reduced in stature to such an extent that even in the fora of the Non-Aligned ,we behave like Lilliputs!

The aging gerontocracy of the Congress party in their twilight years,who could never enter the hallowed portals of a British club unless as bearers,despite the hoary heritage of many of their leaders,are before darkness overtakes them making a final Freudian fling,symbolically to gain admission and membership into that supreme edifice of western excusivity,the nuclear club;willing to do anything,even a strip tease-the "full Manmohan' in the bargain to be rogered inside!

This is the best!

[Jaspreet]

I have a tiny question.
Don't all these waivers and treaties hold good only for Earth?
I am thinking that despite being aware of China's nuke capabilities, it took India ("if not today then tomorrow") more than 10 years to conduct her first test and then more than twenty for the second round. When the time for a 3rd one comes about, many countries, including India, will have space colonies and will lay claim to small asteroids for various purposes. Perhaps India will conduct a test on one of these asteroids. This will preserve the letter of NPT, CTBT, FMCT and the NSG-waiver. Won't it?