Political game........Nuke -deal

The Hindu, August 20, 2007

Why the CPI(M) and the Left oppose the nuclear deal

Prakash Karat

The Left parties have called upon the UPA government not to proceed further

with the nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. The bilateral

agreement arrived at between the two governments in the end of July has

resulted in a political crisis. At no time, has an external agreement negotiated

by the Indian government, raised such a political storm as the nuclear

cooperation deal with the United States. The last time there was strong

opposition was during the negotiations for the Marakkesh treaty which led to

the setting up of the World Trade Organisation.

Without going into the complex and technical issues concerning civilian

nuclear cooperation, it is necessary to take a wider look at the implications of

the agreement. Is this only a nuclear cooperation deal or is it part of a wider

agreement? If so, does it protect our capacity for an independent foreign

policy and how will it affect our sovereignty? One can legitimately question if

India should partner the United States in the global democracy enterprise.

“Regime change” and implanting of democracy have yielded horrific results

in Iraq.

The nuclear cooperation deal is only one part of the wide-ranging alliance that

the UPA government has forged with the United States. This was spelt out by

the Indian Prime Minister and the American President in the joint statement

in July 2005 in Washington. This agreement covers political, economic,

military and nuclear cooperation. This alliance entails not just nuclear

cooperation but talks of the two countries promoting global democracy,

revamping the Indian economy to facilitate large scale investment by the

United States and a strategic military collaboration.

Prior to the joint statement of July 2005, the UPA government signed a ten -

year Defence Framework Agreement with the Untied States. It is evident that

without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed for the

nuclear cooperation. This seems to be part of a

Repeated assertions that India’s foreign policy will not be subject to external

pressures, have not evoked confidence after the Iran episode. Spokesmen for

the Bush administration have often cited India’s attitude on Iran to be a test.

Even before the nuclear cooperation agreement was finalized, the government

responded by voting against Iran not once but twice in the International

Atomic Energy Agency.

2

The first serious conflict with the Left arose when the UPA government did a

quid pro quo.

volte face

and the Western countries in September 2005 and was not even prepared to

go alongwith the position adopted by the bloc of Non-Aligned Movement

countries.

The Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA

government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the

United States. The Left came out in strong opposition to the Defence

Framework Agreement. As per the agreement, India is taking steps to

interlock our armed forces with that of the United States in the name of “interoperability”.

The framework agreement is leading to various steps like the

Logistics Support Agreement and the Maritime Cooperation Pact.

The Left has been vehemently opposed to the joint military exercises as the

one that took place in the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. These exercises

were held despite the strong protests of the Left parties and the Left Front

government of West Bengal. The years 2005 to 2007 have seen a sharp increase

in joint exercises between the two armed forces. This is now being extended to

the “quadrilateral” exercises as desired by the US with Japan and Australia in

the September naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal.

on the Iran nuclear issue. The government voted along with the US

The United States has been going about stating obvious strategic and

commercial benefits that will accrue from the nuclear deal. Apart from the

sale of nuclear reactors, the United States is mounting pressure on India fro

military contracts to purchase fighter planes, naval ships, radar and artillery.

Along with steadily increasing military and security collaboration with Israel,

India will find itself entangled in the US strategic designs in Asia.

A major reason put forth being made for the nuclear cooperation agreement is

that it will help India meet its energy needs. This ignores the very limited

contribution that nuclear power makes to our overall energy generation

which is just 3 per cent and which cannot exceed 7 per cent even if the

ambitious plans for expansion are implemented by 2020. To make India’s

foreign policy and strategic autonomy hostage to the potential benefits of

nuclear energy does not make sense except for the American imperative to

bind India to its strategic designs in Asia.

Due to the consistent pressure of the CPI(M) and the Left parties who had

raised a number of questions regarding the draft legislation before the US

House of Representatives and Senate, the Prime Minister had given certain

categorical assurances to parliament on August 17, 2006. At that juncture,

these assurances were in line with the concerns raised about protecting the

country’s interests regarding the three-stage nuclear programme that we have

adopted.

However, the situation changed after the US Congress adopted the final

legislation to give a waiver for nuclear cooperation with India. This legislation

known as the Hyde Act runs contrary to most of the assurances given by the

Prime Minister in August 2006. The Act includes provisions imposing

restrictions on transfer of technology and barring access to dual use

technologies, thus denying India a full nuclear fuel cycle. The US President

has to report to the Congress every year on how India is complying with the

provisions set out in the Hyde Act. The Act enjoins on the administration to

prevent fuel supplies and equipment from other countries to India if the US

terminates the bilateral agreement. The argument that the bilateral text

overrides the clause cannot be accepted, as the text also states that “national

laws” will prevail. To say that the Hyde Act is not binding to India is

irrelevant. The point is that it is binding on the United States.

Outside the sphere of nuclear cooperation, the Hyde Act contains directions

on India’s foreign policy and other security related matters. There are nine

references to India’s role having to be one of support and complicity with the

US designs on Iran.

After the Hyde Act was adopted in December 2006, the CPI(M) had stated

that it contains provisions which are contrary to the assurances given by the

Prime Minister to parliament on August 17, 2006. The CPI(M) had repeatedly

asked the government not to proceed with the bilateral negotiations for the

123 agreement, till this matter was cleared up. But the government did not

heed this advice too.

The United States is already moving for another round of sanctions against

Iran in the United Nations Security Council. Indian companies have been

warned not to export to Iran even non-lethal materials. The Iran-Pakistan-

India gas pipeline will not proceed if this nuclear agreement is put in place

despite protestations to the contrary by the government. It will be unwise and

shortsighted for India to spoil its relations with Iran and other West Asian

countries given the vital role these countries play in fulfilling India’s energy

needs.

When the UPA government was being installed in 2004, a Common Minimum

Programme was drafted. When the Left was consulted, we had insisted on the

deletion of a reference to “strategic relations with the United States”. There is

no mention of strategic ties with the US in the Common Minimum

Programme. But soon after, the government proceeded with forging a wider

strategic alliance with the United States.

The Left parties have, after carefully assessing the implications of the 123

agreement, demanded that the government not proceed further to

operationalise the agreement. The objections to the deal have been spelt out in

detail in the statement issued by the Left Parties. The Left is clear that going

ahead with the agreement will bind India to the United States in a manner

that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic

autonomy.

A wise and expedient step for the government would be to acknowledge that

there is widespread opposition to the agreement. The question is not whether

it should be put to vote in parliament or not. It is clear that a majority in

parliament is opposed to the agreement. The best course would be for the

government not to proceed further with the operationalising of the

agreement. Till all the doubts are clarified and the implications of the Hyde

Act evaluated, the government should not take the next steps with regard to

negotiating the IAEA safeguards, which are to be in perpetuity, and proceed

to get the guidelines from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The Left parties continue to accord priority to having a secular government

and keeping the communal forces at bay. However, this cannot be taken as a

license by the UPA government to go ahead with such a long term agreement

which has serious implications for India’s independent foreign policy and

sovereignty.

Prime Minister’s Reply to the Debate on the Motion of Confidence in Lok Sabha on 22nd July, 2008 20:7 IST The Leader of Opposition, Shri L.K. Advani has chosen to use all manner of abusive objectives to describe my performance. He has described me as the weakest Prime Minister, a nikamma PM, and of having devalued the office of PM. To fulfill his ambitions, he has made at least three attempts to topple our government. But on each occasion his astrologers have misled him. This pattern, I am sure, will be repeated today. At his ripe old age, I do not expect Shri Advani to change his thinking. But for his sake and India’s sake, I urge him at least to change his astrologers so that he gets more accurate predictions of things to come. As for Shri Advani’s various charges, I do not wish to waste the time of the House in rebutting them. All I can say is that before leveling charges of incompetence on others, Shri Advani should do some introspection. Can our nation forgive a Home Minister who slept when the terrorists were knocking at the doors of our Parliament? Can our nation forgive a person who single handedly provided the inspiration for the destruction of the Babri Masjid with all the terrible consequences that followed? To atone for his sins, he suddenly decided to visit Pakistan and there he discovered new virtues in Mr. Jinnah. Alas, his own party and his mentors in the RSS disowned him on this issue. Can our nation approve the conduct of a Home Minister who was sleeping while Gujarat was burning leading to the loss of thousands of innocent lives? Our friends in the Left Front should ponder over the company they are forced to keep because of miscalculations by their General Secretary. As for my conduct, it is for this august House and the people of India to judge. All I can say is that in all these years that I have been in office, whether as Finance Minister or Prime Minister, I have felt it as a sacred obligation to use the levers of power as a societal trust to be used for transforming our economy and polity, so that we can get rid of poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. This is a long and arduous journey. But every step taken in this direction can make a difference. And that is what we have sought to do in the last four years. How far we have succeeded is something I leave to the judgement of the people of India. When I look at the composition of the opportunistic group opposed to us, it is clear to me that the clash today is between two alternative visions of India’s future. The one vision represented by the UPA and our allies seeks to project India as a self confident and united nation moving forward to gain its rightful place in the comity of nations, making full use of the opportunities offered by a globalised world, operating on the frontiers of modern science and technology and using modern science and technology as important instruments of national economic and social development. The opposite vision is of a motley crowd opposed to us who have come together to share the spoils of office to promote their sectional, sectarian and parochial interests. Our Left colleagues should tell us whether Shri L.K. Advani is acceptable to them as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Shri L.K. Advani should enlighten us if he will step aside as Prime Ministerial candidate of the opposition in favour of the choice of UNPA. They should take the country into confidence on this important issue. I have already stated in my opening remarks that the House has been dragged into this debate unnecessarily. I wish our attention had not been diverted from some priority areas of national concern. These priorities are : (i) Tackling the imported inflation caused by steep increase in oil prices. Our effort is to control inflation without hurting the rate of growth and employment. (ii) To revitalize agriculture. We have decisively reversed the declining trend of investment and resource flow in agriculture. The Finance Minister has dealt with the measures we have taken in this regard. We have achieved a record foodgrain production of 231 million tones. But we need to redouble our efforts to improve agricultural productivity. (iii) To improve the effectiveness of our flagship pro poor programmes such as National Rural Employment Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nation-wide Mid day meal programme, Bharat Nirman to improve the quality of rural infrastructure of roads, electricity, safe drinking water, sanitation, irrigation, National Rural Health Mission and the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. These programmes are yielding solid results. But a great deal more needs to be done to improve the quality of implementation. (iv) We have initiated a major thrust in expanding higher education. The objective is to expand the gross enrolment ratio in higher education from 11.6 per cent to 15 per cent by the end of the 11th Plan and to 21% by the end of 12th Plan. To meet these goals, we have an ambitious programme which seeks to create 30 new universities, of which 14 will be world class, 8 new IITs, 7 new IIMs, 20 new IIITs, 5 new IISERs, 2 Schools of planning and Architecture, 10 NITs, 373 new degree colleges and 1000 new polytechnics. And these are not just plans. Three new IISERs are already operational and the remaining two will become operational from the 2008-09 academic session. Two SPAs will be starting this year. Six of the new IITs start their classes this year. The establishment of the new universities is at an advanced stage of planning. (v) A nation wide Skill Development Programme and the enactment of the Right to Education Act, (vi) Approval by Parliament of the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy and enactment of legislation to provide social security benefits to workers in the unorganized sector. (vii) The new 15 Point Programme for Minorities, the effective implementation of empowerment programmes for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, paying particular emphasis on implementation of Land Rights for the tribals. (viii) Equally important is the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act to impart utmost transparency to processes of governance. The Administrative Reforms Commission has made valuable suggestions to streamline the functioning of our public administration. (ix) To deal firmly with terrorist elements, left wing extremism and communal elements that are attempting to undermine the security and stability of the country. We have been and will continue to vigorously pursue investigations in the major terrorist incidents that have taken place. Charge-sheets have been filed in almost all the cases. Our intelligence agencies and security forces are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. They need our full support. We will take all possible steps to streamline their functioning and strengthen their effectiveness. Considerable work has been done in all these areas but debates like the one we are having detract our attention from attending to these essential programmes and remaining items on our agenda. All the same, we will redouble our efforts to attend to these areas of priority concerns. I say in all sincerity that this session and debate was unnecessary because I have said on several occasions that our nuclear agreement after being endorsed by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group would be submitted to this august House for expressing its view. All I had asked our Left colleagues was : please allow us to go through the negotiating process and I will come to Parliament before operationalising the nuclear agreement. This simple courtesy which is essential for orderly functioning of any Government worth the name, particularly with regard to the conduct of foreign policy, they were not willing to grant me. They wanted a veto over every single step of negotiations which is not acceptable. They wanted me to behave as their bonded slave. The nuclear agreement may not have been mentioned in the Common Minimum Programme. However, there was an explicit mention of the need to develop closer relations with the USA but without sacrificing our independent foreign policy. The Congress Election Manifesto had explicitly referred to the need for strategic engagement with the USA and other great powers such as Russia. In 1991, while presenting the Budget for 1991-92, as Finance Minister, I had stated : No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. I had then suggested to this august House that the emergence of India as a major global power was an idea whose time had come. Carrying forward the process started by Shri Rajiv Gandhi of preparing India for the 21st century, I outlined a far reaching programme of economic reform whose fruits are now visible to every objective person. Both the Left and the BJP had then opposed the reform. Both had said we had mortgaged the economy to America and that we would bring back the East India Company. Subsequently both these parties have had a hand at running the Government. None of these parties have reversed the direction of economic policy laid down by the Congress Party in 1991. The moral of the story is that political parties should be judged not by what they say while in opposition but by what they do when entrusted with the responsibilities of power. I am convinced that despite their opportunistic opposition to the nuclear agreement, history will compliment the UPA Government for having taken another giant step forward to lead India to become a major power centre of the evolving global economy. Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of using atomic energy as a major instrument of development will become a living reality. What is the nuclear agreement about? It is all about widening our development options, promoting energy security in a manner which will not hurt our precious environment and which will not contribute to pollution and global warming. India needs to grow at the rate of at least ten per cent per annum to get rid of chronic poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. A basic requirement for achieving this order of growth is the availability of energy, particularly electricity. We need increasing quantities of electricity to support our agriculture, industry and to give comfort to our householders. The generation of electricity has to grow at an annual rate of 8 to 10 per cent. Now, hydro-carbons are one source of generating power and for meeting our energy requirements. But our production of hydro-carbons both of oil and gas is far short of our growing requirements. We are heavily dependent on imports. We all know the uncertainty of supplies and of prices of imported hydro-carbons. We have to diversify our sources of energy supply. We have large reserves of coal but even these are inadequate to meet all our needs by 2050. But more use of coal will have an adverse impact on pollution and climate. We can develop hydro-power and we must. But many of these projects hurt the environment and displace large number of people. We must develop renewable sources of energy particularly solar energy. But we must also make full use of atomic energy which is a clean environment friendly source of energy. All over the world, there is growing realization of the importance of atomic energy to meet the challenge of energy security and climate change. India’s atomic scientists and technologists are world class. They have developed nuclear energy capacities despite heavy odds. But there are handicaps which have adversely affected our atomic energy programme. First of all, we have inadequate production of uranium. Second, the quality of our uranium resources is not comparable to those of other producers.Third, after the Pokharan nuclear test of 1974 and 1998 the outside world has imposed embargo on trade with India in nuclear materials, nuclear equipment and nuclear technology. As a result, our nuclear energy programme has suffered. Some twenty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission had laid down a target of 10000 MW of electricity generation by the end of the twentieth century. Today, in 2008 our capacity is about 4000 MW and due to shortage of uranium many of these plants are operating at much below their capacity. The nuclear agreement that we wish to negotiate will end India’s nuclear isolation, nuclear apartheid and enable us to take advantage of international trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment. It will open up new opportunities for trade in dual use high technologies opening up new pathways to accelerate industrialization of our country. Given the excellent quality of our nuclear scientists and technologists, I have reasons to believe that in a reasonably short period of time, India would emerge as an important exporter of nuclear technologies, and equipment for civilian purposes. When I say this I am reminded of the visionary leadership of Shri Rajiv Gandhi who was a strong champion of computerization and use of information technologies for nation building. At that time, many people laughed at this idea. Today, information technology and software is a sun-rise industry with an annual turnover soon approaching 50 billion US dollars. I venture to think that our atomic energy industry will play a similar role in the transformation of India’s economy. The essence of the matter is that the agreements that we negotiate with USA, Russia, France and other nuclear countries will enable us to enter into international trade for civilian use without any interference with our strategic nuclear programme. The strategic programme will continue to be developed at an autonomous pace determined solely by our own security perceptions. We have not and we will not accept any outside interference or monitoring or supervision of our strategic programme. Our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. We are willing to look at possible amendments to our Atomic Energy Act to reinforce our solemn commitment that our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT. This I believe is a measure of the respect that the world at large has for India, its people and their capabilities and our prospects to emerge as a major engine of growth for the world economy. I have often said that today there are no international constraints on India’s development. The world marvels at our ability to seek our social and economic salvation in the framework of a functioning democracy committed to the rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms. The world wants India to succeed. The obstacles we face are at home, particularly in our processes of domestic governance. I wish to remind the House that in 1998 when the Pokharan II tests were undertaken, the Group of Eight leading developed countries had passed a harsh resolution condemning India and called upon India to sign the NPT and CTBT. Today, at the Hokkaido meeting of the G-8 held recently in Japan, the Chairman’s summary has welcomed cooperation in civilian nuclear energy between India and the international community. This is a measure of the sea change in the perceptions of the international community our trading with India for civilian nuclear energy purposes that has come about in less than ten years. Our critics falsely accuse us, that in signing these agreements, we have surrendered the independence of foreign policy and made it subservient to US interests. In this context, I wish to point out that the cooperation in civil nuclear matters that we seek is not confined to the USA. Change in the NSG guidelines would be a passport to trade with 45 members of the Nuclear Supplier Group which includes Russia, France, and many other countries. We appreciate the fact that the US has taken the lead in promoting cooperation with India for nuclear energy for civilian use. Without US initiative, India’s case for approval by the IAEA or the Nuclear Suppliers Group would not have moved forward. But this does not mean that there is any explicit or implicit constraint on India to pursue an independent foreign policy determined by our own perceptions of our enlightened national interest. Some people are spreading the rumours that there are some secret or hidden agreements over and above the documents made public. I wish to state categorically that there are no secret or hidden documents other than the 123 agreement, the Separation Plan and the draft of the safeguard agreement with the IAEA. It has also been alleged that the Hyde Act will affect India’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The Hyde Act does exist and it provides the US administration the authorization to enter into civil nuclear cooperation with India without insistence on full scope safeguards and without signing of the NPT. There are some prescripttive clauses but they cannot and they will not be allowed to affect in any way the conduct of our foreign policy. Our commitment is to what has been agreed in the 123 Agreement. There is nothing in this Agreement which will affect our strategic autonomy or our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. I state categorically that our foreign policy, will at all times be determined by our own assessment of our national interest. This has been true in the past and will be true in future regarding our relations with big powers as well as with our neighbours in West Asia, notably Iran, Iraq, Palestine and the Gulf countries. We have differed with the USA on their intervention in Iraq. I had explicitly stated at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC in July 2005 that intervention in Iraq was a big mistake. With regard to Iran, our advice has been in favour of moderation and we would like that the issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme which have emerged should be resolved through dialogue and discussions in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I should also inform the House that our relations with the Arab world are very good. Two years ago, His Majesty, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was the Chief Guest at our Republic Day. More recently, we have played host to the President of Iran, President of Syria, the King of Jordan, the Emir of Qatar and the Emir of Kuwait. With all these countries we have historic civilisational and cultural links which we are keen to further develop to our mutual benefit. Today, we have strategic relationship with all major powers including USA, Russia, France, UK, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. We are Forging new partnerships with countries of East Asia, South East Asia and Africa.

NEW DELHI: The UPA Government on Tuesday scored an emphatic victory in the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha with a comfortable margin, ending the political uncertainty that will enable the ruling coalition to push ahead with the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. The motion, which was forced by the Left parties' decision to withdraw support to the Government on the deal, was adopted with sizeable cross-voting from Opposition members including at least one visibly from Telegu Desum. There was erosion in opposition numbers with only 256 opposing the motion against 275 supporting it. In a House with an effective strength of 541, the Government needed 271 and in the ultimate result it got four more than the half-way mark, belying predictions of a cliffhanger of a contest. The day was marred by high drama when BJP members shocked the House displaying bundles of currency notes claiming Rs one crore was given to them as advance by a Samajwadi Party leader to abstain from voting. Charges and counter-charges over the bribery allegations disrupted proceedings for over two hours with the Opposition members not allowing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to make his customary reply winding up the two-day debate that was often acrimonious. In his six-page reply, which was laid on the table, the Prime Minister hit out at the Left parties saying "they wanted me to behave as their bonded slave." "They wanted a veto over every single step of negotiations which is not acceptable," he said with regard to the negotiating processes he wanted to undertake with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group before operationalising the nuclear agreement.

aristotle words are significant even today. polity is the rule of people and democarcy is the rule of mob and clout. the parliament was a  stock market and MP acted as shares...the brokers tried every trick to sell them at the highest price.

other than the old sibboleths and being indian why a professional should think india as his dream working destination?

YES THE GOVT OF UPA HAVE WON THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE

CONGRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

NO BODY HAVE TIME TO SEE TO THE NATION AND THE PUBLIC

THE VOTER HAS BEEN DEFEATED

THE DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN DEFEATED

INDIA (THE BIGGEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD) HAS BEEN INSULTED BY ITS OWN MLA'S

WE DONT NEED OUTSIDERS OUR LEADERS ARE ENOUGH TO DEPENDENCE OF NATION

BUT WHO CARE ??????????

THE RULLING PARTY IS NOW BUSY IN CELEBRATION. WHY NOT ITS COSTS THEM IN MULTI CRORES.

CONGRATS CONGRESS (UPA) . YOU HAVE ALSO SHOWS TO THE NATION THE YOU HAVE A CAPABILITY OF A DEALER, WE HAVE JUST SOLD THE CONFIDENCE OF PUBLIC AND WE ARE READY TO SALE OF NATION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what the crap yaar

they are just opposing the deal as they are against UPA, they even donno what the deal is about.

NObody is thinking about the country :(

@ Kaps, first you understand the Nuclear deal. Dont comments anything with ur half knowledge.

 

Ten misconceptions about the nuclear deal P. K. Iyengar-(The author is a former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.)  File photo of the nuclear power plant at Koodankulam under construction... It takes longer to set up foreign reactors than indigenous ones. In spite of the fact that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest, many in the country, and in Parliament, support it because of misconceptions about the deal, which need to be clarified. The nuclear deal is an agreement between India and the US for the US government to supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India: Contrary to common perception, the nuclear deal or the 123 Agreement is not a commitment on the part of the US government to provide us with uranium or nuclear reactors. At present, American law prohibits nuclear cooperation with India because we have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All the nuclear deal does is to grant a ‘waiver’ from that law, so that American companies can now pursue nuclear trade with India. However, if India conducts a test at any time, the waiver is revoked. Imported uranium and nuclear reactors will be cheap and cost-effective: Even if the nuclear deal is made operational, the actual sale of uranium and nuclear reactors will be governed by market forces — there are no guarantees of cheap or competitive nuclear power. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will be expensive. The cost of uranium in the international market has gone up four-fold in the last few years, and will rise further with further demand. The same is true of the cost of steel and other materials used in a reactor. Manpower costs are much higher in the West. The example of the Dabhol power plant has already shown us that importing power plants from the West is not necessarily a viable option. We would do well to learn from that experience. The nuclear deal will safeguard our energy security: It is true that nuclear energy is green energy and, therefore, essential for our long-term energy security. But this does not translate into the nuclear deal ensuring our energy security. Power from the nuclear reactors that we buy will definitely be more expensive than indigenous nuclear power. Further, to keep the reactors running, we will always be dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a cartel — the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Therefore, the nuclear deal, by making us dependent on the cartel, will only compromise our energy security. Only our indigenous nuclear power programme can truly ensure our energy security. And, in any case, for the next few decades, nuclear power will not exceed 6 per cent of our total electricity production. Importing nuclear plants is a quick-fix solution to the present power crisis: Nuclear technology is sensitive. Even if the nuclear deal goes through, it will take time to buy and set up new reactors. We have examples of the French reactors in China, and the Russian reactors in Koodankulam, India. It will actually take longer to set up foreign reactors compared to indigenous ones. Just the negotiations and legal formalities could take years. It will be at least eight years before we see the first power. So importing reactors is certainly no quick solution. For the short term, we will still have to rely on coal and hydroelectricity. The nuclear deal does not stop India from further nuclear testing, and therefore does not compromise our national security: It is very clearly stated in the 123 Agreement that it will be subject to national laws, and the Hyde Act is a law of the US. Therefore, the 123 Agreement is certainly circumscribed by the Hyde Act, which very clearly states that if India tests a nuclear device, all further nuclear trade is to stop, and the nuclear materials that have already been sold to us have to be returned. No future Indian government would dare to jeopardise such a huge investment in nuclear power, by testing. So, for all practical purposes the nuclear deal caps our strategic programme — which is precisely what the Americans intend. We can pass a national law to counteract the Hyde Act, and this will protect our strategic programme: Just as the Hyde Act is not binding on us, our laws are not binding on the US. We can certainly amend our Atomic Energy Act to enable participation of the private sector in nuclear power. But if we pass a law saying that we will retain the right to test, it will have no influence on the actions of the US. If and when we test, they can simply quote the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, and pull out all their nuclear materials, leaving us devastated. The only option here is to renegotiate the 123 Agreement and have the clause inserted there. However, the Americans are unlikely to agree to this, as it goes against their non-proliferation policy. The nuclear deal and the safeguards agreement give India the status of a nuclear power: While the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement did indeed talk about India being treated as an equal by the US, neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA Safeguards Agreement has borne out those optimistic statements. In fact, the IAEA Safeguards Agreement that has been negotiated is closely based on the model agreement that IAEA has for non-nuclear weapon states. The safeguards agreements that the nuclear weapon countries have signed with the IAEA require them to put very few reactors under safeguards, and allow them to take reactors out of safeguards. India, however, will have to place most of its reactors under safeguards for perpetuity. Therefore we are certainly not being treated as a nuclear weapons country. Without the nuclear deal, we cannot get adequate uranium for our domestic nuclear programme: The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. There is talk of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear power, which will cost not less than $100 billion or Rs 4-lakh crores. If even 10 per cent of this money were spent on uranium mining in existing mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, or in searching for new uranium deposits, and negotiating with non-NSG countries, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme, until such time as thorium reactors take over. The safeguards agreement with the IAEA guarantees fuel supplies even if India conducts a nuclear test: The safeguards agreement only notes, in the preamble, that India’s concurrence to the safeguards is linked to getting fuel supplies. However, the IAEA has no role in this matter, and certainly no such commitment is given in the safeguards agreement. It also notes that India may take ‘corrective measures’ in the event of a disruption of foreign fuel supplies. It does not specify what these measures will be, it does not provide for any role for the IAEA in this, and it does not bestow legitimacy on any such measures that India may take. It may well be that any such measures that we suggest, such as importing fuel from another country, will be disallowed by the nuclear cartel (the NSG). The only tangible corrective measure is for India to explore and mine more uranium, and enhance the enrichment capability to provide fuel for those reactors. The latter is subject to uncertainty. The nuclear deal has no impact on our foreign policy: The Hyde Act states clearly that it is the policy of the US to secure India’s cooperation on a number of issues involving Iran, including its capability to reprocess nuclear fuel (in spite of the fact that Iran, as an NPT signatory, has the right to enrich uranium for use in light-water reactors). This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and can only be related to influencing our foreign policy. Recent statements by Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, regarding Indo-Iran gas pipeline, only add fuel to such suspicions. Not in national interest It can therefore be seen that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest. It presents the very serious danger of capping our strategic programme. That alone is reason enough not to go forward with the deal. Additionally, it does not guarantee the energy security that we are seeking, and, in fact, may only end up making us as vulnerable to the nuclear cartel, as we are today to the oil cartel. It is easy to see why the US wants this deal so badly. At virtually no cost, as there is no commitment towards fuel supplies, they can cap our strategic programme, bring us into the NPT net, through the backdoor, as a non-nuclear power, keep a close eye on our nuclear activities, including R&D, through intrusive IAEA inspections, and subjugate us to the wishes of the nuclear cartel. If there were no cartel, we could have easily extended the Koodankulam agreement for more reactors, and avoided the present situation. If these are not reasons enough not to go ahead with the nuclear deal, then there are no reasons that reason can find. (The author is a former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.) The Hindu Business Line

 

thanks for correcting me

but still thats what others think , but we must not overlook the greener side of this deal. if India need to emerge as the world leader in Economy this deal is truly essential

again this is what i think i may or may not be correct !!!

Originally posted by :kaps
"	hi kaps, yes you are right, India will emerge as one of the economic leader, but not our own democratic India, but India-a subsidiary of US	"

 

godd knowledge

 

anyways but as far as i think

20000 megahertz of electricity is much more than 3000 which is now

and lot of new industries in India will completely take us to ur success more quickly !!!!!!!!!1