• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear Thread - 2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"We had no inkling of the Left's attitude, they demanded a discussion and the Government was ready for it," he said.

<i>{So PMO was sleeping? What was Intel Bureau doing? Should fire the PMO secy and handlers for not getting the sense of the politicians}</i></b>
Ramana, I think it's by design and not any accident/oversight. Congress (extremely small coterie) decides first and then announce it. Coalition partners will toe the line else face consequences. Notice that Left's not ready to call Manmohan's bluff of dropping support and have already blinked. It's repeat of the Presidential elections.
Left can bitch/moan for all they want, but end of day they'll toe her majesty's line.

Compare and contrast with previous central govt's action where they sought to build consensus with partners on every issue and were bogged down with analysis-paralysis.
<b>N-deal will be scrapped if India conducts atomic test: US </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Washington, Aug 15: The United States has made it clear that the civilian nuclear deal with India will be "terminated" in the event of an atomic test by New Delhi.

<b>"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated,"</b> US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday.

<b>The spokesman also said there is "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement." </b>

India has been maintaining that the 123 agreement is silent on the issue of testing. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on Monday that the agreement to operationalise the civilian nuclear deal would not affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests.

<b>"Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the government," he said</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Am I hearing Sanction also?
In such a hot issue, no political party in India can keep silent. The BJP has to oppose it as it does not want any credit to go to the Congress. The Left has to oppose it as the word USA figures in the Agreement. Given these limitations, the statements of BJP and Left on the merits and demerits of the Agreement may contain some distortion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In such a hot issue, no political party in India can keep silent. The BJP has to oppose it as it does not want any credit to go to the Congress. The Left has to oppose it as the word USA figures in the Agreement. Given these limitations, the statements of BJP and Left on the merits and demerits of the Agreement may contain some distortion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about congress? Can you trust them with long term security of India? In last three years only we have seen assault on Indian Constitution, Ministry is full of criminals and crooks. Why they don't want vote in Parliament? India is democratic state or not?
I don't trust what PMO is saying, we know their history and who is running show.

It is good that we have opposition who is not sleeping with Jaichands and raising questions, what Congress, Babus and media is trying to do is, blame messenger or shut any discussion.
BSP fishing in troubled waters
Pl read this in conjuction w/ 2009 poll prospects
Akhilesh Suman | New Delhi
of Political section.

Fierce opposition to the India-US civil nuclear agreement by the Opposition and the Left parties has given UPA allies cold feet over coming to the rescue of the Government.

An indication of this effect came from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which has conveyed to the Government its inability to support the deal in view of the adverse political repercussions.

Sources said BSP chief Mayawati has conveyed a terse message to the UPA crisis managers: "Don't expect support from us on the nuclear deal."

This has come as a big setback to the Government since the UP Chief Minister had supported the UPA in the presidential and vice-presidential elections.

Sources said the BSP had conveyed to the UPA leaders that it could not be seen siding with the Government on a deal that could hurt the sentiments of the minority community, who are bitterly opposed to American policy in Iraq and elsewhere.

"We don't know who is telling the truth, but one thing is clear, the nuclear deal is going to be very unpopular," a BSP leader said, adding, "We have to decide in the interest of Sarvjan."

The leader said that while the Congress itself was trying to woo the Muslim community through various programmes, the BSP didn't want to get involved in an issue on which it was neither consulted nor has the expertise.

The BSP has decided to opt out at a time when the UPA is trying to reassure its partners that it may garner enough support to run the Government, even if the Left parties withdrew support.

The crisis seems to be compounding as none of the allies of the ruling coalition have supported the deal either in public or in Parliament.

Sources told The Pioneer that RJD supremo and Railway Minister Lalu Prasad, seen as a 'yes' man of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, has called some of his senior party members on Thursday night to firm up the party's stand on the nuclear deal.

Even the DMK has so far remained silent on the deal.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US rules out renegotiation of 123 Agreement </b>
PTI | New Delhi
The US has ruled out renegotiation of the civil nuclear deal with India amid demands here that the agreement be worked out afresh.

"We cannot renegotiate it because the (123) agreement is done. Neither Government wishes it to be renegotiated because it is now complete," US Under Secretary Nicholas Burns told Outlook magazine in an interview.

Asked how the differences between Hyde Act and 123 Agreement would be reconciled on the issue of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, Burns said,<b> "I am absolutely confident that the 123 Agreement conforms (to Hyde Act) in all ways."</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check what PM Moron Singh is saying -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->PM getting paranoid: Jaitley
New Delhi: The BJP on Friday rubbished Prime Minister's remarks in an interview to a magazine alleging that <b>some Opposition leaders had organised havans to ensure his untimely death.</b>

Wondering why "it has taken the Prime Minister three long years to discover the non-existent havans organised against him", BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said: <b>"Prime Ministers have in the past made statements which are capable of criticism. But the content of this statement can only be described as rubbish."</b>
We know PM Moron Singh is spineless and moron, but it looks like he had lost his mind also.

The Washington Post article is full of praise for India and it is rather nice to hear such things .
The Model That India Offers

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, August 19, 2007; B07

India celebrated its 60th birthday last week with a raucous parliamentary debate over nuclear energy and its new strategic relationship with the United States. New Delhi had the air of the capital of an emerging world power looking ahead into a promising, if complicated, future.

Pakistan marked the same occasion by sinking deeper into the past. The corrupt backroom dealing between military rulers and politicians that has produced a cycle of disasters for the Pakistani nation resumed -- aided by the hidden hand of U.S. diplomacy working to preserve President Pervez Musharraf's dwindling power in Islamabad.

The anniversary of the partition of the Asian subcontinent six decades ago showed the region's two contrasting faces: a giant, open democracy and a sclerotic but nuclear-armed garrison state. It also revealed two contrasting faces of the Bush administration's foreign policy, where pockets of bold thinking about the future compete with the need for short-term fixes that rely heavily on illusion.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh defended the nuclear accord against a barrage of attacks from the communist left and the reactionary Hindu right, keeping alive Bush administration hopes that the president can finally translate unconventional thinking in foreign policy into a substantial achievement.

The accord underpins a transformed U.S.-India relationship that is essential to the struggle against transnational jihadist terrorism. It sets the stage for a badly needed reframing of the global nuclear nonproliferation agreements and practices that failed to stop Pakistan from becoming the world's nuclear Wal-Mart. And it is a key to hopes for a more effective international approach to the real dangers of global warming.

Singh does not need parliamentary approval of the deal, which will open the way for the United States and other nations to sell nuclear reactors and fuel to India for peaceful purposes. If he survives a vote of no confidence, as expected, Singh will put the accord into effect once the U.S. Congress approves its final details later this year. Such approval in Bush's twilight months will represent a rare triumph, which has been shepherded along by Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and other forward-looking officials.

But that is only half the anniversary story. Pakistan at 60 represents failure, both for itself and for U.S. diplomacy, as starkly as India represents the promise of success on both counts.

Successive Pakistani military regimes have ousted corrupt and ineffective politicians, feathered their own nests for as long as they could, and then turned the shambolic states of affairs they have created over to unreformed politicians, starting the cycle all over again. The implicit deal was that neither side would implement fundamental change in the deeply fractured society they ruled.

When he took power in 1999, Musharraf seemed capable of breaking the pattern. Less corrupt, far more agile and a great deal smarter than previous military rulers, the general was not an unappealing alternative to the civilians he displaced. His periodic peaceful overtures to India seemed more genuine than anything accomplished by elected prime ministers such as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Musharraf self-destructed despite -- or perhaps because of -- the windfall of U.S. aid that poured in after Sept. 11, 2001. He received kid-gloves treatment from Washington even as he failed crucial tests on punishing his country's globally destabilizing nuclear proliferation and eliminating al-Qaeda, Taliban and Kashmiri terrorist bases that are aided by his intelligence service. The civilian population is effectively in revolt against Musharraf.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her aides have reportedly urged him to pursue secret negotiations with Bhutto to schedule elections and share power with her. But if restoring Bhutto to power is part of the solution, the problem may well be insoluble. That ploy is a return to the broken record of the past, a triumph of desperation over experience.

Hitting dead end in Pakistan did not just happen. It is the result of consistent U.S. decisions to apply short-term solutions to one of the world's most serious long-term problems. To curry favor with China, to spite India's notoriously prickly leaders, to bleed Soviet forces in Afghanistan or for many other immediate purposes, Washington has alternately indulged, bribed or ignored Pakistan's leaders and their society's deep-rooted problems.

The new U.S. relationship with India offers much for the future -- including a model for dealing with a South Asian nation just turning 60 by seeking imaginative long-term change instead of pursuing traditional stopgaps to get through the latest crisis.


It has highlighted the contrast between India and Pakistan as they cross over to the 61st year. There is nothing new about the facts mentioned in the article except that his prediction and analysis about President Bush’s Foreign Policy has some originality.
Back here in Delhi, it appears that the Left and the BJP have increased their pressure on the Government. Although, voting in Parliament on this issue is not required, yet a debate on the issue will be in the fitness of things as we in India do have a Parliamentary form of Government responsible to the Parliament. I don’t expect that the House will go against the Nuclear Deal , provided it has all the safeguards for India , particularly the right to carry on future tests , if need be. In the run up to the general elections which is still two years away, some of the political parties want to make some noise on this issue to remind the people at large that they are on their job.

The following is the latest from the Left Parties :-

New Delhi: This is the text of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau resolution.

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) met in New Delhi on August 17 and 18, 2007. It unanimously adopted the following resolution:

The Polit Bureau of the CPI (M) fully endorsed the stand taken by the Left parties on the bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States. The statement of the Left parties has set out comprehensively the reasons why the agreement is not acceptable.

The agreement should be seen in the light of the Hyde Act passed by the U.S. Congress and in the context of the wider implications of India being bound into a strategic alliance with the United States and its adverse consequences for an independent foreign policy, sovereignty and the economic interests of the people. The Polit Bureau is of the firm opinion that going ahead with this agreement will not serve India’s interests.

Given the widespread opposition to the agreement and the fact that a majority in Parliament do not support the nuclear cooperation deal, the government should not proceed further with the agreement.

Till all the objections are considered and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next step with regard to negotiating a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is for the Congress leadership to decide on the matter which will have serious consequences for the government and the country.

The Polit Bureau decided to take the issue of the nuclear agreement and the dangers of the strategic alliance with the United States to the people through a nationwide mass campaign. The parties will be meeting soon to discuss all other related matters.

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu


You will agree that he demand made in the resolution is nothing unreasonable in a democratic set up and therefore, we should all expect a lively debate and examination of the issue in Parliament. In the heat of the Nuclear Deal , many of us have perhaps not given due importance to the fact that closer interaction with USA may bring in some problems for India militarily on a future date. Given the recent track record of the USA in Iraq, this aspect also needs to be closely examined from India’ s own angle in the emerging world order.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Jaya asks PM to step down </b>
Pioneer News Service | Chennai
AIADMK general secretary J Jayalalithaa on Sunday demanded that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should resign, accusing him of actively working against the country's sovereignty and lying in Parliament about the Indo-US nuclear deal.

In a strongly worded statement here, she said:<b> "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been dangerously subverting India's sovereignty in a sinister way." India had seen many weak Prime Ministers in the past, but none "who is himself actively working against India's sovereignty and dares to lie about an agreement with another nation in Parliament itself."</b>

Jayalalithaa, a critic of the Indo-US deal, alleged that there was an 'American nexus' in every foreign visit of the Prime Minister since assuming office three years ago, and in every foreign deal he had signed and every leader he had met.

<b>"Resign from office forthwith. Every additional day you are in power is a test for India's independence and sovereignty. You can emigrate to the US, where your daughter and son-in-law have citizenship rights," </b>the former Chief Minister said. "Kindly take leave of us immediately. You can take with you the slave-charter as your personal hand luggage," she said, referring to the text of the 123 agreement finalised by India and the US. <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>If the Prime Minister was not ready to demit office, all patriotic parties should work out a plan for holding protests at an all-India level to force his resignation, she said. "If he continues in office, it will spell danger, catastrophe and calamity for India,"</b> she claimed.

Accusing Singh of being 'obdurate' and 'adamant' about operationalising the agreement on nuclear energy cooperation with the US, Jayalalithaa said he had lost the confidence of Parliament and the people, as well lost credibility in the eyes of the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am not Jaya fan, but here she is on dot, what Jaswant Singh failed to say straight away that Moron Singh is a mole, Jaya did it. Kudos <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->
C Uday Bhaskar
<b>N-deal enters choppy waters: the implications </b>
August 19, 2007

Paid article from HT, enjoy it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->  My WebpageB Raman  <b>CHINA'S INTEREST IS OUR INTEREST" </b>
The current opposition of the leftist parties---particularly, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)--- to the agreement  (the so-called 123 agreement) with the US on civil nuclear co-operation and to India's developing  strategic relations with the US takes one's mind back to the days before the visit of President Hu Jintao of China to India in November last year.

<b>2. A Chinese company had won a contract for the construction of a gas pipeline from the Godavari area in Andhra Pradesh. It wanted to bring about 1,000 Chinese engineers to work in the project. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India were not clearing the issue  of visas to the Chinese engineers. They asked a number of inconvenient questions as to why it was necessary for the Chinese company to bring in so many of their engineers when unemployed Indian engineers were available.

3. There was also a paper prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat of the Prime Minister's Office suggesting that proposals for foreign investments in sensitive sectors such as telecommunication services from China, Pakistan and Bangladesh should be subjected to a special security vetting.

4. Shri Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), allegedly at the instance of the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, raised a big hue and cry about it and literally forced the Government of India to order the issue of visas to the Chinese engineers and to drop the proposal for a special security vetting for Chinese investment proposals in sensitive sectors.</b>

5. After the visit of Mr.Hu was over, the "Times Now" news channel had invited me to participate in a discussion on the visit. Shri Arnab Goswami of the Channel anchored the discussions. Shri D. Raja, the member of the Rajya Sabha from the CPI, participated in the discussions from Delhi, I told Shri Raja: " It is surprising that you pressurised the Government to issue visas to 1000 Chinese engineers. You were not bothered about Indian engineers not getting these jobs. If a US company had wanted to bring 1000 American engineers, would you have urged the Government to issue visas to them?"

6. Shri Raja told me: " Mr.Raman, you are an eminent person. You should not mislead people by raising such scenarios".

7. For the last two months, the Chinese authorities have been  expressing their concern over reports that India has joined hands with the US, Japan and Australia to counter the growing Chinese naval power in the region and that the forthcoming naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal involving the navies of these countries plus Singapore is the beginning of this project to counter the Chinese naval power and presence in the Bay of Bengal/ Indian Ocean region.

8. It is not without significance that the vigorous campaign of the leftist parties----particularly of the CPI (Marxist)--- against the recently concluded  Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation and against the growing strategic interactions between India and US in particular has coincided with the beginning of the Chinese campaign against the so-called quadrilateral strategic interaction involving India, Japan, the US and Australia and the naval exercise with the additional involvement of the Singapore Navy.

9. The letists' campaign against India's relations with the US reflects more China's concerns and interests than those of India. I have never been excited over the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation. Nor do I share the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh's enthusiasm for US President, Mr.George Bush, and the Indo-US agreement. I am inclined to feel that what we are seeing now is a one-night stand between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. .Bush. Like most one-night stands, the happy thoughts thereafter will become an embarrassment in course of time. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

10. I also feel----as I have stated on many occasions in the past--- that we should go slow on the development of our strategic relations with the US, keeping in view the fact that we live right in the midst of  the Islamic world, and that about 45 per cent of the world's Muslim population live in the South Asian region. Ours is still a fragile society and we should not create misgivings in the Muslim community by overlooking their sensitivities on this subject.

<b>11. Having said that, I also feel that we should not let the leftists dictate our foreign policy and push it in a direction favourable to China. I find it difficult to discount the suspicion that the leftists have mounted their present campaign to promote Chinese and not Indian interests.</b>

12. After joining the IB in 1967, I went on a visit to Kolkata. Those were the days of the Cultural Revolution in China. The Marxists were not yet in power in West Bengal, but  were very active. As I was travelling in a taxi from the Dum Dum airport to downtown, I saw the following slogan painted by the Marxists on the walls everywhere: "China's Chairman is our Chairman."

13. The present day Indian Marxists don't say this, but they do believe that "China's Interest is Our Interest." It is this belief, which is behind their present  campaign against the Government of India. Their hidden motive should be exposed..

<i>by Mr. B Raman: Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Moron Singh gave preference to stay in power and India's strategic Security down in drain. What a shame? Can you trust PM Moron SIngh for anything?
A follow up to Raman' article
<b>Dragon tears, not national interest</b>
Shri B Raman is right; the Communist parties' opposition to the India-United States nuclear deal smacks of utter dishonesty.
More than protecting the national interest, they seem to find vicarious satisfaction in the fact that by hitting at this deal they have succeeded in preventing India and the US from coming closer.
In Andhra Pradesh villages, one would find graffiti on walls by the ultra-Left groups, proclaiming, 'Naxalites are the real lovers of the country.'
The primary concern, going by all these utterances of the Left, is that the deal will be terminated in the event of India going for further nuclear tests, and such a provision is tantamount to India's sovereignty being mortgaged to the US. It will suck India into the vortex of America's geopolitical machinations, the Left leaders thunder.

Good music for our ears.

But the problem is history, which puts a question mark on their intentions. Shri Raman took us back to the 1960s when the Left would pompously declare that Chairman Mao is their Chairman.

But we don't need to go that far back in time.

The great concern for the Left now is about our right to future tests. One of their fellow travellers, Justice V R Krishna Iyer, calls it 'nuclear swaraj.' So much concern!

But what were these Left worthies saying when we actually conducted the nuclear tests in May 1998 at Pokhran?

They organised a 'Convention against Nuclear Weapons' in New Delhi on June 9, 1998, less than a month after the Vajpayee government conducted the tests. In a rare expression of unanimity, eminent speakers from diverse walks of life unequivocally condemned the BJP-led government's decision to conduct nuclear tests, says the report published by the organisers -- quite gleefully.

According to that report, 'Shri H K S Surjeet (then general secretary, CPI-M) said that the tests conducted by the BJP government were designed to whip up jingoistic feelings to serve the narrow interests of a government that was struggling to survive. Shri Surjeet said that the prime minister and his Cabinet colleagues have been deliberately trying to instigate Pakistan through their provocative statements linking nuclear weapons to Kashmir and through overt invitation to Pakistan to engage in a war. He said that it should have been apparent even to the entirely naive, that these provocations would force Pakistan -- whose government is also under pressure in its own country -- to conduct tests of its own. As a result, the BJP government's action has only served to dangerously escalate tensions in the region. But, Shri Surjeet said, the BJP's ploy had actually boomeranged, as is evident from its complete isolation in Parliament when the nuclear issue was debated and its poor showing in the recent by-elections. This shows that the people of India do not want war. What they want from a government is peace and development.'

See the rhetoric?

The tests were 'designed to whip up jingoistic feelings.' They 'instigated Pakistan.' They were an 'invitation to Pakistan to engage in a war.' The tests 'only served to dangerously escalate tensions in the region.' And finally, they had even boomeranged because the BJP had been isolated in Parliament and lost by-elections.

This was the Left's famous line just nine years ago -- that the tests are bad. But now, for the same people, the tests are a symbol of our 'nuclear swaraj'!

Honeymoon specialist Shri Bardhan too was present at that 1998 conference. And the report details graphically what his views were on the tests: 'Shri A B Bardhan said that as a result of the government's action we now live under the shadow of fear, under the shadow of a nuclear threat. It was foolish, he felt, to believe that the proxy war being waged by Pakistan in Kashmir can be countered with nuclear weapons. Pointing out the fallacy in the argument that nuclear weapons act as deterrence against war, he said that after 1945 more wars have been fought on earth than ever before in human history.'

Recently CIA released papers on 1962 Indo-China war. These paper high light the fact which is an open secret anyway amongst most of the Indians i.e. CPI(M) backed China instead of India during the 1962 war.

If Congress have been aware for years that leftist parties in India get their monthly ‘Lifafa’ from China and these leftist d*gs bark at the orders of their Chinese masters, wasn't Congress compromising on India’s sovereignty when Congress formed govt. at the centre by forming an alliance with these leftist parties? While necessity can result in strange bedfellows, I find it strange Congress now shouting they would not do anything that would compromise the sovereignty of the nation (when talking of the nuclear deal).

But wasn’t the act of sleeping with the enemy (as Leftist parties of India believe China’s interests are their interests) by Congress in the last 2-3 years compromising with the sovereignty of the nation anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> wasn't Congress compromising on India’s sovereignty when Congress formed govt. at the centre by forming an alliance with these leftist parties? While necessity can result in strange bedfellows, I find it strange Congress now shouting they would not do anything that would compromise the sovereignty of the nation (when talking of the nuclear deal).
This is my major concern, first Congress is in parliament not because of majority but they are able to form coalition of rag tags and criminals. When they are not in majority, they have no right to impose any treaty on citizens of India. Why they are shying away from vote in Parliament? If they think this treaty is so good for country, do you think any right minded Indian will stay away from it?
Now Moron Singh is barking in full volume that energy needs etc, where he was sleeping when ENRON was going on, Congress backed off because ENRON forget to give haftta to Queen and her puppies. Is current government is trying any other natual resources for energy? What about India's security?

Any deal regarding Indian security should go through vote and after full disclosure; India is not any Banana Republic or Liberia or Pakistan or Gandhi family personal property. Babus who are working day and night to promote Queen’s Interest are dishonest crooks.

Current rag tag government is more interested to stay in power then any welware of India or its citizen, They have only one and only interest to keep Videshi rag tag Queen in good humor.

Congress and left are bed fellows, both are crook, only difference, one is working for China and other for Europe.

Ode to the Left in Deccan Chrnocile, 20 Aug., 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Left has a problem for every solution
By Suhel Seth

There has been excessive criticism about the Left parties with relevance to the Indo-US nuclear deal: the Prime Minister has been courageous, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has been pragmatic and Prakash Karat has been stern. I have often heard industrialists crib about the Left, on how the Left is coming in the way of real progress. Ram Jethmalani, at a dinner in Mumbai last week, told me how he had written a letter to the Prime Minister expressing support on the nuclear deal and he too felt that the Left was barking up the wrong tree.

Much has been written on the nuclear deal. Frankly, I just don’t give a damn. While everyone is concerned about relations with the United States and the nuclear issue, my anger stems from the fact that even today, the Delhi-Gurgaon connector is a mess. T.R. Baalu, the minister, must be thrown out. This shameful act of delays and more delays cannot be tolerated, but more of that later, since, as I said, everyone is targeting the Left.

I believe India has a great need for the Left and their way of thinking.

We need the lunatic fringe amongst us, or else, what will the news channels cover? We need to see footage of some real old men determining the future of a really young country from their own impoverished ivory (or perhaps paper, in their case) castles, and telling us what we need to do.

<b>The Left is the rightful naysayer that every country needs. I was born and raised in Bengal, and thus I know the DNA of the Left very well. They are classic bullies when they need to be. Essentially, they are cowards, and finally, Dr Manmohan Singh has understood that.</b>

<b>They always bark, but can never bite, because the leash is elsewhere — in some godforsaken province in China. And like most things that emerge from Bengal, the Left has a problem for every solution, which is why we need them.</b>

We are a country which specialises in tabling why things cannot be done. Ask an Indian to do something and he will tell you why it cannot be done. This is the mantra of our bureaucracy as well. <b>A bureaucrat is essentially a Leftist in the manner he thinks, and more importantly, the way he works. Which is why a bureaucrat never really works, he makes others work. He is there to stall, not solve, and that to my mind is an endearing quality for which we should thank, and not castigate, the Left.</b>

The Left has every right to be angry. The States they run are run-down but the rest of the country is progressing very well without them. <b>This irks them, because their primary belief of equality says that every Indian must be equally poor and not equally rich. </b>

The Left parties hate progress because progress means money, and since they believe in being and behaving poor, riches find no place in their lives. Which is why they will wear linen shirts only when they are not on television. <b>The Left cannot also tolerate any form of globalisation or economic integration. For them, globalisation is Cuba talking to India, and not India talking to the United States, which is why they are opposed to everything that emanates from the US.</b>

They hate George Bush, but then they’ve hated everything that’s American. They hate David Mulford too (the US ambassador to India), but in this regard they are in a majority.

You have to empathise with the Left: they all come from simple backgrounds. The Left is also very honest. And this is for real. You will never see them involved in any scandal relating to money. Their party presidents will never be caught on camera accepting Rs 1 lakh and silly amounts like that.

The Left truly has greater integrity than any other political party, and that is perhaps another reason why we need them so desperately in India.

All said and done, living with the Left is a bit like living with your mother-in-law. You do it in order to maintain peace and harmony, but then it is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and who better to experience this than the sedate Dr Manmohan Singh? There was a time, during Atal Behari Vajpayee’s regime, when I said that the women in his alliance would give him sleepless nights: today the gender has been replaced by an ideology, and I pity Dr Singh’s plight.

<b>Sleeping with the Left is a bit like sleeping with an elephant. Dangerous to say the least, because you never know when it might roll over.</b>

Colonel Dr Anil A Athale (retd)

The comrades and BJP are putting India in danger

August 20, 2007

So the cat is finally out of the bag! A regional party of Kerala [Images] and Bengal now wants to rule the country, run our foreign policy for the benefit of their 'fatherland' and get more Indian soldiers killed by jihadis by denying our army technology and help from Israel.

In one sense the transparently dishonest Communists are dead right: The nuke deal is NOT about the nuclear issue at all. It is a means to an end. The end being Indo-US strategic partnership for the next 40 years! This is essentially an adjustment that both countries are making to the emerging situation in the 21st century. It is true that right till the end of last century Indo-US relations bordered on cold to lukewarm. Who can forget the dispatch of the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal in 1971!

But in the same breath we must also acknowledge that after the August 1971 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the erstwhile Soviet Union, we had a virtual alliance with that country. On the other hand, for nearly 20 years, from the 1972 Shanghai Declaration by Nixon and Chou En-lai right till 1992, the US and China were in a similar quasi alliance. Much of China's spectacular progress is owed to the massive inflow of American capital and technology, both denied to India.

The end of the Soviet Union ushered in new global equations. The US now fears the rise of China and its likely domination of Asia, and sees a powerful India as a natural counterweight to Chinese power. On the other hand China has emerged as the biggest arms supplier to Pakistan, India's perpetual thorn, and much of that country's missiles directed at us are supplied by them. In this case there is a convergence of interests between the US and India.

This author was told nearly seven years ago by a very senior American analyst that the US would make sure that India becomes a superpower. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared so openly last year. But the various American laws dealing with nuclear proliferation were an obstacle to American transfer of technology to India. The 123 (Ek, do, teen) deal is a means to get over those obstacles. But the strong non-proliferation lobby in the US put spokes in the deal. To satisfy them some cosmetic measures had to be put in the deal to make it acceptable to them as well as the larger Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The Ek, do, teen deal reminds one of the famous Bollywood song of the same words that launched Madhuri Dixit's [Images] career; in similar vein the nuke deal is just the beginning of a long and durable strategic partnership between the two countries. In the 1970s and 1980s most Indians supported friendship with the Soviet Union, not on any ideological grounds but due to the fact that our interests coincided. Now they coincide with the Americans'. Any Indian with India's interest at heart would support this deal.

Curiously, the Indo-US deal is being opposed not just by the Communists in India but also by Pakistan, China and Al Qaeda [Images]; the latter has just issued a warning to India. It is indeed a shame on the Communists that they are on the same side as India's enemies.

Anyone even briefly aware of the Indian Communists' past will not be surprised at this behaviour. In 1941, during World War II, an 'Imperialist War' suddenly became a People's War once Nazi Germany [Images] attacked the Soviet Union. Closer to our time, in 1962 a faction of the Communist party (now under the name of CPI-M) broke away from the parent body that was pro-Soviet Union, due to the split in Communist movement worldwide. Indian Communists have had a pro-Soviet faction and pro-China faction, but no pro-India faction.

The CPI-M to this day refuses to accept that China was the aggressor in 1962 and had no sympathy for our jawans who died fighting the Chinese. Various documents including the Henderson Brooks Report clearly bring out the anti-national role of the Communists. Like the jihadi dream of worldwide 'Khilafat', the Indian Communists are also still wedded to 'Comintern' or the Communist International.

Public memory is short, but it was these very Communists who were in the forefront of the denunciation of the nuclear tests carried out by India in May 1998! For them to now cry foul over the curb on testing is, as I said earlier, transparently dishonest.

Juvenile debate

Much of the opposition to the deal is centred round the issue of nuclear testing. Not a word is uttered about the unfettered right India has to keep increasing its stockpile and research, none of which has been restricted. It needs to be reiterated that at present no country is carrying out open testing of new weapons. If our scientists are satisfied that they can do it in the lab using computers etc, there is no reason to disbelieve them. If and when China or some other country resumes testing, India is still free to follow.

It is the political reality today that it is the US that is interested in India becoming China's equal in the military nuclear field. This not so bizarre as it sounds since enough material is available to show that in 1964, when China first tested its nuclear weapons, it was the US that unsuccessfully urged India to go nuclear!

It is thanks to American technology and help through Israel that for the first time the Indian armed forces have an edge over the terrorists. Now the Communists want us to break these relations and get Indian soldiers killed by the terrorists in Kashmir.

But the attitude of the main opposition the BJP takes the cake. The nuke deal is a culmination of the process began by A B Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh. Their opposition to the deal smacks of short-term opportunism to bring down the government by hook or by crook. It is a classic case of opposition for the sake of opposition.

India, facing Chinese encirclement on the sea and a rapidly Talibanising Pakistan in the west, needs American technology to defend against rogue missile attacks. <span style='color:red'>By jeopardising the India-US partnership, the comrades and the BJP are putting the country's security in danger.</span>

Colonel Dr Anil Athale was formerly Joint Director, War History division, Ministry of Defence, and author of the official history of the India-China war of 1962
I disagree with Athale's contention that just because the NDA started the deal they have to support this. The version they started is far from this version. Its ridiculous for the commentators to insist that NDA support the deal in any form. THis deal has to be decfided on its merits of how it advances and holdbacks India's interests.

Acharya you should take some time to highlight the post as folks wont have time to read the whole thing.

Now from Deccan Chronicle, 20 August 2007.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Curious Silence on Hyde
<b>By Pran Chopra</b>

Like all his earlier statements on the subject, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement in Lok Sabha on August 13 on the 123 Agreement was a model of firmness, precision and clarity. It would have done credit to a top level nuclear scientist for its grasp of intricate technicalities. But it does that all the more to him, because it comes from a lifelong economist, who has been additionally wrapped up for years now in the political intricacies of governance in his kind of circumstances.

<b>But that only adds to the mystery of the absence of any reference by him to a key element in India’s nuclear relations with America, namely the Hyde Act, which, in most Indian comments in recent months, has been held to be the villain of the piece and chief cause of all the doubts which have lately arisen in India regarding the viability of the Indo-US nuclear "deal." It also makes one wonder whether and how far America considers itself to be bound by the 123 Agreement.</b>

Correspondingly, <b>it also raises the question whether India would be better off without the Agreement, that is, whether the shortcomings of the Agreement outweigh all of its advantages,</b> of which it certainly has some.

This question had always existed. But now it has been underscored by the <b>Prime Minister himself in his statement of August 13, in which he has mentioned some of the circumstances in which the Agreement could collapse. Some of them are rooted in the Agreement.

Some more, and more serious ones, have been added by the Hyde Act.</b>

<b>For a reason which is better considered later, the Prime Minister’s statement is silent on the Hyde Act. </b>Regarding 123, the statement is heavily weighted in favour of the Agreement. <b>The points he has picked up from the Agreement are not only the centre, but the substance of his statement in Lok Sabha.</b>

<b>The Agreement admits that it may collapse under the weight of the disagreements between the two countries over some of its provisions.</b> It explains that therefore an "elaborate and multi-layered consultation process" has been included with regard to any "future events" that may be cited by either party for seeking "termination of cooperation under the Agreement" or termination of the Agreement itself.

That is probably an amplification of the elegant remark by the Prime Minister in another context regarding what would happen if India carried out a nuclear explosion for testing a nuclear weapon.

<b>He said, "We have the right to test. They have the right to protest."</b> <b>That means either side will take such a step,</b> whether it be "testing" or "protesting," <b>only after considering the balance between the advantages of taking that step or foregoing the right to take it.</b>

<b>In other words, each country will have to consider the balance of advantage between its reasons for terminating the Agreement and the reasons why it has come thus far for reaching it.</b> Of course, <b>that will depend </b>less upon the wording of the text of any agreement than <b>upon the difference between the bargaining power of each country today and what that difference might be at the time when either country may think that the time has come for it to reassess the usefulness of the other country to it.</b>

<b>That distant measure of the difference at that time between the power status of either country in the eyes of the other will depend upon how well each country has, in the intervening period, utilised the power assets that it has today for maximising them by the time it reaches that critical date.</b>

<b><i>{Kicking the can downstream.}</i></b>

<b>So</b>, an <b>added question before India today turns out to be whether its efforts to maximise its bargaining power by that future date will be helped or hindered by India agreeing to the 123 Agreement today, or alternatively by carving out such alternatives to the Agreement as it may, today or tomorrow, forge with its present bargaining power.</b>

Compared with that, <b>it is relatively easy to speculate why he decided to remain silent on the Hyde Act. It could be a tactical reason, that he might as well take advantage of the absence of the Left opposition from the House to confine the debate to the Agreement, because the remaining opposition in the House was not too greatly opposed to it.</b>

<b>Or it could be the broader reason that it would be better to conserve its firepower on the Hyde Act for the fuller debate on nuclear and other foreign policy issues which would materialise not too far hence.</b>

<b>Or it could be a still broader consideration.</b> <b>India’s</b> contention has all along been that it <b>considers itself bound only by the bilateral agreement between the two countries, and not by any domestic legislation, such as the Hyde Act, which America may cite as justification for considering itself empowered to act against India for any act which America may unilaterally consider to be culpable.</b> <b>Silence on the Hyde Act would be a sufficient reiteration of that position</b>, without getting into a war of words with the opposition which may involve the government in verbalisations which would embarrass the governments of both countries at a time when both are jointly dealing with very sensitive issues. That would be a sufficient if silent reiteration of his position that, as quoted earlier, "We have the right to test. They have the right to protest."

<b><i>{I think this is the reason.}</i></b>

But that makes <b>it all the more necessary for India, and that without any avoidable waste of time, to draw the world’s attention to the many respects in which the Hyde Act goes beyond the limits of the Agreement. India must insist that before America begins to cross those limits it must clarify whether it is willing to comply with the 123 Agreement itself, and to sort out any gaps in interpretation which could be an embarrassment later to either country.</b>

This responsibility devolves individually upon each member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. A decision by the group as a whole but equally binding upon every member can fudge the judgment of each member on the many-sided issue before us. The issue is whether India is violating the 123 Agreement or America is by insisting that the Hyde Act must take precedence over the Agreement. That issue must decide how much of the responsibility, and the penalty, for a breakdown of the 123 Agreement, if it were to occur, should fall upon India, as a joint custodian of that Agreement along with America, and how much upon America as the unilateral author of the Hyde Act.


Pran Chopra is the doyen of op-ed writers in India. He always wries in Indian interests. I would take his views quite seriously.
I agree with Pran Chopra article, Govt should provide clarity, my question is whether it is clear to them.
This deal need debate not slogans or nonsense like insults on Hindus by refering "Havan" etc.

I think Moron Singh and Babus are more interested to have quick Chicken in ranch then on India's interest, they are behaving or rushing for Sept date, as if someone else will steal red nicely polished old car from used car lot.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>NDA demands Par panel on N deal </b>
PTI | New Delhi
The NDA on Monday asked the Government to constitute a Parliamentary panel to study the Indo-US nuclear deal and opposed the suggestion for setting up an expert group to examine the concerns voiced by the Left parties on it.

<b>"This is not a family affair of the UPA and Left. It's an issue that concerns the entire nation and, therefore, the Government should put in place some Parliamentary mechanism, something like a committee comprising members of both Houses, to study the Agreement,"</b> senior BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said on the sideline of an NDA meeting chaired by Leader of Opposition LK Advani.

His comments came after reports suggested that the Government might set up an expert group headed by the Prime Minister's special envoy for the nuclear deal, Shyam Saran, to study the Agreement in the light of the Left's objections on the pact.

<b>The ruling Congress has already rejected the BJP's demand for a joint parliamentary committee on the nuclear deal, which the Opposition says will limit India's strategic options.</b>

"The Government must wait for the recommendations of such a committee and until then the process should be halted," Malhotra said.

The Opposition, however, has no immediate plans to bring a no-confidence motion against the Government.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Ansari rejects discussion on N-deal</b>
PTI | New Delhi
Vice President of India and Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari on Monday rejected BJP's demand for a discussion on the Indo-US civil nuclear Agreement under Rule 168 that entails voting, saying that Parliamentary nod is not necessary for an international treaty.

<b>"Since it is not a constitutional obligation for the Executive to have the approval of Parliament on any international treaty or agreement, admittance of these motions which involve approval of Parliament will not be in order," </b>he said in his ruling.

Among the notices received, Ansari said, a few even wanted renegotiation or some demanded disapproval of the treaty or else to have voting on the floor.

The Chairman also said he is converting the notices into 'notices for discussion' under Rule 176.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Send Ansari to Pakistan.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)