UPA's Survival On 22nd July? And Aftermath

[ramana]

Can experts re-configure the various groupings and see what can and will be done by the winning side? it has to be a decisive win and not a squeak through.

[acharya]

<b>
SP, BSP at each other’s throat</b>

Atiq Khan

Both accuse one another of horse-trading and threatening rival MPs

Photo: Subir Roy

Counter-charges: Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh, along with his son and party MP, Akhilesh Yadav, after a press conference in Lucknow on Wednesday.

LUCKNOW: Six days from the crucial July 22 trial of strength in the Lok Sabha, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party stepped up the offensive on Wednesday with both accusing each other of horse-trading and threatening rival Members of Parliament. The two main protagonists have the maximum stake from Uttar Pradesh in the impending showdown in the Lok Sabha.

While the Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh accused the Mayawati Government of threatening his party MPs and executing its game plan through the Director-General of Police, the ADG (Law and Order) and officials of the Chief Minister’s Office, the BSP State unit president, Swami Prasad Maurya, denied that his party was poaching Samajwadi MPs. He said the Samajwadi Party was indulging in horse-trading.

Mr. Maurya said the other MPs were welcome to the BSP fold only after resigning their Lok Sabha seats following which they would be re-nominated as party candidates.

Expressing confidence in the UPA Government winning the trial of strength, the Samajwadi chief told reporters here that the country’s scenario would change after July 22. Mr. Singh reiterated that the SP’s support to the UPA Government on the nuclear deal was in national interest and also to prevent communal forces from coming to power at the Centre. Mr. Singh ruled out the possibility of him, or other SP leaders, joining the UPA Government.

The former Chief Minister alleged that the Government had struck a deal with MPs lodged in jails with the assurance that cases against them would be withdrawn. He alleged that crores of rupees had changed hands in the process. Though the SP president did not name the MPs, the reference was to SP MPs Atiq Ahmed and Afzal Ansari and the BSP MP Uma Kant Yadav.

Mr. Singh said even his party MLAs were being subjected to murderous attacks and implicated in false cases allegedly by BSP workers. He said the recent attacks on SP MLAs Chandra Bhadra Singh, Irfan Solanki and Dharmendra Kashyap reinforced his charge that the ruling party and the Government wanted to suppress the SP workers.

Addressing a separate press conference, Mr. Maurya, who is the Cooperatives Minister in the Mayawati Cabinet, refuted SP general secretary Amar Singh’s allegations that some SP MPs had been offered Rs.30 crore by the BSP for switching loyalties. He accused Mr. Amar Singh and Mr. Mulayam Singh of being capable of buying any MP.

The BSP leader assailed Mr. Amar Singh for producing the SP MP from Pratapgarh, Akshay Pratap Singh, before the media in Delhi on Tuesday. (The MP had alleged that the ruling party had threatened to settle him if he voted for the UPA Government. Later, a written complaint was given to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee).

[shamu]

Where are the astrologers? <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They can make a huge bundle now.

[ramana]

This is a no holds battle going on and what role have astrologers have to say unless for psy-ops by promising raja yoga to the fence sitters!

[Guest]

Astrologers are predicting change of government and future downfall of Congress Party. From 18th full moon will start next 20 plus years of change for India.

Please contribute to Mudy Astrologer. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[shamu]

Astrologer Mudy's data (if properly channeled) can be used as psy-ops against the ruling coalition MPs in this big battle.

[acharya]

<b>
We will get 280-plus, says Vayalar Ravi</b>

Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI: Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Vayalar Ravi said here on Tuesday that he was confident the government would win the trust vote next week with 280 plus votes cast in its favour.

“I will not disclose all my cards now. I will not indulge in the numbers game and tell you any details. But I am confident that we will get 280 plus votes. Everything is positive,” Mr. Ravi told reporters.

He questioned the Left’s claim that it had withdrawn support because anti-imperialism, especially anti-U.S. imperialism, was its basic ideology with which it could not compromise.

He also dismissed the Left’s criticism that the Congress had voted along with the Bharatiya Janata Party against the V.P. Singh government. “The V.P. Singh government came into power with the outside support of the Left and the BJP. We were in the Opposition. We used the first opportunity available — when the BJP withdrew its support to the government — to vote against it. In its entire history the Congress has never had an understanding with the BJP or its precursor the Jana Sangh,” he said.

As for the anti-U.S. imperialism stance, Mr. Ravi pointed out that in 1977 the Communist Party of India (Marxist) opposed the Congress although Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister had signed the historic friendship treaty with the then Soviet Union. “In 1971 she [Indira Gandhi] stood firm when the Americans sent their warships to the Bay of Bengal. After 1971 she abolished the privy purses and nationalised banks, but they [the Left] joined the so-called grand alliance against the Congress.”

His charge against the Left was that even as early as 1967 the Left had joined the then Jana Sangh to set up the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal which formed governments in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

He pointed out that BJP President Rajnath Singh had already begun talking of “building a Ram temple [on the disputed site in Ayodhya],” if the BJP was to come to power.

As for the CPI(M) overtures to Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati, Mr. Ravi said “Mayawati and the BJP have set up coalition governments several times in Uttar Pradesh. She can once again go with the BJP.”

[acharya]

<b>
Akali Dal to vote against UPA</b>

Sarabjit Pandher

CHANDIGARH: The Shiromani Akali Dal will vote against the UPA government when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeks a vote of confidence in Parliament on July 22. The party cannot go along with any ruling dispensation in which the Congress is a constituent or has provided support, Punjab Chief Minister and patron of the Akali Dal Parkash Singh Badal told journalists here on Tuesday.

While ruling out the possibility of Akali MPs abstaining from voting, he said there was no need to issue a whip as the party stood united on the issue.

He denied that any senior leader had ever favoured going against a decision taken in the NDA, of which the Akali Dal is an important constituent. “We have selected our allies after thorough deliberations and we shall stand only by them.” Mr. Badal said the Akali Dal was historically opposed to the political programme of the Congress. “The issue before us is should the UPA government, which is responsible for an unprecedented price rise and more hardship for the common man, a government that has repeatedly discriminated against Punjab, be allowed to function any further.”

He said the Akali Dal could not vote for the UPA just because it was headed by a Sikh. “Personally, I place Dr. Manmohan Singh in high esteem. He is intelligent, decent, honest and a well-meaning person. But he is in the wrong party.”

Nobody had forgotten what the Congress had done to Punjab, especially the Sikh community, Mr. Badal said.

[Guest]

The Left's gameplan of getting Mayawati and other players like TRS, RLD into UNPA is a way to reduce the number of allies BJP can get for the next election.

They will project Mayawati as the next PM and provide competition to NDA. NDA should have been the natural winners bit the commies are queering the pitch.

[acharya]

<b>BJP revokes suspension</b>
Neena Vyas
NEW DELHI: The BJP on Wednesday revoked the suspension order against its MP from Rajkot in Gujarat, Vallabhai Kathiria.

Party spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said here that the suspension order against Mr. Kathiria, four-time MP from Rajkot, was revoked “after he publicly apologised and regretted his earlier action of indiscipline.”

Disciplinary action had been taken against him and another Gujarat MP Somabhai Patel after the Gujarat Assembly election last year. However, no decision had as yet been taken in Mr. Patel’s case, Mr. Rudy added.

Asked whether the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, would vote in the confidence motion to be moved by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 21, Mr. Rudy said: “I have no information. Yes, a whip has been issued to all MPs to be present and vote against the government. If Mr. Vajpayee is well, he will come and exercise his vote.”

On Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi’s statement that a lot of Opposition MPs were in touch with him, Mr. Rudy said: “Mr. Gandhi should stop daydreaming.”

Mr. Rudy denied that Mr. Advani had told the Prime Minister that he had been unable to carry his party along with him in favour of the nuclear deal.

[Capt M Kumar]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> Heard:
aur nahin aur nahin
<!--emo&:bcow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_cowboy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_cowboy.gif' /><!--endemo--> UPA hore nahin
min translation:
no more of UPA
Sonia says:
v don't need lessons on patriotism for country.
Which country she is talking about?

[Guest]

She is worried, who will offer her plane to return back to Turin.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Govt rename Lucknow airport to woo RLD Chief </b>
Pioneer.com
PTI | New Delhi 
Posted online: July 17, 2008
<b>Wooing Rashtriya Lok Dal ahead of the trust vote in Lok Sabha, the Government on Thursday decided to name the Lucknow airport after Charan Singh, the late Prime Minister and father of RLD leader Ajit Singh</b>.

RLD has three MPs in the Lok Sabha and its support to the UPA may be crucial in the confidence vote to be taken on July 22.

After a meeting of the Union Cabinet, presided over by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Finance Minister P Chidambaram told reporters that the decision to name the Amausi airport in Lucknow as 'Chaudhary Charan Singh Airport' will honour the sentiments of the people and be a befitting tribute to the late Prime Minister, eminent freedom fighter and a leader of the farmers.

Asked about the timing of the decision, Chidambaram said that a request from the Uttar Pradesh Government was pending for quite some time.

When asked by media persons whether the decision will help the UPA Government in the floor test, a senior Cabinet minister quipped "it will facilitate better take offs and landings."

Ajit Singh himself reacted to the decision saying he was happy with it though it has come late.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Capt M Kumar]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> So far, Parkash Singh Badal has played down the need to barricade his party MPs. And the Congress is hoping he doesn’t change his mind.

Peeved at not being re-inducted into the Manmohan Cabinet, JMM patron Shibu Soren has reportedly been offered chief ministership of Jharkhand and two junior slots at the Centre. Alternatively, he can have a Cabinet berth and an MoS at the Centre.

Sources said the Congress is also working on support or abstentions by a couple of BJD members who do not get along with Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik. A similar exercise is focused on individual BJP MPs.

These include those pitted against chief ministers and state party leaders. As a counter NDA measure, Patnaik is trying to influence one of JMM’s five MPs, who hails from Orissa.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/St...ent=strParentID

[acharya]

<b>
West Bengal passes motion against deal</b>

Marcus Dam

KOLKATA: The Left parties are opposed not only to the India-United States civilian nuclear deal but also to the designs of the U.S. to establish its hegemony across the world. “The nuclear deal should not be viewed in isolation,” Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, told the West Bengal Assembly on Thursday.

The Left parties’ stand on the nuclear deal was in contrast to that of the Bharatiya Janata Party “that seeks a strategic partnership” with the U.S. as does the United Progressive Alliance government “which has failed to abide by an independent, non-aligned foreign policy as stipulated in the Common Minimum Programme.” The BJP was opposing the deal only to topple the government, he said.

He was speaking on a non-official motion against the nuclear deal that was later passed by the House.

While Trinamool Congress members boycotted the proceedings, those of the Congress walked out in protest against the motion being admitted for discussion, on the ground that a trust vote pertaining to the issue was scheduled in the Lok Sabha on July 22.

“We are not against nuclear power par se…..But our opposition to the nuclear deal is grounded on principles and to safeguard the country’s strategic autonomy and ensure an independent foreign policy. We will continue to oppose it both inside and outside Parliament,” the Chief Minister said.

The move to go ahead with the deal was in contravention of the decision arrived at by the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal that it would not go forward with the deal without the committee reaching a consensus on the issue, Mr. Bhattacharjee said.

[acharya]

<b> We stand united: NDA</b>

Neena Vyas

“Nuclear deal is not in nation’s interest; UPA government must be voted out”

— Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

CHALKING OUT STRATEGY: BJP leader L.K. Advani and other NDA leaders (from left) Sukhbir Singh Badal(Akali Dal), Jaswant Singh and Rajnath Singh (BJP) and George Fernandes at a meeting with Chief Ministers and other leaders of the National Democratic Alliance-ruled States in New Delhi on Thursday.

NEW DELHI: Chief Ministers and senior leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance on Thursday declared they were united in their stand that the Manmohan Singh government must be defeated on the floor of the House.

They were meeting at the residence of Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K. Advani.

Briefing correspondents, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley asserted that the Akali Dal would stand solidly with the NDA and was an integral part of it.

Asked why that party did not issue a whip to its MPs to vote against the government, he said: “We do not probe why an ally has not issued a whip.”

The Chief Ministers of Rajasthan and Karnataka were not present at the meeting as they had to deal with pressing issues, Mr. Jaitley said. The Shiv Sena was represented by a few of its MPs, including Anand Geethe.

None of the NDA partners was with Mr. Jaitley when he addressed the press.

Mr. Jaitley said the trust vote was discussed in detail. There was consensus that the United Progressive Alliance government had failed on all fronts related to the economy, including agriculture and inflation, internal security and the nuclear deal, which was “not in the country’s interest.”

“We will take forward the political debate on the complete failure of leadership in the government, which has betrayed the people,” he said.

To a query whether the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had agreed to vote along with the Opposition, he said: “When there is such development we will let you know.”

Asked about convicted MPs getting permission to vote, Mr. Jaitley, who is also a senior advocate, said: “If the relevant courts give the MPs permission to come out and vote, we do not want to say anything.”

Asked whether the numbers-related developments would affect the image of the Prime Minister’s Office if the government lost the trust vote, Mr. Jaitley said: “We do not want the PMO to become a bargaining counter.”

Earlier in the day, BJP leader M. Venkaiah Naidu presented to the media independent MP from Amroha in Uttar Pradesh Harish Nagpal, who has decided to vote against the government.

[acharya]

<b>Trust vote: Why UPA must think out of the box</b>
July 17, 2008
According to media reports, the United Progressive Alliance government is proposing to seek the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha on the basis of a simple, one-line motion, stating (with appropriate verbal variations) that "This House expresses its confidence in the government." The government needs to seriously consider whether there are other ways of making the most of the trust vote.

It would have indeed been tactically a vastly superior move on the part of the government to have made the Left to move a motion of no-confidence. Apart from tactics, it would have been proper too. It was the Left's manifest want of confidence in the nuclear deal that led to the withdrawal of support to the government from the outside, triggering the ongoing political crisis.

The government could have legitimately argued that it was for those who have lost confidence in it to give public expression to it on the floor of the House. The government was under no obligation to act on the assumption that simply because of the Left's withdrawal of support, it has ceased to enjoy the confidence of Parliament and the nation across the board. Such a course would have also had the advantage of forcing the Left to side more conspicuously with the Bharatiya Janata Party (or vice versa). It is not too late for the government to adopt this strategy.

In the event of the government sticking to its present line of thinking, there is a further refinement with which it can up the ante, throwing those opposing its nuclear policy into disarray. The government should think a dozen times before it gives its case away by a blanket motion of expression of confidence. After all, why should it give a handle to its opponents to blur the one and only cause of the motion and to talk at large by raising all kinds of issues that never figured in the public discourse preceding the motion? Even now, the focus of the country-wide campaign of the Left is only the nuclear deal.

The omnibus motion under the consideration of the government will enormously help the opponents to create the illusion that they want to pull the government down for overall mismanagement and not on the nuclear deal. The government will be unwise to hand on a platter such an opportunity to extend the scope and sweep of the Lok Sabha debate to its own detriment.

Out-of-the-box approach

The best thing, therefore, is for the government to make it crystal clear to all sections of opinion in the country by changing the language of the motion that it is meant to be an endorsement of the nuclear deal and it has no bearing on any of the other complaints the critics may have against the conduct of the government.

There is yet another aspect where an imaginative, and out-of-the-box, approach by the government will immensely raise its stock in the eyes of the people. It will help elicit the real will of the House on the nuclear deal, especially in the context of the statement (which sounds credible on the face of it) of Rahul Gandhi [Images] that many young MPs, cutting across parties, view the deal to be in national interest and are unhappy about the stand of their party leadership.

There is, therefore, every justification for the government to propose that MPs should not be bound by party whip but should be allowed to vote on the motion as per their independently and genuinely held opinion. This will also put paid to all the malodorous contentions of MPs being on the take for Rs.25-30 crores each for casting their votes one way or the other.

There are precedents for all the suggested courses of action and with the needed ingenuity and adroitness, the government can make the vote of confidence a memorable feather in its cap. Even if notice of the motion has already been given, it can be replaced with a substitute motion.

[acharya]

<b>NDA will not form government if UPA falls, says Naidu</b>

July 17, 2008 19:35 IST


Maintaining that it wanted to seek a fresh mandate from the people, the Bharatiya Janata Party on Thursday said it would not try to form a government even if it had the numbers in case the United Progressive Alliance government failed the floor test in the Lok Sabha on July 22.

"I am saying it on record that the NDA will not try to form a government if the UPA falls during the vote of confidence. We will go to the people and convince them about the failures of the UPA government and seek their mandate," BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu told media-persons.

"Election is the only solution," Naidu added.
<b>
Making a comparison between BJP-led NDA and Congress-led UPA, Naidu claimed that NDA was a stronger coalition. He said the Congress failed to maintain coalition dharma, leading to an exodus of supporters.</b>

"Congress brought up the issue of nuclear deal even though it was not in the common minimum programme of the UPA and antagonised the Left parties," Naidu said.

The BJP, already upbeat from recent victories in assembly elections in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka, has been gearing up for the general elections for the past few months. It was the first party to announce a list of candidates for the Lok Sabha polls.

Naidu said talks were on with smaller parties to win them over to the NDA camp. "Post-poll alliances may also take place and are not being ruled out," he said.

[acharya]

<b>Is the N-deal good? Debate rages</b>

July 17, 2008 14:46 IST


As the crisis triggered by the government's move to go ahead with the nuclear deal has reached a flash point with the ruling party being forced to seek a trust vote in Parliament, there is a renewed interest nationwide in the debate over the merits and demerits of the proposed civil nuclear energy pact with the US.

Speaking to UNI, several eminent experts have questioned the need for the deal at all to meet the country's civil energy requirements, arguing for diverting the huge amount involved in it to tapping the renewable and other sources of energy.

Some have opposed the proposed pact on the ground that it will put many constraints on the country to pursue its independent foreign policy, whereas others have described it as a 'fair deal'' and a great opportunity for the country to restart its nuclear reactors to meet the growing energy needs.

Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Ashok Parasarthy, former scientific adviser to prime minister Indira Gandhi [Images], and Prabir Purkaystha of the Delhi Science Forum have come out with very strong views against the deal, while Dr Rajesh Rajgopalan of JNU and defence expert Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal find the deal as a great opportunity for the country to operationalise its defunct nuclear reactors and get the ones based on latest technology to produce 40,000 MW of energy badly needed to drive the country's economic growth.

Dr Purkaystha says the cost of the per KW nuclear energy at present was $4000, a cost at which a thermal power plant based on solar energy would produce the same amount of power, minus the hazards of the nuclear radiation and the fear of stoppage of supplies of fuel by the US and other suppliers in future.

These calculations, he says have not been done in the abstract but based on the actual costs that have come for a 1600 MW nuclear power plant installed by a French company in Finland. When the agreement was signed the cost was $2650, but now there has been a 25 per cent escalation in the cost which has come to $4000 per KW.

''The figures are there on all international websites, and could be checked by anyone interested,'' he said.

Even if the nuclear energy is taken as the most suitable option for the country, there were so many difficulties with the 123 Agreement that the deal could not be given a clean chit he says.

He said it would be a wishful thinking that if the US stopped supplies of nuclear fuel, India would get it from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. ''One should not forget that the US was behind the formation of the NSG after India carried out nuclear tests in Pokhran,'' he said.

Even before the agreement was finalised, India was forced to vote against Iran at the IAEA under US pressure despite the fact that Iran had not violated any of the international rules, he said.

The former chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has also attacked the deal and the safeguards agreement. The government contention that under the agreement, it was free to take ''corrective measures', has been hotly contested by him.

He says the phrase was very vague and was found only in the preamble to the Draft agreement, because of which it had no legal binding.

Moreover, the corrective measures are to be taken to keep the nuclear reactors operational, and if the Nuclear Suppliers Group stopped supply of uranium, there was no scope for any meaningful corrective steps, he said.

Dr Gopalakrishnan also said the government was befooling the people by saying that the Hyde Act of the US government would not override the 123 agreement.

''In fact the Hyde Act is a domestic law and the 123 agreement has to work within its confines, and this has been made amply clear by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [Images] in her February 18 statement to the US Congress,'' he said.

Moreover, the nuclear energy would come at a much higher cost per unit of electricity compared to conventional coal or hydro power, which the country can generate without any foreign imports.

However, experts like Prof Rajesh Rajgopalan of JNU strongly favour the deal. He says the fear of India's strategic programme being disturbed in case the deal fell apart was baseless as the country had enough of reserve uranium to carry on with its strategic programme outside the safeguarded facilities.

Without the deal with the US, India could not get any material for operating its nuclear power plants from anywhere without putting its entire nuclear industry under safeguards, he says.

The rules were changed after the Iraq war, after it was found that the country even after having signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, had diverted some of the nuclear material to non-civil use.

India wanted to go back to the previous situation in which it would put only imported material under the safeguards instead of the whole industry, he said.

After the agreement, only 14 reactors for which India would be importing the uranium would be open to international inspection.

Regarding the rest of the reactors in which the indigenous uranium would be used, there will be no need of putting them under international inspection, he said.

Replying to the criticism of the safeguards agreement over the phrase ''corrective measure'' which India can take in case of disruption of supplies, he said it was in fact good to keep it vague as it gave the country more scope and more choice to act if any contingency arrived.

He also rubbished the criticism that the Hyde Act would override the provisions of the 123 Agreement. In fact the Hyde Act removes the bar put by the US Atomic Energy Act on the US Administration to cooperate with India as it was not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However, Parasarthy, strongly disputes those who say that the 123 Agreement was delinked from the Hyde Act.

The Act, he maintained, clearly said the deal would come to an end the moment India carried out any nuclear test, and it required that even if the country built up a reserve of fuel, the US would ensure that it was not large enough to enable it to keep its reactors operational if the supply was cut off following any civil nuclear sanctions that the US Congress might impose in the event of the country carrying out any nuclear tests.

Moreover, Parasarthy said, under the Hyde Act, the US Administration was required to get an undertaking from the India that it would not produce weapon grade plutonium even from its own unsafeguarded reactors after a specific future date, which would greatly hit the country's weapons programme. The Act also required India to adopt a foreign policy in concord with that of the US government, he said.

Besides, the 123 did not cover US supply of technology and technical facilities relating to uranium enrichment and heavy water production, and for reprocessing too, there would be no supply of technology and facilities, said Mr Parasarthy, adding that the only thing India was allowed to do was to reprocess the spent fuel using its own technology and technical facilities.

On the other hand, Japan [Images] and Korea have been provided US technology and facilities under their 123 agreements, he sought to point out.

Dr Parasarthy also criticises the 123 agreement for its ''silence'' on arbitration.

''The act merely says that if any disagreement between the Parties arises, it will be negotiated and settled, but what would happen if they fail to resolve the agreement through negotiations,'' said Parasarthy, adding that the country might have to pay a very heavy price for it.

Under the Agreement, the parties can terminate the treaty if they decide that a mutually acceptable resolution of its reasons for seeking termination has not been possible, and that it cannot be achieved through consultations. But then question arises that if things cannot be resolved through negotiations. Then they should be taken to arbitration, but the 123 is silent on that, he said.

However, according to another expert Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, India has in a nutshell got a ''fair deal''.

Article-by-article comparison of the 123 agreements signed by China and India clearly shows that India has got a better deal, he said.

He sought to point out that Article 2.1 states that each party to the agreement shall implement it in accordance with its national laws. The opposition parties have complained that the provisions of the Hyde Act will override the provisions of the 123 Agreement, but they do not explain how US domestic laws can compel the Indian government into accepting conditions that are not in the national interest, he argues.

If one sees in terms of international law, the provisions of China's 123 agreement are quite objectionable by Indian standards.

According to Article 2.1, China may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws to justify violation of the agreement and that Chinese exports pursuant to the agreement will be subject to the US laws prevailing at the time.

"There is no such provision in the 123 (Article 16.4) relating to India. It simply states that the agreement will be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law,'' he said.

As far as the right to reprocess spent fuel was concerned, India's standpoint has been accepted and it is allowed to establish a separate re-processing facility and that re-processing will be carried out under IAEA safeguards.

Brig Kanwal also says that the uranium reserves India has were sufficient for its strategic programme. However, India has already committed itself for a credible minimum deterrence, he sought to point out.

He said the nuclear reactors of the country were operating at 50 per cent of their capacity and in a period of 10 to 15 years, they would come to a grinding halt.

Moreover, without the deal, India would not get the latest reactor technology which Russia [Images] and France [Images] can now supply.

Harinder Sikhon, a researcher, says the nuclear deal was the only opportunity for India to get fuel supplies for its reactors, as a new administration may be very conservative about non-proliferation and so may not be so much in favour of the deal.

She said those who were talking about the restrictions against India to test nuclear weapon should remember that even without the deal, sanctions could be imposed on India if it carried out any nuclear test.

[acharya]

Congress Party and Bush have hired paid agents to abuse all opposition parties on discussion boad like this to mobilse support for this fraud nuclear deal which will ultimately steal our freedom like British Raj deal.
by Raj on Jul 18, 2008 04:10 AM Permalink | Hide replies

People of India know these tactics very well and they are not going to be fooled by this back scene drama. Mass Murderer Bush who has the curse of millions of innocents who lost their lives due to his evil imperialistic policies will never bring blessing to India rather than sharing that curse. Can anybody tell more when than 400 millions Indians living in remote Indian villages who cannot afford to pay electricity bills, how this deal will benefit them.
Mabe this is lottery for MMS, Sonia & Co. who will collect prize for 10 future generations but common Indians will never benefit.

Even though this deal is passed the life of this deal will be as short as present Congress rule.

They cannot put the seal of Imperialism on the heart of our young generations and all this will backfire soon. India is a great nation not like Georgia, Ukraine, Phillipines, Nigeria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan where they can put their stooge or pawn and control everything with Puppet government.