07-04-2006, 08:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Scientist: NPT better than N-deal </b>Â Â Â Â
By PTI
Asian Age; July 3, 2006
http://www.asianage.com/?sam=2:1:235:23376...ter~than~N-deal
Mumbai, July 2: India would be better off signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which permits the exit of any signatory nation, rather than the nuclear deal with the US that will bind the country for "perpetuity", top nuclear scientist Homi Sethna has said.
"The NPT may be discriminatory, but we will still be allowed to exit whereas in the <b>current Indo-US deal which is under negotiation, India will remain bound in perpetuity," </b>Mr Sethna said while delivering a key note address at the Forum of Integrated National Security here on Saturday.
"Therefore, I prefer NPT...to signing the current deal (with the US)," said Mr Sethna, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission that has been linked to the countrys civil and military nuclear programmes. "<b>India is supposed to get only uranium for its nuclear programme to expand. Simply for this, so much compromising... is uncalled for," he said.</b>
"The Americans were out of the nuclear power reactor building business for the last 25 years. So where is the question of (getting) technology from them?" asked the octogenarian scientist credited with playing a key role in the 1974 nuclear test that saw Indias emergence as a nuclear weapons power.
"Therefore, (in order to end the current global sanctions on the nuclear programme), we rather sign the NPT and it will give an escape route from going through all this trauma of separation and getting a special status agreement with IAEA (under the additional protocol)," he said.
"I do not know how we have been tied down to this situation," Mr Sethna said. "The Indian government should now seriously think about it (signing the NPT). Instead of being looked down upon as a non-signatory all the time, go ahead and sign and break it immediately may be within three hours," he said.
Asked whether it would be unethical on Indias part to sign a deal with the US, he denied that this was the case, pointing to Indias need for energy security .
Concluding a treaty with the US is a "most difficult" task, said Mr Sethna, who has experience of dealings with the Americans during the 196Os and after the nuclear test in 1974. "We had experience with them earlier. I am not saying Americans are not reliable. I want to say, they have a system which makes them feel that they are superior and want to dictate terms," he said to applause from a gathering that included scientists and security analysts.
Mr Sethna said former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had given oral instructions to go ahead with building a nuclear device after he informed her about Chinas progress in developing atomic weapons.
Former AEC chairman P.K. Iyengar also referred to the deal and said that the testimonies before the US Congress and the additions recommended by the US Congressional panels to President Bushs proposal have come as a "shock".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By PTI
Asian Age; July 3, 2006
http://www.asianage.com/?sam=2:1:235:23376...ter~than~N-deal
Mumbai, July 2: India would be better off signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which permits the exit of any signatory nation, rather than the nuclear deal with the US that will bind the country for "perpetuity", top nuclear scientist Homi Sethna has said.
"The NPT may be discriminatory, but we will still be allowed to exit whereas in the <b>current Indo-US deal which is under negotiation, India will remain bound in perpetuity," </b>Mr Sethna said while delivering a key note address at the Forum of Integrated National Security here on Saturday.
"Therefore, I prefer NPT...to signing the current deal (with the US)," said Mr Sethna, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission that has been linked to the countrys civil and military nuclear programmes. "<b>India is supposed to get only uranium for its nuclear programme to expand. Simply for this, so much compromising... is uncalled for," he said.</b>
"The Americans were out of the nuclear power reactor building business for the last 25 years. So where is the question of (getting) technology from them?" asked the octogenarian scientist credited with playing a key role in the 1974 nuclear test that saw Indias emergence as a nuclear weapons power.
"Therefore, (in order to end the current global sanctions on the nuclear programme), we rather sign the NPT and it will give an escape route from going through all this trauma of separation and getting a special status agreement with IAEA (under the additional protocol)," he said.
"I do not know how we have been tied down to this situation," Mr Sethna said. "The Indian government should now seriously think about it (signing the NPT). Instead of being looked down upon as a non-signatory all the time, go ahead and sign and break it immediately may be within three hours," he said.
Asked whether it would be unethical on Indias part to sign a deal with the US, he denied that this was the case, pointing to Indias need for energy security .
Concluding a treaty with the US is a "most difficult" task, said Mr Sethna, who has experience of dealings with the Americans during the 196Os and after the nuclear test in 1974. "We had experience with them earlier. I am not saying Americans are not reliable. I want to say, they have a system which makes them feel that they are superior and want to dictate terms," he said to applause from a gathering that included scientists and security analysts.
Mr Sethna said former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had given oral instructions to go ahead with building a nuclear device after he informed her about Chinas progress in developing atomic weapons.
Former AEC chairman P.K. Iyengar also referred to the deal and said that the testimonies before the US Congress and the additions recommended by the US Congressional panels to President Bushs proposal have come as a "shock".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->