07-17-2008, 02:13 AM
What a deal!
The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal is a godsend for those who want to learn how to evaluate a project without going to expensive business schools â how, without going into critical issues and making a cost-benefit analysis, one can decide whether something is in the ânational interest.â
To Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the nuclear deal ought to be good because his friend George Bush patted him and said âwe can do business with you.â His commitment to the U.S. President is the deciding factor; to the Congress MPs, the deal cannot but be good because their party chief ordained it to be so; to the rest of the UPA crowd, it has to be good because the BJP says it is bad.
To the leaders of the Samajwadi Party, the deal has suddenly become good because the ruling combine agreed to switch off the cases against its leaders and revive the cases against rival Mayawati; and to the TRS, the nuclear deal is good or bad depending on whether the UPA agrees to a separate Telangana state.
What a lesson in project evaluation, courtesy our beloved ânetas!â
Ananda Murti Vemuri,
Visakhapatnam
Neither Congressmen nor any of their allies have been able to explain the positive features of the nuclear deal. The Prime Minister is unnecessarily stubborn, and his party colleagues are expectedly pliant. What and how does the nation gain by entering into such a controversial deal, that too, by resorting to every dirty political trick? With every passing day, the opponents of the deal have been strengthening their arguments with convincing logic but the proponents of the deal have let out only pathetic lamentations.
T.S. Pattabhi Raman,
Coimbatore
The common man is confused and baffled by the diametrically opposed views of experts and political leaders on the nuclear deal that has political, legal and technical implications. In the absence of a transparent and objective assessment, the people would not be in a position to know whether or not the deal is in the national interest. Wherein lies the truth?
The allegation that the run-up to the trust vote has a corporate dimension to it has made the situation worse and the issue more contentious. The trend of allowing the corporate world to decide the future of the country is indeed dangerous.
V.K. Sathyavan Nair,
Kottayam
Day in and day out, political parties issue statements saying they will support or oppose the confidence motion in Parliament not on the merits of the deal but on the basis of their demands which have nothing to do with the deal per se. The conditions put forth by parties for supporting the UPA government are: parochial (demand for a separate state); personal (demand for a ministerial berth); and business-driven (settling of a family feud in a corporate house).
Similarly, the reasons advanced by parties opposing the deal are parochial and ideological. In all this, where is dispassionate evaluation of the merits and demerits of the deal?
R.P. Viswanath,
Chennai
The debate on the nuclear issue has raised tremendous heat and dust, leaving everyone confused. From the beginning, the deal was handled in a non-transparent and unconvincing manner. The right way forward would have been to appoint a committee of apolitical experts. The committeeâs decision should have been treated as final.
D. Balakrishnan,
Coimbatore
It is interesting to note that in their enthusiasm to please George Bush, the proponents of the nuclear deal forgot to include even a comprehensive arbitration clause in the text (âJudge the nuclear deal on facts, not convictions,â July 15). Americaâs self-centred attitude is evident in all its international dealings. From Rio de Janeiro to the recently-concluded G8 summit, the U.S. has not compromised its interests for a greater common cause. How, then, can we expect Mr. Bush to have special concern for the energy crisis towards which India is heading?
John Thomas,
Irinjalakuda
It is evident that the UPA government and the Prime Minister have been obfuscating facts. America has never come to Indiaâs assistance. It is to the credit of our nation that it has emerged stronger after all the impediments posed by the U.S. in the past. It is sad that the government is seeking the confidence of Parliament on an issue which is not as serious as the grave problems facing the nation.
S.S. Rajagopalan,
Chennai
Madurai
The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal is a godsend for those who want to learn how to evaluate a project without going to expensive business schools â how, without going into critical issues and making a cost-benefit analysis, one can decide whether something is in the ânational interest.â
To Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the nuclear deal ought to be good because his friend George Bush patted him and said âwe can do business with you.â His commitment to the U.S. President is the deciding factor; to the Congress MPs, the deal cannot but be good because their party chief ordained it to be so; to the rest of the UPA crowd, it has to be good because the BJP says it is bad.
To the leaders of the Samajwadi Party, the deal has suddenly become good because the ruling combine agreed to switch off the cases against its leaders and revive the cases against rival Mayawati; and to the TRS, the nuclear deal is good or bad depending on whether the UPA agrees to a separate Telangana state.
What a lesson in project evaluation, courtesy our beloved ânetas!â
Ananda Murti Vemuri,
Visakhapatnam
Neither Congressmen nor any of their allies have been able to explain the positive features of the nuclear deal. The Prime Minister is unnecessarily stubborn, and his party colleagues are expectedly pliant. What and how does the nation gain by entering into such a controversial deal, that too, by resorting to every dirty political trick? With every passing day, the opponents of the deal have been strengthening their arguments with convincing logic but the proponents of the deal have let out only pathetic lamentations.
T.S. Pattabhi Raman,
Coimbatore
The common man is confused and baffled by the diametrically opposed views of experts and political leaders on the nuclear deal that has political, legal and technical implications. In the absence of a transparent and objective assessment, the people would not be in a position to know whether or not the deal is in the national interest. Wherein lies the truth?
The allegation that the run-up to the trust vote has a corporate dimension to it has made the situation worse and the issue more contentious. The trend of allowing the corporate world to decide the future of the country is indeed dangerous.
V.K. Sathyavan Nair,
Kottayam
Day in and day out, political parties issue statements saying they will support or oppose the confidence motion in Parliament not on the merits of the deal but on the basis of their demands which have nothing to do with the deal per se. The conditions put forth by parties for supporting the UPA government are: parochial (demand for a separate state); personal (demand for a ministerial berth); and business-driven (settling of a family feud in a corporate house).
Similarly, the reasons advanced by parties opposing the deal are parochial and ideological. In all this, where is dispassionate evaluation of the merits and demerits of the deal?
R.P. Viswanath,
Chennai
The debate on the nuclear issue has raised tremendous heat and dust, leaving everyone confused. From the beginning, the deal was handled in a non-transparent and unconvincing manner. The right way forward would have been to appoint a committee of apolitical experts. The committeeâs decision should have been treated as final.
D. Balakrishnan,
Coimbatore
It is interesting to note that in their enthusiasm to please George Bush, the proponents of the nuclear deal forgot to include even a comprehensive arbitration clause in the text (âJudge the nuclear deal on facts, not convictions,â July 15). Americaâs self-centred attitude is evident in all its international dealings. From Rio de Janeiro to the recently-concluded G8 summit, the U.S. has not compromised its interests for a greater common cause. How, then, can we expect Mr. Bush to have special concern for the energy crisis towards which India is heading?
John Thomas,
Irinjalakuda
It is evident that the UPA government and the Prime Minister have been obfuscating facts. America has never come to Indiaâs assistance. It is to the credit of our nation that it has emerged stronger after all the impediments posed by the U.S. in the past. It is sad that the government is seeking the confidence of Parliament on an issue which is not as serious as the grave problems facing the nation.
S.S. Rajagopalan,
Chennai
Madurai