07-21-2008, 05:13 AM
Pros and cons
The article âMissing the wood for the treesâ (July 19) was an exceptionally well balanced assessment of the pros and cons of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. It brings out how a badly needed dialogue has been reduced to a no-holds-barred confrontation for political one-upmanship. From Indiaâs point of view, the deal may not be the best but it certainly is good. Its purpose is not energy self-sufficiency in perpetuity. It is about getting a supplementary source of energy. The argument that sovereignty will be compromised by signing the deal is unacceptable. All international agreements, even those between equal parties, involve some commitment at the cost of sovereignty. For a meaningful dialogue we should actually ask âwhy notâ rather than âwhy.â
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
* * *
N. Ravi has made out a strong case for the nuclear deal. He has also pointed out that it will be an uphill task for any future government to resurrect the deal with a new government in the U.S. MPs, irrespective of their party line, should see not only the advantages of the deal but also the need for energy, particularly in a situation where there is acute shortage of power. The deal should be concluded in the overall national interest.
R. Ramachandra Ayyar,
Chennai
* * *
History beckons the Indian political class to rise above narrow ideological and political considerations to save the nuclear deal, and ensure that an international agreement initiated by the government is validated. Cooperation with the U.S. may be the answer to our infrastructural woes â a major constraining factor in our development.
P. Esakki Muthu,
Mumbai
* * *
The article is an objective and brilliant analysis of the much maligned nuclear deal. I wish it had appeared earlier to dispel the doubts of those who oppose the deal. While the ideological opposition by the Left parties is understandable, the objection from the rest, including experts and the BJP, is nothing but nit-picking and indeed âperipheral and trivial.â
B. Sankaranarayanan,
Chennai
* * *
The nuclear deal will demonstrate to the world that India is a responsible state. In spite of our not being a signatory to the NPT, the deal has been offered to us with an India-specific provision. As rightly pointed out by the Prime Minister, the deal will end the nuclear apartheid against India.
V.K. Eswaran,
Chennai
* * *
Mr. Ravi has written a very important piece that clarifies the points of support and opposition to the nuclear deal. But it is difficult to accept that Indiaâs independent foreign policy will not be steered into the American worldview.
The Indian governmentâs actions and consistent remarks made by the American establishment bear out that it is indeed a case of the Americans tethering the Indians toward various strategic initiatives â be it isolating Iran or countering China. The primacy of the Hyde Act makes it impossible for India to accept it. This single concern on the effect on Indiaâs foreign policy is enough to oppose the deal.
Srinivasan Ramani,
Mumbai
* * *
<b>The argument by the supporters of the deal that the Hyde Act is a domestic legislation and that we can weather its effects if we are strong is not based on the facts of the deal. The Act enables the U.S. Congress to pressure the U.S. President and the IAEA to act against India. Sanctions by world powers citing IAEA could become catastrophic for us.</b>
<b>
The IAEA safeguards do not recognise India as a nuclear weapons state. This will curtail our strategic independence in terms of weapons and nuclear research. </b>India cannot hope to rely on China or Russia or the goodwill of U.S. Presidents as international politics is a jungle. The fundamental argument of the opponents of the deal is not against the deal per se but to the way in which we are getting into it â from a position of weakness. Compare the sloppy Indian approach with the perfect American approach which defined its expectations in black and white in the Hyde Act and ensured that the 123 agreement referred to it.
Balajee Rajaram,
Chennai
The article âMissing the wood for the treesâ (July 19) was an exceptionally well balanced assessment of the pros and cons of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. It brings out how a badly needed dialogue has been reduced to a no-holds-barred confrontation for political one-upmanship. From Indiaâs point of view, the deal may not be the best but it certainly is good. Its purpose is not energy self-sufficiency in perpetuity. It is about getting a supplementary source of energy. The argument that sovereignty will be compromised by signing the deal is unacceptable. All international agreements, even those between equal parties, involve some commitment at the cost of sovereignty. For a meaningful dialogue we should actually ask âwhy notâ rather than âwhy.â
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
* * *
N. Ravi has made out a strong case for the nuclear deal. He has also pointed out that it will be an uphill task for any future government to resurrect the deal with a new government in the U.S. MPs, irrespective of their party line, should see not only the advantages of the deal but also the need for energy, particularly in a situation where there is acute shortage of power. The deal should be concluded in the overall national interest.
R. Ramachandra Ayyar,
Chennai
* * *
History beckons the Indian political class to rise above narrow ideological and political considerations to save the nuclear deal, and ensure that an international agreement initiated by the government is validated. Cooperation with the U.S. may be the answer to our infrastructural woes â a major constraining factor in our development.
P. Esakki Muthu,
Mumbai
* * *
The article is an objective and brilliant analysis of the much maligned nuclear deal. I wish it had appeared earlier to dispel the doubts of those who oppose the deal. While the ideological opposition by the Left parties is understandable, the objection from the rest, including experts and the BJP, is nothing but nit-picking and indeed âperipheral and trivial.â
B. Sankaranarayanan,
Chennai
* * *
The nuclear deal will demonstrate to the world that India is a responsible state. In spite of our not being a signatory to the NPT, the deal has been offered to us with an India-specific provision. As rightly pointed out by the Prime Minister, the deal will end the nuclear apartheid against India.
V.K. Eswaran,
Chennai
* * *
Mr. Ravi has written a very important piece that clarifies the points of support and opposition to the nuclear deal. But it is difficult to accept that Indiaâs independent foreign policy will not be steered into the American worldview.
The Indian governmentâs actions and consistent remarks made by the American establishment bear out that it is indeed a case of the Americans tethering the Indians toward various strategic initiatives â be it isolating Iran or countering China. The primacy of the Hyde Act makes it impossible for India to accept it. This single concern on the effect on Indiaâs foreign policy is enough to oppose the deal.
Srinivasan Ramani,
Mumbai
* * *
<b>The argument by the supporters of the deal that the Hyde Act is a domestic legislation and that we can weather its effects if we are strong is not based on the facts of the deal. The Act enables the U.S. Congress to pressure the U.S. President and the IAEA to act against India. Sanctions by world powers citing IAEA could become catastrophic for us.</b>
<b>
The IAEA safeguards do not recognise India as a nuclear weapons state. This will curtail our strategic independence in terms of weapons and nuclear research. </b>India cannot hope to rely on China or Russia or the goodwill of U.S. Presidents as international politics is a jungle. The fundamental argument of the opponents of the deal is not against the deal per se but to the way in which we are getting into it â from a position of weakness. Compare the sloppy Indian approach with the perfect American approach which defined its expectations in black and white in the Hyde Act and ensured that the 123 agreement referred to it.
Balajee Rajaram,
Chennai