10-04-2007, 11:38 PM
S P E C I A L R E P O R T S
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â - 1
Yashwant Sinha lambastes the UPA government on the Indo-US 123 Agreement.
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
Yashwant Sinha is one of the BJPâs most articulate opponents of the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. Sinha, who was the NDA governmentâs foreign and finance minister, spoke at length to NewsInsight.net Editor N.V.Subramanian and Correspondent Preeti Sharma about the pitfalls of the nuclear deal.
The BJP, especially the former Prime Minister, A.B.Vajpayee, first opposed the nuclear deal in letters written to the PM, Manmohan Singh. The governmentâs PR machinery and pro-establishment papers put out that the BJP initiated the nuclear deal with the Clinton and Bush administrations but turned against because the credit flowed to the UPA. Sinha calls this a lie and tries to set the record straight quoting from documents.
He also defends Vajpayee on two other issues. One relates to declaring a unilateral moratorium on testing after Pokharan II in May 1998. Sinha says that that was the only way to diffuse the huge international pressure that followed the test. He argues too that Vajpayee was entirely misunderstood when he agreed to bind the moratorium to the terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Specific to the nuclear deal, Sinha runs it down on all fronts. He says nuclear power is not the answer to Indiaâs energy needs but it is the untapped hydel potential particularly in the North East. He denies that the 123 Agreement gives assured nuclear fuel or permits reprocessing of spent fuel. He insists that the entire agreement is unequal and that the UPA government is compromising Indiaâs sovereignty by signing it.
Sinha is tough on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, calling him obstinate and accusing him of throwing tantrums. He says the PM has not kept his word of building a ânational consensusâ on the nuclear deal. But he admits that the Left has stolen the BJPâs thunder on the deal. He charges the media of not giving space to the Opposition. He clarifies, however, that unlike the Left, the BJP is not ideologically anti-American, but opposes the deal because it is unequal. Excerpts from the interview:
<b>
What are your principal objections to the nuclear deal?</b>
On the 20th of July 2005, the Prime Minister, after he issued the statement on 18th of July in Washington, went to the media. He was asked by a prescient media person whether he would be able to carry his allies and the Opposition on this deal, and the Prime Minister in reply said that the Parliament of India is sovereign. âI will make a statement in Parliament and the deal will only move forward on the basis of a broad national consensus.â Where is that broad national consensus today? Even if you donât take sides on the nuclear deal, either for or against it, the fact remains that it has divided Parliament and divided the country as nothing before in foreign policy. And, clearly, everyone is saying that the majority of both Houses are opposed to the deal. The former Prime Minister, V.P.Singh, said recently that he (Manmohan Singh) is the first prime minister who has picked up a confrontation with Parliament. So, even if we forget about the merits and demerits of the deal, the manner in which the deal is been pushed is highly objectionable and highly divisive.
<b>
So why the frenzy about the deal?
</b>
I donât know. You may have to study Manmohan Singhâs psychology. Was he an adamant child? We have seen children, some of us have brought up children, we are aware of the behavior of some children who just want this toy and nothing else and will throw tantrums if you donât give him that toy.
<b>
Is Manmohan Singh throwing a tantrum?</b>
I should think that this is tantrum that whatever may happen I am going to go through with this deal. I have attached my personal prestige with the deal and nothing is going to deter me. In a democracy, this is not the attitude. Let me tell you from my personal experience about another incident. The Congress party wanted a parliamentary resolution on Iraq when I was the Foreign Minister and Mr Vajpayee was the Prime Minister. The American troops had gone into Iraq. They stalled Parliament for four days and said that we must have a Parliamentary resolution on Iraq. We were discussing it with them repeatedly. The Speaker was involved. We were saying that the resolution on Iraq was not necessary. This is our foreign policy. But they said no, we must have a resolution. They would not allow Parliament to function.
I was personally against this resolution. I had Mrs Indira Gandhiâs (precedence) in 1968, when the Soviet forces moved into Czechoslovakia. Parliament demanded a resolution. She stood firm and said no. She said there is no need for this sort of resolution and this is our foreign policy. I was armed with what Mrs Gandhi said about a parliamentary resolution. But the Congress did not relent. Mr Vajpayee, the great democrat that he is, called me and said, âYour job is to run the External Affairs Ministry and not to run the Parliament of India. The Parliament of India is run by me and the Parliamentary Affairs Minister. So you go and talk to the Opposition about the draft and let there be a resolution.â He was the Prime Minister. I obeyed him. I went and discussed the draft. The next day, the resolution was adopted by both Houses and Parliament started functioning.
I am giving this to juxtapose the democratic spirit of Mr Vajpayee and the undemocratic spirit with which Mr Manmohan Singh is tackling the whole issue. There have been instances in Parliament where urgent financial business has been taken up despite the din and confusion. A number of legislations have been passed without discussions when Parliament was not (fully) functioning. Even a very important bill, like the Competition Bill, was passed like this.
Now what is it that we have been demanding? Let me tell you that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the oppositionâs position and especially the BJPâs position, that we are just interested in stalling Parliament and running away from a debate. No. All that we wanted was that we should be heard in Parliament on the issue of the UPA-Left âprivate committeeâ. We wanted the Leader of Opposition in both the Houses to stand up and speak. Jaswant Singh was not allowed to speak in the Rajya Sabha throughout this session. Every time he got up to speak to make a point, he was stalled, even when he had the chairmanâs permission. But let me tell you the tradition in the Rajya Sabha. When Manmohan Singh was the Leader of Opposition, with or without notice, in question hour or during zero hour or at any time during the day, he could get up (and speak) and was listened to by the whole House. The government would say, âLet the Leader of Opposition have his say.â Now Jaswant Singh is in the same position and is not allowed to speak. He is very unhappy about this, very cut up.
To be continuedâ¦
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â â 2
Yashwant Sinha decries the gagging of the Opposition in Parliament, in this interview series with Newsinsight.net Editor N.V.Subramanian and Correspondent Preeti Sharma,
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
Why are we demanding the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee)? (For a) simple thing like evolving a framework of broad national consensus, which is the Prime Ministerâs own phrase. How do you evolve a broad national consensus on an issue like this, in an atmosphere which has been so surcharged? Through a joint parliamentary committee, which calls experts, deals with diplomats and others, and then comes out with a report. (It is) to take a fairly narrow and technical view that Parliament has no role in foreign (policy-making). If Parliament has no role in foreign policy, how can Parliament pass resolutions on China, Pakistan, Iraq and on so many other occasions? What is Parliament doing through all these resolutions? Parliament is laying down policies. Can any Prime Minister today violate the resolutions on China and Pakistan? No. He has to come back to Parliament. Suppose in the boundary negotiations, there is some give and take, you have to come back to Parliament. You cannot say, no, the Constitution of India gives the executive this authority. Can any government take this position?
The point I am making isâ¦the democratic spirit required the Prime Minister not to pick up a confrontation with Parliament, to allow the Opposition to have its say and make sure that Parliament functioned. I will give you an example from this session. There were the Hyderabad blasts, and when Parliament reassembled, naturally everybody was charged with this issue. So what happened? Notices were given for questions in both Houses. The Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha permitted the question hour to be set aside to let every speaker have his/ her sayâ¦It is only when you do not allow the Opposition to speak that Parliament is stalled. This simple fact is not being properly represented in the media. An impression has been created that it is always the Opposition (that) is stalling Parliament and running away from the debate.
Another proof of the penchant of the Prime Minister to pick up a confrontation in Parliament lies in the fact that (the government) announced the UPA-Left committee when Parliament was in session. A democratic prime minister would have advised the government to wait for the Parliament session to get overâ¦they could have waited just a few days and made the announcement of the committee after 14 Septemberâ¦donât they delay the announcement of petroleum price hike when Parliament is in session only because it will create a row in the Parliament? In this way you are challenging Parliament and insulting the Opposition.
Manmohan Singhâs character is summed up in those three words, âSo be it,â which he told the Left. He doesnât care if Parliament is stalled. âI am obstinate, I do what I want.â This is not courage but obstinacy. And the Congress party is in a bind because Mrs (Sonia) Gandhi will not get a more pliable prime ministerâ¦Even a Shivraj Patil might be the worm that will turn. But Manmohan Singh will not.
To come to the merits of the nuclear dealâ¦
<b>
Please also include in your comments about the UPA saying that the BJP initiated the deal.
</b>
Ok. The first thing they say is that it is going to give us energy, and in order to get, letâs say, twenty thousand or thirty thousand megawatts of energy in the next thirty years, we need to import nuclear reactors because we do not have our own resources. And they say it will help India grow and it will (eradicate) poverty. This is the argument.
Now look at the energy scenario of India. We are primarily coal-based; some of it is gas or hydel, wind or non-conventional biofuel-based. Manmohan Singh is very worried about CO2 emissions and its impact on the environment. The US is the largest polluter contributing twenty-two per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world. We are the lowest per capita emitter. But we are worried about the environment. The US is not worried. The US did not even sign the Kyoto Protocol. But they are telling us that you cannot discharge these gases, so you have to take steps. This is the justification for nuclear energy.
In the next twenty to thirty years, India will be self-sufficient as far as nuclear energy is concerned. We are already setting up fast breeder reactors and once they start working, we will move to the third stage of (putting up) thorium reactors. We have enough reserves of thorium and also of uranium to provide twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear power during the intervening period. If we start exploiting the mines in Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Ladakh, we will have enough uranium. In fact, on 22 August, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs took a decision to start exploiting uranium reserves in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh. The finance minister is on record saying that this is sufficient to support twelve thousand megawatts of nuclear power production for the next fifty years. And how long will it take to start mining and milling uranium? Three years. How long does it take to set up a nuclear reactor? Five years. (If the government) is so keen on nuclear energy, they must start working on a plan of action where they exploit the reserves and set up nuclear plants based on the reserves. In five to six years, we will have more than met the demand of twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear power.
The power minister told the Rajya Sabha on 20 August that we will be surplus in peak power by 2012. He also said that we have one hundred and fifty thousand megawatts of hydropower capacity along the Himalayas in India, not including Nepal and Bhutan. A hundred thousand out of that capacity is in the North East. Bhutan today has the largest per capita income in any SAARC country, including India, because of the three-four hydel power projects that they have set up with Indiaâs assistance. Look what this will do to the economy of the North East. We have, according to the power minister, fifty to sixty thousand mega watts of untapped energy only in Arunachal Pradesh. We are only producing three thousand megawatts of power in the Himalayan area. So what is this twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear energy that we are talking about? And this twenty thousand megawatts of energy will cost two lakh crores at ten rupees per megawatt, which is the present price. This is the most expensive form of energy. If you invest a part of it in hydel power schemes along the Himalayas, you will get any amount of energy you want. Go for clean coal technology, more wind power technology. There are a lot of options. Go also for nuclear power technology. I am not saying donât go for that. Let nuclear technology be the part of the total basket. But the government is only interested in nuclear energy and that too not (from) domestic resources but (from) imported reactors and fuel. So forget about the energy (argument).
<b>
Now what is in the 123 Agreement? Three things...</b>
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â - 3
A test ban hurts the credibility of the Indian deterrent, says Yashwant Sinha in this interview series.
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
<b>
One, (export of) nuclear reactors and an assured supply (of fuel) for the lifetime of these reactors. Two, you will get technology (that ends Indiaâs) nuclear isolation after the 1974 test. And third, we will get reprocessing rights for the spent fuel. These are the three âgreatâ things we (are told we) will get from this agreement. Letâs look at the claim.</b>
(The) 123 Agreement does not give you the guarantee for lifetime fuel supply. It merely says we will go back to the US Congress. (This) is ridiculous in the extreme because (the US has) repeated verbatim the language used in the Separation Plan of March 2, 2006. There, the US said that they (would) go back to Congress and incorporate that in the bilateral 123 Agreement. It sounded (okay) in 2006 because they had not gone to the US Congress. But after having gone to the US Congress, after having passed the Hyde Act, how can you repeat the same language? Section 15 of the Separation Plan and Article 6 of the 123 Agreement are word for word the same. And in this wretched 123 Agreement, they are saying we will incorporate it in the 123 Agreement. Which other 123 Agreement are (they) talking about? Our great negotiatorsâ¦I have great respect for them and (for) our foreign serviceâ¦but what have they done? They have bodily lifted from the Separation Plan, the entire Section 15, and put it in the 123 Agreement. And they are saying we have got assured supply of nuclear fuel.
(The US has also said) theyâ¦will amend the agreement by going to the US Congressâ¦to give (India) advanced nuclear technology. The US Congress has already rejected that recently in December. Reprocessing will not be permitted to be done in our existing reactors. We have to set up a new national dedicated facility. Procedures and arrangements will have to be worked out between the two countries. It will be a new agreement and for approval we will have to go back to the US Congress.
<b>
All (these) three factors, which the government is tom-tomming as a great achievement, the 123 Agreement does not give (India). They are just pure liesâ¦.</b>
Then they are saying we have got the right to take corrective steps. Please for God sake explain what these corrective steps are. If they are supplying the nuclear reactor and can stop the supply, what corrective steps will you take? That they have not explained. What corrective steps can a country (in Indiaâs position) take? Where can we go when a cartel like the NSG operates? Then the Americans have retained the right that is (there) in their domestic law to take back everything they have supplied. This amendment (to US law)â¦was made especially for India after the Tarapur experience and the 1974 test. (The government is) saying there will be consultation. Consultation in law does not mean consent. A telephone call from Washington to somebody in Delhi is consultation. Then the (Americans) are saying (they will) keep in mind the hurt it will cause and the adverse impact it will have on bilateral relationships (if the nuclear deal collapses). But did the Americans bother (about bilateral relations) when they abrogated the 1963 Tarapur agreement or when they imposed economic sanctions on us after 1998? Of course it had an adverse impact when they declared Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. So have they bothered? No. For them national interest is supreme. They couldnât care less about India.
<b>
And how will the agreement be terminated? It is not (a) nuclear test as mentioned clearly in the Hyde Act; and no (US) President will have the courage to say India has tested again (but) let them carry on. No. He will have to make a determinationâ¦
</b>
Then they have mentioned Iran in the Hyde Act at three places. And it is not that we will isolate, contain and sanction Iran, according to American wishes; it also says in the reporting requirements in the Hyde Act to present a report whether India is doing (all these things). If India is notâ¦, what steps has the President taken to make India follow them? Then what has been the impact of these steps, and what has been the reply of India? So through the Hyde Act, the Americans are acquiring a series of pressure points, and the US Congress is going to be keeping a hawk-like eye on the whole arrangementâ¦(The) provisions of the Hyde Act also require the US administration to keep a very close watch on our military nuclear programme, including the requirement on the part of the President to report how many nuclear explosive devices we are producing in a year. And (the government is) saying there is no impact (of the 123 Agreement) on the weaponsâ programme.
<b>
And the fact that the Hyde Act requires India to assist the US to get an FMCT at the Conference of Disarmament in Geneva.</b>
At least now, the government, after the pressure we built, has come back to our old formulation that (any FMCT) should be universal, internationally verifiable. Last year, they gave in to American pressure on international verification. After we created a shindig, they went back to international verification. Till the other day, it was national technical means.
I now come back to the final point. We went for nuclear tests, declaring to the world we are a nuclear weaponsâ state. We came out with (a) nuclear doctrine of no first use and no use on non-nuclear weaponsâ states, and third, if someone would attack us with nuclear weapons, then in retaliation, we would attack them with our nuclear weapons and inflict unacceptable damage. This is the thrust of the nuclear doctrine, which this government has not changed. From that has been born a credible nuclear deterrent, a minimum deterrent but credible for our enemies. The enemies should know that India can inflict unacceptable damage; otherwise your nuclear doctrine is a hollow doctrine.
Now, that will need both quantity and quality (of nuclear weapons). The quality would come from testing. If you are barred from testing, the technology of your weapons is frozen at 1998 level. And the credibility of our nuclear deterrent will suffer. As far as the number of weapons is concerned, it is for the government of the day to decide how many they want to maintain the credibility of the deterrent. We want this judgment to be made by the Government of India, whichever party is in power. (Such a decision cannot be left to) Washington or London or Moscowâ¦.
<b>
â¦Or Beijingâ¦.</b>
â¦Or Beijing, or any other (state). The (size of the deterrent) must be decided by us. We must retain that right.
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â - 1
Yashwant Sinha lambastes the UPA government on the Indo-US 123 Agreement.
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
Yashwant Sinha is one of the BJPâs most articulate opponents of the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. Sinha, who was the NDA governmentâs foreign and finance minister, spoke at length to NewsInsight.net Editor N.V.Subramanian and Correspondent Preeti Sharma about the pitfalls of the nuclear deal.
The BJP, especially the former Prime Minister, A.B.Vajpayee, first opposed the nuclear deal in letters written to the PM, Manmohan Singh. The governmentâs PR machinery and pro-establishment papers put out that the BJP initiated the nuclear deal with the Clinton and Bush administrations but turned against because the credit flowed to the UPA. Sinha calls this a lie and tries to set the record straight quoting from documents.
He also defends Vajpayee on two other issues. One relates to declaring a unilateral moratorium on testing after Pokharan II in May 1998. Sinha says that that was the only way to diffuse the huge international pressure that followed the test. He argues too that Vajpayee was entirely misunderstood when he agreed to bind the moratorium to the terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Specific to the nuclear deal, Sinha runs it down on all fronts. He says nuclear power is not the answer to Indiaâs energy needs but it is the untapped hydel potential particularly in the North East. He denies that the 123 Agreement gives assured nuclear fuel or permits reprocessing of spent fuel. He insists that the entire agreement is unequal and that the UPA government is compromising Indiaâs sovereignty by signing it.
Sinha is tough on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, calling him obstinate and accusing him of throwing tantrums. He says the PM has not kept his word of building a ânational consensusâ on the nuclear deal. But he admits that the Left has stolen the BJPâs thunder on the deal. He charges the media of not giving space to the Opposition. He clarifies, however, that unlike the Left, the BJP is not ideologically anti-American, but opposes the deal because it is unequal. Excerpts from the interview:
<b>
What are your principal objections to the nuclear deal?</b>
On the 20th of July 2005, the Prime Minister, after he issued the statement on 18th of July in Washington, went to the media. He was asked by a prescient media person whether he would be able to carry his allies and the Opposition on this deal, and the Prime Minister in reply said that the Parliament of India is sovereign. âI will make a statement in Parliament and the deal will only move forward on the basis of a broad national consensus.â Where is that broad national consensus today? Even if you donât take sides on the nuclear deal, either for or against it, the fact remains that it has divided Parliament and divided the country as nothing before in foreign policy. And, clearly, everyone is saying that the majority of both Houses are opposed to the deal. The former Prime Minister, V.P.Singh, said recently that he (Manmohan Singh) is the first prime minister who has picked up a confrontation with Parliament. So, even if we forget about the merits and demerits of the deal, the manner in which the deal is been pushed is highly objectionable and highly divisive.
<b>
So why the frenzy about the deal?
</b>
I donât know. You may have to study Manmohan Singhâs psychology. Was he an adamant child? We have seen children, some of us have brought up children, we are aware of the behavior of some children who just want this toy and nothing else and will throw tantrums if you donât give him that toy.
<b>
Is Manmohan Singh throwing a tantrum?</b>
I should think that this is tantrum that whatever may happen I am going to go through with this deal. I have attached my personal prestige with the deal and nothing is going to deter me. In a democracy, this is not the attitude. Let me tell you from my personal experience about another incident. The Congress party wanted a parliamentary resolution on Iraq when I was the Foreign Minister and Mr Vajpayee was the Prime Minister. The American troops had gone into Iraq. They stalled Parliament for four days and said that we must have a Parliamentary resolution on Iraq. We were discussing it with them repeatedly. The Speaker was involved. We were saying that the resolution on Iraq was not necessary. This is our foreign policy. But they said no, we must have a resolution. They would not allow Parliament to function.
I was personally against this resolution. I had Mrs Indira Gandhiâs (precedence) in 1968, when the Soviet forces moved into Czechoslovakia. Parliament demanded a resolution. She stood firm and said no. She said there is no need for this sort of resolution and this is our foreign policy. I was armed with what Mrs Gandhi said about a parliamentary resolution. But the Congress did not relent. Mr Vajpayee, the great democrat that he is, called me and said, âYour job is to run the External Affairs Ministry and not to run the Parliament of India. The Parliament of India is run by me and the Parliamentary Affairs Minister. So you go and talk to the Opposition about the draft and let there be a resolution.â He was the Prime Minister. I obeyed him. I went and discussed the draft. The next day, the resolution was adopted by both Houses and Parliament started functioning.
I am giving this to juxtapose the democratic spirit of Mr Vajpayee and the undemocratic spirit with which Mr Manmohan Singh is tackling the whole issue. There have been instances in Parliament where urgent financial business has been taken up despite the din and confusion. A number of legislations have been passed without discussions when Parliament was not (fully) functioning. Even a very important bill, like the Competition Bill, was passed like this.
Now what is it that we have been demanding? Let me tell you that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the oppositionâs position and especially the BJPâs position, that we are just interested in stalling Parliament and running away from a debate. No. All that we wanted was that we should be heard in Parliament on the issue of the UPA-Left âprivate committeeâ. We wanted the Leader of Opposition in both the Houses to stand up and speak. Jaswant Singh was not allowed to speak in the Rajya Sabha throughout this session. Every time he got up to speak to make a point, he was stalled, even when he had the chairmanâs permission. But let me tell you the tradition in the Rajya Sabha. When Manmohan Singh was the Leader of Opposition, with or without notice, in question hour or during zero hour or at any time during the day, he could get up (and speak) and was listened to by the whole House. The government would say, âLet the Leader of Opposition have his say.â Now Jaswant Singh is in the same position and is not allowed to speak. He is very unhappy about this, very cut up.
To be continuedâ¦
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â â 2
Yashwant Sinha decries the gagging of the Opposition in Parliament, in this interview series with Newsinsight.net Editor N.V.Subramanian and Correspondent Preeti Sharma,
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
Why are we demanding the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee)? (For a) simple thing like evolving a framework of broad national consensus, which is the Prime Ministerâs own phrase. How do you evolve a broad national consensus on an issue like this, in an atmosphere which has been so surcharged? Through a joint parliamentary committee, which calls experts, deals with diplomats and others, and then comes out with a report. (It is) to take a fairly narrow and technical view that Parliament has no role in foreign (policy-making). If Parliament has no role in foreign policy, how can Parliament pass resolutions on China, Pakistan, Iraq and on so many other occasions? What is Parliament doing through all these resolutions? Parliament is laying down policies. Can any Prime Minister today violate the resolutions on China and Pakistan? No. He has to come back to Parliament. Suppose in the boundary negotiations, there is some give and take, you have to come back to Parliament. You cannot say, no, the Constitution of India gives the executive this authority. Can any government take this position?
The point I am making isâ¦the democratic spirit required the Prime Minister not to pick up a confrontation with Parliament, to allow the Opposition to have its say and make sure that Parliament functioned. I will give you an example from this session. There were the Hyderabad blasts, and when Parliament reassembled, naturally everybody was charged with this issue. So what happened? Notices were given for questions in both Houses. The Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha permitted the question hour to be set aside to let every speaker have his/ her sayâ¦It is only when you do not allow the Opposition to speak that Parliament is stalled. This simple fact is not being properly represented in the media. An impression has been created that it is always the Opposition (that) is stalling Parliament and running away from the debate.
Another proof of the penchant of the Prime Minister to pick up a confrontation in Parliament lies in the fact that (the government) announced the UPA-Left committee when Parliament was in session. A democratic prime minister would have advised the government to wait for the Parliament session to get overâ¦they could have waited just a few days and made the announcement of the committee after 14 Septemberâ¦donât they delay the announcement of petroleum price hike when Parliament is in session only because it will create a row in the Parliament? In this way you are challenging Parliament and insulting the Opposition.
Manmohan Singhâs character is summed up in those three words, âSo be it,â which he told the Left. He doesnât care if Parliament is stalled. âI am obstinate, I do what I want.â This is not courage but obstinacy. And the Congress party is in a bind because Mrs (Sonia) Gandhi will not get a more pliable prime ministerâ¦Even a Shivraj Patil might be the worm that will turn. But Manmohan Singh will not.
To come to the merits of the nuclear dealâ¦
<b>
Please also include in your comments about the UPA saying that the BJP initiated the deal.
</b>
Ok. The first thing they say is that it is going to give us energy, and in order to get, letâs say, twenty thousand or thirty thousand megawatts of energy in the next thirty years, we need to import nuclear reactors because we do not have our own resources. And they say it will help India grow and it will (eradicate) poverty. This is the argument.
Now look at the energy scenario of India. We are primarily coal-based; some of it is gas or hydel, wind or non-conventional biofuel-based. Manmohan Singh is very worried about CO2 emissions and its impact on the environment. The US is the largest polluter contributing twenty-two per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world. We are the lowest per capita emitter. But we are worried about the environment. The US is not worried. The US did not even sign the Kyoto Protocol. But they are telling us that you cannot discharge these gases, so you have to take steps. This is the justification for nuclear energy.
In the next twenty to thirty years, India will be self-sufficient as far as nuclear energy is concerned. We are already setting up fast breeder reactors and once they start working, we will move to the third stage of (putting up) thorium reactors. We have enough reserves of thorium and also of uranium to provide twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear power during the intervening period. If we start exploiting the mines in Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Ladakh, we will have enough uranium. In fact, on 22 August, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs took a decision to start exploiting uranium reserves in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh. The finance minister is on record saying that this is sufficient to support twelve thousand megawatts of nuclear power production for the next fifty years. And how long will it take to start mining and milling uranium? Three years. How long does it take to set up a nuclear reactor? Five years. (If the government) is so keen on nuclear energy, they must start working on a plan of action where they exploit the reserves and set up nuclear plants based on the reserves. In five to six years, we will have more than met the demand of twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear power.
The power minister told the Rajya Sabha on 20 August that we will be surplus in peak power by 2012. He also said that we have one hundred and fifty thousand megawatts of hydropower capacity along the Himalayas in India, not including Nepal and Bhutan. A hundred thousand out of that capacity is in the North East. Bhutan today has the largest per capita income in any SAARC country, including India, because of the three-four hydel power projects that they have set up with Indiaâs assistance. Look what this will do to the economy of the North East. We have, according to the power minister, fifty to sixty thousand mega watts of untapped energy only in Arunachal Pradesh. We are only producing three thousand megawatts of power in the Himalayan area. So what is this twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear energy that we are talking about? And this twenty thousand megawatts of energy will cost two lakh crores at ten rupees per megawatt, which is the present price. This is the most expensive form of energy. If you invest a part of it in hydel power schemes along the Himalayas, you will get any amount of energy you want. Go for clean coal technology, more wind power technology. There are a lot of options. Go also for nuclear power technology. I am not saying donât go for that. Let nuclear technology be the part of the total basket. But the government is only interested in nuclear energy and that too not (from) domestic resources but (from) imported reactors and fuel. So forget about the energy (argument).
<b>
Now what is in the 123 Agreement? Three things...</b>
âNo consensus on nuclear deal?â - 3
A test ban hurts the credibility of the Indian deterrent, says Yashwant Sinha in this interview series.
By N.V.Subramanian and Preeti Sharma
<b>
One, (export of) nuclear reactors and an assured supply (of fuel) for the lifetime of these reactors. Two, you will get technology (that ends Indiaâs) nuclear isolation after the 1974 test. And third, we will get reprocessing rights for the spent fuel. These are the three âgreatâ things we (are told we) will get from this agreement. Letâs look at the claim.</b>
(The) 123 Agreement does not give you the guarantee for lifetime fuel supply. It merely says we will go back to the US Congress. (This) is ridiculous in the extreme because (the US has) repeated verbatim the language used in the Separation Plan of March 2, 2006. There, the US said that they (would) go back to Congress and incorporate that in the bilateral 123 Agreement. It sounded (okay) in 2006 because they had not gone to the US Congress. But after having gone to the US Congress, after having passed the Hyde Act, how can you repeat the same language? Section 15 of the Separation Plan and Article 6 of the 123 Agreement are word for word the same. And in this wretched 123 Agreement, they are saying we will incorporate it in the 123 Agreement. Which other 123 Agreement are (they) talking about? Our great negotiatorsâ¦I have great respect for them and (for) our foreign serviceâ¦but what have they done? They have bodily lifted from the Separation Plan, the entire Section 15, and put it in the 123 Agreement. And they are saying we have got assured supply of nuclear fuel.
(The US has also said) theyâ¦will amend the agreement by going to the US Congressâ¦to give (India) advanced nuclear technology. The US Congress has already rejected that recently in December. Reprocessing will not be permitted to be done in our existing reactors. We have to set up a new national dedicated facility. Procedures and arrangements will have to be worked out between the two countries. It will be a new agreement and for approval we will have to go back to the US Congress.
<b>
All (these) three factors, which the government is tom-tomming as a great achievement, the 123 Agreement does not give (India). They are just pure liesâ¦.</b>
Then they are saying we have got the right to take corrective steps. Please for God sake explain what these corrective steps are. If they are supplying the nuclear reactor and can stop the supply, what corrective steps will you take? That they have not explained. What corrective steps can a country (in Indiaâs position) take? Where can we go when a cartel like the NSG operates? Then the Americans have retained the right that is (there) in their domestic law to take back everything they have supplied. This amendment (to US law)â¦was made especially for India after the Tarapur experience and the 1974 test. (The government is) saying there will be consultation. Consultation in law does not mean consent. A telephone call from Washington to somebody in Delhi is consultation. Then the (Americans) are saying (they will) keep in mind the hurt it will cause and the adverse impact it will have on bilateral relationships (if the nuclear deal collapses). But did the Americans bother (about bilateral relations) when they abrogated the 1963 Tarapur agreement or when they imposed economic sanctions on us after 1998? Of course it had an adverse impact when they declared Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. So have they bothered? No. For them national interest is supreme. They couldnât care less about India.
<b>
And how will the agreement be terminated? It is not (a) nuclear test as mentioned clearly in the Hyde Act; and no (US) President will have the courage to say India has tested again (but) let them carry on. No. He will have to make a determinationâ¦
</b>
Then they have mentioned Iran in the Hyde Act at three places. And it is not that we will isolate, contain and sanction Iran, according to American wishes; it also says in the reporting requirements in the Hyde Act to present a report whether India is doing (all these things). If India is notâ¦, what steps has the President taken to make India follow them? Then what has been the impact of these steps, and what has been the reply of India? So through the Hyde Act, the Americans are acquiring a series of pressure points, and the US Congress is going to be keeping a hawk-like eye on the whole arrangementâ¦(The) provisions of the Hyde Act also require the US administration to keep a very close watch on our military nuclear programme, including the requirement on the part of the President to report how many nuclear explosive devices we are producing in a year. And (the government is) saying there is no impact (of the 123 Agreement) on the weaponsâ programme.
<b>
And the fact that the Hyde Act requires India to assist the US to get an FMCT at the Conference of Disarmament in Geneva.</b>
At least now, the government, after the pressure we built, has come back to our old formulation that (any FMCT) should be universal, internationally verifiable. Last year, they gave in to American pressure on international verification. After we created a shindig, they went back to international verification. Till the other day, it was national technical means.
I now come back to the final point. We went for nuclear tests, declaring to the world we are a nuclear weaponsâ state. We came out with (a) nuclear doctrine of no first use and no use on non-nuclear weaponsâ states, and third, if someone would attack us with nuclear weapons, then in retaliation, we would attack them with our nuclear weapons and inflict unacceptable damage. This is the thrust of the nuclear doctrine, which this government has not changed. From that has been born a credible nuclear deterrent, a minimum deterrent but credible for our enemies. The enemies should know that India can inflict unacceptable damage; otherwise your nuclear doctrine is a hollow doctrine.
Now, that will need both quantity and quality (of nuclear weapons). The quality would come from testing. If you are barred from testing, the technology of your weapons is frozen at 1998 level. And the credibility of our nuclear deterrent will suffer. As far as the number of weapons is concerned, it is for the government of the day to decide how many they want to maintain the credibility of the deterrent. We want this judgment to be made by the Government of India, whichever party is in power. (Such a decision cannot be left to) Washington or London or Moscowâ¦.
<b>
â¦Or Beijingâ¦.</b>
â¦Or Beijing, or any other (state). The (size of the deterrent) must be decided by us. We must retain that right.