It is time to give a deep thought to everything. Firstly, how is it that Americans, especially Republican Bush -the roughneck Texan-turned so 'friendly' towards India! It was not any divine calling that he heeded. Just that the American cunning went active, when the world scientific jury was out on the "bull's eye success" of the maverick Indian Fast Breeder programme. The original SOLE concern, "HOW TO CAP and SEAL" the Indian nuke advancement was the moving force for architecting the deal. The Yankee think tank realised that over 3 decades of tranquil nuke isolation has been the chief reason for this phenomenal tech leadership achieved by the Indians. For, there was no talent attrition, the scourge of all Indian science and tech development programmes! So they have envisioned a stricture-free human resource movement regime as a successor of the 123 Deal. In fact, they have a ready plan to quote India's strident demand in WTO for free movement of human resources in the global labour market for making their strategic sequal!! The moment India signs the Deal, at least 200-300 key nuke scientists and engineers would be spirited away from India's nuke R&D establishments. Slowly but steadily they will sap the Indian nuke development programme, while simultaneously denying India the status of a weapons state. Over time our politicians and bureaucrats will succumb to the changing situation and silently make the nation accept the degraded status permanently as 'fait accompli'.
RE:Don't rush, take a breather, it can save India's day in the end!
by PM on Aug 10, 2007 07:27 PM Permalink
Interesting thoughts.....but they seem to be more of a cynical conspiracy theory influenced by "zero-sum game" thinking. International relations are complex and dynamic. The only way a country can further its self-interest and establish and maintain its position in a global world order is by engaging other countries. And that involves negotiations and agreements that are based on quid-pro-quo. No country acts out of any enlightened concern for any other country but; its acts are guided by its own preservation. That is why diplomacy is more of an art than science. Just because "it is good for the US" does not mean by implication that "it is bad for us".
There is no explicit mention about nuclear test, but what i think is that once India is engaged with NSG and IAEA, It is hard to conduct the test first.Becuase it will not create India's positive image in international forums. That will provoke Pakistan another nonsignatory of NPT and other countries to conduct nuclear tests.If some other countries specially Pakistan conducts test, then India can do but there will be no first bang in India. Because India will be morally bound. Some people link this issue with China and what I believe is that China has nothing to do with it because China itself is a signatory of NPT. China may encourage Pakistan to get the similar deal but US will not go that far because US has no long term strategic interest with Pakistan anymore.
RE:India is morally bound not to test.
by PM on Aug 10, 2007 07:45 PM Permalink
There is no such thing as "moral" in international diplomacy. The ultimate concern of a nation-state is self-preservation that guides its behavior in its relationship with other nation-states. It is rightly said that there are no permanent friends or permanent foes in international relations; there are only permanent interests. Presently, India's interest lies in energy security. The nuclear-weapons capability acquired by it so far is encouraging. US agreed to break ranks and sign such an unprecedented nuclear deal with India not because of any enlightened concern for the energy requirements of India, but because it thinks that wider engagement with an emerging India would help further its self-interest in international affairs. If at any point in time the needs of the country are served better by more nuclear tests then that will be the course of action. Like with any other country, nuclear testing will have its own consequences in the short-term. But if the benefits outweigh the costs (which it will, given the global importance)then no "moral" obligation will stop it from doing it; there was none to begin with.
RE:India is morally bound not to test.
by Lalatendu Deo on Aug 06, 2007 11:19 PM Permalink
Whatever Indira said here were hypothetical. Here are soem posers. First of all, whether we are testing any device any more? And if we are, then whether the treaty can stop that? Could NSG and IAEA stop our first one or the second one and can it do in our third phase, if we wish to? And whether Pakistan's test of a purchased device is at all important for our scintific community? Yes, it may be for our strategy to a small extent.
And whether the strategic interest of US or China in Pakistan has any thing to do with our huge energy requirement in the forseeable future?
The point is plain and simple. We need to boost energy production and nuclear one will part fulfil it. We shall have to look out for other sources and those are not readily available.The agreement reached with US is fairly acceptable with several strings attached. This is understandable. We were not forced sell our house to get it.
I think I have made it clear as to what I understand from all these. Any comments please.
BJP never takes India's prosperity as it is their concerns. It was in favour of America and UPA in the begging stage because the aim was sideline Iran.
Now it likes to sideline Left because they takes steps forward.
There was no debate in the ruling party, no debate in the parliament and this stupid ex-IAS retired officer is saying that is not required. These dumb morons never really liked oversight anyways cause then they could carry out their own insidous agenda's without any accountability. Since when did the foreign secretary get to be a scientific wizard. Did he pull a phd in physics out of his hat. There are 2 parts to this agreement. One part is the needs of the scientific community and the second part is the needs of the strategic community. The standards are different between the needs of the two communities and so are the requirements. Scientist's maybe able to live with some restrictions but will set back the strategic community. If Mr "I am the Law" Dubey get's it through his thick skull, its the strategic impact that is most worrying for BJP and others.
RE:Unbelievable these guys in the Kangress are completely bought over..
by ASHOK on Aug 06, 2007 06:26 AM Permalink
Foreign secretary alone has not acted. Anil Kakodkar Chairman BARC was a member of team. He was looking after technical aspects.
The very fact that there are so many differing opinions about India's right to testin shows that the nuclear deal is very much UNCLEAR. It is important that India's interests are explicitly gauranteed in the documents. There should not be any ambiguity in the matter.
RE:Nuclear Deal with USA
by my message on Aug 05, 2007 06:13 PM Permalink
Mr. Naresh Vhandras view that the talk of Sovereignty is not in the sphere of the Scientists implies that this talk is only in right of the politicians. This is totally unacceptable. The perception of the people about the politicians is well known to let them alone decide about such animportant issue.
RE:Nuclear Deal with USA
by Lalatendu Deo on Aug 05, 2007 06:40 PM Permalink
Exactly, the same view is that of mine. Let us all put our opinion forth. Views of Scientists, views of Law Makers, the views of economists, views of common man - all are important. But let us take a composete view. And see the Deal in that prospective.
RE:Nuclear Deal with USA
by ashish sinha on Aug 06, 2007 12:40 PM Permalink
u dont need to do all that.. just download the pdf file and read it. the statements are crystal clear.
RE:Nuclear Deal with USA
by Lalatendu Deo on Aug 06, 2007 06:20 PM Permalink
I know the Text is there. But while developing your own view, go through those of others as well. But sometimes the comments are harse and are personal. What is your own opinion?
