..is the fact that Congress did discuss the agreement with Left, who provided 9 points to be addressed and all of those were addressed. CPIM has nothing to say against the agreement per se but now up in arms for doing nucleur test. Since when did CPIM want Atom Bomb for India?
RE:What Shenoy omiited in his article..
by Sriram on Aug 22, 2007 05:30 AM Permalink
The CPI -M are chinese agents and unpatriotic nuts .China is dancing in joy at the turn on events in india.Well The other point which Mr shenoy omitted was why were around 1000 visas issued to the chinese at the behest of Mr karat and co when the govt had initially rejected it based on security and the jobs could ve gone to indian engineers.
Dr. Singh has shown arrogance and contempt for democratic process. He misrepresented when he assured Bush that he has the support of the parliament. Congress should have worked on consensus building while the negotiation (with US) was in progress during last two years.
RE:India is not Pakistan, Manmohan is not the king
by P Zipk on Aug 22, 2007 02:36 AM Permalink
You are right. Dr.Singh's behavior is very autocratic. He went and negotiated a deal with the Bush govt and did not bother to think if the country is with him or not.
Even Musharaff the dictator is finding out he cannot force the country to agree with his decisions.
Manmohan Singh got all the credits for the reforms in the early 90s. People do not realize how hard it was to move a country from the socialistic mindset to the grownth-oriented reforms. That credit should go to Narasimha Rao without whom Dr.Singh's reforms would have stayed on the paper at best.
RE:RE:India is not Pakistan, Manmohan is not the king
by maravan kuravan on Aug 22, 2007 01:11 AM Permalink
Building consensus with Communists...! How can you have consensus with the Chinese Agents...? When PM works for India and they (commies) work for China... there will not be consensus on anything that helps India to grow.
RE:RE:RE:India is not Pakistan, Manmohan is not the king
by sumani on Aug 22, 2007 01:17 AM Permalink
Dr. Singh could always keep Atal and Advani in the loop all the time to ensure their support. He did not do that as he wanted to get all the credit for 123.
RE:advice for congress
by vidya sub on Aug 22, 2007 03:47 AM Permalink
Brilliant Idea indeed! And while we are at it, let Arjun announce 15 new IINTs (Indian Inst of Nuclear Technologies) and a few IINMs with 50% reservation for SC/ST/OBCs. To boot, let us get a random mullah to come up with an edict that opposing the deal is un-islamic!!(It shouldn't be too difficult for the Cong strategists to manage this). Not only will Karat and Co be running for cover, they simply won't stop till they reach Beijing! LOL
RE:advice for congress
by saipad raj sahoo on Aug 22, 2007 11:12 AM Permalink
Thanks Vidya ,you are a nice guy. Your anlysis is indeed fanstatic. keep on.
RE:advice for congress
by obama on Aug 22, 2007 01:22 AM Permalink
What smart move. The deals are made for and by business, and not for poor. Why should we care for poor... does america care for its poor?
None of the parties either Congress or BJP or Left are not working on national agenda, All these parties work without mind. BJP being an opposition party always opposes blindly. Left being a communalist opposes any agreement with US blindly. Congress is also the same. Remember the president election happend just few months back. Did they ever consider the people opinion for reelecting Dr APJ Kalam or did they listen to Opposition. No one is worth.
RE:Correct portrayal of the situation
by Pradip Parekh on Aug 22, 2007 07:34 AM Permalink
well said. shenoy has done a great job that was much needed with this article. he puts to rest the media created stupidity that lets mm singh hog the limelight for 91 reforms which squarely belongs to late pm pvn.rao. the bjp started the deal, for god's sakes. do you think congress even capable of starting something like this? and yet. congress wouldn't team up with the bjp. the sonia-das congress scorns bjp like it scorned pvn rao. if this agreement falss apart, it's all because of mms's and congressi bungling.
RE:Correct portrayal of the situation
by flintstone on Aug 22, 2007 11:17 AM Permalink
Its very easy to say that the PM should have taken theBJP in confidence but unlike the early 1990's were the BJP was listening to its leaders like Vajpayee and Advani today its not the same their leaders are all loud mouthed who belive that to win a debate you have to talk/shout at the top of your voice like Sushma and Arun Jaitely they all believe in just opposing and not in Nation Building you can talk to mature leaders and not to immature fools full of their ego.
Does anyone remember the Enron vs. Maharashtra episode? Enron built power plant but the cost was prohibitive and so the state government refused to pay the company.
One selling point of the treaty is that India's power sector will get US nuclear power generation technology and our dependence on foreign oil and gas will diminish as a result. Has the government disclosed anything about how many plants it plans to build, what will be the total capacity and how much it will cost?
US technology is expensive in general and this is especially true for nuclear power generation. This is why Americans are decommissioning nuclear power plants in their own country. Indian public ought to have answer for all these questions.
RE:People do not remeber
by Subhasish Ghosh on Aug 22, 2007 01:07 AM Permalink
US is reconsidering building power plants after India's example. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Ni9SDNxnuscJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf US nuclear power proposals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
RE:RE:People do not remeber
by hiral joshi on Aug 22, 2007 10:18 AM Permalink
Thanks for the link. Its a good article to know about technicalities of the economics of Nuclear power generation. The link you provided directs to a pdf file (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf) on which Check the page 18: you'll find this; "Under base case conditions, it seems unlikely that a new nuclear power plant would be constructed in the United States, barring a sustained, long-term increase in natural gas prices and the creation of a substantial, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program that would increase coal-fired and natural gas-fired generating costs." So it is clear that Nuclear power is expensive comparatively.
While the PM's open challenge meant they were "left" with no options, it is sophistry NOT to discuss the egregious manner in which the Left has been practising coalition dharma since 04. Let us also be clear on the following: (1) The Left simply CANNOT win an election in any state but for KER/WB. Ergo, it has NO right to dictate foreign policy. (2) LEFT opposed India's nuclear test and now wants the deal frozen "to salvage our right to test"! This hypocrisy is amply reflected in editorials in "The Hindu" (which, by the way, has redder than red since Ram took over) which supported the deal (Aug 6th) before making a U-turn later (Aug 20th). (3) The two entities that would agree with the Left stand in toto are China and Pak! (4) Based on 62 and later events, the patriotism of the Left is very questionable. The Left has not made a single major contribution to India's development. Breeding pseudo intellectuals in JNU canteens and Kerala's barber shops does not count! (5) On the deal, the Left is NOT up for a debate. Making blanket statements like "India's sovereignity being compromised" is just bluff. They are unable to describe how or why! Point is, criticism is NOT based on analysis, it is nothing but the Pavlovian response that the addiction to moth-eaten ideology engenders.
Left won't listen to Kalam. Commies are, genetically, opaque to reason. Ah, that MALLU saying - plantain farming is a better vocation than creating Commies! :)
RE:The Left and the Nuke deal
by Anil Sivudu on Aug 22, 2007 12:46 PM Permalink
Kudos to Mr. Subramanian for bringing the right facts. I enjoyed reading this.
RE:The Left and the Nuke deal
by Kankipati Rao on Aug 22, 2007 08:23 AM Permalink
Well said Ramakrishnan. The Left is actually part of the Communist Party of China! It consists of no desabhaktas. The first thing they love is China and the last thing India. MMS and Congress have committed a grave blunder by calling BJP a fundamentalist party in season and out of season. Is it not better for Congress to befriend a party of compatriots than a party of traiitors? Now the commiies, like a serpent nurtured in bed with milk, has bitten the Congress. The commies care little if the country has to face a huge expenditure and enormous upheaval to conduct general elections prematurely. They will manage to get a few seats enough to create trouble for the new government. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
In US they use the term imperial presidency. Irrespective of if 123 agreement is good or bad, Dr. Singh's attitude fits the description. Sonia and the PM should have embarked on a consensus building dialog with all parties long ago. The cabinet already approved the treaty, so it is a done deal so far as the Indian constituiton is concerned.
Very aptly put about the PMs lack of foresight and leadership abilities when it comes to relationships and pragmatism in politics. I have always admired Mr. Narsimha Rao for his amazing stint as the PM leading a party that was a family run business.
But in the other hand, the PM may have toed Presidnet Bush's line of defiance and executive privilages. Whether it was a smart move remains to be seen. However, I cannot beleive he has half the wits as much has been made out in this article about his forsight in taking on the Left. He may already be aware of Left's hopeless passion for a traditional anti-capitalist stance. He may have asserted with confidence on Lefts squeezed political room. If Left take this deal down and cause snap polls, they will loose popularity big time and will definetely lose their chance in administering the nation for quaite a while to come. I dont think Left has the courage to face that for everything that is worth. After all there are really no serious concerns in the deal. Most legal opinions, technical opinion and defence opinion after all back the deal in its current form.
The only legitimate concern remains is the leverage US may have on our foreign policy. Now that can still be ensured by well thought out implementation.
I have never supporter of Congress policy - from terrorism, its appeasement of minorities, its rural employment genration schemes to quotas & reservations in education & jobs. on the nuclear agreement, I vote with the PM. At the very least, with this treaty, US is not going hong and tong in isolating India and denying it the technology that may be useful in other areas of development, e.g., space program. It is worth reminding every body that the technology that enabled China to shoot down a satellite was obtained from US. This treaty breaks the technology denial regime that the US led against India until now. For just this feat alone, Dr Singh deserves kudos from all the well-meaning people of India. India does not necessarily have to import nuclear reactors - they are too expensive, take as long as 10 years to build, and cost per kwh much higher than alternate and/or trditional sources, like coal. The fact that India will be able to import technology - particularly dual use technology - is reason enough to support the deal. Further, this deal is an enabler for additional FDI investment in India; indian enterprenaurs should take advantage of chinese discomfort in several recent product recalls to bring manufaturing peoposals to US companies, because only manufacturing is going to alleviate rural/poor/unskiled unemployment. Software & pharma industries may be greate name brands but they provide jobs to the very skilled and in relativelymuch smaller numbers than manufacturing
