RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:12 AM Permalink
The 3rd point is still debatable. The americans have made conflicting statements about it. One of them even going on to say " if India conducts the test, the deal is off" while Bush says the Hyde act is not binding. The ambiguous terms should be removed before proceeding. I have no problems with having good relationship with US.. but it should be of "friendship" not "master and servant" The complete text of 123 agreement and hyde act is here http://www.xrl.us/4jp8
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:23 AM Permalink
You cant continue staying in a bachelor's lodge once you get married. does it ring a bell? There are some terms that are "obviously binding" unless said otherwise.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:29 AM Permalink
I am not barking.. you are the one who is losing the cool. If there is a qualification criteria for a certain deal and you fail the criteria at any stage, the deal is off. Its common sense.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:32 AM Permalink
and i am not a communist. Infact i am not politically aligned. i only care about "India"
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:46 AM Permalink
and its obvious to everyone who is barking and running out of ideas... i have not tried to insult you once, but you have been constantly using words like "weak" "stupid" "barking" "communist" 'Chinese slave' and what not, against me in desperate attempt to prove me wrong.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 11:06 AM Permalink
It because of stupid people like you the British conquered us. They signed ambiguous agreements with Indian kings and ended up won huge areas without any war. This deal may not be that bad and we may never lose our freedom, but the fact remains that the deal is against national interest and only people with brains can see th devil in it.
RE:RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:55 AM Permalink
If there were "direct" terms which prohibited India from conducting nuclear tests, the deal would have been off on day 1. Use your brain. The devil is in details.
RE:Kapil Sibal clarifies the N deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:42 AM Permalink
lol.. (B) the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States in key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation;
(C) such cooperation induces the country to implement the highest possible protections against the proliferation of technology related to weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program; and
(D) such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups, that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons;
These are qualifications required to get into a deal with US, The moment India fails the "Yearly character test"(The US president has to submit a report every year)the deal is off. Its standard procedure and anyone with common sense can understand why.
RE:Every project or deals or tie-ups needs people vote & bring election every year or every month. Is it wise?
by mr on Aug 29, 2007 11:21 PM Permalink
We did bus service to Pakistan. we open Natha La with China. We have dealings with Isreal. We have dealings with Russia. We have dealings with United States.
With the utmost respect to the columnist, I have to say that the proposal to hand over the critical decision of such magnitude to the lay man is highly irrational. Forget the common man I would say even the scientific community in India must be battling over the proposal and the intricate details involved with it. This is a technical issue that the scientists and the bureaucrats have to come to an understanding for the betterment of the scientific community and the country.
RE:Worthless proposal
by manmadhan on Aug 30, 2007 12:35 AM Permalink
well said... how could a common man without education and proper understanding of this deal would be able to decide where even scientists are hitting theri head hard to understand the nuances of the deal...
Two parties ruled India. Congress, BJP. Initiated by BJP & now Congress is doing it. Regarding nuclear disarmament, India can do a big role by its non-proliferation. My intention is to get power generation & nuclear supplies for the reactors which are holding now due to power shortages.
RE:Two parties ruled India. Congress, BJP. Initiated by BJP & now Congress is doing it.
by neel sanghvi on Aug 30, 2007 05:06 AM Permalink
n-deal will bring less sources of power generation and more dependancy on india's strategic plan created by BJP. and this is the what congress wants to do since strategic plan was created by BJP, they wants to ruin it by accepting hyde act. But this is causing great problems to congress by double sided left alliance.
RE:I need electricity for growth, Removal of Nuclear Isolation & supplies for reactors like others.
by mr on Aug 29, 2007 10:03 PM Permalink
So, I support the nuclear deal
RE:Nuclear Deal.Little Man
by manoj khandelwal on Aug 29, 2007 10:03 PM Permalink
get the interview of Dr Kalam on the nuclear deal and whole of India will come to know what is wrong and what is right.
This was a very balanced article taking into view both the pros & cons ublike a few other columnists who are downright biased one way or the other. I totally respect the credentials of the author. However, I would disagree with his conclusion that the Indian voter must decide. First because elections will not be held solely on this issue..for that you need to have a refrendum..a practice not prevalant in India. Also, for a technical deal like this, a voter however educated he may be...is not equipped to judge the technicalities of the deal. It should be left to the nuclear scientists & political leadership...as has been done now.
RE:I disgaree - Voter cant decide !!
by Rahul Verma on Aug 29, 2007 09:31 PM Permalink
I agree with you about the balanced nature of this article -- a refreshing departure from "heavens will fall if deal doesn't go through" arguments.
But i dont agree about leaving this to scientists and policy makers. One, scientists are too focussed on their areas of expertise to consider all aspects of the deal and two, policy makers have vested interests (most of their children/relatives are employed by American MNCs/firms).
So, the author's suggestion of going back to the people is the most democratic option in the present circumstances.
RE:I disgaree - Voter cant decide !!
by Cynic on Aug 29, 2007 09:56 PM Permalink
Rahul....
Scientists need to judge only the aspect related to their field..whether the deal in any way inhibits their line of work & whether it enhances the quality of scientific development that had been under a nuclear apartheid for so long...are any restrictions placed on their work? Defence strategeists to decide whether India's nuclear weapons program is threatened by this. Energy experts to project energy requirements in the next couple of decades and tell whether nuclear energy palys a role in fulfilling that demand? Political leadership to take an overall view whether India's international interests are in any way jeopardized with this deal?
And I am sure of two things. First, common man cannot decide that because he doesn't know it. Second, the political leadership ( any party) would have already taken care of all these aspects. PS: It is fashionable to doubt political leadership often without justifiable reason. But I think no party can afford to put India's interests at statke.
Many commentators say that the US has give more to India than they have to others. May be true. But, is this deal good for India? Are the terms clear? It is obvious that the terms are not clear, otherwise, why are there so many interpretations. In an agreement, there cannot be issues to be left to future understanding/interpretation. Every thing has to be clearly written down.
No deal should be accepted just beacuse there is a friendly Head of a Govt. That is the excuse being given by many.
About letting the voter decide, one must understand that if the voter in India had that strength, then we would not have seen so many criminals getting elected. So, forget that the voter will consider the Nuclear issue when he votes next.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 08:25 PM Permalink
The deal will produce 7% of our energy requirement for the next 40 years, provided India has a foreign policy congruent to US, halt further development of nuclear arsenal, and supports US in isolating new nuclear states(read Iran). its as simple as that... You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to understand this. If this is acceptable, everything is fine. The complete text of the 123 agreement, the Hyde act and the nuclear deal with china is available here. http://www.xrl.us/4jp8
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 09:49 PM Permalink
Nowhere does the 123 agreement asks for India to halt development of nuclear arsenal. u r misleading the people. speak the truth, ur lies cannot fool ne one
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:18 PM Permalink
(C) such cooperation induces the country to implement the highest possible protections against the proliferation of technology related to weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program;
This is in the hyde act.. how does this sound to you?
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 10:30 PM Permalink
It sounds like nuthn. It says one should nt proliferate nuclear technology. boss this is a must. wot do u want a pakistan everywhere with nuclear bombs. The proliferation of weapons of mass distruction is just nt acceptable and pround of my country India for its track record of non proliferation. The other point, refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program; it just says refrain does it says implicitly for India to cap its nuclear program. Remember some of theclauses were deliberately put in just to avoid a confrontatio with the Non Proliferation Hawks in washington. No where does it asks for a forcible cap of indian nuclear program. Show me atleast one point in the Hyde act where it says "The deal will be given to India only if India caps its nuclear program". Can u plz find such a clause and enlighten ur brothers here
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 11:09 PM Permalink
They hyde act says US is going through with the deal cause India fits certain criteria. They can terminate the deal once India fails to fit in. Its common sense. Remember the way they terminated haneefs visa. failed charactor test? The president of US has to submit a report each year on the deal's progress and decide future action.There i no gaurantee on whats to happen. This argument can go on for ever. If the deal goes through t,our economy is going to be dependent on an ambigous deal which if terminated would sent the country into an energy crisis. I bet we will not be looking for alternate sources as long the deal is intact.It is definitley a matter of concern
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 07:32 AM Permalink
@ Batman Youi are the one who is making assumtions. You are the one who said "The Hyde Act is a cosmetic effect to shut the mouths of the Non Proliferation hawks in Washington who vehemently oppose this deal. ". Thats what is an assumtion All what i have said is based on the "technicality" of the "text" in hyde act.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:54 PM Permalink
I am sorry i disagree.Its US whch decides and interprest the clauses in the deal based on our interest cause they provide the fuel. Without fuel, no power. We would be fully "DEPENDEND" on americans for the power.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 11:02 PM Permalink
how is " no clause in the deal that binds us to the US" is like creating darkness by closing your eyes.???? If theres no such clause that means its nt binding. its so simple. the way u talk its like. We discuss somethn n u suddenly tell me am gonna kill u, y coz i neva said am nt gonna kill u. why shuld i tell u am nt gonna kill u whn i don have ne such instance. bt u r still adamant abt me killin u just coz u actually want me to say am nt gona kill u. nw this is called fear psychosis. ur other point the US decides again is wrong. its we who will decide. if US dosn give us uranium thn we go to Russia. theres no clause whch says other countries will folow US policy even if US suddenly is against the deal. We are free to buy froma multitude os countries. Its nt just the US. get outts ur obsession with the US. We are not n we will neva be dependant on the US mind u do not project idnia as weak to the world. u can say u r weak in ur personal capacity bt nt for the rest of India.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:28 AM Permalink
I am not barking.. you are the one who is losing the cool. If there is a qualification criteria for a certain deal and you fail the criteria at any stage, the deal is off. Its common sense.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:48 AM Permalink
its obvious to everyone who is barking and running out of ideas... i have not tried to insult you once, but you have been constantly using words like "weak" "stupid" "barking" "communist" 'Chinese slave' and what not, against me in desperate attempt to prove me wrong.
(B) the country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States, and is working with the United States in key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation;
(C) such cooperation induces the country to implement the highest possible protections against the proliferation of technology related to weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them, and to refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program; and
(D) such cooperation will induce the country to give greater political and material support to the achievement of United States global and regional nonproliferation objectives, especially with respect to dissuading, isolating, and, if necessary, sanctioning and containing states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist groups, that are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability or other weapons of mass destruction capability and the means to deliver such weapons;
These are qualifications required to get into a deal with US, The moment India fails the "Yearly character test"(The US president has to submit a report every year)the deal is off. Its standard p
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 11:15 AM Permalink
It because of stupid people like you the British conquered us. They signed ambiguous agreements with Indian kings and ended up winning huge areas without any war. This deal may not be that bad and we may never lose our freedom, but the fact remains that the deal is against national interest and only people with brains can see th devil in it.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 30, 2007 10:20 AM Permalink
"Millions"? lol You are putting too much pressure on me.. anyway.. You cant continue staying in a bachelor's lodge once you get married. does it ring a bell? There are some terms that are "obviously binding"
RE:RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:55 PM Permalink
The statement " no clause in the deal that binds us to the US" is like creating darkness by closing your eyes.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 30, 2007 12:19 AM Permalink
U r wrong again. read the deal carefully it says the US has the right to terminate the deal but other countries can continue with the deal. bt for u thres no world beyond the US. u r opposing the deal just for the sake of opposing the US. oppositin to the US has blinded u of Indias interests. U still havent mentioned one concrete Clause whch clearly states that India should give up its sovereign rights to get da deal. U r a loser. all ur points are based on assumtions and a firm beleif that u r weak and u have a severe inferiority complex.
RE:Nuclear Deal
by Batman on Aug 29, 2007 10:45 PM Permalink
No u r wrong. its we who wil interpret it the way we like it. Not the US buddy. there u have been caught finally. This is exactly wot i wantd u to say. Finally u have proved theres no clause in the deal that binds us to the US. its we India whch decides and interprest the clauses in the deal based on our interest. Thank you, Thank you very much
RE:RE:Nuclear Deal
by george on Aug 29, 2007 10:39 PM Permalink
There is no clause which clearly states it, thats the problem. Ambiguity rules the hyde act. US can interpret it in any way to suit them during various circumstances which deveop in the future.
