MM Singh says that supporting Nuclear treaty is patriotic. There cannot be any doubt on the patriotism of this gentlman.
He has been a life time patriotic of US being a person sent by World Bank into indian polity. Now there is a dual patriotism of him. He is also veery patriotic to Italy, being her most humble servant. But, what we need is a simple patriotic of India, which he was never.
Let's face it; India's nuclear program is least of United States' worries right now. They are in it simply because powerful corporations are pushing the U.S. government to go ahead and sign the deal so that they can enter the most lucrative energy market in the world.
This deal only opens the gate for U.S. corporations to enter the market; it does not mean the cost of setting up nuclear reactors is already decided. That is for Indian government and Indian power/utility companies (buyers) to negotiate with the U.S. corporations (sellers).
India is at that moment of history where it can leverage its position as a huge potential market to squeeze the best deals for itself.
Imagine how the electricity generated by new nuclear power plants will improve irrigation and transform the lives of the poor.
And what is the worst case scenario? If we go ahead and test nuclear weapons in the future, we will lose these new reactors. But remember, our old ones (including the ones for developing nuclear weapons) will remain intact.
If someone offers you a car but tells you that if you remove parts of it to make anything else they will take the car back, will you say no? (And they don't care what you do with the cars you already own.)
WE MUST REMEMBER JULY-28: is it going to be that day, when congress-i surrendered india's freedom to US/UK?
from this day till eternity: IAEA can legally send US/UK/SAUDI/PAKI spies, deep into our nuclear installations, and legally checkout ANYTHING, and DOCUMENT, any WEAPON, any OFFICER, any THING...
AND WE CANNOT RAISE A FINGER! WE CANNOT STOP ANYONE!
THIS NUKE_DEAL IS A LEGAL INTERNATIONAL TREATY.
AND WHAT IF WE DO SO TOMORROW, ANYWAY?
THEN WE FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, FROM USA/EUROPE/ISLAMIC WORLD: JUST LIKE IRAQ IS FACING TODAY.
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by nickel biswas on Jul 08, 2008 01:35 AM Permalink
@Frist
Why are you spreading these lies? What do you hope to accomplish. The deal specifically states that India can seperate her nuclear program into military and civilian (chosen by India), with only the civilian facilities are to be opened for internaltional inspection.
This is the same agreement that all the Nuclear powers have. In theory and practice it will increase the supply of Uranium feul to India, so that what India now had and can make in the future can be fully utilized for weapon pruposes.
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by basher on Jul 08, 2008 12:28 AM Permalink
Let us achieve independence from fuel rich countries of gulf. That way we make our economy robust. Growth and Development is the most important for India going forward. This is a real good decision by Congress.
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by Indian Indian on Jul 08, 2008 12:31 AM Permalink
You are a congress lover fine...But how on this world you can achieve indepence from gulf oil by signing nuclear deal ?
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by Crimson Red on Jul 08, 2008 05:16 AM Permalink
I don't think it is rocket science Indian Indian. More Nuclear Energy, less dependence on Fossil Fuel. France produces 75% of its energy requirements from Nuclear Energy. Therefore, only 25% is other energy. Understand?
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by Guest on Jul 08, 2008 12:47 AM Permalink
Who told you, US or other countries can check our Nuclear plant? May be you are going with the words of Left parties. Had you gone through the deal. IF not then do google..understand it then talk..then vote and elect your government as per your opinion.
RE:WILL WE NOW HAVE TO FACE SANCTIONS AND WAR, JUST LIKE POOR-IRAQ?
by Indian Indian on Jul 08, 2008 12:54 AM Permalink
Mr. Guest. It is the main point of the deal. I think you need to google and read it. Left or the BJP are not opposing the deal just for the heck of it, read the Hyde act I have pasted below..
This para clearly tells how Pranav Mukherjee is telling lies....
The Hyde Act The Hyde Act contains several restrictive clauses. For instance, if India tests a nuclear weapon, the United States will cease all civilian nuclear cooperation. There are restrictions on the reprocessing of spent fuel. The Hyde Act also provides for a multilayered system of monitoring of reactors. The United States insists that India agree to these conditions before getting a waiver from the NSG. But India has said that it will accept only an “unconditional” waiver from the NSG, “We want a clean exemption for India without any condition,” reiterated Anil Kakodkar, chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, when the U.S. senators were in New Delhi.
Rice’s statement exposes the Indian government’s claim that the Hyde Act has no bearing on India. “Whatever is said in the Hyde Act is not binding on us,” Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherji told the Indian parliament in August 2007. “How they deal with this is their problem.”
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Guest on Jul 08, 2008 07:30 AM Permalink
Dear IndianIndian, Hyde Act and 123 Agreement are 2 different as per India's perception. Hyde Act is a US domestic Law which Indians are not boubnd to. Indians are bound to only 123 agreement which is a International Agreement between US and India.
Similar to Hyde Act, even in Indian Parliment you can pass a number of ACts with lot of restrictions against any country like US. That means don't expect US or anyother countries will abide. Those acts totally internal to the country.
All we care about is 123 Agreement. That is what our beloved PM is aggressively trying to achieve for national interest. This deal is too good for India. IT will erase the image of India as Snake Charmers in Global perspective.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Sahadevan KK on Jul 08, 2008 09:50 AM Permalink
Congress has no knowledge about their alliance:
Congress worked as a goon against SP of Mulayam Singh in UP just before the Elections. Congress removed RJD of Laloo from government in the name of lack of development. Congress worked as a goon against NCP of Sharad Pawar, however they got more seats than Congress in Maharashtra Congress worked as a goon against JD(S) in Karnataka and it was not ready to give anything Congeess worked as a goon in J&K against PDP and played politics of appeasement. CONGRESS IMPOSED ANTI-PEOPLE POLICY AGAINST INDIAN PEOPLE AND BRUTALITY AGAINST THE LEFT, HOWEVER LEFT WANTED SOME PRO-PEOPLE WORK FROM CONGRESS.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Nostra Damus on Jul 08, 2008 07:03 PM Permalink
Guest - the difference is thAT US can enforce its domestic laws on other nations, we cant.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Your Persona on Jul 08, 2008 01:41 AM Permalink
Couple of questions:
"The Hyde Act also provides for a multilayered system of monitoring of reactors."
- Does the term "reactors" include all existing reactors and the new ones to be set up under this Civil Nuclear cooperation deal? If it is applicable only to the new reactors under the purview of this cooperation deal, it should be OK. (As long as the existing reactors used for developing the nuclear weapons are not affected.)
"There are restrictions on the reprocessing of spent fuel."
- "Spent fuel" only from the reactors set up under this deal, right? What I understand from this is that the U.S. does not care what India does with the spent fuel from its existing nuclear reactors, as long as India does not divert the spent fuel from the reactors it helped set up.
"India tests a nuclear weapon, the United States will cease all civilian nuclear cooperation"
- How is it very different from where we are now? Right now there is no civilian nuclear cooperation anyway, which means the worst case scenario is that we will only be back where we are at now. That does not sound so bad.
I am not a big fan of Pranab Mukherji, but I get the feeling what he said is true. How does this deal affect India? India has nothing to lose, except the new reactors that U.S. would gift to us under the deal. All the existing reactors and whatever our scientists do will continue the way it has been.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Lalit Sharma on Jul 08, 2008 02:16 AM Permalink
You don't have to be even a small fan of pranab da, you need to be a big fan of Madam Italaiana. Quattrochi was and he got freed with all the money. Take care, Apna Khayal Rakhna.... :-)
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Your Persona on Jul 08, 2008 02:18 AM Permalink
OK, that was pretty smart, logical and relevant contribution to this discussion. Duh!
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by All Right on Jul 08, 2008 04:00 AM Permalink
Hello My Persona:
India has nothing to lose. Except for the new reactors?...
Do you know when was the last reactor built in the US?... I bet you don't.
And if you know that the existing reactors and whatever our scientists do will continue the way it has been, then answer me why was Uranium supply to Tarapore reactor cut off unceremoniously by US? Why has the government been unable to resume that supply?
There are many questions, and all is not as simple and hunky dory as your primary school essay competition type simplistic reasoning message makes it sound
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by Your Persona on Jul 10, 2008 10:47 PM Permalink
That's interesting.
For your kind information, the United States government is not transplanting their nuclear reactors to India. Companies like GE have developed newer and more efficient nuclear reactor technologies that do not have a market in the already saturated United States. These are the corporations trying to enter the energy-starved, but rich and capable markets like India. I bet you didn't know this.
What has the 123 Agreement got to do with the Uranium supply to Tarapore reactor? U.S. cut it off post our nuclear tests. It is an entirely separate issue, so how will the 123 deal further worsen it?
You are distorting the perspectives here.
The existing nuclear reactors will continue AS THEY DO NOW. (Which means the Tarapore reactor will continue to NOT receive Uranium supplies after signing the deal, just as it DOES NOT at the moment.) Whether India breaches the covenants of the 123 Agreement or not, that will be the case.
It is wise to be cautious, but foolhardy to be paranoid. For a nation with the wealth to twist any arm, and a track-record of breaking any word in its self-interest (such as conducting nuclear weapons test after assuring all along that it wouldn't), a simple agreement that brings in benefits (even if only temporary) while keeping its existing interests intact must not be so hard to accept. That is, if opportunist politicians and ultra U.S-phobics like you try to stonewall it.
RE:This is from FPIF(US's Foreign policy Doc.)
by nickel biswas on Jul 08, 2008 01:37 AM Permalink
>> For instance, if India tests a nuclear weapon, the United States will cease all civilian nuclear cooperation.
So? India is not testing nuclear weapons now. Let us sign the deal, and start stockpiling the new Uranium that comes in. If due to some external threat we need to test weapons again we can do so, at a much stronger position with much bigger stockpile of uranium.
why the us deplomat burns said that man mohan gave them something that atal did not. what is that something, and hence us congress would sign the bill. what is that something? must become the knowledge of common people
RE:Burns and n-deal
by nickel biswas on Jul 08, 2008 01:40 AM Permalink
This is a made up story. Where did you hear this? Please provide a link. You can look at the statements from both sides, clearly most of the accomodating was done by the US not India. India got more or less everything they asked for, including de-facto recongnition as a nuclear power.
RE:Burns and n-deal
by All Right on Jul 08, 2008 04:02 AM Permalink
Yeah... India got everything they asked for... :-)
And hence Bush was very very very keen to immediately start doling out the manna from heaven... After all USA is renowned for its charity, ain't it?... :-)
Nickel -- you seem to be lead... or had... whichever way you look at it
RE:RE:Burns and n-deal
by Nimesh Dikshit on Jul 08, 2008 08:54 AM Permalink
Manmohan gave us what Atal refused: US expert Author: Publication: Deccan Chronicle Date: July 22, 2006
Former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was not willing to "offer much to the United States in exchange for the (civilian nuclear energy) agreement, we got more from the government of Dr Manmohan Singh," according to Dr Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Dr Tellis worked with US officials on the nuclear agreement with India.
Dr Tellis, who was earlier posted at the US embassy here as adviser to former ambassador Robert Blackwill, told Internet news site Rediff that the Vajpayee government also wanted the deal, but one could not be reached because it was not giving much to the US. He said he could not disclose what Washington had wanted from the Vajpayee government but had been unable to get.
Asked by the reporter if Dr Manmohan Singh had caved in "easily", Dr Tellis said, "There is no question of Dr Singh caving in, India has got a deal that it would not have got in the past or in the future." Sources close to Mr Vajpayee said there were three points that his government was not willing to concede to Washington with a clear record of this being established through the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott talks. These concerned the CTBT, the moratorium on fissile production and a proposed restrain in the nuclear regime. The bills now pending a vote in the US Congress clearly seek to "cap, reduce and eliminate"
The government of the Indian-administered province of Jammu and Kashmir has collapsed.
Ghulam Nabi Azad, the chief minister, resigned on Monday after weeks of protests over the transfer of land to a Hindu shrine trust.
Thousands of Muslims in the province protested against the move, which they called an effort to alter the region's demographics.
On July 1, the government revoked the land-transfer order, which defused tensions in predominantly Muslim Kashmir's capital Srinagar but led to more violent protests in Jammu, a Hindu-majority area.
At least six people were killed and hundreds wounded in the protests.
The withdrawal of support from an alliance partner also played a role.
No confidence
On June 28, the land transfer controversy prompted the People's Democratic Party (PDP) to withdraw support for the government, reducing Azad's Congress-led government to a minority.
"I do not wish to put my friends in trouble whose heart is somewhere else and their party whip is somewhere else," Azad said in state assembly before tendering his resignation to the state governor.
The state, in India's northeast corner, will be administered by the governor until elections are held in four months.
Omar Abdullah, president of the opposition National Conference, said his party "will not stake a claim to form the government".
"We need to get into campaigning mode and predicting any post-poll alliance at this point of time will be premature," he said.
the discussion we are having in the country is mis-guided at best.
We debate over NDA Vs UPA We debate over Cong Vs BJP We debate over Minority appeasement...
This is not the issue.
We need to discuss Free market capitalism Vs communism.
For the last 60 years we have been following a seudo communist path that has often taken us into a ditch.
We need leaders to will stand for the following,
- Individual freedom - De-regulation of markets - Eliminating income tax - Strong national defense - No religious/Haj subsidies - No runing of temples - No government spending on yatras - Strict punishment for people who destroy/damage public/private property - No Bandhs - Infrastructure investment - Privatize healthcare - Privatize schooling
This is the platform we need politicians to run on.
RE:Wrong discussion...
by sachin pawar on Jul 08, 2008 12:00 AM Permalink
Privatize healthcare - Privatize schooling This i think will not work,will disscuss on this
RE:Wrong discussion...
by imran patel on Jul 08, 2008 12:11 AM Permalink
Let me share my thoughts on schooling...
Government and corruption go hand in hand. We cannot separate them. There will be inefficiency in the way money will be utilized. There will be corruption and favouritism involved in hiring and promotions. There will be RESERVATIONS (Big NO for me).
I know you are worried about education cost. Think of it like rice. People who are rich will eat Basmati rise and people who are poor will have to survive on less expensive rise.
Same applies to education. Education cannot be of the same standard for all. You get what you pay for.
That is the down side of privatizing schooling. Is there a solution. Absolutely Yes.
When government is out of your pockets, we will have more money with us. Thats were CHARITY plays an important part.
Fund education for your relatives. If you have money, fund education for your maids children. Raise funds from people who want to see a change and offer vouchers to poor students. But all this without the government.
RE:Wrong discussion...
by anand chhabra on Jul 08, 2008 04:05 AM Permalink
Government makes things worse: Sir, Government is By the people, to the people and for the people.We are responsible for every action government take, because we choose the memeber of parliament, right ? You vote ..don't you?
Don't Blame government and politicians all the time ... if you feel that something is wrong, let the world know. Make things happen ...
Now my question is : We have been a growing nation for a long time, Because of whom's decision? your's or government's?
We have achieved so many things in 60 years of independence, which so many nations were not able to achieve in 100 years... because of YOU or the government ????
Can you think of the amount.. which Mr. P. Chidambram handles ... try to count the zeros in the total amount of budget .. Your head will spin, if you are suppose to plan INDIAN NATIONAL BUDGET.
We have diversity, which is difficult to handle, just visit Delhi, Ahmedabad, Sikkim, kerala, kolkata and chennai, you will come to know.
what percentage of people live in rural areas, not all now the comman language try to talk to a person of your country from a village of a different region and analyse how difficult it is? and how many languages and religions Govt. of india handles.
I know every INDIAN loves INDIA, but Blames all those who have been taking care of it for a long time..... If you think you are a better than fight for it, take responsibilities and admit it was ONLY YOU WHO hAS Never been ABLE TO GIVE INDIA A GOOD G
RE:Wrong discussion...
by kieran dsouza on Jul 08, 2008 12:35 PM Permalink
Mr. Anand, you have really got the bull by the balls instead of the horns. I would agree with Imran's assessment rather than yours any day. We have progressed INSPITE of our politicians rather than because of them.
If chidambaram has handling a lot of zeroes than u can imagine those come out of yours and my pocket due to the backbreaking taxes he has imposed with many funny sounding names.
Diversity of our country is very easy for politicians to handle VOTE bank politics. As long as we are divided, they (politicians) are united
Indians are the most enterprising of people but our politicians are holding us back with EXCISE and LICENSE Raj and encouraged by crony capitalists lick each others rears at the cost of common man
RE:coalition goverment
by imran patel on Jul 07, 2008 11:43 PM Permalink
Coalition government is the highest form of corruption done in front of the public.
RE:coalition goverment
by READ on Jul 07, 2008 11:54 PM Permalink
thats what i am trying to tell imran its one of the worst forms of goverement..........anway lets wait and watch the fun
