The deal is not about just testing of nuclear missiles. There are many attachments. The deal is for 40 years. Anytime we want to come out, the cost of exit can be financially disastrous. The fuel supply is not meant to meet the essentials of our country - it is only for civil purposes, that to electricity generation (2.5% of todays needs)! Tommorrows needs may increase and this may become useless. The nuclear power generation technology may become obsolete anytime due to ever entering newer technologies that are cheaper and better. Why is the US after India signing the deal, if it is only in India's interest? A handful of picked US Enterprises make business by selling the fuel to us and we cannot buy fuel from elsewhere even if that is cheaper than the US firms' fuel. Assured business for US and assured commission for our UPA politicians appears to be the truth behind the deal. Only a part of the agreement (safeguards) is made public. Other major issues are still not out. Do we need to run for the deal without knowing the details? It seems UPA wants to win atleast one confidence motion and sign the unholy deal before quitting the government. What else can be the reason other than the huge kickbacks to the top brass in the government? Perhaps the Commies did not get their due share in the deal and so they quit. Now the offer is Rs.25 crore a MP for voting in favour!
It was bad enough to [mis]quote former President Kalam on the "Unclear" Deal. Now rediff has added T P Sreenivasan to the galaxy of experts on nuclear energy and IAEA and everything else. Hey, what do "Bhagwan" Satya Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Ravi Shankar Shankar and Mata Amritanandamayi say about the Deal?
RE:Everybody is an expert!!!
by ItsMe on Jul 15, 2008 11:40 PM Permalink
sri sri sri sri has already appealed that do not oppose the deal. one more nuclear expert. india should start consultancy in nuclear technology. we have so many of these.
1) Russia is building several nuclear plants and FBR without any 123 Deal and the last PM of Russia Fradkov came to India recently to offer another 6 plants without any IAEA deal. The argument of Russia is that the deal between India and the Soviet Union was made in 1988, so it is binding; there is no need for 123 Deal.
2) India has enough natural uranium, but AEC does not bother to utilize these just to create an artificial crisis. There are a number of countries with huge natural uranium but these are outside the jurisdiction of NSG or USA. Also after the completion of Thorium-Uranium mixed plant which the Russians making and the FBR ( you need to wait 3-4 years) there will not be much need for massive amount of natural uranium. The problem for India is for the short period and it was created by USA with full collaboration of the Sarkari scientists just to promote NPT. 123 Deal is not alone, it is accompanied by Hyde Act, IAEA treaty, NSG treaty and Fission material cut off treaty.
3) Putting all together it means the end of Indian nuclear research and nuclear weapons programme, as India will not be allowed to import any equipment or materials for the military sector. USA and IAEA not India will determine what would go to the military sector. All these parts are left vague in the IAEA treaty deliberately. This IAEA treaty is the same as that for any non-nuclear weapons country. There is nothing India specific really.
RE:Do not tell us lies just because of your pension
by ItsMe on Jul 15, 2008 11:43 PM Permalink
are you illiterate? have you read the agreement? end of nuclear research... end of indian weapons... end of the world. you are an "asantust atma". you will never be happy.
RE:Do not tell us lies just because of your pension
by bhaskar bhatt on Jul 16, 2008 11:34 AM Permalink
Its me...I wonder if u have read the agreement? What Dipak is saying is true. Also, the only India specific thing in the agreement is the Hyde Act by which it is governed. Which means more restrictions and unacceptable terms for India.
RE:A QUERY PLEASE !
by KANDASAMY PERIASAMY on Jul 15, 2008 12:43 PM Permalink
Nuclear energy, unfortunately has been born with a defence tag and has always been under wrap in all countries. As human psycology goes, anything under wrap attracts inquisitiveness, and so was Nuclear Energy. All the media kept on publishing juicy news items - mostly adverse-about nuclear energy based on half baked informations provided by lower level people working in Atomic energy. The scientists kept quite and were just silent spectators.But now, when the Engineers / Scientists want to tell the complete details about nuclear energy, the public is not ready to beleive them because their mind is already prejudiced with almost 5 decades of filth written by the media ! This is the reality throughout the world.
In the whole of 5 decades of nuclear energy, there were only 2 accidents, where there was fatality ( 3 in Three Mile Island and 41 in Chernobyl). The exaggerated versions of millions being affected on a long term basis has not happened in Chernobyl. Only about 4000 people were treated for Thyroid Iodine content and they are all living hale and healthy.
As for our requirement of Nuclear materials for Defence purposes is concerned, we have enough Plutonium to make any number of Nuclear Bombs. We do not need anything extra ! Even if we want to produce more, we can always produce in any of our running Reactors which are not under safegaurds.
I request all to shed the Political stigma and support the Deal which is in the long term interest of the Nation.
RE:A QUERY PLEASE !
by ItsMe on Jul 15, 2008 11:46 PM Permalink
false information. tens of thousands have died due to cancer in chernobyl. the genetic defects are seen in offsprings also. dont forget that the rulers then were communists. they tried to sweep everything under the carpet.
RE:RE:A QUERY PLEASE !
by KANDASAMY PERIASAMY on Jul 19, 2008 01:12 PM Permalink
I had given several websites where the Independent / UN expert team study results on the Chernobyl accident and the after effects have been published. Rediff.com dos not allow Net links to be written in this column. It is unfortunate.
Anyway, if there has been continued cancer deaths, do you think news agencies like BBC( which have free access now) would not have gone there to show a big episode ? After all they run with camera whereever even one accident death is there or wherever there is one police firing( as if in the whole world, there are no news other than terrorism, flood, riots, shoot outs, etc) !
So, please do not go by media reports. The gap between the media reports and the truth is much wider compared to that between the Official version and the truth. So, please beleive in Official version, more so, in the case of Nuclear Power, for reasons explained in my earlier reply.
RE:We don't need foreign educated PM & FM
by GRJ on Jul 15, 2008 10:48 AM Permalink
Academics is different and appliedstrategies are different.
A country can not wait for trial and error method politics and fiscal planning.
We need a surgeon to operate on a patient not physicians to keep studying and passing diagnosis.....the need of the hour is application of strategies as people starve by the time Certificates and testimonials are put to use.
RE:We don't need foreign educated PM & FM
by Dipak Bose on Jul 15, 2008 10:56 AM Permalink
PM is not Harvard educated and FM is not Stanford educated. PM got a MA from Chandighar University, followed by BA from Cambridhe University, followed by D.Phil from Oxford.
Education is not the issue here. But the idependence of the country is. Those who were very highly educated, all Barristers from London, Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah, Liaqat Ali, divided the country to please the British. Now this PM and FM are destroying India to please USA.
FM got MBA from Harvard( ? I am not sure whether he is telling us the truth or just like Ambani who has drpped out of Harvard, telling us a lie)after getting a law degree from Madras.
RE:We don't need foreign educated PM & FM
by Indiya on Jul 16, 2008 11:24 PM Permalink
yeah, unedcuated Lalu gives lectures in IIM. Let him be the PM and Rabari be the FM.
RE:We don't need foreign educated PM & FM
by Dipak Bose on Jul 15, 2008 10:58 AM Permalink
Pm is not Harvard Educated, FM is not stanford educated, Kalam is only a Diploma Engineer.
RE:We don't need foreign educated PM & FM
by ravi kiran on Jul 15, 2008 01:42 PM Permalink
what is Advani?
look i donno whats in your mind. but before mking such horrifing comments of statesmen please go through the text of n-deal from MEA website and later voice...
I find most of the writters go out of the topic. It is not healthy.
There is no point in discussing about which party is good and which party is bad while discussing about whether the IAEA Agreement is in the interest of both parties or not.
One thing which everyone should keep in mind is that, when we are making an agreement with two parties, it has to be agreeable to both. Then only it will become agreement.
In most cases the Agreements will contain a compromise of the stand points of both parties concerned.
After going through the IAEA Draft agreement in detail, my comments are :
1. For a Country which is particular about not signing NPT and at the same time wants to do nuclear business with the rest of the world, especially wants to import nuclear fuel, the terms of the deal is OK.
2. The perpetuity clause of IAEA safeguards will be based on the bilateral agreement which India will enter into with the supplier country. In that Agreement, we will surely have clause that will stipulate that in the event of fuel supply stippage the safeguards will cease. If not, we will not buy reactors from them. We will buy only fuel. Simple.
3. Too much is read into this deal w.r.t US. In fact, after the deal, we may not do much with US unless they give the Reactors at throw away price with financila aid. We will be doing business with France / Russia / Australia / China, etc. We may not import Reactors at all ! We may export Reactors and Reprocessing plants !
RE:Going out of topic
by Madhu Sudhanan on Jul 16, 2008 03:23 AM Permalink
One thing which I want to know from you. There is very good possibility that after IAEA safeguards and NSG waiver, India can very well do business exclusively with France, Russia, Australia and not much with US. When we have a possibility for India to come into mainstream nuclear trade without NPT and with the help of US in IAEA and NSG and go ahead to do business with other countries than US, what is the advantage for the US to help India so much (which had not happened any time in the past)? Is it just a gesture of friendship (for India to be its ally) or is there any hidden agenda? Please explain I could figure this one out. I also believe that after so much US will not take back seat. Please explain your thought on this.
RE:Going out of topic
by KANDASAMY PERIASAMY on Jul 19, 2008 12:59 PM Permalink
It is a genuine doubt. China has overgrown. US foresees China may take the place of erstwhile Russia to creat a Bipolar world. This process can be speeded up if India is allowed to join hands with China, though it is a remote probability. Still one can not rule it out as an improbable one. Hence, to preempt such a situation, US would like to have reasonably good relationship with India. It will be useful for them at some point or the other.
US sees India as a possible counter force for China.
Secondly, the US Nuclear Reactor Manufacturers, who are not having any orders now, will definitely like to sell the Reactors to India. If their Govt is willing to agree to our terms, we will definitely buy from them. This possibility can not be totaly ruled out.
Thirdly,US companies foresee that this US-India Nuclear Deal will give the much needed public acceptance for Nuclear Power throughout the world, which has been unfairly planted in the minds of general public as -all bad -good for nothing - phenomenon. In fact, the whole scientific community looks at this deal as a trigger for the nuclear renaissance ! After all the Engineers have been running about 1000 Reactors for the past 40 years with just 2 accidents and just 44 casualties !
Now, for these reasons, if US wants to enter into a deal with India, in what way we are losing ? We have many things to gain. In that process, US also gains. Why we should bother ?We know how to be Non-Aligned. It has been time tested.
RE:RE:Going out of topic
by galilio on Jul 24, 2008 02:56 PM Permalink
YES GAIN FROM USA IS SHORT TERM BUT NOT ON LONG TERM.WE SUBJECT OUR NUCLEAR PLANTS TO INSPECTION BY USA AND IAEA OFFICIALS TO LET OUR SECRETS KNOW.USA HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE BACK ITS EQUIPMENTS AND SUPPLIES ALREADY INSTALLED IN INDIA IF FOUND INDIA MAKING WEAPONS FOR DESTRUCTION.IN SHORT, INDIA WILL LOSE ON MANY THINGS- INDIA CAN NOT BE PERMANENT U N SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER,INDIAS SECRETS WILL BE OUT, INDIA SIGNING 123 AGREEMENT WITH HYDE ACTS AMOUNT TO SIGNING NPT AGREEMENT ON BACKDOOR ENTRY BUT IN DIFFERENT CLAUSES WITH SAME OBJECTIVE.URANIUM SUPPLY IS IN THE HANDS OF WEST AND AMERICA WHO WOULD DICTATE TERMS WITH INDIA IN ITS FOREIGN POLICY. URANIUM AVAILABILITY IS LESS THAN 1% IN INDIA WITH ITS CONTENT IS JUST 0.3% OF URANIUM IN ITS ORE- JADUGUDA MINES IN JARKHAND,ANDHRA,TRIPURA ARE THREE MINOR PRODUCING STATES IN INDIA.SO SUPPLY IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM FOR FUEL.SO SURRENDERING TO AMERICA IS ONLY OPTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT.
Re: Going out of topic
by KANDASAMY PERIASAMY on Aug 30, 2008 05:14 PM Permalink
We will buy Fuel from those countries which will invest as partners in the reactors to be built by us. There are many countries waiting in the wings to do so.
Hence they will ensure that Uranium will be supplied. Even when we do not have Petroleum reserves, we are ready to build so many Petroleum Refineries / car / truck plants without any assurance from any country. In fact we all know that the Crude is going to be depleted sooner or later. Still we keep building those plants and we continue to bet our economy on Oil !
Then, why we should not build nuclear reactors with atleast some assurance on fuel supply ?
The argument of India being denied Security council berth because of this Deal is a far fetched imagination.
Further, we must understand that this Deal is not between US and India only. We will be doing business with all host of countries like Germany, France, Russia, Australia, etc. Even if today they all surrender to US, things will change (like world becoming Unipolar today from Bipolar few years ago )and they will not listen to US as they do today for anything and everything ! Then why we should worry too much about US ? In today's context, it is bettet to go ahead with the Deal. Tomorrow it is going to be the best for the Country.
the fine print reveals that the agreement will pin India to a strict non-proliferation regime with stringent action in case of default. Additionally, while the text is specific about IAEA safeguards in perpetuity, it holds little assurance for India on fuel supply in perpetuity.
RE:To HP SIngh!
by kitttigadu on Jul 15, 2008 08:43 AM Permalink
I agree. But there is no need to abuse Kalam. He has nothing to gain or lose. We should accept, that whatever he has said is his honest opinion.
RE:RE:To HP SIngh!
by kitttigadu on Jul 15, 2008 08:40 AM Permalink
I tried to post a link to Brahma Chellaney' article, where he points out, that the price of crude oil has nothing to do with electricity generation, because less than 5% of thermal plants use oil, most of them use gas.
RE:To HP SIngh!
by Shyam on Jul 15, 2008 02:52 PM Permalink
This is the biggest problem in Rediff. Many messages are marked abuse immediately on pressing the submit button. And moderator promptly blocks the message without even going through it! Very poor working at Rediff. My sympathies to you being an equal sufferer.
Sarkari scientist with dubious qualifications, with degrees or diplomas from Anna University or Kodaikanak University and the IAS/IFS babus have the responsibility to argue for the government; their salaries and pensions depend on these. Thus, they don't care about India.
They would of course say any type of lies and fabrications to prove what cannot be proved.
1) Russia is building several nuclear plants and FBR without any 123 Deal and the last PM of Russia Fradkov came to India recently to offer another 6 plants without any IAEA deal. The argument of Russia is that the deal between India and the Soviet Union was made in 1988, so it is binding; there is no need for 123 Deal. 2) India has enough natural uranium, but AEC does not bother to utilize these just to create an artificial crisis. There are a number of countries with huge natural uranium but these are outside the jurisdiction of NSG or USA. Also after the completion of Thorium-Uranium mixed plant which the Russians making and the FBR ( you need to wait 3-4 years) there will not be much need for massive amount of natural uranium. The problem for India is for the short period and it was created by USA with full collaboration of the Sarkari scientists just to promote NPT. 123 Deal is not alone, it is accompanied by Hyde Act, IAEA treaty, NSG treaty and Fission material cut off treaty. Putting all together it means the end of Indian nuclear research and nuclear weapons programme, as India will not be allowed to i
RE:India's future is doomed with this PM
by Dipak Bose on Jul 15, 2008 08:25 AM Permalink
Putting all together it means the end of Indian nuclear research and nuclear weapons programme, as India will not be allowed to import any equipment or materials for the military sector. USA and IAEA not India will determine what would go to the military sector. All these parts are left vague in the IAEA treaty deliberately. This IAEA treaty is the same as that for anu non-nuclear weapons country. There is nothing India specific really.
