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.
