Nuclear power an 'inevitable option'

VIENNA: Making a strong pitch for international nuclear energy cooperation with India, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar on Tuesday made it clear that nuclear power was an 'inevitable option' and pressed for 'reformation' of global thinking on it."There is a need for reformation of global thinking that is necessary and consensus on closed fuel cycle has to be reached by those going to participate in the future nuclear renaissance," Kakodkar said.
He was speaking at the scientific forum, an integral part of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) being attended by more than 500 participants."The world has to move forward with nuclear power as an inevitable option based purely on partnership on objective, reliable and predictable basis with holistic mutual understanding and trust as a pre-requisite," he said.
Kakodkar's carefully-worded comments come amidst a raging political debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal in India with Left parties and the opposition closely watching his approach at the IAEA.The Left parties have warned the UPA government of a 'political crisis' if it went ahead with operationalising the deal. An India-specific safeguards agreement and changes in guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are required to put the deal into force.Kakodkar favoured a closed fuel cycle to reduce the risk of proliferation of fissile material, a proposal backed by several countries.Currently, the spent fuel from atomic power plants is stocked in high security facilities. This fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, which can be used to create nuclear weapons.
"We cannot put future security at risk through the once-through cycle," he said.
The one time use of uranium fuel should not promoted as it is important for the world to make use of the spent fuel to maximise the energy production and minimise the radioactive waste, he contended.Kakodkar also emphasised that in order to meet the huge energy demands of the world community it was important to have inclusive partnership and make sure that those countries which are keen to develop nuclear power for the first time should have basic minimum infrastructure and human resource needed for it. "This will ensure that no uncertainty remains."

The AEC chief drove home the point that there was need for institutional approach in IAEA programmes. "We need to develop models not based on supplier/recipient basis but on the partnership basis to promote a healthy multi-country cooperation.
"Although IAEA has been making some efforts in this direction, it has not progressed much. IAEA needs to be backed up by additional institutional back up."
"For making the option for closed fuel cycle, there has to be a national policy and India has from the beginning opted for this and we call spent fuel a resource and not waste," he said.US Assistant Secretary for nuclear energy Dennis R Spurgeon elaborated on how the American scientists are working on various technologies to make use of the spent fuel effectively creating minimum radioactive waste.
Several scientists and leaders participating in the forum on 'Nuclear Energy' felt that they should work on the inclusive partnership proposed by Kakodkar and support the closed fuel cycle.

We can't avoid nuclear power : Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee

KOLKATA: As his party continued to oppose the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, West Bengal Chief Minister and CPM leader Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee on Monday said the country cannot avoid nuclear power and wanted scientists to debate this and come to a conclusion."We just cannot avoid nuclear power. We should move ahead taking into account the price of nuclear plant and cost of power," Bhattacharjee told an interactive session with the captains of industry organised by CII. Bhattacharya was however silent on the nuke deal.On Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent statement that India could not miss the bus of nuclear renaissance, Bhattacharjee said, "We have some doubts about the price of nuclear plants, the cost of power etc. Scientists, planners and economists should discuss this."Let the scientists debate, we will take a decision after that."Bhattacharjee had on Sunday stated that the state government had not taken a decision on nuclear power yet because of divided opinion on it.The state, he said, required more power in coming years because "our growth rate is increasing and FDI is coming."He said that 96 per cent of power in the state was generated by thermal power and "We have to switch over from thermal to solar, wind and other sources of power. In view of the problem of global warming, we need clean power."

Bullets fly as villagers tell comrades: Give us grain, not nuclear nonsense

Villagers faced with a food shortage today stormed a CPM nuclear-deal protest and beat up leaders, saying they wanted rice and not mumbo-jumbo on a subject they didn't understand. A mob of about 1,000 from the Bankura village - a CPM stronghold - then fought police with bombs and stones, prompting firing by the force that injured a schoolboy of 16 and a 23-year-old man. The violence, coming at a time snap polls look a possibility, may confirm the Bengal CPM's deepest fears. The state unit, which has to fight elections, favours caution while taking a decision on toppling the UPA government over the nuclear deal in contrast to the party's central leaders, who have never contested polls. A dozen villagers from Radhamohanpur, 250km from Calcutta, had come to the "anti-imperialism" meeting around 10am to complain to the CPM leaders against hoarding by ration-shop owners. They erupted when panchayat chief Pabitra Mondal - who was on the dais trying to convince a crowd of 200 daily wagers about the dangers of the 123 Agreement tried to shoo them away . One man jumped on the dais, snatched the microphone and began abusing the assembled CPM leaders. "We'll teach you a lesson. You can't give us rice and wheat, instead you talk mumbo-jumbo. We don't understand the nuclear deal, give us food," he screamed. "Maar shalader maar (beat them up)." The words will worry state CPM secretary Biman Bose, who has admitted that the anti-nuclear deal line lacks the force of bread-and-butter issues and will be difficult to sell to an electorate. This afternoon, he said he hadn't heard about the incident but would find out what happened. The news, however, spread fast across Bankura and violent protests against ration dealers were reported from elsewhere in the district, too. In Radhamohanpur, news of the clash at the meeting drew men and women out of their homes, armed with sticks, knives, burning torches and even brooms. The dais, party banners and festoons were soon in flames."I had never seen a mob so angry. They dragged me from the dais and beat me. I ran to the panchayat office but they dragged me and four others out and beat us," Mondal said. The police were driven out as soon as they arrived. A bigger team, together with the Rapid Action Force, later caned the mob and rescued the CPM leaders. The police said the villagers regrouped and hurled bombs and stones, injuring an officer and four others. "We were forced to fire three rounds," said Bishnupur subdivisional police officer Dyutiman Bhattacharjee. The villagers claimed the police fired at least 20 rounds. A bullet pierced the left hand of Sudhamoy Kandal and entered his stomach. Another hit schoolboy Tapas Pal. Nine other villagers, injured in the baton-charge, are in hospital. Ten have been held. Arjun Mondal, 30, a farmer, said: "We didn't get rice or wheat from the ration shops for nearly a year. The dealers sell in the black market with CPM backing."
Although Sonamukhi, the area in which Radhamohanpur falls, is a known CPM stronghold, local party officials blamed the Trinamul Congress, BJP and Maoists for the violence. Trinamul leaders denied the charge.
From Telegraph

WHETHER THE Left likes it or not, Kakodkar will discuss the N-deal with IAEA

WHETHER THE Left likes it or not, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman Anil Kakodkar will discuss the India-US civil nuclear deal with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) DirectorGeneral Mohamed E1Baradei later this month. The meeting will take place on the sidelines of the IAEA general conference in Vienna, slated for September 17-21. However, top government sources made a distinction between general discussions on the deal and entering into negotiations to conclude an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA. India will also brief the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on the contours of the nuclear agreement, on September 18 in Vienna. "In Vienna, Dr Kakodkar will be asked questions about the deal and he will have to respond," a top government official said. That the government was pushing ahead with seeking support for the deal was clear from the talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Bulgarian counterpart Sergei Stanishev in New Delhi on Wednesday night. Speaking at a banquet, Singh made a specific reference to Bulgarian support for India's case at the NSG. The UPA government remains conscious of the fact that time is ticking away and it must continue the process of engagement with the international community on this key initiative. When contacted by HT, Sitaram Yechury of the CPM said, "We are going by the statement issued when the UPALeft joint committee was set up. It said that the findings of the committee will be taken into account before proceeding with the operationalisation of the deal." He added: "That means India-specific IAEA protocol issues cannot be taken up at the general body meeting." R. Chidambaram, principal scientific adviser to the Government of India, said on Wednesday that nuclear energy was an "inevitable option" for the country.

From HT.

"N-deal a golden chance for India"

THE CIVIL nuclear deal with the United States provides India with a "golden chance" to "accommodate itself" into a more legitimate international nonproliferation structure, Yasukuni Enoki, Japan's Ambassador in New Delhi, believes. In an interview to the Hindustan Times, Enoki, howevel: said that in the real world, 100 per cent results could not be achieved, pointing to the compromise implicit in the civil nuclear deal. "It is unthinkable for such a major, important power to remain an outsider to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. India will remain an excommunicated country and denied access to civil atomic energy technology and research (activities)," Enoki remarked. The ambassador: who leaves for home at the end of the month after a four-year tenure, said such an "outlaw" status for India was not healthy either for New Delhi or the international community To a question if he had any views on the domestic political debate in India on the civil nuclear deal, he said this was "very much a domestic issue" and he wished to abstain from joining this internal debate. Taking a philosophical approach, Enoki stated that India, as a country, always had "good balance": it had taken the middle path. According to him, debate and argument among ditTerent schools of thought was an "indispensable part of Indian culture". "India, eventually, has chosen with wisdom the best way So, I hope that through domestic arguments, India will reach a reasonable conclusion for the next step (in the nuclear deal)," he stressed. Turning to the international situation, Enoki made the pertinent point that barring one member of the five permanent members (P-5) of the United Nations' Security Council- China, Russia, Britain, France and the US had extended strong support to accommodate India. "I understand that this stance taken by four of the P-5 members is based on the belief that it is more conducive for world peace to accommodate India into the mainstream of international non-proliferation efforts."
From HT

Kerala Reds made illegal millions: CIA papers

THE COMMUNISTS in Kerala began amassing huge quantities of wealth soon after they came to power in the state almost five decades ago, according to a document released by the US' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The world's first elected communist government took office in 1957 and started accumulating wealth "through official coercion, bribes and kickbacks", the CIA says in a 240-page document titled "National Intelligence Survey India (1959)". Today the CPM in Kerala is believed to own property worth Rs 5,000 crore. Besides, it runs industrial units, shopping malls, super speciality hospitals, TV channels, soccer tournaments and amusement parks. In 1958, the undivided CPI in Andhra Pradesh collected Rs 8 lakh and "more than half of this collection may have been profits earned through a rice purchase arrangement between Andhra Pradesh traders and the communist government of Kerala," the document posted on the official website www.foia.cia.gov claims. "In the first two years in office, the Kerala unit of the party is estimated to have collected four to five million rupees," the document says. "The Soviet and communist bloc embassies in New Delhi have been reported to make cash contributions via agents to avoid direct tie-ups. Other assistance has been provided by paying ad- YOf tlS1119 I'21CUS 101' CE11'1'Y111P IPatUFO 211- ticles in the communist press, commissioning Indian editions of Russian books and by providing large quantities of books and pamphlets to CPI bookstores," the document says. CPM leaders said they were yet to see the document and would react to it only after going through it.

From HT

Nuclear deal unique: Kalam

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has found support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal from former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
“It’s unique, what he has done,” Mr. Kalam said on NDTV’s ‘Walk the Talk’ programme when asked whether the Prime Minister can be complimented for having clinched the deal.Mr. Kalam’s endorsement comes at a time when the Left parties have again upped their ante against the deal and warned the government of a “crisis” if it went ahead with its operationalisation.Asked whether he thought scientists opposing the deal were going too far, he evaded a direct response.“Fortunately, in our democratic set-up, scientists can always approach at the highest level.”The 75-year-old nuclear scientist also did not feel that the scientists were being ignored. “I didn’t feel like that at all.”“Whatever has happened is (for) good,” Mr. Kalam responded when his view was sought on the deal on which the Prime Minister had consulted him. Mr. Kalam said he had met the Prime Minister before “finishing my assignment (as President)” and highlighted the importance of thorium reactors. “I told the Prime Minister that thorium reactors are very important,” he said.
Expressing his anguish over the repeated turmoil in Parliament, he said “Parliament has to function. There may be a lot of differences, but Parliament has to function.”
Mr. Kalam had a few words of praise for both Manmohan Singh and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who led the NDA regime.

“Each of them has a unique core competence,” he noted. — PTI

India cannot afford to miss nuclear bus: Manmohan

"We do not enjoy the luxury of an either-or choice. India needs energy from all known and likely sources......We must take steps to avoid disruptions in nuclear power production"

PM outlines few simple truths

"WE CANNOT afford to miss the bus," said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday, far away from the din in Parliament. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chose the coastal birthplace of India's nuclear power programme to speak a "few simple truths" about boarding the world's nuclear renaissance or missing the bus. "We do not enjoy the luxury of an either-or choice. India needs energy from all known and likely sources," he said. The Prime Minister was addressing the scientists and engineers who have built India's first nuclear power plants in the late '60s and designed India's latest, costliest and largest twin 540 MW plants at Tarapur (about 100 km off Mumbai), which he dedicated to the nation. However, he did not mention the 123 agreement or directly refer to the debate with the Left over the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. Nevertheless, the message couldn't have been more clear And the platform too, was an apt one to reiterate the government's stance by linking the removal of "iniciuitous shackles" with India's energy needs, security, economic growth and national interest "We need to pave the way for India to benefit from nuclear commerce without re- strictions...we need to supplement our uranium resources from elsewhere...we must take decisive steps to avoid disruptions in nuclear power production," he said. Significantly, he emphasised that the cooperation will not be dependent on any one country "We will source supplies from many countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), including the US, Russia, France and Japan." Singh also made a strong case for entering negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the Left opposes. "Our international cooperation cannot become effective until the NSG adapts its guidelines to enable nuclear commerce with India. The NSG has made it clear that they will not do so tn the India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA is finalised." Maharashtra holds India's largest cluster of nuclear power plants, and the Tarapur 540 MW reactor designs will be modified for future 700 MW indigenous reactors. India's target nuclear power generation is 20,000 MW by 2020. reshma.patil@hindustantimes.com IllPA-Left talks mechanism m Panel does not have time frame but will give its report 'as expeditiously as possible', External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said mTalks mechanism to go into Left concerns on N-deal likely to include six Left members and one or two more than that from Congress-UPA BJP not buying truce n Party leader Arun Jaitley said BJP officebearers would meet on Saturday to prepare for both the Lok Sabha and assembly polls m The BJP's core group met, saying the 'patch-up' in the government would not work and polls would come 'sooner than expected'

From HT

Don’t let the Left dictate foreign policy

The government had been failing to build momentum on the nuclear deal ever since Manmohan Singh initially set the cat among the pigeons by challenging the Left to bring down the government if they seriously believed their own allegations about the deal selling the country short. It’s encouraging, therefore, that the prime minister has come out swinging again by stating that India cannot lag behind global developments by missing the bus on nuclear energy. It is poised to make the big leap to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, but the naysayers’ league is determined to pull it back.
Singh’s statement is aimed at both the international community — where the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and US Congress will debate India’s nuclear status soon — as well as parliamentarians back home who are contented with the status quo and fail to see the big picture. To maintain its growth momentum India needs to fire on all energy cylinders and nuclear power cannot be left out of this matrix. Nor can it afford to be locked out of vital areas of high-tech commerce because of their potential for dual use. A high-powered committee — with representatives from the UPA and the Left — has been set up to examine the possible repercussions of the Hyde Act passed by US Congress on India’s nuclear sovereignty. But the critical phrase in the joint statement announcing the step is that the operationalisation of the deal will “take into account” the committee’s findings.
That’s as it should be. In India, foreign policy is, traditionally and constitutionally, the government’s prerogative. The Left supports the government from outside. In other words, it has stayed out of government by its own choice. The government can, therefore, take into account what the Left — or any committee where the Left has a significant presence — says about something, but it doesn’t have to be bound by it. The Left can, on its part, withdraw its support to the government if it so chooses. But then it will have to take its chances with the political realignments, and possibly elections, that will follow.
It has so far tied the government’s hands on most economic reform policy measures, including disinvestment, flexible labour laws, insurance and banking. But it can’t occupy both the government and opposition space for keeps; a car driven from the back seat usually crashes. The prime minister would be right to insist on his and his cabinet’s prerogative to make policy, including foreign policy. And if he chooses to stand by the nuclear deal — a critical element of his government’s foreign policy — he can’t be blamed for it.

THE RED BLUNDERS - The communists have consistently betrayed national interests

If nationalism, as the historian Jack Gallagher was fond of quipping, devours its parents, communism consumes its own ideology. Communism was born under the sign of internationalism. The project of world revolution did not recognize national boundaries. Thus, it is funny to see Indian communists today positioning themselves as great protectors of national sovereignty.

Indian communists have always had a very uncomfortable relationship with nationalism. Some of the major debates and divisions within the Communist Party of India have revolved around the question of nationalism and the national movement. And, if the truth be told, these debates do not exactly hold up the comrades in an edifying light. On the scorecard of nationalism, the performance of Indian communists is poor to say the least. (On internationalism, their score is irrelevant, since a world communist revolution is not even a pipe dream after the collapse of socialism and the exposure of the many crimes of the socialist regimes in Soviet Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China, in Albania, under Pol Pot in Cambodia and so on.)

To begin with the most notorious example that communists have never been able to live down: 1942. The CPI was officially against the Quit India movement. What needs to be emphasized here is that this decision of the CPI was not based on any understanding of the Indian situation by Indian communists. The opposition to the clarion call of 1942 was the outcome of a diktat emanating from Moscow. When Hitler attacked his erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union, in 1941, the fight against Nazism overnight became a People’s War for all communists. The directive from Moscow was carried by Achhar Singh Chinna, alias Larkin, who travelled from the Soviet Union to India with the full knowledge of the British authorities. In India, it meant communists had to isolate themselves from the mainstream of national life and politics and see British rule as a friendly force since the communists’ “fatherland”, Soviet Russia, was an ally of Britain. A critical decision affecting the strategic and the tactical line of the party was thus taken defying national interests at the behest of a foreign power, whose orders determined the positions and actions of the CPI.

In 1948, within a few months of India becoming independent, the CPI under the leadership of B.T. Randive launched the line that this freedom was fake (yeh azadi jhooti hai), and argued that the situation in India was ripe for an armed revolution. The Randive line led to the expulsion of P.C. Joshi, who believed that freedom from British rule was a substantial achievement and that, tactically, the communist movement would gain by supporting leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru who, Joshi said, represented a “progressive” trend within the Congress. Apart from the inner-party struggle, what needs to be noted here is that the Randive line, which completely misread the national mood, was the direct outgrowth of a policy formulated by the Comintern (or the Cominform, as it had renamed itself), in other words, Moscow. The directive of Moscow to the Indian communists was that Congress should be opposed since it was no more than a satellite of imperialism. The retreat from this line was also sounded from Moscow in the form of an editorial entitled, “For a Lasting Peace”, in the mouthpiece of the Cominform.

The defeat of Joshi in the inner- party struggle camouflaged an important and lasting tension within the CPI. This concerned the party’s ideological and tactical position regarding the Congress. Joshi represented a trend within the party that believed in closer ties with the Congress, especially Nehru. It argued that, given the incipient nature of the proletarian movement in India in the Forties and Fifties, it was necessary to seek an alliance with the Congress since it was the party that was closest to the masses and it had leaders who were favourably inclined to socialism and its global future. It was Joshi’s firm belief that the democratic revolution in India could be completed only through an alliance between the national bourgeoisie represented within the Congress and the CPI. While the opposite trend saw the Congress as a bourgeois party and therefore hostile to the interests of the working class and the communist movement. The Congress could not be trusted, a suspicion that was strengthened when the first communist government in Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad was dismissed by Nehru in the summer of 1959.

Three years later, in 1962, when the Sino-Indian border conflict occurred, a section of communists, among whom Namboodiripad was prominent, chose to uphold the cause of China and portrayed India as the aggressor. This was yet another occasion when the communist movement found itself isolated from the national mainstream. It led eventually to a split in the CPI with the pro-Chinese faction leaving the parent party to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A rump remained as the CPI — a party totally subservient to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and some would say even fully funded by it.

To these dates — 1942, 1948, and 1962 — when the communists chose not to serve Indian interests but to act at the behest of either Moscow or Peking (as it was then) can now be added another date: 2007. The communists are poised at the moment to withdraw support from the government led by Manmohan Singh unless the latter agrees to renegotiate the Indo-US nuclear treaty. The opposition of the communists is based not on substantial objections to the terms of the treaty, but to the fact that it brings India closer to the US. Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the CPI(M), made this clear in an article in People’s Democracy. He wrote, “The Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the United States….The Left is clear that going ahead with the agreement will bind India to the United States in a manner that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.”

These, as anyone will recognize, are a series of ideological assertions and not rational arguments. The Left, since the Nineties, has lost all its ideological moorings: socialism is gone and China has turned to market capitalism; within India it has no political base anywhere save in West Bengal and Kerala. With no policies of its own, it has accepted economic reforms and begun to woo capital with some gusto in West Bengal. With everything gone, the Left clings to its anti-Americanism as a last ideological anchor. In the present context, however, the Left’s anti-US position echoes what the Chinese Communist Party is saying on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Karat, whether he likes it or not, is only parroting, like his predecessors did in 1942, 1947 and 1962, a political line coming out of a foreign country, in this case one that is hostile to India. The intensity of his opposition is a reflection of the enduring discomfort of the communists with a pro-Congress stance.

Given its track record, the Left’s attempt to see itself as a protector of India’s national sovereignty and autonomy is a disgrace. Communists in India have acted, at critical periods, at the behest of the Soviet Union or China. In so doing, communists have sacrificed India’s national interests. They are about to do the same now.

The history of Indian communism is the story of a series of historic blunders. The red flag has never fluttered because those who hold it aloft know only how to blunder. What is pathetic is that even the blunders of the communists are not their own!
-written by Rudrangshu Mukherjee, The Telegraph,

NDTV POLL results

Left only for ideology, not for GDP growth: Srinivasan

"A strong India and a strong China is good for both countries and also to the world."
A senior member of the Atomic Energy Commission has slammed the Left parties for their opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal, saying they were only worried about their ideology and do not bother about the country's GDP growth."It does not matter to them whether GDP growth suffers or not so long as they have their ideology," MR Srinivasan, also former Chairman of AEC, said in an address to the Rotary Club in Bangalore on Monday night."A strong India and a strong China is good for both countries and also to the world.""Their main concern is India and the US are coming closer, especially in strategic terms, and they (Left parties) think this is something they cannot stomach," he said.According to him, while India needs to have good relations with China, it is not a good thing to have a strong China and a weak India in a long haul. "A strong India and a strong China is good for both countries and also to the world."Strengthening of relations with the US should be seen as "hedging your risk" so that New Delhi is not left "high and dry," he advocated.
Srinivasan also did not spare the BJP, which has also opposed the agreement, and said the party now keeps saying that the pact affects the country's nuclear independence.He noted that it was Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister of the BJP-led NDA coalition who announced soon after the 1998 Pokhran tests that India would observe voluntary moratorium on further tests and also made an announcement on a "no first use" of nuclear weapons."These two (announcements)... Well... Looking back... One can ask what prompted him to say so... He could have negotiated... He could have used it as a negotiating tool," Srinivasan said.He indicated that Vajpayee might have made the announcement heeding his advisors who wanted to promote him as a statesman and ideologist. Srinivasan said in case India insists on renegotiation of the agreement following opposition and as a result of Parliamentary debate, the Bush administration is sure to ask New Delhi to wait till the new government takes charge in Washington.The Bush administration would not enter into renegotiation with India as its clout in the US Congress is diminishing, he argued.
He said there is some urgency in operationalising the agreement as Indian-built reactors face uranium crunch. "We need to access uranium for our own reactors which are operating well. Our ability to produce natural uranimum in the country to keep pace with that (projected requirement) is limited because of low quality of ore," and also opposition in some quarters for mining in Meghalaya and Cudappah in Andhra Pradesh. There is a "mismatch" in demand and supply. The Bush administration would not enter into renegotiation with India as its clout in the US Congress is diminishing.But Srinivasan said if political decision making requires that New Delhi renegotiate the agreement, then "we have to accept that, nothing can be done about that."Srinivasan quoted some people, who said while it took China 13 years to negotiate the 123 agreement with the US, it took only two years for India to enter into similar pact with Washington. "So, some people are seeing 13 years as benchmark (for India to operationalise the deal with the US)," he said.Supporting the India-US nuclear agreement, he said, "I think it's an agreement we can live with. It's the best agreement under the circumstances if you move ahead," adding, any deal involves give and take from both sides.He also sought to respond to the position taken by some people that "we have done quite well in isolated mode, and why not continue to isolate ourselves".Srinivasan said as a man who was associated with the nuclear programme for long and as one who fought embargoes, "it's not a good thing to work in isolation. It's good for us to be in the international mode. Science and Technology in some sense flows internationally."Having survived the phase of sanctions and embargoes, India should not make virtue of that situation which came about despite New Delhi not wanting it, he argued.Speaking on the Indian nuclear programme from early times, Srinivasan said towards the end of 1980s when renowned journalist Kuldip Nayar, the former Rajya Sabha member, visited Pakistan, he was told by Pakistanis that Islamabad had nuclear bombs.Pakistan nuclear scientist, AQ Khan had earlier managed to take uranimum from Holland, where he was working, to Pakistan in a clandestine manner and then had a network of equipment suppliers in Europe, according to Srinivasan."Given that situation, it became pretty much inevitable that we had to go ahead (with our nuclear tests)", he said.In the mid-1990s, he said the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao gave the go-ahead signal to conduct the nuclear tests but "it appears that at some point of time...Either American pressure or whatever...He seems to have retracted... that was the general impression."

BJP leaders feel pressure to back nuclear deal

LEADER OF Opposition L K Advani's statement that his party has no objection to the 123 Agreement if the government amends the Indian Atomic Energy Act to ensure strategic independence and smooth reactor fuel supplies is not a turnaround, say the BJP leaders. They say it is merely a reiteration of the BJP's line that the deal should be re-negotiated to take care of India's right to conduct tests and decide its strategic interests. BJP's deputy leader in Lok Sabha VK Malhotra said, "Ad- vani has only said what we have been saying in the Parliament and outside - that the deal needs to be re-negotiated. We are not opposing the deal out of anti-Americanism." A senior BJP general secretary denied that Advani's statement was caused by the pressure on the BJP from pro-deal lobby Malhotra said the party's line was that India's freedom must not be curbed in any manner by a law of another country. "Our apprehension on account of the Hyde Act is largely because it is India-specific." The BJP's stand on the nuclear issue has been firmed up by former union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie after meetings with former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It is believed that many senior BJP leaders privately do not oppose the deal. Some BJP leaders, considered friendly to the industry, are also against the party opposing the deal. They say the party could not afford to antagonise the middle class that wants more avenues between the two countries. However, the RSS strongly opposing the deal and even praising the Left for its stand may be problematic for the party

Urban India roots for Manmohan

Congress to gain in mid-term polls: NDTV poll

With the furor over the Indo-US nuclear deal continuing to dominate Indian politics, NDTV conducted an exclusive opinion poll to assess the people's views.Over 12,000 people from 120 constituencies were surveyed by the NDTV team, out of which 75 per cent of the respondents were from rural India.The results of the poll show that only 37 per cent of the people trust the Left's stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal.Among those polled, 56 per cent were aware of the nuclear deal, while 44 per cent were not aware of it.Out of those who are aware of the deal, 60 per cent of people want the deal to go ahead.With regard to the people's faith in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, 63 per cent of those surveyed said that they trusted the prime minister. And 65 per cent of those who trust the PM feel that he should not resign.With reference to the prospect of mid-term polls if the Left withdraws support from the government, the NDTV poll shows the Congress as gaining ground and the BJP and the Left sliding.According to the poll, if an election were held at the moment, the Congress will gain 40 seats across the country, which will mean the party's tally will jump from 145 in 2004 to 185.The other big gainer will be the BSP; its tally is set to rise by 23 seats to 42 seats in all.Meanwhile, the BJP is expected to lose 22 seats, which implies at drop in its national tally from 138 in 2004 to 116.The other big loser will the Left Front, its tally is expected to drop from 64 seats in 2004 to 39 seats.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/videos.aspx?id=16484&slug=Congress+to+gain+in+mid-term+polls

'Political formula for N-deal stand-off soon'

So its clear that they (Headless Chickens) are NOT interested for India, progress of India, They are NOT interested for 123 agreement.
They want to play game. Dirty game.
They are our Nuclear scientist.!!!!!
Karats & Yechors, they have 100 years old mentality.

They are destroying the progress of India.
After next election, they will not get a place to hyde.
Come on India. This is our responsibility.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Political_formula_for_N-deal_stand-off_soon/articleshow/2315385.cms

Mr Karat and friends need to realise that parliament isn't a college campus

A blog by Rajdeep Sardesai
http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/rajdeepsardesai/1/2315/karat-and-stick.html

Another "Historic blunder"

NOW IS THE TIME
Whose party is it, anyway? Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his comrades in Bengal would do well to ask Prakash Karat this question. And it would be much more than a rhetorical question. Mr Karat, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), can thunder in New Delhi only on the strength of the party in Bengal and Kerala. Yet, the interest of Bengal’s economic development does not seem to be of much concern to Mr Karat and his band of old-fashioned ideologues, who are in the party’s central leadership. Mr Karat’s brinkmanship in New Delhi has, therefore, threatened to spoil the hopes that the chief minister has managed to raise for Bengal’s economy. The Left’s confrontation with the prime minister on the issue of the nuclear deal between India and the United States of America will hit Bengal and Mr Bhattacharjee as badly as it would destabilize Mr Manmohan Singh’s government. The new possibilities for Bengal’s economic modernization will be darkened by political rhetoric in the event of a mid-term poll. Worse, the investors, who had begun to see signs of change in the CPI(M)’s political culture, will be bitterly disappointed.

It is time Mr Bhattacharjee and his men in Bengal asked themselves if they could afford to sacrifice Bengal’s economic interests for partisan politics yet again. When he led the Left Front to its seventh successive electoral win last year, the chief minister did so with the promise of a new Bengal. His reformist agenda has been supported and supplemented by Mr Singh’s government in New Delhi. After several decades of the politics of confrontation, the Centre and the state government have worked in the spirit of mutual accommodation and understanding. Many of the new projects, such as the proposed chemical hub, the expansion and modernization of Calcutta airport and the construction of a deep-sea port in South 24 Parganas, were largely the result of this new cooperation. Even on controversial issues such as the one concerning the Tata group’s small car project in Singur and the land wars in Nandigram, the Congress and the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre have been generally supportive of Mr Bhattacharjee.

Mr Karat has now not only dismantled this structure of cooperation but also struck a new note of hostility between the Congress and the CPI(M). It is no secret that some of the CPI(M) leaders in Bengal are upset with Mr Karat’s games. But it is not enough for them to keep their arguments to themselves. At another critical juncture in the CPI(M)’s experiments with power at the Centre, Jyoti Basu called his party’s decision a “historic blunder”. If the leaders in Bengal do not stop Mr Karat in his tracks now, they would do the state a historic injustice.

From The Telegraph.

Over to the people

Click it for bigger picture
From HT

This Deal's A STEAL

Click it for bigger picture

Click to read/enlarge

http://digital.dnaindia.com/epaperpdf/26082007/25sunday-pg16-0.pdf
http://digital.dnaindia.com/epaperpdf/26082007/25sunday-pg17-0.pdf

"It's (withdrawal of support) a demand being placed from sections of the CPM Talibans in Delhi."

Bengal CPM's differences with politburo out in the open

KOLKATA: Differences between the Bengal CPM and party bosses in Delhi over withdrawing support to the UPA government came out in the open on Sunday with two politburo members MK Pandhe and Biman Bose strongly differing on the consequences for the government if it went ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Hours after Pandhe, the Citu general secretary, said in Kolkata that his party would withdraw support if Congress went ahead with negotiations with the IAEA, his colleague and West Bengal party boss Biman Bose told the CPM state committee meeting that Pandhe's comments were not in tune with the understanding of the CPM politburo or the central committee.

Pandhe had said: "If they (the Congress) decide to go ahead with negotiations, we won't hesitate to pull the plug. This is a unanimous decision of the politburo and the central committee. Our central committee will take stock of the situation in its meeting from September 29. We have empowered the politburo to take a decision if anything happens in between." Asked how CPM would fare in the event of a snap poll, Pandhe said: "We may lose some, we may gain some seats. What is of supreme importance to us is the fact that we can't allow our country to become a strategic partner of the US."

Bose, however, struck a completely different note. He told state committee members there was no reason to worry about snap polls and that the politburo was only keeping a watch on the situation. Off the record, CPM's Bengal stalwarts who've kept the party flag flying in the state for 30 years spewed venom on Prakash Karat's hardline. One senior central committee member and MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity to TOI, called Karat's pullout threat a "Talibani stand". His words: "It's (withdrawal of support) a demand being placed from sections of the CPM Talibans in Delhi."

'Nuclear deal is best thing to have happened to India'

A must watch.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE with RATAN TATA in CNN-IBN

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/nuclear-deal-is-best-thing-to-have-happened-to-india/47490-7.html

123 agreement

http://www.hindu.com/nic/123agreement.pdf

Left, Whose National Interest is it?

Click it for bigger picture.
From The Telegraph.

Nuke deal negotiated very intelligently: France

NEW DELHI: As the government continues to face opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal on the domestic front, France has hailed the agreement as being a result of "very careful, cautious and intelligent" negotiations and vowed to support it at IAEA and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the issue, France believes Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has "very good set of arguments" to push the agreement.

French Ambassador Dominique Girard said it was for the Indian polity to decide on whether to go ahead with seeking civil nuclear cooperation with the international community and "that is no business of ours".

"I think Manmohan Singh's government and the Prime Minister himself have a very good set of arguments that they have led the negotiations with the Americans in a very careful, cautious and intelligent way," he said.

"Our view is that India has the right and the legitimacy in getting access to civilian nuclear technology given its background, given it behaviour and its attitude," said the envoy, who left for home on Sunday on completion of his term here.

Girard, whose country is keen to have civil nuclear cooperation with India, said France welcomes the Indo-US deal because "it is very much the product of the kind of thinking we had introduced" between India and its partners.

From : TOI

One more Headless

I’ve heard that they’re all made in China and they’re all toxic

I’ve heard that they’re all made in China and they’re all toxic

The nuclear quotient 123 of Our Headless Chickens

see the video in ibnlive.com

http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/47467/the-nuclear-quotient-123-and-mps-begin-bumbling.html

China’s (no big) deal

Parliament will most likely debate the 123 text next week. One big talking point: did China get a better deal? Trawling through both 123 texts, Pranab Dhal Samanta explains why the opposite is true

National Laws

China: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

India: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

Reality Check: There is considerable opposition here on the question of the emphasis on “national laws” in the India 123 agreement, thereby underlining the supremacy of the Hyde Act. As is clear, the formulation is identical in China’s case and Beijing is not complaining nor experiencing difficulty.

International Law

China: The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that the party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty (Article 2.1). Each proposed export pursuant to the agreement shall be subject to United States’ laws and regulations in effect at the time of each such export (Congressional Joint Resolution, Public Law 99-183, 16 December 1985).

India: This agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law (Article 16.4). No violation may be considered as being material unless corresponding to the definition of material violation or breach in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14.3).

Reality Check: This above provision in the China agreement led to a major debate in the US Congress forcing the then Reagan Administration to concede, as is reflected in the Congressional joint resolution which led to a separate agreement on implementation arrangements. There is particular emphasis on laws in effect “at the time of each export”. There is no such rider for India. Instead, there is correlation drawn to international law and the Vienna convention, which the US agreed despite not being a signatory to this convention.

Certification Issues

China: No export licenses or transfers to China until that country has provided additional information concerning its nuclear non-proliferation policies and the US President certifies that China is not in violation of Section 129 (2) of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 regarding assistance to any non-nuclear weapon state in its weapons programme (Congressional Joint Resolution, Public Law 99-183, 16 December 1985). President certifies that China has provided such information (Presidential Determination No.98-10, 12 January 1998).

India: No such provision regarding India’s relations with third countries nor any requirement for certification.

Reality Check: Clearly, China has to consistently prove its non-proliferation credentials which has to be certified by the US President before grant of export licenses. No such provision in India’s agreement.

Verification

China: Establish mutually acceptable arrangements for exchanges of information and visits to material, facilities and components subject to this agreement (Article 8.2). Reciprocal arrangements made pursuant to Article 8 have been designed to be effective in ensuring that any nuclear material, facilities or components provided under this agreement shall be utilised solely for intended peaceful purposes (Presidential Determination No.98-10, 12 January 1998).

India: Safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA (Article 10.2).

Reality Check: China has agreed to allow American inspectors to visit its sites while the agreement with India is limited to only IAEA safeguards and inspections.

Fuel Supply Assurances

China: The quantity of material transferred under this Agreement shall be the quantity which the parties agree is necessary for any of the following purposes: the loading of reactors... the efficient and continuous operation of such reactors (Article 4.3).

India: Development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors (Article 2.2 e). Support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve; if despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India (Article 5.6 b).

Reality Check: The India 123 agreement clearly goes beyond the Hyde Act provision (Section 103-b) that fuel reserve should be “commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements”. As is evident this insertion in the Hyde Act was inspired by the China 123 agreement where the quantity must not exceed what is needed for “efficient and continuous operation”.

Reprocessing

China: Parties undertake the obligation to consider such activities favourably and agree to provide pertinent information on the plans during the consultations. Agree to refrain from actions which either party believes would pre-judge the long-term arrangements for undertaking such activities (Article 5.2). Obligation to consider favourably shall not prejudice the decision of the US to approve or disapprove such a request (Congressional Joint Resolution, Public Law 99-183, 16 December 1985).

India: Parties grant each other consent to reprocess. To bring these rights into effect, India will establish a new national reprocessing facility. Consultations and arrangements will begin within six months of a request and will be concluded within one year (Article 6.iii).

Reality Check: While US only promises to consider a Chinese request for reprocessing in the future, India has a clear and explicit consent. Incidentally, China still hasn’t got this consent.

Cessation of Cooperation

China: Shall endeavour to avoid taking any actions that affect cooperation. If either party at any time does not comply with the provisions of this agreement, the parties shall promptly hold consultations on the problem, it being understood that the other party shall have the rights to cease further cooperation (Article 7.1).

India: Right to terminate this agreement on one year’s written notice and shall provide reasons for seeking such termination. Shall consider the relevant circumstances and promptly hold consultations to address the reasons. Party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation if it determines that a mutually acceptable resolution has not been possible or cannot be achieved. Agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation and take into account whether they resulted from a Party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact national security (Articles 14.1 and 14.2).

Reality Check: Both agreements extend this right to either party. However, unlike in the case of China, there are provisions of one-year notice period and consultation on circumstances built into the agreement with India. In China’s case, cooperation can be stopped immediately.