Nuclear deal: was it really necessary?

— Dr MM Kapur Any deal done requires all the parties to have a stake and a hand to play with. The Indo-US nuclear deal is one such case. The deal, which has nuclear spinoffs and consequences, has the common man as a major stakeholder, who is entitled to consultation. His views should have found favour of expression in the final agreement.

I feel in this case the common man is on a journey on a train, the destination of which is being decided by those travelling in Upper/AC Class. The “powers that be” have not considered it necessary to outline and debate this new agenda implicit in the nuclear deal with the common man. Considering that it is his and his children’s fate that is at risk, this oversight can have recurring negative outcomes in the future.

Let us have a look at the investment climate. I learn from reports that Dalberg, an economic advising firm to the IMF and the World Bank has analysed the economic investment potential of nuclear power in India for the next 20 years and has found it less valuable than other alternatives!

The US vendors’ interest would be aided if India caps the third-party liability to protect the US firms from being sued in case of accidents, terrorist acts and acts of sabotage against nuclear plants. It seems the US firms have a right to protect their interests. However, the common man’s interests have no such right of protection.

Looking back, the Parliament debate regrettably lacked depth and the views expressed were horrendously along party lines. The manner of voting left much to be desired and thus failed to convince the common man. In fact, it was imperative to have a longer debate and in fact, there should have been a peoples’ vote giving consent. The nation should have been taken into confidence if this treaty is to succeed and many other Singurs to be avoided.

Additionally, there is the question of fears, regarding, the use of nuclear power and its unwanted outcome. These would be unjustified if we were not already subject to: air, water and food contamination; insecure borders; illegal immigrants; terrorist acts ongoing with near nil convictions; acts of sabotage (economic and other assets) with few convictions, spreading naxalism and nonfunctioning public health and care system.

All the above issues clearly point towards poor governance. The common man needs assurance that better governance will resume and his participation in these decisions will be obligatory, so that he can not only weigh the advantages against the drawbacks but that he be an informed stake holder.

At the end of it all, we arrive at the view that the risk-factor involved is a major drawback if we were to adopt the nuclear agenda. Days later, the terrorists had struck Delhi and its markets. Five separate explosions among teeming shoppers resulted over a score dead and hundreds injured.

The security environment for civilian nuclear energy does not seem encouraging right now or in the near future. It is entirely possible that the “powers that be” can convert their strong resolve to adopt the nuclear agenda to an equal resolve to create a systemic change and improve the security environment to encourage investments and indeed, assure security for the common man.

A debate suggested on above lines will also provide space to discuss the merits of renewable energy alternatives. We, in India are blessed with abundant sunlight. A plan of rooftop installation of photovoltaic solar cells certainly needs consideration on a national scale. A subsidy for research and commercial application would meet the emerging demand.

This onsite production will save on cost of transmission and other losses. The excess energy can be fed into the national grid (pay back to the onsite producer). I am told that wind power already exceeds nuclear power generation. All this can be achieved at 0 carbon cost and no added risk to the common man’s already long list of risks.

The avenue suggested above also elevates our self-reliance and aids our negotiating stance in deals with nuclear powers/agencies. Further, this adds value to the investment potential and confidence level of the common man.

A closer look at the terms of the deal show that India requires to sign an additional Protocol, which will allow a more intrusive IAEA inspection of civilian facilities. In the perception of countries inside and outside the NPT, this protocol brings us closer to the NPT regime. And, even though India has always resisted signing the NPT and has stood for a universal NPT, the present deal blunts this stand.

India also agrees to refrain from further testing (self-imposed moratorium). This self-proclaimed constraint was installed in 1998 by the then Union government within the security environment of that period. The reiteration of this moratorium has recurred afresh in 2008 to obtain the NSG waiver–a fresh commitment in the context perceptions of today and possible scenarios of the foreseeable future.

This commitment is also multi-lateral as it was a commitment to NSG Governments and the commitment of a no-first use renders our deterrence pacific. These commitments cannot but impact the perceptions and policies of our nuclear neighbours. We have to be cautious and keep a lookout on how the future unfolds for us. While the two parties work out the practical contours of the deal, the common man will continue to ponder: Did we need the deal? sourcE: assam tribune

NSG Waiver No Big Deal

MV Kamath
So the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has finally decided to provide a waiver to India. In plain worlds, it seems that India supposedly can now secure access to nuclear trade and advanced technology, despite refusing to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But will it get uranium? Australia has already made it clear that it will not sell uranium to India unless it agrees to sign the NPT. If that is the case, what good is the NSG’s decision for India? Access to technology has been denied to India with a vengeance, ever since it held the first Pokhran tests in 1974. It was a vicious act on the part of the Great Powers to permanently keep India under their racist thumb. India cocked a snook at them, determined to stand up for its self-respect come what may, and proceeded single-mindedly to advance its own technology in pursuance of national security, largely succeeding in its drive. That Pakistan took umbrage at it and conducted its own tests in another matter. Since then, India has decided not to conduct any more tests on its own. There is no immediate need to do so, anyway. As of September 2005, India was estimated to have had a stockpile of around 100 to 140 warheads and Pakistan between 60 to 200. In contrast, the stock of the United States is between 4,075 and 5,535, and Russia, between 5,200 and 8,800 (estimates published by the bulletin of Atomic Scientists). It is highly unlikely that any nation (China, France and the United Kingdom included) would dare to use nuclear weapons at this point in time. Among strategic thinkers in India, it is strongly believed that nuclear missiles are not usable war-fighting instruments. They merely proclaim the nation’s capabilities. India has proclaimed that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and its immediate neighbour to the West knows that it would be inviting large-scale disaster if it challenged India in this matter. India’s Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM) Programme is fully matured and operational and the world is aware of that fact. In these circumstances, when India issued a political statement reiterating its commitment to its unilateral voluntary moratorium, it was not succumbing to outside political pressure but from a genuine inner conviction that use of nuclear weaponry made no sense. Then why did China try to play foul at the NSG meeting? One can attribute it to pettiness. In the first place, China has no moral standing to sit on judgement upon India. It has been actively helping Pakistan to process nuclear weaponry, and the same is a well-known fact. It does not even have any natural right to be a member of the NSG. For that matter, by what right could Austria, New Zealand and Ireland claim membership of the NSG? As PK Aiyangar, former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, puts it: “God alone knows what kind of suppliers they are!” There is a gathering belief that these nobodies were playing proxy to either or both China and the United States; the latter merely to show how strongly it has been supporting India’s demand for a waiver, fighting on India’s behalf right down to the last minute. Under these circumstances, all the hype about the NSG waiver being a ‘historic occasion’ can be ignored. Two points need to be remembered in this connection. One is a statement by current AEC Chairman Anil Kokodhar that the NSG agreement does not say anything about barring India from conducting nuclear tests. As he put it: “Our legal rights have been preserved”. That, of course, means nothing. If India conducts more tests, the Big Powers will once again come down heavily on it, and one should have no illusions on that score. In politics there are no friends. But as former president APJ Abdul Kalam said, “When it is about supreme national interests, no pact, no treaty, nothing can come in our way”. So by making a unilateral declaration that it will observe a moratorium, India loses nothing. If it serves as a face-saver to some anti-India nations within the NSG, what is wrong with it? Major powers like the US, France and Russia are just waiting for orders from India for all kinds of technological and nuclear equipment, the cost of which could run into billions. Some analysts have estimated that the deal could generate business worth $100 billion over the next decade as India ramps up power production in the nuclear sector. ASSOCHAM chairman Venugopal N Dhoot puts the figure at Rupees two lakh crore within 15 years! When asked if there was a risk of American companies becoming handicapped if the US Congress does not give its final approval to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal at its closing session, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was quick to point out that the US Government has already talked to the Indian Government about this. She told reporters: “I think they (Indian Government) recognize and appreciate American leadership about this, and because of that I think we will have ways to talk to them about not disadvantaging American companies”. Once might think that the US has done a great favour to India by fighting for the waiver, but the reverse is equally true. India will be doing an equally big favour to America’s slackening economy and to US business interests. As Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council, puts it, “If this landmark initiative benefits global energy security, stems global warming and brings India into the global nonproliferation mainstream, it will only be an additional bonus.” Primarily it will greatly help American business interests. Currently, the Department of Atomic Energy is envisaging the Nuclear Power Corporation (a government-controlled entity) of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear capacity (almost ten times the current domestic nuclear capacity) from countries such as Russia and France. The US does not want to be left behind. Russia is very much in the field. The prospect of six more Koodankulam-type reactors coming up with Russian assistance cannot be dismissed lightly. In these circumstances, India does not have to bow and scrape before either the NSG in general and the US in particular. What is important is for India to know how to exploit the situation to its advantage. To the US it can say: Thank you, but no thanks. What should worry India is a recent report that both the US and China are arranging to provide over 100 fighter jets to Pakistan’s Air Force. That is not a friendly act. The US must be warned than it cannot have Indian orders for nuclear plants when Washington is strengthening Pakistan's Air Force to India's great disadvantage. China, meanwhile, has certainly shown that it cannot ever be a true friend. In shaping its foreign policy, India must take that into account. source: sentinel assam

Economics of Indo-US nuclear deal

— Shiva SharmaIn 1966, eminent scientist CV Raman wrote, “Though much progress has been achieved, India does not yet occupy in the world of science the position to which her traditions, her numbers and the intellectual quality of her people entitle her. There are several handicaps yet to be overcome.”During the last four decades effort has been made for scientific research and progress in the country. Research and developmental work on the application of atomic energy has also been done. The country also extracts minerals and thorium from the beach sands of Kerala and Orissa. The Uranium Corporation of India recovered concentrates uranium at Jaduguda in Bihar. A nuclear fuel complex at Hyderabad fabricates fuel elements for nuclear power reactors. Manufacture of electronic instruments and equipments for nuclear uses, including commercial TV sets and computers is undertaken at Hyderabad.In 1961 the Nuclear Power-station at Tarapur of Maharashtra was set up with the aid of US. After that, with the cooperation of Canada two Nuclear Reactors were set up at Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. But China’s nuclear explosion of 1964 created a panicky situation in the subcontinent. In 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed. It came into force in 1970. By this the nuclear powers had agreed not to transfer nuclear weapons or control over them to any recipient whosoever or to provide assistance in producing weapons to a non-nuclear weapon country. India, along with Israel, China, South Africa etc. had not signed the treaty on various grounds.In 1974, India examined a peaceful explosion in Pokhran of Rajasthan. This was done with the aid and advice of Indira Gandhi. For this explosion all sorts of cooperation had been stopped by the countries concerned. But the Indian scientists were not disheartened.In 1998, India again conducted five serial explosions in Pokhran. In 2004, Indian National Congress declared in the election manifesto that the party was determined to protect the nuclear programme. It is in this perspective, 123 Indo-US Nuclear deal is to be examined. Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954, titled ‘cooperation with other nations’ provides an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation and such an agreement is called 123 agreement.In July 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India and George W Bush agreed to this deal. In March 2006, India and the US agreed on India’s plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear reactors. In December, 2006, the US Congress approved the deal. In August, 2007 the text of the deal is unveiled. The Leftists then requested the government to suspend it as it compromised India’s sovereignty and imposed US influence.But after the assurance of support of 39 MPs of Samajwadi Party, Prime Minister Dr Singh announced in Japan that India would soon move to the International Atomic Energy Agency for completion of the next stage of the deal. The Leftists had withdrawn support to the UPA government. Not only that they also decided to vote against the government. But the opposition platform is mainly under the occupation of the BJP which is not secular party. It is, on this plea that the advance of the BJP be stopped, the Left had once decided to support the UPA government.The Leftists’ malice against the US is particularly historical. Till two decades back the world was divided into two power blocks– one led by the capitalist America and the other led by the socialistic Soviet Union. India did not join any one. Nehru said, ‘we donot like to be a pawn in the International Chessboard.’ But in the last decade of the 20th century these blocks collapsed. Soviet Union had been broken into pieces. Now Russia is also under capitalist economy. Communist China has also embraced capitalism in the economic sphere. Now there are about ten thousand US business establishments in China. Now almost all such countries, except North Korea and Cuba, have embraced capitalist economy.Indo-US nuclear deal is a timely breakthrough of the UPA government. At present we get power from two sources– thermal projects and Hydroelectric projects. Still our power generation is insufficient. The nuclear deal with the US could spur India’s economic growth as the country’s objective is to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 3,700 MW to 20000 MW in the next decade. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry appreciates this deal and comments. If India wants to be the second or third largest economy of the world by 2050, it has no other option but to achieve energy independence. We cannot afford to take the risk of energy shortage. If this deal ensures an assured supply of uranium, the country will have an optimal mix of energy– thermal, hydro, nuclear and non-conventional. We need to continue our nuclear programme with uranium till we get a breakthrough in thorium technology after 12 years or so. Once we hit the thorium cycle, we will be the king. As some reports suggest, about 34 per cent of the world’s thorium is available only in the sands of Kerala.Once India’s nuclear isolation ends, many countries of the world will come forward to cooperate with the deal. It is not simply Indo-US deal, it is a deal between India and the world. It will help India meet its rising energy demands; it also guarantees Indian fuel supplies. Above all, the nuclear deal could usher in a new era of nuclear power in India freeing the country from heavy dependence on fossil fuels.But all these depend on the UPA’s ability to manage the requisite number in the trust vote. If the deal is executed, we think, unlike what the leftists think, the US is not the main beneficiary. It is a marvellous achievement for India.(The writer is former principal, Madhabdev College, Lakhimpur). source: assam tribune editorial

Dealing with the Deal

The Congress does not feel it necessary to explain the nuclear cooperation agreement with the US to the masses because it feels there is no need for it as the deal is self-explanatory, while the Left and the BJP have branded the deal ‘‘notorious’’ and ‘deceit’’ on the people. The BJP, a party known for pro-US positioning on other occasions, has been a bit more careful. It has punctuated its opposition to the deal with concern about India being ultimately relegated to the status of a non-nuclear weapon state and about forfeiture of its right to conduct nuclear test. But for the Left, the right to conduct nuclear test is a non-issue because, after all, the comrades have never hailed the Pokhran tests, nor have they appreciated research in indigenous nuclear science that has led to India being recognized as a nuclear power. For the Left, it is cooperation with the US — of any kind — that forms the substance of anti-deal diatribe; the argument being that India, as a sovereign nation, cannot be seen reducing itself to yet another US stooge, and the nuclear deal is a means by which the ‘imperialist’ US wants to bind India for ever. Therefore, the Left has opposed nuclear cooperation with the US not because it is opposed to the deal as such but because the other party is an ‘imperialist’ power that is out to make India subservient to its global hegemonic interests. And by taking this stand the Left has also tried to prove how tenaciously it has clung on to its core ideology despite temptations to dilute it. The Left has also been at pains to explain its ‘principled’ opposition to the growing US sphere of influence even as it has no problem with China’s belligerent overtures in South Asia — because in the Communist theory China cannot harm India! That said, as one of the CPM politburo members indeed attempted, the Left would also have the deal interpreted as anti-Muslim because the US has killed Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is with this marauder that the Congress is determined to forge a nuclear alliance. It is another matter that the people of the country, including sensible Muslims, have seen through such politics of opportunism. As for the BJP, its opposition to the deal — especially after the unveiling of the text of the draft safeguards agreement with the IAEA — stems mainly from its status as the principal opposition party in Parliament; that is, from its compulsion to oppose the deal for the sake of the party’s status as the most virulent Congress adversary. Its own brand of anti-deal politics has made the saffron party cleverly refrain from commenting on certain paragraphs of the draft safeguards agreement with the IAEA that address India’s strategic concerns, such as Para 5 that says that the safeguards agreement will be implemented in a manner ‘‘designed to avoid hampering India’s economic or technological development’’ and ‘‘not to hinder or otherwise interfere with any activities involving the use by India (of) nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology produced, acquired or developed by India independent of this agreement for its own purposes’’. In other words, the BJP’s opposition to the nuclear deal is dictated primarily by the disadvantage of not being the ruling party of the time that can take credit for making India a part of the international nuclear regime. Therefore, the politics of opposition remains the best option even for the BJP that during its term did its best to bring India closer to the US in every manner possible. Not to invoke that past is a great expedient then. The Congress surely knows this only too well, hence its defence of the deal. source: sentinel assam

Seek confidence vote in Lok Sabha, Advani tells government

Seek confidence vote in Lok Sabha, Advani tells government

June 29, 2008 20:12 IST
Asking the United Progressive Alliance government to seek a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha if it wanted to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal, Bharatiya Janata Party stalwart L K Advani on Sunday said the Centre should focus on burning issues and development instead of fighting with the Left over the proposed pact.

"We will ask the government to face a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on the nuclear issue following the present political situation," Advani said while addressing a rally in Rourkela.
The UPA government, Advani said, was wasting time in fighting the Left parties on the nuclear deal instead of concentrating on development and solving burning problems.

"We cannot sacrifice our atomic energy and future tests in Pokhran by signing the agreement with the USA," Advani said pointing out that it was during BJP-led National Democratic Alliance rule that the second Pokhran test was conducted.

Advani lashed out at the UPA government for increasing Naxal activities in the country and said during the NDA regime insurgency was under control due to inter-state coordination meetings of naxal affected states which was abolished by the present government.

The BJP leader said the NDA government had given priority on national security and to control cross border terrorism which had been totally neglected now. Earlier, Advani addressing the concluding session of the two-day state executive body meeting of the BJP in Rourkela, asked the rank and cadre to be prepared for elections any time. source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/29advani.htm

Civilian Nuclear Deal: A Victim of Oversell

Civilian Nuclear Deal:

A Victim of Oversell Sreeram Sundar Chaulia With scant light at the end of the tunnel for the India-US civilian nuclear deal, it is evident that the agreement is a victim of oversell as a ‘‘historic’’ accord to emancipate India’s economy and international status. The Manmohan Singh government’s claims in favour of the 123 Agreement were so bombastic as to project it as an elixir that could transform India’s destiny. After inflating the benefits of the deal, the Prime Minister is now facing the music.The centrepiece argument made by the Indian government on behalf of the nuclear deal is that it would usher in a bright new era of nuclear power generation and motor India’s economic growth. The factual basis of this assertion is dubious. Nuclear power currently contributes to barely three per cent of India’s overall energy production and is expected to reach nine per cent only by 2016, provided deals with Washington and the rest of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) go through.The accretion to India’s energy security from importing nuclear fuel and technology, taking costs of procurement into consideration, will thus be only marginal. By painting a much rosier picture, the Indian government raised the antlers of its detractors who did everything to prevent the ruling party from getting plaudits for revolutionizing India’s economic development.In competitive electoral politics, no ruling party will obtain cooperation from the opposition for a deal that the former wants to advertise as its unique achievement. This is, in essence, the reason why the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposes the civil nuclear agreement — to obstruct its rival from taking credit. Such thinking is revealed through comments of BJP leaders that they are interested in renegotiating the deal if they come to power.On the question of the deal being an impediment to nuclear weapons testing by India, a concern the BJP shares with some national security elites, the Manmohan Singh government is again guilty of exaggerating the leverage India enjoys. Strategic experts who have pored over the contents of the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act have drawn valid conclusions that the US is most likely to terminate the agreement if India breaks its moratorium on bomb tests.The Congress party responded with non-transparent assurances that there is no link between capping India’s quest for a credible minimum deterrent and the deal. A more sensible strategy should have been to argue, in private, in a ‘‘so what’’ vein. So what if the US and the NSG turn off their taps for nuclear fuel and technology when India is strategically compelled to conduct more bomb tests?Supposing Chinese and Pakistani nuclear brinkmanship forced India to test more weapons in 2010 or 2013, the ensuing probable loss of civilian nuclear fuel from the US and the NSG would not dent the Indian economy. To reiterate, the addition to India’s energy security from the deal is marginal, not substantial. India’s citizens and industrial entrepreneurs have made enormous sacrifices for the security of the country in the past, and they would certainly not gainsay future nuclear tests by harping on forfeiture of a few thousand megawatts of electricity.Moreover, India’s current nuclear power plants are running at approximately half capacity due to acute shortage of uranium. Whatever fuel and technology India would have received in the short to medium term from the US and the NSG would be utilized to first make the existing nuclear power plants fully operational. There should be no fear of sunk costs in expensive overheads for new nuclear power plants that would have gone down the drain if the US and the NSG withdrew their supplies.A corollary case could have been made that opportunistically receiving nuclear fuel and technology from the US and the NSG for a few years would bring marginal advantages to the country’s indigenous fast breeder reactor programme based on domestically available thorium. Stalwarts of the atomic science establishment, MR Srinivasan and APJ Abdul Kalam, declare that ‘‘an adequate programme of first generation nuclear reactors using natural or enriched uranium is an inescapable technological necessity to launch a substantial programme of thorium utilisation’’.Even a temporary agreement with the US and the NSG could have propelled India’s thorium-based nuclear research forward to a point that withdrawal of nuclear fuel in the future would have minimal impact on the scientific community’s research. Unfortunately, by elevating the economic upside of the deal to sky high proportions, the Manmohan Singh government could not resort to this simple scenario planning.(The writer is a researcher on international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship in Syracuse, New York) (IANS) Source: sentinel assam editorial

N-deal: UPA, Left buy time, differences persist

New Delhi, June 25: Unable to reconcile sharp differences over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Congress and the Left parties today bought more time to find a way out, deciding to finalize the findings of their committee on the issue “in due course”.After a 90-minute meeting, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee came out with a terse statement that discussions on all aspects of the deal have been completed and the next meeting of the committee to be convened in due course will finalize the findings.The meeting, which was postponed last week, took place amidst deepening stand-off between the two sides with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh keen on pushing forward the deal and the Left parties strongly objecting to it. The outside allies put forward their views in a three-page note.The two sides stuck to their positions at the meeting when the Government explained the nuances of the process in IAEA for finalising an India-specific safeguards agreement.The Left parties have warned that should the Government take the next step in the deal, they will have no alternative but to withdraw support.CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury said the Government would take further steps on the deal only on the basis of findings of the committee. Sources said the next meeting of the committee, is expected to be held next month after the G-8 summit in Tokyo where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will meet US President George W Bush. However, some Left sources expressed doubts whether there will be another meeting at all in the light of Government’s keenness to go ahead with the deal.They felt the time for discussions with Left parties was now over and the ball was in the Government's court. It has to take a political call on whether they want to break with the Left and go ahead with the deal, they said. Sources said the Congress will have to decide when they are ready to face elections. The breakdown between the two sides has been staved off for now, they said adding they did not know for how long. Sources said the Congress is wooing 39 members of the Samajwadi Party along with a few small groups, some independents which will help it retain majority in the Lok Sabha in which case early polls are not required. The Left parties have 59 members in Lok Sabha.In the Lok Sabha, which has an effective strength of 543, the UPA has 220 members-- more than 50 short of simple majority.In the note, the Left parties have understood to have given reasons why the Government should not take the next steps to finalise the safeguards agreement. It also says that such a move would be a violation of the understanding between the two sides arrived at in November 16 last year.If the agreement is finalised at the IAEA, then the nuclear deal will be on auto pilot as the US would take it to the NSG and then further to the US Congress for adoption, the note said.The Government side also referred to a proposal by NCP that the UPA leaders would give an assurance that Government would not go to NSG and should be allowed to approach the IAEA. This was rejected by the Left.The Left parties also did not favour dragging on the meetings of the committee in the light of the known positions of the two sides.Hectic consultations during the day preceded the UPA-Left meeting with Mukherjee and Antony meeting Karat in the morning after which they apprised Gandhi and the Prime Minister. The two also met PM after the Left-UPA meeting.The CPI(M) General Secretary met Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav amidst reports that the SP may tilt towards Congress in a trial of strength in Lok Sabha. (PTI) Source: sentinel assam

Congress will go ahead with N-deal: Moily

Congress will go ahead with N-deal: Moily

June 25, 2008 23:01 IST
Even as Left parties stuck to their firm opposition to Indo-US nuclear deal, the Congress on Wednesday struck an aggressive posture, saying it was going ahead with the agreement with the timing of its choice.

"We are going ahead with the deal. That is very clear. And the timing is ours. We will choose our own time," senior Congress leader Veerappa Moily told NDTV.

His remarks came soon after the UPA-Left Committee meeting failed to end the deadlock between the two sides on the issue.

However, notwithstanding the standoff, he said, "We are confident that logic and rationale will be driven home to Left parties. We will put the country's national interest foremost than their party agenda."

Suggesting that all attempts were made to bring Left parties on-board on the issue, Moily said "they have lot of apprehensions and we should also give them the space".

"Not that we bulldoze our decision like that in a coalition arrangements like this. We are taking steps one by one. We are really gaining ground to the extent that we are driving home the issues to the Left parties from the beginning", he said.

Asked what was stopping the Congress from going ahead with the deal, he said the party had never said that the decision would be taken today itself.

PM wants to quit over nuclear deal

PM wants to quit over nuclear deal
Sheela Bhatt

June 19, 2008 23:42 ISTLast Updated: June 20, 2008 00:03 ISTCongress sources told rediff.com late on Thursday night that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is putting the maximum pressure possible on Congress party president Sonia Gandhi to go ahead with the India-US nuclear deal.

The tussle between Dr Singh and some party leaders, who do not want an early general election provoked by the withdrawal of Left support, is on and far from over, the Congress sources added.

Dr Singh would like to resign as prime minister if the Congress party does not back him on the deal. However, negotiations between Dr Singh and the party continue and the final verdict is not out yet.

The prime minister is likely to continue pressurising the Congress leadership before the next United Progressive Alliance-Left parties meeting on the nuclear deal on June 25.

Dr Singh will not have much to lose if he insists on an exit from power because his four-year tenure has ensured his place in history. The final year in power will be the most difficult with international oil prices likely to cross $150 per barrel.

Another factor behind the current political drama in New Delhi over the nuclear deal is a powerful lobby's belief that a strategic partnership with the United States is a win-win situation for India and the US. Dr Singh's supporters think it is time "the Congress calls the bluff of the Left parties" and goes ahead with the nuclear deal.
But it seems difficult for Dr Singh to garner his own party's support for the deal. Notwithstanding the public stand of UPA allies like Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad, Nationalist Congress President Sharad Pawar [Images] and Dravida Munnetra Kazagham supremo M Karunanidhi supporting the deal, the Congress is well aware that these allies do not want an early election, and certainly not in November. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the mediator between the Congress, the Left parties and its allies, briefed Dr Singh on the issue today.
Dr Singh cancelled all his appointments for Thursday, June 19. An official statement said the prime minister is unwell and running a viral fever.

The prime minister is understandably anguished because it will be embarrassing for him to travel to Tokyo next month for the G-8 summit -- where he will meet US President George W Bush -- after suffering a domestic political defeat on a diplomatic issue of great importance. "The prime minister," a reliable Congress source said, "wants to save his prestige in an international forum." Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/19pm.htm