[Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: A Hindutvavadi Response

[Sukla Sen <suklasenp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I. That the 123 Act is to be, or will be implemented,
if at all, "in accordance with [the] respective
applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and
license requirements concerning the use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes" of both the countries
does not necessarily mean that the Act would stand
superceded by the Hyde Act, in case of conflict, more
so as the subject Act would also have to be endorsed
by the both houses of the US Congress. (Kapil Sibal
has claimed that as per the US Constitution,
international treaties would take precedence over
domestic laws. Even if he is bluffing, from the
vantage position of a lawyer, things in this are
remain considerably fuzzy. Moreover, which no one is
talking of at the moment, the text of the Act perhaps
would have to further updated/amended after the NSG
deliberates the 'deal' and clears it, maybe leaving
its own stamp on it - if at all.)
 
II. The 'deal' has in fact been and is being
deliberated by the Indian parliament. But it doesn't
require its endorsement. Cabinet's approval is enough.
(The Speaker has apparently given  quite a retrograde
ruling in this regard by circumscribing the power of
the Indian Parliament while disallowing discussions in
the lower house under the Rule 184 - with provision
for voting, and allowing only under the Rule 193,
without voting. The principle of parliamentary
supremacy has apparently been trampled upon. Rather
strangely, no one is talking of it. In any case, the
US Congress is to deliberate as the projected
exception to be made in case of India through the
'deal' requires waiver of provisions of the Section
123 of the Atomic energy Act of 1954 of the US. The
'deal' does not violate any such act/law passed by the
Indian parliament.)
 
III. Two issues have been raised here, in a rather
confusingly mixed up manner. One is on the labiality
of the supplier of nuclear stuff in case of accident.
This is generally understood that no special provision
is required. In fact, to attract private suppliers,
who are not indemnified by their respective
governments, a special waiver is to be provided.
That's the general understanding. It is, however, not
clear how a change in India's domestic law can prevent
termination of the contract by the other party. At the
most, in such an event it'd go for international
arbitration or juridical determination.
 
IV. While one may not be too enthusiastic about the
mega river linkage project, the essential point is
well made. The huge investments to be made for nuclear
energy, in all probability, can be much more
fruitfully utilised.
 
V. The 'deal' in order to be operationalised is to
become multilateral through the unanimous endorsement
by the 45-member NSG. So it is not necessary for India
to make any purchase from the US. Russia and France
are too eager to do business in reactors and
technology. Uranium is to come from other sources.
 
VI. It makes a hell lot of sense that the 'deal' would
bind India in a tighter strategic embrace with the US
leading to significant deterioration of relations with
China, and also Pakistan for a host of other reasons,
with grave probable consequences. But India does not
automatically turn into a vassal state. But strategic
proximity between India and the US, in any case, is
too bad for the world and consequently Indian people
as well.
 
VII. Some irrelevant and frivolous points have been
raised. 
What has not been raised that the 'deal' making a
unique exception in case of India, a non-signatory to
the NPT and an aberrant state to boot, would
constitute a frontal assault on the NPT regime,
encourage horizontal and vertical proliferation and
thereby grievously damage the prospects of global
nuclear disarmament - a dire necessity for human
survival.
 
Sukla





http://www.khullamkhulla.net/indousdeal.html



Indo-US Nuke deal

Some Khullmakhulla questions



What is it that the Times of India and the rest of the
Anglo-Indian media fail to tell us? 


Here are some khullamkhulla questions that need to be
answered: -

Why do the proponents of the treaty insist that the
Hyde Act has nothing to do with the treaty? The treaty
clearly enunciates that it is subject to all the laws
and legislative processes of the US of A. Article 2
(1) of the treaty reads ?? 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.? Moreover, this
government has already been honouring the spirit of
the Hyde Act by voting against Iran in international
fora, which is an unprecedented about turn in our
foreign policy. 

Why is it that the treaty does not need the sanction
of the Indian Parliament while it has to be ratified
by the US Congress? This is strange. Why is it that a
treaty that binds this nation for forty or fifty years
and exposes our civilian nuclear programme to outside
monitoring, probable blackmail, and crippling
sanctions, does not need the approval of its people?
The treaty has been signed and sealed with the nod of
a handful of cabinet ministers and enthusiastic
officials. Why is our Parliament being bypassed in
this process? It is obviously a strategic error. The
Parliament could provide us with a buffer zone in
times of crisis and dispute. Why is the government not
willing to go for this obvious advantage? Is it
because the US would like the deal to be kept outside
the purview of the Indian Parliament? Is it not
against the principles of democracy? 

Do we have our national laws in place to safeguard
against the possible ill effects of a treaty of this
nature? Let us know about them.  Do we have laws as
safeguards against the sudden termination of an
agreement by a foreign entity that feels we are not in
tune with its foreign policy objectives? Do we have
laws that hold the suppliers of radioactive material
and hardware responsible for nuclear mishaps caused by
their inadvertence or negligence?  What kind of
penalties, damages, and compensations are applicable
to various acts of omission and commission by the
suppliers? Do we have enough legal safeguards to
ensure that in case we chose to test a nuclear device,
this treaty does not queer our pitch? 

Why are we not being told about various costs of
getting into this kind of an arrangement?  Everyone is
talking about the benefits. The nuclear fuel supply
and technology transfer is meant for peaceful purposes
only, basically to construct and run nuclear reactors
that produce electricity. The huge infrastructure, as
specified in the treaty, may require an investment in
billions of dollars, the kind of money that can help
link all our rivers, and create a huge infrastructure
of clean, and environment friendly hydroelectricity
projects to take care of all our power and irrigation
needs, besides giving a boost to the indigenous
construction industry, and generating employment
opportunities to underemployed rural youth. 

Is it not true that one single announcement of the US
government can bring everything to a halt within a few
years at these nuclear facilities closely monitored by
IAEA? Agreed, we are free to stockpile Uranium for the
lifetime of these plants. That would mean importing a
whole mountain of Uranium now, which may cost us a few
years of our GDP.  Am I wrong in my calculations?  May
be.  I am not an expert. That is why I am asking for
the cost and benefit figures from the experts like Mr.
Kakodkar and government accountants. Moreover, should
we be dependent on an energy source that is subject to
the policies, laws, rules, and regulations of
outsiders? 

We won?t be able to disagree with the world vision of
the US, howsoever unethical and disastrous it may be. 
Look at what happens when we act against Coca Cola.
The bogey of FDI not coming to India is raised to
extract extraordinary concessions. Ratan Tata is
complaining too now.  Till yesterday he was opposed to
the entry of big MNCs in India. Now, he fears drying
up of the FDI if the 123 Indo-US Agreement is not
operationalised. Narayan Murthy, Azeem Premji,  and
NASSCOM would want the deal to be operationalised too.
Their BPO jobs and the US operations must not be
jeopardised. That is how things are. When we can be
arm twisted into compromise by Enron, BPO clients, and
an aerated water supplier, we will be crawling on all
fours to run our nuclear reactors after having
invested billions and trillions of public money into
building and operating them.  

Why is this government averse to solicit the opinion
of the opposition, its own allies, and the experts of
all hues and cries to discuss the pros and cons of the
treaty? Why does it have to sell the treaty to the
Indian public through surreptitious means like a grand
public relations campaign and by planting motivated
reports and opinions through the Anglo-Indian media
that consists of the Times of India, NDTV, India Today
Group, the Hindu and a whole lot of others?  And now
it has formed a committee to placate the left parties.
Why? Why the left parties alone have to be convinced
about the deal? What about we, the people? 

We must also investigate the motives of the real
powers that run this government. Manmohan Singh is a
retired bureaucrat and obviously a stooge of the World
Bank. He does his mistress?s bidding since the time he
was reborn as a politician. He is ever willing to
shield the Italian lady from the ill effects of the
Government?s actions. She too does not have much
concern about the national interest of India. Had it
been the case, she would not have helped Qutorocchi
get away from the clutches of the CBI and would have
refrained from subverting the laws of the land to help
her other criminal friends like Lalu Yadav, Sanjay
Dutt, Shibu Soren, and Amit Jogi. She would not have
used the office of the governor blatantly to save her
party?s rule in various states and destabilise the
rule of her opponents. What is her motive in
supporting this deal so doggedly? Why is the Christian
lobby championing the cause of Indo-US cooperation
with such gusto? There is something cooking somewhere.
Our obvious vulnerabilities are being exploited to
push through the deal.  

We are also being told that the government is worried
about the Muslim votes and it is thinking of giving
some sops to the community to guard against the
negative fall out of the deal. If the deal is so
important to the nation, why should the Muslims oppose
it? Are they anti-national? We are also told that the
deal may not be operationalised till the next
elections to placate the Muslims. Does it mean that
the politics of vote banks takes precedence over our
national and global interests? There is one more
niggling question that needs an answer. Why is this
government so keen to bring India under the US sphere
of influence even if it means losing the Muslim votes?
Are we getting into the ?East India Company? trap yet
again? 

Surprise of surprises. Till yesterday the media was
trying to convince us about lofty ideas and ideals of
friendship with Pakistan and China. Now, we are told
that China and Pakistan are our sworn enemies and
those who oppose the deal are in fact supporting the
cause of the enemy. We are told that the possibility
of India getting a permanent Security Council seat
will be hurt if the deal does not go through.
Comparisons are being made with China. Our deal is
better than theirs. The US is tilting towards India
and is interested in boosting India up as a
counterforce to challenge the Chinese dominance of the
region. What is all this? Why are we being hustled
into buying the deal with these xenophobic arguments?
I have a policy. I don?t go for a deal if I feel I am
being hustled into it. For example, if some SOB tells
me that if you don?t buy this car today, it will get
more expensive next day, I tell him to shut up and
fuck off. 

All the proponents of the deal are behaving like
savvy, smart, and smooth talking hustlers. I find them
to be in an ugly hurry. You will be a dumb head to buy
the line that all this is being done in the national
interest. Something is going on here and someone is
going to make a lot of money out of all this. I also
feel that there is a long-term strategic thinking at
work here, to keep us under the US thumb. Cannot you
smell the dead rat? 

My countrymen! Beware! All these fellows in the
government, especially so if it is a government led by
an Italian lady, are predators who live off you. They
only care for their own upkeep and survival. You pay
for what they do or don?t. And they don?t really care
for your or the nation?s future.




      ___________________________________________________________ 
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good  
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism