Don’t Go Ahead with the N-Deal

Don’t go ahead with the N-deal: Top scientists

At a time when the country is divided over the Indo-US nuclear deal, three prominent nuclear scientists have urged the government not to go ahead with the controversial deal.

Former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Dr. P K Iyengar, former chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Dr A Gopalakrishnan and former director of Bhabha Atomic Research Center Dr.A.N. Prasad say that there is a great deal of disquiet among the scientific community at large about the deal.

They also said they had met the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh earlier and discussed about the after-effects of the deal, besides writing to the MPS.

The scientists say the government should not proceed to seek IAEA board approval for the current draft safeguards agreement until its implications are debated completely by the country.

Disputing the government’s claim about the energy security aspect if the deal is signed, the scientists say it has been quantitatively shown that the additional power will come at a much higher cost per unit of electricity compared to the conventional coal or hydro power, which India can generate without any foreign imports.

In a release, the scientists argue about the repercussions of the nuclear deal.

Here are the excerpts:

“Once the deal is in place, it is also clear that India’s commercial nuclear interactions with the US as well as with any other country will be firmly controlled from Washington via the stipulations of the Hyde Act 2006 enforced through the stranglehold which the US retains on the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Any argument to the effect that the deal will be governed only by the bilateral 123 Agreement is untenable , because this Agreement in turn is anchored in US domestic laws , which include the Hyde Act . And , the Hyde Act contains several stipulations which are extraneous to the issue of bilateral nuclear co-operation , including foreign policy behaviour which India needs to adhere to if the deal is to be kept alive.

The real issue facing India , therefore , is whether or not we want this mythical extra ‘energy security ‘ through this deal , paying almost thrice the unit capital cost of conventional power plants , with the additional burden of subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and indigenous nuclear R&D programme of our own.

The nuclear deal could also have other serious repercussions, including a potential weakening of India’s nuclear deterrent and an inability to protect & promote indigenous R&D efforts in nuclear technology. A combination of the extreme secrecy with which the government has carried forward this deal , the media hype they were able to generate in its favour , the parochial interests of opportunistic individuals & organizations, and the unfortunate ignorance of the issues involved among the general public have put the country on a dangerous path, likely to lead to the detriment of the current & future generations of Indians. Today’s urgency to rush to the IAEA Board, in consonance with the American timetable , to get the safeguards agreement approved and thereafter clinch the Deal during the tenures of the current governments in India and the US must, therefore , be replaced with an openness & introspection that is vital for a serious debate which the situation demands.

The central issue about the IAEA safeguards agreement has been the doubt as to how “India-specific” these are . In particular , since it is distinctly clear from the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement that no uninterrupted fuel supplies have been guaranteed in these documents for reactors which India will place under safeguards , the government had assured that this defect will be corrected in the safeguards agreement . Since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-supply guarantor , there is serious doubt whether Indian negotiators obtained any assurance in this regard.

As per the 123 Agreement , the government has all along asserted that the IAEA safeguards will have “provisions for corrective measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Taking this into account, India will place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity” . The nation would like to know clearly what these “corrective measures” will be , before plunging headlong into this deal . India being merely allowed to withdraw from safeguards the Indian-built PHWRs we may place under safeguards , and that too after stripping them of all spent & fresh fuel and components of foreign origin , is no corrective step at all because such action does not ensure uninterrupted operation of these civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Besides , this relaxation does not apply to the imported power reactors , which will use up the bulk of our investments in nuclear power ; these units will perpetually stay under safeguards , even after fuel supplies are denied .The Hyde Act prohibits the US Administration from directly or indirectly (through the IAEA or other countries) assisting India with life-time fuel supplies after suspension of the Deal . Therefore , the Government owes a clarification in this regard to the UPA-Left Committee and the public.

The 123 Agreement states that the imports under the deal “shall be subject to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA and an Additional Protocol, when in force”. While the actual draft of the Additional Protocol (AP) applicable to India may have to be negotiated and agreed to at a later date , it is absolutely necessary that a prior agreement between the IAEA and India on the essential features of such an Additional Protocol must be reached simultaneous with the finalization of the safeguards agreement and before signing it . The most intrusive actions under safeguards are always taken on the basis of this protocol , including the “pursuit clause” which permits interference with our non-civilian programs on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion . India needs to make it clear what the limits are beyond which we will not entertain any IAEA action or intrusion , and it should be clear that a standard Model Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapon States will not be acceptable to India. The leverage to debate and get the kind of restricted additional protocol we want will be entirely lost once a safeguards agreement alone is first put in place and the installations put under safeguards . As we understand , the limitations within which India is willing to enter into the Additional Protocol regime was neither discussed by Indian negotiators at the IAEA nor do they appear in the safeguards draft or its attachments. The government needs to clarify their thinking on the additional protocol before proceeding to the IAEA Board .

Reprocessing the spent-fuel arising from burning fresh imported fuel in our civilian reactors provides us valuable additional plutonium , which in turn can be recycled into future civilian fast-breeder reactors (FBRs) or advanced heavy water reactors (AHWRs) Reprocessing , therefore , is at the core of India’s plans to build long-term energy security.

The government had all along pledged to secure an unqualified right to reprocess spent-fuel and even termed India’s right to reprocess “non-negotiable” . But , in the 123 Agreement , what has finally been obtained is merely an empty theoretical right to reprocess.

The actual permission to reprocess will come after years, when a dedicated state-of-the art reprocessing plant is built anew to treat foreign fuel , along with a host of allied facilities .

There will be a large number of safeguards & additional protocol issues related to this , and all these hurdles will have to be crossed to reach the beginning of reprocessing . Much of the fundamental basis on which all this will be done has to be discussed and settled now at the outset, while the overall safeguards agreement is being finalized . But , the government has not done this exercise during the recent set of negotiations with the IAEA , and this deficiency will come to haunt India in future unless it is removed.

In the above manner , there are several other key safeguards-related issues of crucial importance , for which no one , including the UPA-Left Committee which the Government created , has been provided answers . None of the issues raised in this Press Release can be addressed adequately and in an acceptable manner unless the entire safeguards agreement and its associated papers are made available to the UPA-Left Committee for their evaluation , as well as to a set of independent national experts who have so far not been part of the Government’s negotiations with the IAEA.”

Source: Rediff News

Signing 123 Agreement amounts to accepting American Hegemony Opinion

M.P. Veerendra Kumar

If the 123 Agreement is not bound by the overarching Hyde Act, then what else is its purpose?

“At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom…” Thus spoke Nehru at midnight on August 14, 1947. Sixty-one years later, as India slept in the wee hours of July 9, 2008, the Congress-led government bartered away our sovereignty in the Japanese scenic town of Tôyako. On the sidelines of the G-8 summit, the repudiation of the Nehruvian principles of foreign policy found its culmination before the American President George Bush, with the brokering of the nuclear deal.

Legacy traduced

The legacy of the Congress party, which under the helmsmanship of the Mahatma delivered us from British colonial enterprise, stands traduced. Earlier, Dr. Manmohan Sigh confessed, at Oxford, to an admiration of certain aspects of colonial subjugation all of which “we still value and cherish,” and which were the result of India’s meeting the “dominant empire of the day.” Here it is pertinent to remember the recent observation of Nicholas Burns, the former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, that had Nehru been alive, such an agreement would have been inconceivable.

The ‘123 Agreement,’ so-called because it will amend Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, (titled “Cooperation With Other Nations”), which establishes a basis for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear agreements between the U.S. and any other country, aims at translating the India-U.S. nuclear deal into reality. The implication of the Hyde Act, signed into legislation by President Bush on Dec. 18, 2006, on the 123 Agreement has not been acknowledged by our government. If the 123 Agreement is not bound by the overarching Hyde Act, then what else is its purpose?

The Act envisages India formulating “a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the U.S., and is working with the U.S. on key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation.” In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to Congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate, and if necessary sanction and contain Iran if it pursues indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities. These stipulations in the Act constitute an intrusion into our independent decision-making and policy matters.

Threat to sovereignty

Certain clauses even threaten our national sovereignty. Article 14 grants the U.S. a unilateral right to require the return by the other party of any nuclear material, equipment, non-nuclear material of components transferred under this agreement, and any fissionable materials produced through their use. The “right of return” mentions “the removal from the territory or from the control of the other Party” (Article 14.5) of this equipment and materials rather than their return. Have we publicly debated enough the nuance of this wording, which can even be interpreted as sanctioning military intervention?

The Prime Minister’s assurance that the IAEA safeguards agreement would be “India-specific,” and that we would secure assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply, and the rights to build a “strategic fuel reserve” and take “corrective measures” in case of an interruption in supplies, has also been challenged. The agreement circulated among the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not feature these in the main text. It occurs only in the preamble, which does not have any legal force.

Moreover, the body of the text is quite similar to the wording of the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states. This has invited informed criticism that it fails to defend India’s strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state, as Dr. Singh promised. The nature of the ‘corrective measures’ is also unknown. There is no explicit guarantee of uninterrupted fuel supplies — a role the IAEA cannot fulfil as it is not a fuel supplier — and is the preserve of the NSG. In the current international scenario, both these bodies are amenable to American influence. That such doubts have been raised by nuclear scientists of proven integrity like Dr. P.K. Iyengar, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, and Dr. A.N. Prasad calls into question the claims of the government.

Beyond these diplomatic and technical affairs, to those who value democracy the most disquieting aspect is the entry of crony capitalism into the hallowed portals of our Parliament. The government’s efforts to cobble together a simple majority to win the vote of confidence are tainted by brazen pandering to the demands of corporate interests. Invariably the agenda of corporates will be in conflict with the aspirations of the masses that have elected us. If instead of reverberating to public issues, were Parliament to be turned into an arena for the promotion of the mega-business agenda, it would be a betrayal of the ideals of the martyrs of our freedom struggle as well as of the sagacious framers of our Constitution.

Reckless zeal

It amazes the nation that the Prime Minister and his party should exhibit such reckless zeal in pursuing the 123 Agreement in the realm of foreign policy, superseding domestic dal-roti issues, to the point of staking the very survival of the government on a single throw of the nuclear dice. What could be the motivation behind taking into confidence America and not our own people and their elected representatives? On the contrary, can the sincerity and patriotism of those who suspect the government and its supporters of misleading the nation be doubted? Especially in the context of various organs of the government talking in different tongues, betraying a blatant lack of transparency. Here we have to pay tribute to our vigilant media that shamed the government into putting on their website the IAEA safeguards agreement, which till then was misleadingly termed as “classified.”

Reneged on CMP

Such shenanigans in keeping in the dark even allies led to the disintegration of the UPA. Through sundering its covenant with the Left, in its unseemly haste to pitch our tent in the American camp, the Congress has reneged on one significant aspect of the National Common Minimum Programme evolved in 2004. It was eloquent in the matter of this government striving to build a multi-polar world order. Signing this agreement amounts to accepting American hegemony in the ‘unipolar moment.’

An issue that calls for debate is the very rationale of nuclear power, which is costly. Hence, we need to review nuclear power as an energy option. After devoting a substantial portion of energy allocation to the nuclear sector, a measly 3 per cent of our needs is met by this sector. Moreover, worldwide it has been proved to be a discredited mode of energy generation, given the health-risks, environment damage, potential for hazards, and waste disposal problems associated with the industry. We should not allow our country to be turned into a dump of nuclear waste.

A possible scenario could be the emergence in another 10 years of technology to unlock energy from frozen methane, which can last for tens of thousands of years. Wind power, solar power, and tidal energy are other cleaner forms of power that should be encouraged.

We should conscientiously resolve to look at this vote not as an expedient means to tide over a temporary crisis, but as one that will have a bearing on our future generations, who will be yoked to the neo-imperialist design. Our billion-plus population expects us to be led by the spirit of non-alignment in this respect. Our rage at this indecent burial should reflect their anger.

My appeal to fellow parliamentarians is that when the final hour of democratic reckoning comes, we should stand tall and summon the courage to forsake narrow political differences. The House of the People should not be degraded into a mere reporting body to ratify agreements of such epochal import. As B.P. Jeevan Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, wrote in this newspaper on August 10, 2007: “There is no such thing as a ‘prerogative power’ of the executive, immune from parliamentary scrutiny.” Were it not so tragic, we could have appreciated the delicious irony that the Hyde Act mandates that the American Congress should be in 30 days of continuous session to consider the agreement, while here we dismiss it through voting on a one-line motion debated over just two days!

(M.P. Veerendra Kumar, Member of the Lok Sabha, is the Leader of the Janata Dal (S) Parliamentary Party.)

Source: The Hindu

US Ready to Do Business with Minority Govt.

N-deal: US ready to do business even with minority govt.

Washington, July 21, 2008: Ahead of the crucial trust vote that will decide the fate of the UPA government, the US on Monday said it will move forward on the nuclear deal with any dispensation in New Delhi — even if it is in minority.

Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher said Bush administration will have no problem in dealing with a minority government as “minority governments are common around the world.”

“I don’t have them off the top of my head, but I mean, minority governments are common around the world,” he said.

“You can’t say, ‘Oh, well, we are going to stop dealing with you till the next election or until some new coalition or something. That’s not for us to say,” Boucher said commenting on the future of the nuclear deal if the UPA government fails to win the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha.

He said the US will continue to work with any legitimate government in India New Delhi to push forward the deal.

“If they have a legitimate government — people who are empowered to run the government — that’s who we’ll deal with,” Boucher said.

“In terms of the United States and India, we deal with the legally constituted government of India — whoever is running that government at the time, that’s who we sign agreements with. So, that’s not a problem for us,” he said.

He said the Bush administration was ready to “go as far as” possible to see conclusion of the deal.

“We are going to work with the Indians, we are going to work with the Congress and we are going to take this as far as we can go,” Boucher said.

“We are very excited by the prospect, we’ll see what happens in the confidence vote, but however far the Indians could go, we are going to try to take it that far or further. So, that’s what we are going to do,” he said.

May not be “too late”

Asked about whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was little too late in pushing ahead with the deal, Boucher said it may not be “too late.”

“I guess what I’ll say is it’s never too late. This is not a deal between a government and another government. It’s a deal between the United States and India — it’s good for India, it’s good for the United States.”

On whether main opposition BJP’s contention that without parliamentary approval the UPA government does not have the moral right to conclude the nuclear deal, Boucher said “on our side, there is no legal problem or moral problem”.

“On their side there may not be a legal question, but there’s always political questions and they’re going to have to figure that one out themselves

“(But) As long as they are a duly constituted government, we are happy to deal with them,” he said.

On the timeframe left for the 110th Congress to clear the deal, Boucher said the administration would try to push it and if the present Congress could not ratify it then the new Congress would take it up.

“As we move through, if we can move it to the point where the president can certify all the things that he has to certify, take the package and send it to Congress, we’ll do that. If the Congress is in a position to act on it, I am sure they’ll try to do that.

“So, I think, everybody wants to take it as far as we can. I can’t promise what the US Congress will do, but if we take it to some point and times expires on this Congress, then the new Congress will have to take it up — that’s all you can say. So, that’s our pledge.”

Why I Oppose Indo-US Nuclear Deal

Has America Really Exempted India from Hyde Act?

Prodip Chandra Roy

The answer is a big ‘NO’. India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or NPT. That is why as per prevailing US law America had to pass a special act to permit US President to sign Nuclear Deal with India. That act is Hyde Act. This permission is being touted as ‘exemption’.

In reality by providing permission the US parliament has roped India into a set of conditions.

The conditions are:

1) India must adopt a foreign policy congruent to that of the United States.

2) India must ensure full and active cooperation in US effort to dissuade, isolate and if necessary, sanction and contain Iran.

3) India can never create adequate nuclear power reactor fuel reserve.

4) India’s total civil nuclear facilities, materials and programmes will have to be permanently under IAEA scanner.

5) Every year US President has to submit a report to the US parliament that India is following US diktats fully in regard to its nuclear programmes and foreign policy.

6) If for any reason America terminates agreement, the remaining countries of the Nuclear Supplier Group or NSG will have to follow suit. NSG will have to frame such rules while granting permission to India.

7) Until India signs Indo-US Nuclear Deal or 123 Agreement no other country of the NSG can start nuclear trade. This provision will also to be incorporated while granting NSG permission.

8> India will not get advanced technologies for nuclear fuel reprocessing, Uranium enrichment and heavy water production.

All these conditions are detrimental to India’s independent foreign policy and independent nuclear policy.

Hyde Act says, even though US falters, India can never oppose and question its actions. If opposes, US President will give adverse report to its parliament; and the agreement will become null and void immediately. The consequence? India will have to return all those materials and facilities it acquired over the years at lakhs of crores of rupees.

Therefore, to keep the pact alive India will have to surrender and bend  to US imperialism permanently.

After reading these lines can any patriotic Indian not oppose this notorious deal?

What Chandan Mitra Speaks

Arguments in favour of Indo-US nuclear deal are dubious

Chandan Mitra

 

Does India need a civilian nuclear energy agreement with the US? Is this the best deal we could have got? Why is the Bush administration trying so hard to push India into signing this deal? Has the prime minister gone about it in the best possible way? Are we bartering away our nuclear sovereignty in the process, thereby endangering our goal to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent?

 

These are some of the key questions that needed to be satisfactorily answered in the context of the ongoing controversy that has snowballed to a point where it threatens the stability of the Manmohan Singh government. Unfortunately, the political rhetoric that is flying thick and fast for the last one year and more has obfuscated the core issues involved.

Enough has been spoken and written about the need to secure India’s energy needs, especially in view of rising oil prices and India’s near-total dependence on imports. Sceptics, on the other hand, have argued that even after investing billions of dollars to set up new reactors, nuclear power will contribute just about 7 per cent of the country’s energy requirements by 2020.

But even if it is conceded that India needs every extra megawatt of energy that can be generated, whatever the source, the question still remains whether the Indo-US nuclear deal in its present form is the best that we could have bargained for. On balance, it appears that the deal is good for everybody else, apart from India.

First, we will end up putting huge sums into the coffers of foreign manufacturers of nuclear reactors — mainly French, Russian and American. Second, the estimated cost per unit of nuclear energy will be prohibitively high compared to coal, gas and even crude. Can India afford power at such a high cost when alternative sources have not been exhausted? Without getting into the nuclear sovereignty issue, it can be asserted that the additional energy to be generated through uranium-based reactors will be of dubious benefit.

It is often argued that the US administration has been exerting pressure on the Indian establishment because President George W Bush, reeling under unfavourable popularity ratings, wants to exhibit it as his one great foreign policy success. This is utterly fallacious: most Americans have not even heard of this deal, given their proverbial insularity and selfobsession. Further, the Republicans are hardly expected to make this an issue in the November presidential election.

Interestingly, most western powers have been vigorously pushing for the deal, although with greater sophistication than the sledgehammer tactics characteristically employed by Americans.

 
Diplomacy, after all, is not based on altruism. Surely, they are not falling over one another out of love or compassion for India.

 
Apart from the business potential, the deal is being driven in western capitals by the motive of firmly roping India into the non-proliferation regime. India has an unblemished record here, but there are concerns about the future in view of the volatility of the Asian theatre. Since India cannot officially be admitted into the NPT, the deal has attempted to manoeuvre us into a situation where New Delhi becomes a de facto signatory to the NPT, just as we will be conferred the dubious distinction of being a de facto nuclear weapons state once we sign the deal.

Following the disclosure of the text of the IAEA safeguards agreement, it is abundantly clear that, while international inspection and safeguards shall be imposed permanently on our reactors, the exemptions remain doubtful. It is widely known that for all practical purposes no further testing shall be permitted. The government has repeatedly highlighted the “walk out” clause to claim that India can test whenever it wants and even if the US imposes sanctions, we can still negotiate with other countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to maintain uninterrupted uranium imports. This is complete hogwash. Can anybody in his right mind believe that the US will patronisingly oversee the supply of fissile material by other countries even after India conducts another nuclear test?

It would be more honest to admit that the Indo-US nuclear deal is a three-in-one document comprising a civilian energy cooperation agreement with the US, de facto NPT and de facto CTBT. A discussion on the merits and demerits of the deal would be meaningful only if we begin from this premise instead of deluding ourselves into believing that, possessed by a burning desire to help India, the US wants to hand out a “give-give” agreement with us and that nothing will change as far as our military nuclear programme is concerned.

Whichever way you look at the deal, honestly or deceitfully, it is a huge political albatross. Manmohan Singh has been forced to risk his government’s fate and enter into a questionable alliance with a party not known for scrupulous adherence to norms of probity in public life. When the prime minister first challenged the Left to pull out last September, it was perhaps the best moment for the Congress to go for an early election buoyed by high growth, manageable inflation and opposition incoherence.

Today, all three factors are ranged unfavourably against the ruling party. Manmohan Singh has never claimed to be a master strategist, but others in his party are known for their political acumen and manipulative skills. However, they got cold feet last year and now the Congress is set to pay a price for their vacillation. In politics, as in other spheres of life, you win only if you dare; defeat is inevitable if you dither and delay.

The writer is a member of the Rajya Sabha, and Editor, The Pioneer (New Delhi)

 

What Dr Placid Rodriguez has to say…

Dr Placid Rodriguez, former president of Indian Nuclear Society and ex Director of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, said the deal comes under the whole gamut of strategic alliance covering defence, space, nuclear and agriculture.

Bangalore, July 15, 2008: An eminent scientist has expressed fear that after the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, Washington may try to push its agricultural agenda and defence sales to New Delhi. “My greatest reservation (about the deal) is that the strategic alliance between India and the US is going into agriculture because in the other three sectors (defence, space and nuclear) we are strong and we can go independently and we will go,” Rodriguez said. “Our agricultural universities, state universities, ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) laboratories — they will be completely overwhelmed by giants like Monsanto whose resources are plenty and whose motivation is only monopoly,” he said. After Bt. cotton, now genetically modified brinjal is going to be brought in, Rodriguez said, adding, “we don’t know what’s next”. “Even European Commission has not accepted genetically modified food and we are not examining all the consequences“. The former President and Honorary Secretary of Indian National Academy of Engineering said another “lubricant” (for the US to sign the deal with India) behind the 123 agreement is the “large possibility of defence sales (in India}”. “We are in the market for 125 fighters (a multi-billion dollar business opportunity). In fact, we will not buy any reactor from the US for 20 years. We will be buying reactors from Russia and France. What the US wants is a monopoly in agriculture sector“, Rodriguez said. While Russia, France and to some extent Israel are India’s collaborators in defence equipment, the US wants greater pie of the Indian defence market, he said. Rodriguez expressed the view that the deal is actually an international civil nuclear cooperation agreement — a deal between India and international community — and has been given “wrong connotation” that it’s an Indo-US deal, attracting opposition from the left parties. Ardent supporters of the deal, including Prime Minister, “played too much” about the deal, he said. “After all, IAEA is a 145-member body in which US is also a member. NSG is a group of 45 nations. So, it’s actually an agreement between two groups and the US is the strongest and most powerful member of the groups,” he said. While stating that the deal is “acceptable”, he said there are certainly question marks. “What if the US President (after the safeguards agreement with IAEA and NSG) says that the decisions are governed by the Hyde Act which is ultimate,” he asked. He said India has agreed to a clause in the 123 agreement that the agreement would be subject to the national laws of the two nations. But it would have been better to say it would be subject to existing international laws, Rodriguez said. “It has been suggested that we must also pass a national act which says we are not bound by Hyde Act because it’s our national law. That’s only way of getting over it,” Rodriguez said. He also disagreed with the view that the agreement with the US is the full civil nuclear cooperation deal, saying reprocessing, heavy water technology and enrichment have been kept out of its purview. On the issue of reprocessing, there are conditions, he said. “We have to build new plant exclusively from the imported fuel materials and thereafter we have to give result of reprocessing and they will come back to us with decision after one year; it does not say that a favourable decision will be taken,” he said.

Venkaiah says…

‘Centre in hurry to push N-deal to cover up failures’

Hyderabad, July 15, 2008: BJP senior leader M. Venkaiah Naidu on Monday alleged that to cover up its failures, the UPA government was in a hurry to push Indo-US nuclear deal which was against the interest of the nation.

“Without a comprehensive deliberation on the issue and without taking into the confidence of Left parties and opposition BJP, the UPA government led by Congress party was in hurry for the deal to cover up its failures in all fronts,” Naidu told reporters here.

“It all shows immature way of handling of the UPA government the situations like external affairs,” the BJP leader said.

Instead of dealing with the very alarming situation of inflation which is likely to go upto 17 per cent, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was more concern for his prestige and trying to push forward Indo-US nuclear deal, he alleged.

Terming the Indo-US deal against the interest of the people of the country, Naidu said the scientist community is divided on the issue and let us not surrender our country’s sovereignty for the deal.

Left Launches Campaign Against UPA

Left Launces Nation-wide Campaign Against Manmohan-led UPA Government from Today

New Delhi, July 14, 2008: Launching a nationwide campaign against the UPA government clubbing the nuclear deal and price rise, the Left parties on Monday accused the ruling combine of “failing” to address the problems of the ‘aam aadmi’ due to its “obsession” with the agreement.

The Left parties said they could not agree to the country becoming a “junior partner” to the US and withdrew support to the government as it moved ahead with the deal when the country was faced with price rise and inflation.

Attacking the government for moving ahead with the deal when in “minority”, CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat took a potshot at the ruling party, saying ‘Congress ka Haath, America ke Saath’.

Karat said the Left will work to defeat the government on the trust vote and expects that more parties will join them in the struggle against the deal.

“The popularity of President George W Bush in US is 20-25 per cent. He is the President of a minority. We have a Prime Minister who is heading a minority government. A minority President and minority Prime Minister are trying to hook this country to US hegemony,” the senior CPI(M) leader said.

Claiming that the government and Congress want to fulfil their promise to Bush, he said, “it is their primary aim and not tackling inflation or price rise…The deal and price rise were the issues on which we withdrew support.“

“We were tolerating them (UPA) because we did not want BJP and other communal forces to come to power,” he said.

In an apparent reference to Congress tie-up with Samajwadi Party, Karat said there is a party which is now supporting the government, but shared the dais with the Left sometime ago in opposing the deal.

Attacking the UPA for its “refusal” to take appropriate steps to tackle inflation and price rise, Karat claimed that the nuclear deal would be used by the US to “pressurise” the country to open up for MNCs, which would have a “detrimental” effect on India.

“This government took a shameful step when it voted against Iran (in the IAEA),” Karat said noting that the country would have to surrender its foreign policy and toe American line on international affairs if it went ahead with the deal.

On voting against the government along with BJP during the trust vote, Karat said that Congress has no right to point fingers at the Left saying it [congress] had “conspired” to topple secular governments of V P Singh, H D Deve Gowda and I K Gujral in the 1990s and voted along with the saffron party.

CPI general secretary A B Bardhan in his address, said, “We have never said that we are voting with BJP. We have talked to other parties, not to BJP. If the other parties want to talk to us, we cannot push them out. We are voting against the UPA because of its policies.”

“If the BJP wants to vote against (UPA), they have a right to do so. Those who voted along with BJP are now teaching us. We will continue to fight communal forces,” he said.

He wondered whether India was acting under “US pressure” not to go ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The campaign has been launched to explain to the people the reasons for withdrawing support besides “explaining the UPA’s pro-American and anti-people policies which are resulting in price rise and other problems”.

In the course of the campaign, the Left will also place before the people alternatives to meet energy requirements for development and for putting an end to economic policies which are “harmful to farmers, rural poor, workers and other sections”.

Plans are afoot to field top leaders, who will criss-cross the country, to attend public meetings and rallies organised in major towns in all states.

Meetings will be organised at all major centres, as well as in towns and villages. Pamphlets and handbills will be published.

The campaign plank will be anti-imperialism and defence of the country’s sovereignty, anti-communalism, secular domestic polity and protection and improvement of common people’s livelihood against attacks of big business, a senior Left leader said.

Karat Meets Mayawati

CPI (M) General Secretary Prakash Karat, along with BSP President Mayawati, after their meeting in New Delhi on Sunday. Photo: PTI.

New Delhi, July 13, 2008 (PTI): CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat and BSP supremo Mayawati, two staunch opponents of the Indo-US nuclear deal, met on Sunday in an apparent move to take on the Government during the trust vote in Lok Sabha on July 22.

Karat, who is spearheading the Left opposition on the deal, drove to the UP Chief Minister’s residence here for the meeting.

This is the first meeting between the two leaders after the recent political developments that saw Mayawati withdrawing support to the Government followed by the Left last week.

After the 45-minutes meeting, the Marxist leader hailed Mayawati’s opposition to the nuclear deal and said the two parties would cooperate in the “struggle” against the agreement.

“We wanted the two parties cooperate in the struggle against the Government,” Karat said in apparent reference to the trust vote being sought by the Manmohan Singh ministry.

While the Left has 59 MPs in the Lok Sabha, the BSP has 17.

Karat had on July 11 said he was in touch with “all parties” which can take a stand against the deal, an issue on which the Left parties withdrew support to the Government reducing it to a minority.

Mayawati has so far declined to divulge her strategy on the trust vote but there were reports that she was attempting to woo several SP and Congress MPs in UP into her fold to vote against the Government in the trial of strength in the Lok Sabha.

Mayawati has been increasingly attacking the Centre in the wake of her arch detractor Samajwadi Party joining hands with Congress over the issue of the nuclear deal which the BSP is dubbed it as “anti-Muslim”.

Yesterday she had hit out at the Centre for “targeting” her after the CBI issued a fresh affidavit in a disproportionate assets case.

She had accused the Congress of “targeting” her at the behest of Samajwadi Party, a charge dismissed by the ruling party.

In the Lok Sabha, which has an effective strength of 543, the ruling side has to cross the halfway mark of 272 to prove a simple majority.

The ruling UPA has an assured support of 221 MPs belonging to alliance partners, which includes the Congress’ 153, RJD’s 24, DMK’s 16 and NCP’s 11. The five-MP JMM, although an ally of UPA, has not yet revealed its cards.

Basu Seems to Advise Somnath to Toe Party Line

• Pranab Mukherjee meets Jyoti Basu at his residence at 11.30 a.m
• Somnath Chatterjee meets Basu at 12.00 noon

Kolkata, July 13, 2008 (PTI): Amid mounting pressure from within his own party to quit the post of Speaker with the trust vote in the Lok Sabha only nine days away, CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee had a prolonged meeting with the Marxist patriarch Jyoti Basu who is understood to have advised him to abide by the party line.

After the 50-minute meeting between Basu and Chatterjee, party insiders said that the Marxist veteran played the role of a crisis manager persuading the Speaker to follow the party line as the Left parties had already withdrawn support to the UPA government.

Emerging from the meeting at Basu’s residence at Salt Lake, Chatterjee refused to speak to the reporters and drove off.

Basu also was not available for comment.

Chatterjee had reportedly taken exception to his name being included in the list of the Left MPS who had withdrawn support to the UPA government which was presented to President Pratibha Patil.

Half an hour earlier, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee met Basu and explained to him as the Leader of the Lok Sabha the circumstances leading to the collapse of the UPA-Left coalition.

Chatterjee’s meeting with Basu came two days after Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee and industry minister Nirupam Sen met the Marxist veteran reportedly at the instance of the party leadership to persuade the Speaker to step down.

Chatterjee has maintained ever since the Left withdrew support to the UPA government that the Speaker’s post was above politics.

Basu, according to party insiders, stressed on projecting a united face of the Left on the trust vote issue.

The CPI(M) Polit Bureau member, Sitaram Yechury, said in Delhi yesterday that the Speaker understands the political situation and would take an appropriate decision at an appropriate time.

On the other hand, Mukherjee, who was with the Marxist veteran for 15 minutes, said, “whether the government will survive or not will depend on the trust vote”.

“I met Jyoti babu for two reasons — to explain the circumstances under which the coalition collapsed and also to express my best wishes for the leader who turned 95 recently,” the External Affairs Minister told reporters after the meeting.

Describing Basu and another CPI(M) stalwart Harkishan Singh Surjeet as the two architects of the UPA-Left coalition, he said he thought as leader of the house in the Lok Sabha it was his moral duty to explain to Basu why the coalition arrangement between the Left parties and the UPA failed.

Besides discussing the latest political development, the other purpose of his visit is believed to be to understand from Basu the CPI(M) stand on continuance of Chatterjee as the Lok Sabha Speaker with the Lower House scheduled to take up the trust vote on July 22.