BJP rejects Pranab's statement, moves breach of privilege against PM- Hindustan Times
Lack of maturity and diplomatic incompetence on the part of the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh will be a reason for an opporunity missed for advancing Indo-US relations. The Prime Minister should have known better. It is expected from a democratic leader to engage in serious deliberations with the other political parties before finalizing strategic treaties with other countries. Dr. Manmohan Singh never took advice from prominent leaders like Atalji. The Prime Minister should have invited the former Prime Minister for lunch and discuss the pact before giving India’s approval. He could call Shri Prakash Karat and go over the details before giving the green signal.
I am irked by the Prime Minister's insistence that the 123 Nuclear Pact is non-negotiable. What is this big fuss all about? It appears that both Manmohan Govt and the Bush Administration were in a rush to finalize the agreement before US Presidential elections in 2008 and India's General elections in 2009. So here we are - we have an agreement which is not acceptable to the majority in the Indian Parliament.
If this Pact fails (either in India or in the US Congress) a lot of blame should go to the Prime Minister. On the matters of serious national significance who gives a care if the government falls? The government of today can only use the mandate it has and not pretend that it can do whatever it likes. Instead of threatening the Left Front, the Prime Minister needs to look at his own actions. A treaty can't be legitimate and credible unless the Parliament debates and approves it.
On the matters of national significance and pivotal importance for Indo-US relations, the Prime Minister did not pull up his sleeves to do the fine tuning of the terms of the agreement. What made it worse is that the Prime Minister's advisers dropped the ball too.
To say that the 123 Agreement does not originate from the Hyde Act is like saying that we are Indians but have no relation to Bharat. 123 Agreement cannot be separated from the Hyde Act just like a child's DNA cannot be different from that of his/her father's.
***
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I was under the impression that the Indian Prime Minister told the Indian Parliament that the 123 Pact does not affect India's right to conduct a nuclear test. Let us first read this news that specifically addresses the issue of differences between the Prime Minister's statement and the statement by the U.S. Department of State Spokesman Mr. Sean McCormac. I have also pasted below the text of the Prime Minister's statement.
***
US to scrap nuclear deal if India tests weapons
Wednesday, August 15 2007 (www.philstar.com)
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will scrap a landmark nuclear deal with India if New Delhi conducts an atomic weapons test, the State Department said Tuesday.
The statement came as the two governments gave different interpretations of the controversial nuclear deal's recently adopted operating agreement, also known as the 123 agreement.
"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
There is also a "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement," he said.
His comments came a day after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament that the agreement would not affect the Asian giant's military program or any plans to test nuclear weapons.
Singh said "the agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."
"There is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy," Singh had said.
The operating agreement was officially approved by the two governments about two weeks ago after exhaustive discussions spanning two years.
But US law also requires mandatory Congress approval of the pact.
Legislators, who have vowed to go scrutinize the pact, last year approved in principle the "Henry Hyde Act" allowing export of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India.
The move reversed decades of sanctions imposed after India's nuclear tests.
Copyright 2007. Philstar Global Corp. All rights reserved. This article cannot be published or redistributed without the permission of the publisher.
***
The following is the text of the Statement of Dr. Manmohan Singh before the Indian Parliament.
***
PM’s statement in the Lok Sabha on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States
August 13, 2007
New Delhi
Excerpts of the Prime Minister's statement - this is a preliminary transcript that is yet to be corrected and matched with the official transcription from the Lok Sabha.
I rise to inform this august House that the Government of India has reached agreement with the Government of the United States of America on the text of the bilateral Agreement on Cooperation for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
2. This Government has kept Parliament fully in the picture at various stages of our negotiations with the United States. We have never shied away from a full discussion in Parliament on this important issue. I have myself made statements on several previous occasions – on July 29, 2005 soon after my return from Washington; on February 27, 2006 during which I took Parliament into confidence regarding our ongoing discussions with the United States on the Separation Plan; and on March 7, 2006 following the visit of President Bush to India. I also made a detailed statement in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 conveying certain solemn commitments to which I shall return shortly.
Our Government has adhered scrupulously to Parliamentary traditions and practices. We have in fact gone far beyond any previous Government.
3. After the conclusion of the Agreement we have also briefed many of the parties represented in Parliament on the details of the Agreement.
4. The Agreement is about civil nuclear energy cooperation. It is an Agreement between two States possessing advanced nuclear technologies, both parties having the same benefits and advantages. The significance of the Agreement lies in the fact that when brought into effect, it will open the way for full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States. We have negotiated this Agreement as an equal partner, precisely because of the achievements of our scientists and technologists in overcoming the barriers placed around us in the past. This is an Agreement based on the principle of mutual benefit.
5. There has been considerable public debate and discussion on various aspects of the Agreement. On August 17, 2006, I had given a solemn commitment to Parliament and to the country regarding what we can agree and cannot agree with the United States to enable civil nuclear energy cooperation with India. I had stressed that it must be within specific parameters, which I had shared with Parliament. This was an unprecedented measure of transparency on our part even in the midst of complex negotiations.
6. I had given Parliament my assurance that the Government will make every effort so that the vision of the Joint Statements of July, 2005 and March, 2006 becomes a living reality. I believe that we have redeemed that pledge. In concluding this Agreement, we have ensured that the autonomy of our strategic programme is fully maintained, and that Dr. Homi Bhabha’s long-term vision remains our guiding principle.
7. With your permission, I wish to draw the attention of this august House to the main features of the Agreement in some detail. It would become evident that the commitments I had made to Parliament, including those on August 17, 2006, have been fully adhered to.
(i) Full Civil Nuclear Cooperation
Ø The concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement. The Agreement stipulates that uch cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale. It would also include development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors.
Ø A significant aspect of the Agreement is our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel. This has been secured upfront. We view our right to reprocess as a key element of a closed fuel cycle, which will enable us to make full use in our national facilities of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel used in our reactors. This important yardstick has been met by the permanent consent for India to reprocess.
Ø India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing foreign nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. India and the US will mutually agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing will take place in the new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year. There is no ambiguity with regard to the commitments of both countries.
Ø Any special fissionable material that may be separated may be utilized in national facilities under IAEA safeguards. Thus the interests of our three stage nuclear programme have been protected.
Ø The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. This Agreement provides for such transfers to India only through an amendment. Forward- looking language has been included for dual use transfers of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future. It is important to note that no prohibition that is specifically directed against India has been included in the Agreement.
(ii) The Principle of Reciprocity:
Ø The principle of reciprocity, which was integral to the July 2005 Statement, has been fully safeguarded in this Agreement. There is no change in our position that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. This would also be in a phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this.
(iii) Certification:
Ø This Agreement emphasizes the desire of both countries to cooperate extensively in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security on a stable, reliable and predictable basis. This Agreement further confirms that US cooperation with India is a permanent one.
There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process.
Ø Hon’ble Members may recall that the 18th July 2005 Joint Statement had acknowledged that India be regarded as a state with advanced nuclear technology enjoying the same advantages and benefits as other States with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US. This Agreement makes specific references to India and the United States as States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation.
(iv) Safeguards:
Ø As agreed in the March Separation Plan, India has accepted only IAEA safeguards that will be reflected in an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.
We have not consented to any provision that mandates scrutiny of our nuclear weapons programme or any unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. There are explicit provisions in the Agreement that make it clear that this Agreement does not affect our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and that it will not affect our right to use materials, equipment, information or technology acquired or developed independently. India and the United States have agreed that the implementation of the Agreement will not hinder or otherwise interfere with India’s nuclear activities including our military nuclear facilities. Nothing in the Agreement would impinge on our strategic programme, our three-stage nuclear power programme or our ability to conduct advanced R&D.
(v) Fuel Supply Assurances:
Ø I would like to reiterate that the March 2006 Separation Plan provided for an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, with assurances of uninterrupted supply of fuel to reactors that would be placed under IAEA safeguards together with India’s right to take corrective measures in the event fuel supplies are interrupted. An important assurance given is the commitment of support for India’s right to build up strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to meet the lifetime requirements of India’s reactors.
Ø This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India’s reactors. The Agreement reiterates in toto the corresponding portions of the Separation Plan.
It has endorsed the right of India to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supply.
Hon’ble Members will agree that these provisions will ensure that there is no repeat of our unfortunate experience with Tarapur.
(vi) Integrity and reliability of our strategic programme, autonomy of decision making and future scientific research and development:
Ø In my statements of March 7 and August 17, 2006, I had assured Parliament that the Separation Plan would not adversely affect our strategic programme, the integrity of the three-stage nuclear programme and the autonomy of our Research and Development activity.
Ø This Agreement does not in any way impact on India’s ability to produce and utilize fissile material for its current and future strategic needs.
Our right to use for our own purposes our independent and indigenously developed nuclear facilities has been fully preserved. The Agreement also provides for non-hindrance and non-interference in our activities involving use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology and military nuclear facilities produced, acquired or developed independently for our own purposes.
(vii) Cessation of cooperation:
Ø An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement. Both Parties have agreed to take a number of factors into account in their consultations so that the scope for precipitate or unilateral action is reduced.
Cessation of cooperation can be sought by the US only if it is prepared to take the extreme step of termination of the Agreement. India’s right to take “corrective measures” will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.
Ø In the case of termination of this Agreement and cessation of cooperation by either Party, each has the right to seek return of nuclear material and equipment supplied by it to the other. However, before the right of return is exercised, the Agreement commits the parties to consult and to take into account specific factors such as national security, ongoing contracts and projects, compensation at market value, physical protection and environmental issues. India and the United States have agreed to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination, including a party’s concerns about a change in the security environment or a response to similar actions by other states that could impact on national security.
The Agreement stipulates that the two parties recognise that exercising the right of return would have profound implications and consequences for their relations.
Ø From India’s point of view our primary objective is to ensure the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors, in the context of the detailed fuel supply assurances provided in the Separation Plan and these are now reflected in full in the Agreement. The Agreement specifically states in regard to fuel supply assurances and India’s right to take “corrective measures” that there will be no derogation of India’s rights in this regard, including the right to take “corrective measures” to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its reactors. This reflects the balance of obligations consistent with the understandings of the July Statement and the March Separation Plan.
8. Among the significant and innovative features of this Agreement are specific mention of the right to run foreign supplied reactors ‘without interruption’ and to take ‘corrective measures’ in the event of fuel supply disruption. This has been made possible by crafting the provisions in a manner that provide for explicit linkages and interlocking of rights and commitments contained in the Agreement.
9. The Agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary in India’s national interest. Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the Government. There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India’s security and defence needs.
10. If I might sum-up, this Agreement does not in any way inhibit, restrict or curtail our strategic autonomy or capabilities. Our rights to pursue our three-stage nuclear power programme remain undiluted.
In the unlikely event of cessation of cooperation there is no derogation of our rights with regard to corrective measures. Our reprocessing rights are upfront and are permanent in nature. Advanced R&D programmes and IPR Protection are fully safeguarded.
11. As I have said, this is an Agreement for cooperation between India and the US on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Its genesis is the shared perception between India and the US that both our countries need to address their energy challenges, and address them in a manner that is sensitive to concerns about the environment. For India, it is critically important to maintain our current GDP growth rate of 8 to 10% per annum if our goal of eradicating poverty is to be achieved. The energy implications of this growth rate over the next couple of decades are enormous. Even if we were to exploit all our known resources of coal, oil, gas and hydropower, we would still be confronted with a yawning demand and supply gap.
12. India’s three-stage nuclear power programme holds immense promise for the future. The unique thorium-based technology would become an economically viable alternative over a period of time following sequential implementation of the three stages. We must, in the meantime, explore and exploit every possible source of energy. Nuclear energy is a logical choice for India. Indigenous supplies of uranium are highly inadequate and hence we need to source uranium supply from elsewhere. In a globalised world, technology is always a premium item and we look forward to expanding our horizons in this regard as well. We intend to carry forward our cooperation with other countries in civil nuclear energy, in particular with major nuclear suppliers such as Russia and France.
13. We already have a comprehensive nuclear infrastructure. We have a corps of skilled and technically qualified manpower in this sector. It makes sense for us to leverage this valuable asset. As Hon’ble Members are aware, our target for the year 2020 is 20,000 MW of nuclear power generation. It is quite modest.
However, if international cooperation once again became available, we could hope to double this target.
14. On the basis of the Indo-US bilateral Agreement and the finalisation of an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which is being taken up shortly, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is expected to adapt its guidelines to enable international commerce with India in civil nuclear energy and all dual use technologies associated with it. This would be the beginning of the end of the technology-denial regimes against India that have been in existence for over three decades.
15. Apart from its direct impact on our nuclear energy programme, this Agreement will have major spin-offs for the development of our industries, both public and private. High technology trade with the US and other technologically advanced countries will expand rapidly.
16. I wish to draw attention to another major gain for India from this initiative.
We will be creating opportunities for our scientists to participate in the international exchange of scientific ideas and technical know-how and to contribute to the global effort to deal with the world-wide challenges of energy security and climate change. This includes the International Thermonuclear Research Reactor or ITER project, in which India has already joined as a full and equal member along with a handful of technologically advanced countries.
17. In discussions on this subject, questions have been raised about Government’s commitment to an independent foreign policy. I have clearly spelt out the Government’s position in this regard in my statements to Parliament in March and August 2006. I had specially underlined that the pursuit of a foreign policy that is independent in its judgement is a legacy of our founding fathers and an abiding commitment of my Government. India is too large and too important a country to have the independence of its foreign policy taken away by any power.
Today, India stands on the world stage as an influential and respected member of the international community. There is independence in our thought and independence in our actions.
18. I would like to reiterate that our engagement today with all global powers like US, Russia, China, EU, UK, France, Germany and Japan is unprecedented. Engagement with West, East, South East and Central Asia has been significantly stepped up with visible results. We are building new frontiers in our ties with Africa and Latin America. In South Asia we seek to develop a peaceful environment, one that is conducive to ambitious developmental targets. I urge those who question our commitment to an independent foreign policy to display the same degree of confidence in India, as others from outside do.
19. Thus, there is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy.
At the same time, we must not forget India’s long-standing commitment to the noble ideas of nuclear disarmament and our refusal to participate in any arms race, including a nuclear arms race. Our commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains undiminished. It was this vision of a world free of nuclear weapons which Shri Rajiv Gandhi put before the UN in 1988 and this still has universal resonance.
20. We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We are also committed to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty or FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament. India is willing to join only a non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated, and internationally verifiable FMCT, as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament, subject to it meeting our national security interests.
21. Despite changes in government and changes in political leadership we have always tempered the exercise of our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility and with a commitment to the ideals of general and complete disarmament, including global nuclear disarmament. This Government believes that our commitment to these ideals and our efforts to realize them must continue, and continue with even greater vigour, now that we are a nuclear weapon state. The possession of nuclear weapons only increases our sense of responsibility and does not diminish it.
22. Pending global nuclear disarmament, India has maintained an impeccable non-proliferation record. As a responsible nuclear power, India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime as the infirmities in this regime have affected our security interests. We will work together with the international community to advance our common objective of non-proliferation.
23. There are now other landmarks to cross before the goal of India joining the international mainstream as a full and equal partner becomes a reality. We have to finalise an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Thereafter, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has to agree, by consensus, to adapt its guidelines, we expect without conditions, to enable nuclear commerce with India and to dismantle the restrictions on the transfer of dual use technologies and items to our country. The US Administration is to secure requisite approval from the US Congress. The completion of these next steps will mark the practical realization of this initiative.
24. Our negotiators deserve credit for delivering to the nation an Agreement, which can potentially transform the economic prospects of our country. It is an Agreement that will enable us to meet the twin challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability, and remove the technology denial regimes that have, for decades, been a major constraint on our development.
At the same time, it will bring India the recognition it deserves thanks to the outstanding achievements of our scientists in nuclear and space sciences as well as other high technology areas.
25. This historic initiative has received the steadfast support of President Bush and senior members of his Administration. The strengthening and enhancement of our bilateral relations is an objective that has received his unstinting personal support and commitment. This Agreement is a shining example of how far we have progressed.
26. Finally, Sir, let me end by saying that we have achieved an Agreement that is good for India, and good for the world. I am neither given to exaggeration nor am I known to be self-congratulatory. I will let history judge; I will let posterity judge the value of what we have done through this Agreement. In days to come it will be seen that it is not just the United States but nations across the world that wish to arrive at a new equilibrium in their relations with India. This agreement with the United States will open new doors in capitals across the world. It is another step in our journey to regain our due place in global councils. When future generations look back, they will come to acknowledge the significance of this historic deal.
Thank you, Sir.
***
I was under the impression that the Indian Prime Minister told the Indian Parliament that the 123 Pact does not affect India's right to conduct a nuclear test. Let us first read this news that specifically addresses the issue of differences between the Prime Minister's statement and the statement by the U.S. Department of State Spokesman Mr. Sean McCormac. I have also pasted below the text of the Prime Minister's statement.
***
US to scrap nuclear deal if India tests weapons
Wednesday, August 15 2007 (www.philstar.com)
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will scrap a landmark nuclear deal with India if New Delhi conducts an atomic weapons test, the State Department said Tuesday.
The statement came as the two governments gave different interpretations of the controversial nuclear deal's recently adopted operating agreement, also known as the 123 agreement.
"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
There is also a "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement," he said.
His comments came a day after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament that the agreement would not affect the Asian giant's military program or any plans to test nuclear weapons.
Singh said "the agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."
"There is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy," Singh had said.
The operating agreement was officially approved by the two governments about two weeks ago after exhaustive discussions spanning two years.
But US law also requires mandatory Congress approval of the pact.
Legislators, who have vowed to go scrutinize the pact, last year approved in principle the "Henry Hyde Act" allowing export of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India.
The move reversed decades of sanctions imposed after India's nuclear tests.
Copyright 2007. Philstar Global Corp. All rights reserved. This article cannot be published or redistributed without the permission of the publisher.
***
The following is the text of the Statement of Dr. Manmohan Singh before the Indian Parliament.
***
PM’s statement in the Lok Sabha on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States
August 13, 2007
New Delhi
Excerpts of the Prime Minister's statement - this is a preliminary transcript that is yet to be corrected and matched with the official transcription from the Lok Sabha.
I rise to inform this august House that the Government of India has reached agreement with the Government of the United States of America on the text of the bilateral Agreement on Cooperation for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
2. This Government has kept Parliament fully in the picture at various stages of our negotiations with the United States. We have never shied away from a full discussion in Parliament on this important issue. I have myself made statements on several previous occasions – on July 29, 2005 soon after my return from Washington; on February 27, 2006 during which I took Parliament into confidence regarding our ongoing discussions with the United States on the Separation Plan; and on March 7, 2006 following the visit of President Bush to India. I also made a detailed statement in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 conveying certain solemn commitments to which I shall return shortly.
Our Government has adhered scrupulously to Parliamentary traditions and practices. We have in fact gone far beyond any previous Government.
3. After the conclusion of the Agreement we have also briefed many of the parties represented in Parliament on the details of the Agreement.
4. The Agreement is about civil nuclear energy cooperation. It is an Agreement between two States possessing advanced nuclear technologies, both parties having the same benefits and advantages. The significance of the Agreement lies in the fact that when brought into effect, it will open the way for full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States. We have negotiated this Agreement as an equal partner, precisely because of the achievements of our scientists and technologists in overcoming the barriers placed around us in the past. This is an Agreement based on the principle of mutual benefit.
5. There has been considerable public debate and discussion on various aspects of the Agreement. On August 17, 2006, I had given a solemn commitment to Parliament and to the country regarding what we can agree and cannot agree with the United States to enable civil nuclear energy cooperation with India. I had stressed that it must be within specific parameters, which I had shared with Parliament. This was an unprecedented measure of transparency on our part even in the midst of complex negotiations.
6. I had given Parliament my assurance that the Government will make every effort so that the vision of the Joint Statements of July, 2005 and March, 2006 becomes a living reality. I believe that we have redeemed that pledge. In concluding this Agreement, we have ensured that the autonomy of our strategic programme is fully maintained, and that Dr. Homi Bhabha’s long-term vision remains our guiding principle.
7. With your permission, I wish to draw the attention of this august House to the main features of the Agreement in some detail. It would become evident that the commitments I had made to Parliament, including those on August 17, 2006, have been fully adhered to.
(i) Full Civil Nuclear Cooperation
Ø The concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement. The Agreement stipulates that uch cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale. It would also include development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors.
Ø A significant aspect of the Agreement is our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel. This has been secured upfront. We view our right to reprocess as a key element of a closed fuel cycle, which will enable us to make full use in our national facilities of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel used in our reactors. This important yardstick has been met by the permanent consent for India to reprocess.
Ø India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing foreign nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. India and the US will mutually agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing will take place in the new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year. There is no ambiguity with regard to the commitments of both countries.
Ø Any special fissionable material that may be separated may be utilized in national facilities under IAEA safeguards. Thus the interests of our three stage nuclear programme have been protected.
Ø The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. This Agreement provides for such transfers to India only through an amendment. Forward- looking language has been included for dual use transfers of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future. It is important to note that no prohibition that is specifically directed against India has been included in the Agreement.
(ii) The Principle of Reciprocity:
Ø The principle of reciprocity, which was integral to the July 2005 Statement, has been fully safeguarded in this Agreement. There is no change in our position that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. This would also be in a phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this.
(iii) Certification:
Ø This Agreement emphasizes the desire of both countries to cooperate extensively in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security on a stable, reliable and predictable basis. This Agreement further confirms that US cooperation with India is a permanent one.
There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process.
Ø Hon’ble Members may recall that the 18th July 2005 Joint Statement had acknowledged that India be regarded as a state with advanced nuclear technology enjoying the same advantages and benefits as other States with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US. This Agreement makes specific references to India and the United States as States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation.
(iv) Safeguards:
Ø As agreed in the March Separation Plan, India has accepted only IAEA safeguards that will be reflected in an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.
We have not consented to any provision that mandates scrutiny of our nuclear weapons programme or any unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. There are explicit provisions in the Agreement that make it clear that this Agreement does not affect our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and that it will not affect our right to use materials, equipment, information or technology acquired or developed independently. India and the United States have agreed that the implementation of the Agreement will not hinder or otherwise interfere with India’s nuclear activities including our military nuclear facilities. Nothing in the Agreement would impinge on our strategic programme, our three-stage nuclear power programme or our ability to conduct advanced R&D.
(v) Fuel Supply Assurances:
Ø I would like to reiterate that the March 2006 Separation Plan provided for an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, with assurances of uninterrupted supply of fuel to reactors that would be placed under IAEA safeguards together with India’s right to take corrective measures in the event fuel supplies are interrupted. An important assurance given is the commitment of support for India’s right to build up strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to meet the lifetime requirements of India’s reactors.
Ø This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India’s reactors. The Agreement reiterates in toto the corresponding portions of the Separation Plan.
It has endorsed the right of India to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supply.
Hon’ble Members will agree that these provisions will ensure that there is no repeat of our unfortunate experience with Tarapur.
(vi) Integrity and reliability of our strategic programme, autonomy of decision making and future scientific research and development:
Ø In my statements of March 7 and August 17, 2006, I had assured Parliament that the Separation Plan would not adversely affect our strategic programme, the integrity of the three-stage nuclear programme and the autonomy of our Research and Development activity.
Ø This Agreement does not in any way impact on India’s ability to produce and utilize fissile material for its current and future strategic needs.
Our right to use for our own purposes our independent and indigenously developed nuclear facilities has been fully preserved. The Agreement also provides for non-hindrance and non-interference in our activities involving use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology and military nuclear facilities produced, acquired or developed independently for our own purposes.
(vii) Cessation of cooperation:
Ø An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement. Both Parties have agreed to take a number of factors into account in their consultations so that the scope for precipitate or unilateral action is reduced.
Cessation of cooperation can be sought by the US only if it is prepared to take the extreme step of termination of the Agreement. India’s right to take “corrective measures” will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.
Ø In the case of termination of this Agreement and cessation of cooperation by either Party, each has the right to seek return of nuclear material and equipment supplied by it to the other. However, before the right of return is exercised, the Agreement commits the parties to consult and to take into account specific factors such as national security, ongoing contracts and projects, compensation at market value, physical protection and environmental issues. India and the United States have agreed to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination, including a party’s concerns about a change in the security environment or a response to similar actions by other states that could impact on national security.
The Agreement stipulates that the two parties recognise that exercising the right of return would have profound implications and consequences for their relations.
Ø From India’s point of view our primary objective is to ensure the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors, in the context of the detailed fuel supply assurances provided in the Separation Plan and these are now reflected in full in the Agreement. The Agreement specifically states in regard to fuel supply assurances and India’s right to take “corrective measures” that there will be no derogation of India’s rights in this regard, including the right to take “corrective measures” to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its reactors. This reflects the balance of obligations consistent with the understandings of the July Statement and the March Separation Plan.
8. Among the significant and innovative features of this Agreement are specific mention of the right to run foreign supplied reactors ‘without interruption’ and to take ‘corrective measures’ in the event of fuel supply disruption. This has been made possible by crafting the provisions in a manner that provide for explicit linkages and interlocking of rights and commitments contained in the Agreement.
9. The Agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary in India’s national interest. Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the Government. There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India’s security and defence needs.
10. If I might sum-up, this Agreement does not in any way inhibit, restrict or curtail our strategic autonomy or capabilities. Our rights to pursue our three-stage nuclear power programme remain undiluted.
In the unlikely event of cessation of cooperation there is no derogation of our rights with regard to corrective measures. Our reprocessing rights are upfront and are permanent in nature. Advanced R&D programmes and IPR Protection are fully safeguarded.
11. As I have said, this is an Agreement for cooperation between India and the US on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Its genesis is the shared perception between India and the US that both our countries need to address their energy challenges, and address them in a manner that is sensitive to concerns about the environment. For India, it is critically important to maintain our current GDP growth rate of 8 to 10% per annum if our goal of eradicating poverty is to be achieved. The energy implications of this growth rate over the next couple of decades are enormous. Even if we were to exploit all our known resources of coal, oil, gas and hydropower, we would still be confronted with a yawning demand and supply gap.
12. India’s three-stage nuclear power programme holds immense promise for the future. The unique thorium-based technology would become an economically viable alternative over a period of time following sequential implementation of the three stages. We must, in the meantime, explore and exploit every possible source of energy. Nuclear energy is a logical choice for India. Indigenous supplies of uranium are highly inadequate and hence we need to source uranium supply from elsewhere. In a globalised world, technology is always a premium item and we look forward to expanding our horizons in this regard as well. We intend to carry forward our cooperation with other countries in civil nuclear energy, in particular with major nuclear suppliers such as Russia and France.
13. We already have a comprehensive nuclear infrastructure. We have a corps of skilled and technically qualified manpower in this sector. It makes sense for us to leverage this valuable asset. As Hon’ble Members are aware, our target for the year 2020 is 20,000 MW of nuclear power generation. It is quite modest.
However, if international cooperation once again became available, we could hope to double this target.
14. On the basis of the Indo-US bilateral Agreement and the finalisation of an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which is being taken up shortly, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is expected to adapt its guidelines to enable international commerce with India in civil nuclear energy and all dual use technologies associated with it. This would be the beginning of the end of the technology-denial regimes against India that have been in existence for over three decades.
15. Apart from its direct impact on our nuclear energy programme, this Agreement will have major spin-offs for the development of our industries, both public and private. High technology trade with the US and other technologically advanced countries will expand rapidly.
16. I wish to draw attention to another major gain for India from this initiative.
We will be creating opportunities for our scientists to participate in the international exchange of scientific ideas and technical know-how and to contribute to the global effort to deal with the world-wide challenges of energy security and climate change. This includes the International Thermonuclear Research Reactor or ITER project, in which India has already joined as a full and equal member along with a handful of technologically advanced countries.
17. In discussions on this subject, questions have been raised about Government’s commitment to an independent foreign policy. I have clearly spelt out the Government’s position in this regard in my statements to Parliament in March and August 2006. I had specially underlined that the pursuit of a foreign policy that is independent in its judgement is a legacy of our founding fathers and an abiding commitment of my Government. India is too large and too important a country to have the independence of its foreign policy taken away by any power.
Today, India stands on the world stage as an influential and respected member of the international community. There is independence in our thought and independence in our actions.
18. I would like to reiterate that our engagement today with all global powers like US, Russia, China, EU, UK, France, Germany and Japan is unprecedented. Engagement with West, East, South East and Central Asia has been significantly stepped up with visible results. We are building new frontiers in our ties with Africa and Latin America. In South Asia we seek to develop a peaceful environment, one that is conducive to ambitious developmental targets. I urge those who question our commitment to an independent foreign policy to display the same degree of confidence in India, as others from outside do.
19. Thus, there is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy.
At the same time, we must not forget India’s long-standing commitment to the noble ideas of nuclear disarmament and our refusal to participate in any arms race, including a nuclear arms race. Our commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains undiminished. It was this vision of a world free of nuclear weapons which Shri Rajiv Gandhi put before the UN in 1988 and this still has universal resonance.
20. We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We are also committed to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty or FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament. India is willing to join only a non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated, and internationally verifiable FMCT, as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament, subject to it meeting our national security interests.
21. Despite changes in government and changes in political leadership we have always tempered the exercise of our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility and with a commitment to the ideals of general and complete disarmament, including global nuclear disarmament. This Government believes that our commitment to these ideals and our efforts to realize them must continue, and continue with even greater vigour, now that we are a nuclear weapon state. The possession of nuclear weapons only increases our sense of responsibility and does not diminish it.
22. Pending global nuclear disarmament, India has maintained an impeccable non-proliferation record. As a responsible nuclear power, India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime as the infirmities in this regime have affected our security interests. We will work together with the international community to advance our common objective of non-proliferation.
23. There are now other landmarks to cross before the goal of India joining the international mainstream as a full and equal partner becomes a reality. We have to finalise an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Thereafter, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has to agree, by consensus, to adapt its guidelines, we expect without conditions, to enable nuclear commerce with India and to dismantle the restrictions on the transfer of dual use technologies and items to our country. The US Administration is to secure requisite approval from the US Congress. The completion of these next steps will mark the practical realization of this initiative.
24. Our negotiators deserve credit for delivering to the nation an Agreement, which can potentially transform the economic prospects of our country. It is an Agreement that will enable us to meet the twin challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability, and remove the technology denial regimes that have, for decades, been a major constraint on our development.
At the same time, it will bring India the recognition it deserves thanks to the outstanding achievements of our scientists in nuclear and space sciences as well as other high technology areas.
25. This historic initiative has received the steadfast support of President Bush and senior members of his Administration. The strengthening and enhancement of our bilateral relations is an objective that has received his unstinting personal support and commitment. This Agreement is a shining example of how far we have progressed.
26. Finally, Sir, let me end by saying that we have achieved an Agreement that is good for India, and good for the world. I am neither given to exaggeration nor am I known to be self-congratulatory. I will let history judge; I will let posterity judge the value of what we have done through this Agreement. In days to come it will be seen that it is not just the United States but nations across the world that wish to arrive at a new equilibrium in their relations with India. This agreement with the United States will open new doors in capitals across the world. It is another step in our journey to regain our due place in global councils. When future generations look back, they will come to acknowledge the significance of this historic deal.
Thank you, Sir.
***
Monday, August 13, 2007
Left ups ante, Congress puts on a brave face- Hindustan Times
Left ups ante, Congress puts on a brave face- Hindustan Times
After going through the statement made by the Prime Minister in the Parliament on August 13, 2007, I have two questions for Dr. Manmohan Singh:
(1) Do you have any objections to the fact that India's actions will come under the scope of U.S. Law?
(2) Are you more interested in securing a place for India among the 2nd tier countries in the world or 1st tier of countries?
Please allow me to explain to you what do I mean by 1st tier countries. These are the countries that can have an independent foreign policy without any interference by other members of the United Nations. The 1st tier nations are the U.S, the U.K, Russia, China, France, Japan and Germany.
It seems to me that the 123 Nuclear Pact will put India into the list of 2nd tier countries. Mr. Prime Minister, please remember that moving from 2nd tier to 1st tier is almost an impossible task. Pt Nehru, Smt Indira Gandhi, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and Shri Atalji all had the option of taking India to 2nd tier but they chose not to because India deserves a place among the 1st tier countries.
Rest is upto you.!!!
***
After going through the statement made by the Prime Minister in the Parliament on August 13, 2007, I have two questions for Dr. Manmohan Singh:
(1) Do you have any objections to the fact that India's actions will come under the scope of U.S. Law?
(2) Are you more interested in securing a place for India among the 2nd tier countries in the world or 1st tier of countries?
Please allow me to explain to you what do I mean by 1st tier countries. These are the countries that can have an independent foreign policy without any interference by other members of the United Nations. The 1st tier nations are the U.S, the U.K, Russia, China, France, Japan and Germany.
It seems to me that the 123 Nuclear Pact will put India into the list of 2nd tier countries. Mr. Prime Minister, please remember that moving from 2nd tier to 1st tier is almost an impossible task. Pt Nehru, Smt Indira Gandhi, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and Shri Atalji all had the option of taking India to 2nd tier but they chose not to because India deserves a place among the 1st tier countries.
Rest is upto you.!!!
***
Sunday, August 12, 2007
IndianExpress.com :: Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat
IndianExpress.com :: Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat
WOW!!! I am not sure what Mr. Karat is trying to say here. I have been following this 123 Nuclear Pact thing since 2005. Let me try to simplyfy the mess which Congress has created for itself.
Firstly, Dr. Manmohan Singh has completely failed in building consensus on this issue. The very first step should have been to draft a rough agreement keeping in mind what Atalji & Mr. Karat were saying about this pact. Expectations of Indians should have been the beginning point for negotiation with the United States. There is nothing wrong if India could not agree with the US in the end. It is not necessary to have a strategic agreement when majority in Parliament does not agree to it. Dr. Manmohan Singh has acted irresponsibly counting on the Constitutional lacuna that the pact does not require approval by the Parliament.
Secondly, the rush to finalize the pact might have been the reason that it is not acceptable to the majority in the Parliament. Democracy means consultation with the stakeholders. People of India will not forgive the politicians if they pledge next 40 years of India's future without proper consultation and deliberations in the Parliament.
Thirdly, Congress got it completely wrong. UPA Chairperson and the Prime Minister are living under the assumption that the Left Front will continue to support the Congress government to keep BJP away from power. Folks, you are getting it completely wrong. The issue that we are discussing here is not BJP. In fact, we are discussing the sovereignty and independence of India. No wonder that the Left Front is upset with Congress pushing the 123 Nuclear Pact. On a lower lever national politics may be driven on political goals but if you look at the bigger picture responsible political leaders have to act to protect the interests of the country not their political agenda.
The Congress has tied this issue to continuance of the UPA coalition. However, the fact of the matter is that rejection of 123 Nuclear Pact by the Indian Parliament does not necessarily mean fall of UPA government.
I may be wrong but don't you think that a no-confidence motion is required to say bye! bye! to Dr. Manmohan Singh's bad governance? I think that there is nothing wrong with the Left Front's opposition to a no-confidence motion. After all, they have to share the burden of "bad" acts of the UPA government in 2009. I do not believe that the Left Front wants to leave the UPA coalition and wash its hands off the bad deeds of the UPA government.
Next week is most likely going to bring some interesting developments on the Indian political scene. I am sure it is not going to be a political drama but the serious debate will be on the merits of the pact. The sense I get is that majority of the Parliament is serious about this issue, hence, no political stunts are likely to follow.
Here is my question of the day - Is (some politicians') hatred towards BJP more important than the sovereignty of the country?
+++
Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat
Rajeev P I
Posted online: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST (Indian Express)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , AUGUST 12
A day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dared the Left to withdraw support to the government over the Indo-US nuclear deal, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat hit back, saying the Congress should be asked “if it wants to run this government”.
Addressing the media here, Karat fended off queries on whether the Left had thought of going beyond sabre-rattling by considering withdrawal of support to the UPA government as an option. “This government is run on our support. But why do you keep asking us if we would withdraw support? Why don’t you ask the Congress if it wants to run this government?”.
Karat refused to discuss the possible course the Left would take in Parliament. “What we are going to do in Parliament will be decided soon,” he said, when he was asked if the Left would end up voting jointly with the BJP against the government on the issue.
“We are aware that the Prime Minister is very sensitive about his government’s relations with the US, but this is a matter of serious national import,” Karat said, reiterating that the Left would never want the government proceed with the 123 Agreement’s operationalisation.
The UPA should consider the fact that it is running the government with the support of the Left, Karat said, adding the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the ruling alliance did not say a word about the strategic alliance with the US.
“It is the responsibility of the Congress to see that the government does not take any policy which contradicts with the CMP,” he said.
Any discussion or debate in Parliament would show that the government did not have a majority in support of the nuclear deal and the government should heed that message of Parliament, he said.
****
WOW!!! I am not sure what Mr. Karat is trying to say here. I have been following this 123 Nuclear Pact thing since 2005. Let me try to simplyfy the mess which Congress has created for itself.
Firstly, Dr. Manmohan Singh has completely failed in building consensus on this issue. The very first step should have been to draft a rough agreement keeping in mind what Atalji & Mr. Karat were saying about this pact. Expectations of Indians should have been the beginning point for negotiation with the United States. There is nothing wrong if India could not agree with the US in the end. It is not necessary to have a strategic agreement when majority in Parliament does not agree to it. Dr. Manmohan Singh has acted irresponsibly counting on the Constitutional lacuna that the pact does not require approval by the Parliament.
Secondly, the rush to finalize the pact might have been the reason that it is not acceptable to the majority in the Parliament. Democracy means consultation with the stakeholders. People of India will not forgive the politicians if they pledge next 40 years of India's future without proper consultation and deliberations in the Parliament.
Thirdly, Congress got it completely wrong. UPA Chairperson and the Prime Minister are living under the assumption that the Left Front will continue to support the Congress government to keep BJP away from power. Folks, you are getting it completely wrong. The issue that we are discussing here is not BJP. In fact, we are discussing the sovereignty and independence of India. No wonder that the Left Front is upset with Congress pushing the 123 Nuclear Pact. On a lower lever national politics may be driven on political goals but if you look at the bigger picture responsible political leaders have to act to protect the interests of the country not their political agenda.
The Congress has tied this issue to continuance of the UPA coalition. However, the fact of the matter is that rejection of 123 Nuclear Pact by the Indian Parliament does not necessarily mean fall of UPA government.
I may be wrong but don't you think that a no-confidence motion is required to say bye! bye! to Dr. Manmohan Singh's bad governance? I think that there is nothing wrong with the Left Front's opposition to a no-confidence motion. After all, they have to share the burden of "bad" acts of the UPA government in 2009. I do not believe that the Left Front wants to leave the UPA coalition and wash its hands off the bad deeds of the UPA government.
Next week is most likely going to bring some interesting developments on the Indian political scene. I am sure it is not going to be a political drama but the serious debate will be on the merits of the pact. The sense I get is that majority of the Parliament is serious about this issue, hence, no political stunts are likely to follow.
Here is my question of the day - Is (some politicians') hatred towards BJP more important than the sovereignty of the country?
+++
Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat
Rajeev P I
Posted online: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST (Indian Express)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , AUGUST 12
A day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dared the Left to withdraw support to the government over the Indo-US nuclear deal, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat hit back, saying the Congress should be asked “if it wants to run this government”.
Addressing the media here, Karat fended off queries on whether the Left had thought of going beyond sabre-rattling by considering withdrawal of support to the UPA government as an option. “This government is run on our support. But why do you keep asking us if we would withdraw support? Why don’t you ask the Congress if it wants to run this government?”.
Karat refused to discuss the possible course the Left would take in Parliament. “What we are going to do in Parliament will be decided soon,” he said, when he was asked if the Left would end up voting jointly with the BJP against the government on the issue.
“We are aware that the Prime Minister is very sensitive about his government’s relations with the US, but this is a matter of serious national import,” Karat said, reiterating that the Left would never want the government proceed with the 123 Agreement’s operationalisation.
The UPA should consider the fact that it is running the government with the support of the Left, Karat said, adding the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the ruling alliance did not say a word about the strategic alliance with the US.
“It is the responsibility of the Congress to see that the government does not take any policy which contradicts with the CMP,” he said.
Any discussion or debate in Parliament would show that the government did not have a majority in support of the nuclear deal and the government should heed that message of Parliament, he said.
****
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : 123: Rethink before we go forward
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : 123: Rethink before we go forward
Shri Atalji has not been able to play active role in Indian politics due to his ill health. The coming few days will test three Indian leaders, (1) Mr. L.K. Advani, (2) Mr. Jaswant Singh, and (3) CPM Leader Mr. Karat. It is my hope that the upcoming Parliamentary debate on 123 Nuclear Pact will be guided by Shri Atalji's wisdom, his impeccable public service record and unparalleled expertise in foreign affairs.
This debate will also give people an idea as to who can be India's next Prime Minister. This is a very important moment in India's history. We should watch all these events unfold. During this debate, we will sourly miss Late Shri Chandra Sekhar Singh, Late Smt Gandhi and Late Sardar Patel.
But we are the custodians of today so the responsibility lies with us to bear this responsibility with sincerity and heart. We need not look for excuses for inaction.
+++
Follwing is an article written by an honest person.
Date:07/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/07/stories/2007080771701100.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - News Analysis
123: Rethink before we go forward
Special Correspondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For energy production, the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be marginal. But the strategic costs, in terms of dependence, will be high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One associates government’s PR or news management with propaganda hand-outs that have low credibility and no impact. However, in the case of the India-U.S. nuclear deal, one must concede that the PR machine has been phenomenally effective. Coverage in the powerful media — the metropolitan newspapers and major TV channels — has been so positive (barring the rare exception) that the government may find it embarrassing. Commentators seem to be outdoing even the party spokesman in praising the government. In this climate of group think and positivity, it may be worth stepping back for a few moments and raising a few critical questions from a wider perspective.
First, the benchmark for judging the agreement: should this not be national interest rather than the Indo-U.S. statement of 2005? Does it provide what we need, which is primarily certain technologies and a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel for our civilian power programme, and unfettered freedom to pursue all aspects of our developmental and weapons activities?
The hype about an end to India’s nuclear ostracism is strange. It was by our own volition that we chose many years ago, through different complexions of government and despite pressure, to stay outside discriminatory agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The severe sanctions post our nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 were taken in our stride and our atomic energy programme has continued to progress well. Certainly, these were speed breakers; but the trade-off in terms of degrees of freedom has been worthwhile. Our technological progress and, equally importantly, our growing economy have taken us to the stage where we are in a position to negotiate from a position of some strength. In this context, one certainly feels that what we have got is far too little for what we have given. We have opened up a lucrative market for nuclear reactors, but the equipment and technologies of interest to us — for uranium enrichment and re-processing — will yet not be really available. Even fuel supplies are not guaranteed and our experience with Tarapur, when the U.S. reneged on an international agreement, requires us to create a stockpile. This, and the need to similarly keep an inventory of spares for imported equipment, will unnecessarily add to the cost of power from the nuclear power plants.
While the 123 agreement does open the door to import of civil nuclear equipment (to the obvious delight of U.S. suppliers), this can be taken back at any time. In this context, as expert commentators and U.S. sources have noted, the 123 agreement is, in effect, subservient to U.S. national laws. The Hyde Act has many conditionalities and even seeks to dictate foreign policy. This can be invoked at any time to create serious difficulties for India. While negotiators have clearly made much effort to protect India’s position, the consultation and other processes laid down can work only if there is a strong relationship between the two sides. At any time the relationship sours, everything can be in jeopardy. For example, aside from IAEA inspections — part of the safeguards that we are committing to, in perpetuity — there are end-use conditions that imply U.S. inspections. Irrespective of whether or not this is a slight to our self-respect and sovereignty, such inspections can, in adversarial circumstances, lead to any reports that the sponsor desires, as we know from Iraq, and pave the way for active intervention. As any strategist knows, in international relations there are no permanent friends (the Iraq-U.S. relationship being one case in point).
In any analysis, one looks for motives. In this case, there are two clear U.S. motives, articulated as explicitly as possible by various U.S. sources: the commercial gain from nuclear commerce, and the more important one of containing India’s nuclear weapons programme, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Bringing the breeder reactor programme under international safeguards, pushing India to sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and continuing embargoes on uranium enrichment and re-processing are all part of this strategy. Should this be acceptable to us?
A strong India is the world’s best bet for peace and stability in South, South East, and Central Asia, as also in the Persian Gulf. This volatile region, with some two billion inhabitants, needs a strong secular and democratic power from within the region, to ensure stability and to serve as a counterpoise to transnational fundamentalism as also to China. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can play this role, as they will end up stoking religious fundamentalism as has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Like the Americans, the Russians too have no cultural affinity or acceptability in most of this region. It is, therefore, in the U.S. interest to not curb the natural growth of India’s military and ‘soft’ power, so that it can play an increasing role in this region. While many of the Bush-Rice pronouncements have indicated an implicit recognition of this — and, therefore, the talk of “helping India become a major power” — the underlying rationale of many of the clauses of the 123 agreement seems to be aimed at emasculating rather than empowering India. Is the U.S. looking for an equal partner in a strategic relationship or a client state? This choice of U.S. policy is for the U.S. to make.
On the other hand, whether to be forever a second-rung country is a matter for India to decide. Today, countries that face no perceptible military threat feel the need to retain, grow, and modernise their nuclear capabilities (France and the United Kingdom). India, with two nuclear powers on its borders should have at least the same degree of freedom in pursuing its nuclear efforts. This will require enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and may require testing to prove and perfect weapons. Apart from severe constraints on dual-use technologies, the 123 agreement creates a separation between civil and military facilities, doing away with the ambiguity, cost, and facility-sharing that has been an essential part of the programme.
Arguments have been advanced about this being a purely civilian deal with no impact on India’s strategic programme; about how this will help reduce global warming by cutting down on fossil fuels; and even about the role this agreement will play in helping meet India’s energy needs. These hardly deserve rebuttal. For long years, nuclear power will form but a small part of India’s energy production and the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be little more than marginal. In terms of dependence, supplies of imported coal or hydro-carbons are far more reliable and offer more alternative sources than nuclear fuel. Moving the nuclear energy cycle to thorium as quickly as possible will vastly reduce our dependence on imports, since thorium is plentifully available in India. This, however, requires a strong R&D effort. Demotivating India’s scientific community through a deal that has little support amongst them is not the best way to go about this.
Some of these issues need serious debate, without casting the kind of aspersions that unnamed government sources have been indulging in. The Prime Minister set an outstanding example by having one discussion with some experts who are no longer in government. However, one does not know if their views have subsequently been sought. The strategic and scientific community needs to be heard with respect, especially those experts who are free to speak their mind. An informed public debate is essential on an issue of such tremendous import to the very future of this country.
(The author has had a long association with India’s technology establishment, and prefers a discussion of the issues here rather than his identity.)
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
+++
Shri Atalji has not been able to play active role in Indian politics due to his ill health. The coming few days will test three Indian leaders, (1) Mr. L.K. Advani, (2) Mr. Jaswant Singh, and (3) CPM Leader Mr. Karat. It is my hope that the upcoming Parliamentary debate on 123 Nuclear Pact will be guided by Shri Atalji's wisdom, his impeccable public service record and unparalleled expertise in foreign affairs.
This debate will also give people an idea as to who can be India's next Prime Minister. This is a very important moment in India's history. We should watch all these events unfold. During this debate, we will sourly miss Late Shri Chandra Sekhar Singh, Late Smt Gandhi and Late Sardar Patel.
But we are the custodians of today so the responsibility lies with us to bear this responsibility with sincerity and heart. We need not look for excuses for inaction.
+++
Follwing is an article written by an honest person.
Date:07/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/07/stories/2007080771701100.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - News Analysis
123: Rethink before we go forward
Special Correspondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For energy production, the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be marginal. But the strategic costs, in terms of dependence, will be high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One associates government’s PR or news management with propaganda hand-outs that have low credibility and no impact. However, in the case of the India-U.S. nuclear deal, one must concede that the PR machine has been phenomenally effective. Coverage in the powerful media — the metropolitan newspapers and major TV channels — has been so positive (barring the rare exception) that the government may find it embarrassing. Commentators seem to be outdoing even the party spokesman in praising the government. In this climate of group think and positivity, it may be worth stepping back for a few moments and raising a few critical questions from a wider perspective.
First, the benchmark for judging the agreement: should this not be national interest rather than the Indo-U.S. statement of 2005? Does it provide what we need, which is primarily certain technologies and a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel for our civilian power programme, and unfettered freedom to pursue all aspects of our developmental and weapons activities?
The hype about an end to India’s nuclear ostracism is strange. It was by our own volition that we chose many years ago, through different complexions of government and despite pressure, to stay outside discriminatory agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The severe sanctions post our nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 were taken in our stride and our atomic energy programme has continued to progress well. Certainly, these were speed breakers; but the trade-off in terms of degrees of freedom has been worthwhile. Our technological progress and, equally importantly, our growing economy have taken us to the stage where we are in a position to negotiate from a position of some strength. In this context, one certainly feels that what we have got is far too little for what we have given. We have opened up a lucrative market for nuclear reactors, but the equipment and technologies of interest to us — for uranium enrichment and re-processing — will yet not be really available. Even fuel supplies are not guaranteed and our experience with Tarapur, when the U.S. reneged on an international agreement, requires us to create a stockpile. This, and the need to similarly keep an inventory of spares for imported equipment, will unnecessarily add to the cost of power from the nuclear power plants.
While the 123 agreement does open the door to import of civil nuclear equipment (to the obvious delight of U.S. suppliers), this can be taken back at any time. In this context, as expert commentators and U.S. sources have noted, the 123 agreement is, in effect, subservient to U.S. national laws. The Hyde Act has many conditionalities and even seeks to dictate foreign policy. This can be invoked at any time to create serious difficulties for India. While negotiators have clearly made much effort to protect India’s position, the consultation and other processes laid down can work only if there is a strong relationship between the two sides. At any time the relationship sours, everything can be in jeopardy. For example, aside from IAEA inspections — part of the safeguards that we are committing to, in perpetuity — there are end-use conditions that imply U.S. inspections. Irrespective of whether or not this is a slight to our self-respect and sovereignty, such inspections can, in adversarial circumstances, lead to any reports that the sponsor desires, as we know from Iraq, and pave the way for active intervention. As any strategist knows, in international relations there are no permanent friends (the Iraq-U.S. relationship being one case in point).
In any analysis, one looks for motives. In this case, there are two clear U.S. motives, articulated as explicitly as possible by various U.S. sources: the commercial gain from nuclear commerce, and the more important one of containing India’s nuclear weapons programme, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Bringing the breeder reactor programme under international safeguards, pushing India to sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and continuing embargoes on uranium enrichment and re-processing are all part of this strategy. Should this be acceptable to us?
A strong India is the world’s best bet for peace and stability in South, South East, and Central Asia, as also in the Persian Gulf. This volatile region, with some two billion inhabitants, needs a strong secular and democratic power from within the region, to ensure stability and to serve as a counterpoise to transnational fundamentalism as also to China. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can play this role, as they will end up stoking religious fundamentalism as has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Like the Americans, the Russians too have no cultural affinity or acceptability in most of this region. It is, therefore, in the U.S. interest to not curb the natural growth of India’s military and ‘soft’ power, so that it can play an increasing role in this region. While many of the Bush-Rice pronouncements have indicated an implicit recognition of this — and, therefore, the talk of “helping India become a major power” — the underlying rationale of many of the clauses of the 123 agreement seems to be aimed at emasculating rather than empowering India. Is the U.S. looking for an equal partner in a strategic relationship or a client state? This choice of U.S. policy is for the U.S. to make.
On the other hand, whether to be forever a second-rung country is a matter for India to decide. Today, countries that face no perceptible military threat feel the need to retain, grow, and modernise their nuclear capabilities (France and the United Kingdom). India, with two nuclear powers on its borders should have at least the same degree of freedom in pursuing its nuclear efforts. This will require enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and may require testing to prove and perfect weapons. Apart from severe constraints on dual-use technologies, the 123 agreement creates a separation between civil and military facilities, doing away with the ambiguity, cost, and facility-sharing that has been an essential part of the programme.
Arguments have been advanced about this being a purely civilian deal with no impact on India’s strategic programme; about how this will help reduce global warming by cutting down on fossil fuels; and even about the role this agreement will play in helping meet India’s energy needs. These hardly deserve rebuttal. For long years, nuclear power will form but a small part of India’s energy production and the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be little more than marginal. In terms of dependence, supplies of imported coal or hydro-carbons are far more reliable and offer more alternative sources than nuclear fuel. Moving the nuclear energy cycle to thorium as quickly as possible will vastly reduce our dependence on imports, since thorium is plentifully available in India. This, however, requires a strong R&D effort. Demotivating India’s scientific community through a deal that has little support amongst them is not the best way to go about this.
Some of these issues need serious debate, without casting the kind of aspersions that unnamed government sources have been indulging in. The Prime Minister set an outstanding example by having one discussion with some experts who are no longer in government. However, one does not know if their views have subsequently been sought. The strategic and scientific community needs to be heard with respect, especially those experts who are free to speak their mind. An informed public debate is essential on an issue of such tremendous import to the very future of this country.
(The author has had a long association with India’s technology establishment, and prefers a discussion of the issues here rather than his identity.)
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
+++
Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US - International Herald Tribune
Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US - International Herald Tribune
The Indian Prime Minister seems to living far away from reality. First of all we should know that Left Front doesn't need Prime Minister's advice if it wants to withdraw the support for the UPA government in the Parliament. The real issue here is the ideology. The Left Front may not be able to handle the backlash if it decides to support the Prime Minister on the 123 Nuclear Pact. Supporting the pact would mean that the Left Front will lose support from a part of its core support group i.e., Muslims. Secondly, the Prime Minister seems to be in a rush to go ahead with the 123 Pact right away.
In a democratic system it is not without costs if the Prime Minister decides to ignore the majority in the Parliament.
In my view it is a minor event if the UPA government falls due to differences with the Left over the 123 Pact. Prime Minister should have known it better. He should have taken all major parties in confidence before finalizing the deal. On the matters of serious national significance who gives a damn if the government falls. The government of today can only use the mandate it has AND not pretend that it can do whatever it likes.
Instead of threatening the Left Front, the Prime Minister needs to look at his own actions. A treaty negotiated by bunch of bureaucrats can't be legitimate and credible unless the Parliament debates and approves it.
It may appear that the Left Front is artificially scolding the Prime Minister but issue is lot more serious than that. I do not think that the Left Front has too many options available to them. They can very well abstain from voting or vote against the 123 Nuclear Pact in the larger interest of the country. It is highly likely that we may even see a no-confidence against the UPA government in the Parliament. This debate will put many UPA govt partners on defensive.
***
Here is the text of the article I am blogging:
Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US
The Associated Press
Saturday, August 11, 2007
NEW DELHI: India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has challenged his communist party allies in a deepening rift over a nuclear deal with the United States, saying in a report Saturday they were free to withdraw their support from the government if they object to the pact.
The four-party, Left Front alliance said days ago that it rejected the deal, which allows India to buy nuclear fuel and technology from the U.S., and which has been hailed as the cornerstone of an emerging alliance between India and the U.S.
"I told them that it is not possible to re-negotiate the deal. It is an honorable deal, the Cabinet has approved it, we cannot go back on it," Singh said in an interview published Saturday in the Calcutta-based newspaper The Telegraph.
"I told them to do whatever they want to do, if they want to withdraw support, so be it," Singh was quoted as saying.
Calcutta is a bastion of the communist parties.
While the communists cannot torpedo the deal, which does not require parliamentary approval, they could bring down the Congress party-led governing coalition that they support from the outside.
However, analysts said that while the communists would continue to oppose the deal and closer ties with the U.S., it was highly unlikely that they would bring the government down because they stood to lose too much if the opposition Hindu nationalists returned to power.
"The left will not let the government fall," said Pran Chopra, a New Delhi-based political analyst.
The communist parties declined to comment on the remarks.
Singh said in the interview that the communists only opposed the deal because "they seem to have a problem with the U.S."
During the Cold War, India largely supported the Soviet Union.
The deal allows the United States to ship nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in exchange would open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspectors. India's military reactors would remain off-limits.
India also needs to make separate agreements with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
***
The Indian Prime Minister seems to living far away from reality. First of all we should know that Left Front doesn't need Prime Minister's advice if it wants to withdraw the support for the UPA government in the Parliament. The real issue here is the ideology. The Left Front may not be able to handle the backlash if it decides to support the Prime Minister on the 123 Nuclear Pact. Supporting the pact would mean that the Left Front will lose support from a part of its core support group i.e., Muslims. Secondly, the Prime Minister seems to be in a rush to go ahead with the 123 Pact right away.
In a democratic system it is not without costs if the Prime Minister decides to ignore the majority in the Parliament.
In my view it is a minor event if the UPA government falls due to differences with the Left over the 123 Pact. Prime Minister should have known it better. He should have taken all major parties in confidence before finalizing the deal. On the matters of serious national significance who gives a damn if the government falls. The government of today can only use the mandate it has AND not pretend that it can do whatever it likes.
Instead of threatening the Left Front, the Prime Minister needs to look at his own actions. A treaty negotiated by bunch of bureaucrats can't be legitimate and credible unless the Parliament debates and approves it.
It may appear that the Left Front is artificially scolding the Prime Minister but issue is lot more serious than that. I do not think that the Left Front has too many options available to them. They can very well abstain from voting or vote against the 123 Nuclear Pact in the larger interest of the country. It is highly likely that we may even see a no-confidence against the UPA government in the Parliament. This debate will put many UPA govt partners on defensive.
***
Here is the text of the article I am blogging:
Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US
The Associated Press
Saturday, August 11, 2007
NEW DELHI: India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has challenged his communist party allies in a deepening rift over a nuclear deal with the United States, saying in a report Saturday they were free to withdraw their support from the government if they object to the pact.
The four-party, Left Front alliance said days ago that it rejected the deal, which allows India to buy nuclear fuel and technology from the U.S., and which has been hailed as the cornerstone of an emerging alliance between India and the U.S.
"I told them that it is not possible to re-negotiate the deal. It is an honorable deal, the Cabinet has approved it, we cannot go back on it," Singh said in an interview published Saturday in the Calcutta-based newspaper The Telegraph.
"I told them to do whatever they want to do, if they want to withdraw support, so be it," Singh was quoted as saying.
Calcutta is a bastion of the communist parties.
While the communists cannot torpedo the deal, which does not require parliamentary approval, they could bring down the Congress party-led governing coalition that they support from the outside.
However, analysts said that while the communists would continue to oppose the deal and closer ties with the U.S., it was highly unlikely that they would bring the government down because they stood to lose too much if the opposition Hindu nationalists returned to power.
"The left will not let the government fall," said Pran Chopra, a New Delhi-based political analyst.
The communist parties declined to comment on the remarks.
Singh said in the interview that the communists only opposed the deal because "they seem to have a problem with the U.S."
During the Cold War, India largely supported the Soviet Union.
The deal allows the United States to ship nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in exchange would open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspectors. India's military reactors would remain off-limits.
India also needs to make separate agreements with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
***
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Deccan Herald - Monsoon session from tomorrow; likely to be stormy
Deccan Herald - Monsoon session from tomorrow; likely to be stormy
Good Morning India !!! Today India will be electing is new Vice President. The front runner is going to be the winner so there is no suspense. Let us file away that news and move on.
Indian Parliament's Monsoon session is going to start today. BJP wants a debate in the parliament on 123 Nuclear pact with the US. UNPA is also demanding the same. Folks let us not think that BJP and all constituents of UNPA have become anti-US. I think BJP is concerned that the Pact is not in India's long-term strategic interests. My personal take on this is that the pact will lack credibility and legitimacy if it is not approved by the Parliament.
I cannot understand what Indian foreign policy makers see in Iran that they have fallen in love with that country. Is it Muslim appeasement? I am saving that discussion for some other day.
In this blog I am trying to explore possible hypothetical outcome(s) of this issue in the Parliament. One or more of the following things can occur over the next few days:
-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may accept the BJP's request and allow debate followed by voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA does not have enough vote to win this debate in either House.
-- Even if the UPA wins the vote, NDA and UNPA may go ahead and move no confidence motion against Dr. Manmohan's Singh's government. That will put the Left Front in a very difficult position. God know what would be the outcome in that case. Mid-term polls? Oh no.. we should wait till 2009 and let UPA government do more bad work.
-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may allow debate without voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA is safe for the time being. However, such a move will have huge political costs for the UPA and the Left Front.
-- After debate on this issue without voting, the opposition parties may still move a no-confidence motion against the UPA government on this issue. Once again it will be very costly for the Left Front and the UPA.
My political sense tells me that the UPA government may be heading for some rough time in the weeks to come. Every time the Left Front comes to UPA's rescue, more and more political capital will be spent by both. However, one can argue that both UPA and the Left Front have no political capital because people are frustrated with the performance of the UPA government in last 3 years.
Stay tuned for more updates !!!
****
Good Morning India !!! Today India will be electing is new Vice President. The front runner is going to be the winner so there is no suspense. Let us file away that news and move on.
Indian Parliament's Monsoon session is going to start today. BJP wants a debate in the parliament on 123 Nuclear pact with the US. UNPA is also demanding the same. Folks let us not think that BJP and all constituents of UNPA have become anti-US. I think BJP is concerned that the Pact is not in India's long-term strategic interests. My personal take on this is that the pact will lack credibility and legitimacy if it is not approved by the Parliament.
I cannot understand what Indian foreign policy makers see in Iran that they have fallen in love with that country. Is it Muslim appeasement? I am saving that discussion for some other day.
In this blog I am trying to explore possible hypothetical outcome(s) of this issue in the Parliament. One or more of the following things can occur over the next few days:
-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may accept the BJP's request and allow debate followed by voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA does not have enough vote to win this debate in either House.
-- Even if the UPA wins the vote, NDA and UNPA may go ahead and move no confidence motion against Dr. Manmohan's Singh's government. That will put the Left Front in a very difficult position. God know what would be the outcome in that case. Mid-term polls? Oh no.. we should wait till 2009 and let UPA government do more bad work.
-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may allow debate without voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA is safe for the time being. However, such a move will have huge political costs for the UPA and the Left Front.
-- After debate on this issue without voting, the opposition parties may still move a no-confidence motion against the UPA government on this issue. Once again it will be very costly for the Left Front and the UPA.
My political sense tells me that the UPA government may be heading for some rough time in the weeks to come. Every time the Left Front comes to UPA's rescue, more and more political capital will be spent by both. However, one can argue that both UPA and the Left Front have no political capital because people are frustrated with the performance of the UPA government in last 3 years.
Stay tuned for more updates !!!
****
IBNLive.com > 123, go! Govt walks into US 'trap', Left in lurch : face the nation, indo-us nuclear deal, Left
IBNLive.com > 123, go! Govt walks into US 'trap', Left in lurch : face the nation, indo-us nuclear deal, Left
The finalization of 123 Nuclear Pact shows lack of diplomatic skills on India's side. There was absolutely no rush to finalize this deal in a hurry. This pact has a huge strategic value for India yet the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh decided to adopt "my way or highway" approach to this matter and ignored other political leaders' concerns on this matter.
It failed to take major political parties in confidence. It seems like all major political parties except Congress, RJD and NCP are against this deal. UPA government did nothing to build consensus in Indian political circles. The UPA government is one of India's weakest governments ever. I have said this before and I think it is not out of place to say it again - The UPA government has not acted wisely on India's international affairs interests. For example, there was no need to be a part of 4 nation group to stake claim for UNSC permanent membership.
Let us see what are the objections raised by the Left Front:
-Foreign policy prescriptions of the Hyde Act remain valid, for example, isolating and sanctioning Iran.
- Non-compliance can become a cause for terminating 123.
- Full civilian nuclear co-operation assurance of the Prime Minister not upheld.
- It denies "cooperation or access in any form whatsoever" to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water production technologies.
- Left is worried that the fuel supply assurances may not hold. "Whether fuel supply will continue even after the cessation or termination of the agreement solely depends on the US Congress".
- Hyde Act requires US to act with NSG to terminate all future supplies.
- India will be deprived of advanced nuclear or dual use technology.
It will be quite interesting to see how Indian Parliament deals with this contentious issue of 123 Nuclear Pact with the US.
Let me try to analyze the political support for the 123 Nuclear Pact in Indian Parliament.
In Lok Sabha 219 out of 545 (Indian National Congress 72, BSP 5, DMK 3, RJD 7, NCP 5)= 40% (Minority in Lok Sabha)
In Rajya Sabha 92 out of 245(Indian National Congress 150, BSP 18, DMK 16, RJD 24, NCP 11)= 38% (Minority in Rajya Sabha)
If the votes were taken today, it is highly unlikely that the 123 Pact will be approved by the Indian Parliament.
Recently, when I asked one of my Indian friends to give an opinion on the 123 Nuclear Pact, I got this response - It is like an Indian girl getting married to an Indian guy in an arranged marriage system knowing fully that it is the bride who will be expected to do everything. The groom can sit around, boss around and take her for ride for next 40 years. During this 40 years period, the groom can torture like hell for reasons like dowry and there is nothing she can do because she can't divorce him for 40 years. When this period of 40 years ends, she will be too damn old to think of divorce and getting remarried to someone else.
Please stay tuned !!!!!
++ Personally speaking, I cannot support the 123 Nuclear Pact unless I see India distancing itself from Iran.(our enemy no. 1)
***
The finalization of 123 Nuclear Pact shows lack of diplomatic skills on India's side. There was absolutely no rush to finalize this deal in a hurry. This pact has a huge strategic value for India yet the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh decided to adopt "my way or highway" approach to this matter and ignored other political leaders' concerns on this matter.
It failed to take major political parties in confidence. It seems like all major political parties except Congress, RJD and NCP are against this deal. UPA government did nothing to build consensus in Indian political circles. The UPA government is one of India's weakest governments ever. I have said this before and I think it is not out of place to say it again - The UPA government has not acted wisely on India's international affairs interests. For example, there was no need to be a part of 4 nation group to stake claim for UNSC permanent membership.
Let us see what are the objections raised by the Left Front:
-Foreign policy prescriptions of the Hyde Act remain valid, for example, isolating and sanctioning Iran.
- Non-compliance can become a cause for terminating 123.
- Full civilian nuclear co-operation assurance of the Prime Minister not upheld.
- It denies "cooperation or access in any form whatsoever" to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water production technologies.
- Left is worried that the fuel supply assurances may not hold. "Whether fuel supply will continue even after the cessation or termination of the agreement solely depends on the US Congress".
- Hyde Act requires US to act with NSG to terminate all future supplies.
- India will be deprived of advanced nuclear or dual use technology.
It will be quite interesting to see how Indian Parliament deals with this contentious issue of 123 Nuclear Pact with the US.
Let me try to analyze the political support for the 123 Nuclear Pact in Indian Parliament.
In Lok Sabha 219 out of 545 (Indian National Congress 72, BSP 5, DMK 3, RJD 7, NCP 5)= 40% (Minority in Lok Sabha)
In Rajya Sabha 92 out of 245(Indian National Congress 150, BSP 18, DMK 16, RJD 24, NCP 11)= 38% (Minority in Rajya Sabha)
If the votes were taken today, it is highly unlikely that the 123 Pact will be approved by the Indian Parliament.
Recently, when I asked one of my Indian friends to give an opinion on the 123 Nuclear Pact, I got this response - It is like an Indian girl getting married to an Indian guy in an arranged marriage system knowing fully that it is the bride who will be expected to do everything. The groom can sit around, boss around and take her for ride for next 40 years. During this 40 years period, the groom can torture like hell for reasons like dowry and there is nothing she can do because she can't divorce him for 40 years. When this period of 40 years ends, she will be too damn old to think of divorce and getting remarried to someone else.
Please stay tuned !!!!!
++ Personally speaking, I cannot support the 123 Nuclear Pact unless I see India distancing itself from Iran.(our enemy no. 1)
***
Sunday, August 05, 2007
US Congress to wait and see about 123 agreement- Hindustan Times
After going through the full text of 123 agreement, I feel that I should continue to withhold support or opposition to this pact due to the fact that my opinion may be biased.
Indian media is celebrating big time as if it is a done deal. India's friendship with Iran alone can kill this deal. The problem for UPA government is that it cannot wash its hands with the Iran problem because its Left allies will make the life very difficult for the govt. If India has a right to choose Iran as its friend then why can't the U.S. Congress reject the pact because U.S. has a right not to do business with countries which support its enemies? Let us not forget that Iran is causing lot of trouble in Iraq and we are losing our soldiers there.
As an Indian American, I have always hoped to see India as our equal partner in the world. I also hope that India will overcome the temptation of becoming a country that depends on us. A strong India will be more helpful to us than India which acts like Australia and Poland. If Indian politicians choose to become like Australia & Poland (and many other countries), I am afraid that India will never be able to achieve its goal of becoming a superpower in strategic and economic sense.
I have no doubt that the wisdom will prevail when our Congress and Indian Parliament debate this pact in the weeks and months to come. However, India's aim to become a superpower may be imaginary if its Constitution does not provide for Parliament's approval for all strategic and trade treaties. Lack of that provision in the Indian Constitution weakens the negotiating capacity of Indian diplomats.
In the absence of a Constitutional requirement for ratification of treaties by the Parliament, a weak and incompetent future Prime Minister whose party has overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha can give away Kashmir or make a irreparable harm to India's long term foreign policy under pressure or otherwise. Indians need to move to a politics of consensus on important issues. The checks and balances in Indian system are either non-existent or non-working. Indian people should be encouraged to participate in Parliamentary committees' proceedings so that people know what MPs are doing.
There are many Indian Americans who neither support or oppose this pact. However, Iran issue may push them to take a stand because we cannot ignore Iran factor due to its activities in Iraq. Iran issue makes many of us very uncomfortable.
***
Here is the full Hindustan Times Article published on August 4, 2007:
***
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times
NY/Washington, August 04, 2007
First Published: 11:27 IST(4/8/2007)
Last Updated: 11:40 IST(4/8/2007)
US Congress to wait and see about 123 agreementThe release of the text of the 123 agreement coincided with much of the US Congress preparing to leave for their late summer recess. While staffers expressed concerns that the Bush administration had conceded too much on reprocessing rights and nuclear fuel guarantees, most Washington observers feel the US Congress would eventually vote in favour of the 123 agreement. However, the margin of victory could be smaller than occurred for the Hyde Act. "There is less support today for the deal than there was last November," said an Indian official.
Besides the obvious procedural prerequisites of an India-IAEA safeguards agreement and a yes vote from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, two key obstacles could muddy a congressional okay for the 123:
* The wild card that could trip up congressional support would be any sense that India is consolidating an economic or military relationship with Iran.
* The nuclear deal's traditional opponents, the nonproliferation lobby, will insist India got too much leeway in fuel guarantees and reprocessing rights.
The NSG vote remains uncertain, largely because of the China factor. However, some Indian-American lobbyists like Ramesh Kapur of the Indian-American Security Leadership, believe that if Beijing overplays its hand in the NSG, an angry "US Congress could vote in favour of the 123 without NSG approval."
Questions about India's ties with Iran continue to cloud the minds of many US congressional staffers. Despite repeated State Department explanations, many in Washington believe in a mythical Indo-Iranian military relationship. Says Teresita Schaffer, South Asia expert of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The staffers don't like the deal – they didn't like the Hyde Act either. The key will be to get to the elected members."
Part of the problem is that Congress tends not to look at the big picture and instead focuses on the week's front page news – which is often about Iran.
The US corporate lobby believes Iran is the only issue that could sink the deal.
The nonproliferation lobby, which inspired a petition by 23 Congressmen after the 123 agreement's conclusion was announced, is less of a worry. Michael Krepon of the Henry Stimson Center earlier summed up this lobby's argument: "The Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. It appears that the 123 agreement fails to meet these minimal standards."
Sanjay Puri of the US-India Political Action Committee says at least four of the 23 congressmen are "opinion leaders" on Capitol Hill. "They are all from California. A lot of them were originally troubled by this agreement."
Arjun Bhagat, an Indian-American lobbyist from California, explains this represents a "very idealistic position" common on the West Coast. "Californians would probably vote disproportionately for the US to unilaterally disarm itself of its nuclear weapons." This is not about India, he feels, but about nuclear disarmament. Says Lisa Curtis, regional expert at the Heritage Foundation, "Most members are likely to wait and see how India's negotiations with the IAEA proceed as well as its efforts with the NSG."
US President George W Bush's political decline makes Republican support more difficult to predict. His party no longer automatically takes his lead. Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation strongly believed that the contentious "right of return" clause be part of the 123 agreement. Kapur says, "If we had a vote today, we might see less Republicans ayes and more Democratic support for the deal." Senior Democratic leaders like Senator Ted Kennedy, he says, have indicated they favour the 123.
There are signs that the Indian-American community has been less generous in donations to the Republican electoral kitty, partly because there is no clear Republican candidate. Kapur warns, "This is going to be an uphill battle. Don't take anything for granted." Schaffer agrees, saying the next few months will be a "nail-biter" for the nuclear deal.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=e65f1c02-2bec-42db-88e8-dd77147a15b2
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
After going through the full text of 123 agreement, I feel that I should continue to withhold support or opposition to this pact due to the fact that my opinion may be biased.
Indian media is celebrating big time as if it is a done deal. India's friendship with Iran alone can kill this deal. The problem for UPA government is that it cannot wash its hands with the Iran problem because its Left allies will make the life very difficult for the govt. If India has a right to choose Iran as its friend then why can't the U.S. Congress reject the pact because U.S. has a right not to do business with countries which support its enemies? Let us not forget that Iran is causing lot of trouble in Iraq and we are losing our soldiers there.
As an Indian American, I have always hoped to see India as our equal partner in the world. I also hope that India will overcome the temptation of becoming a country that depends on us. A strong India will be more helpful to us than India which acts like Australia and Poland. If Indian politicians choose to become like Australia & Poland (and many other countries), I am afraid that India will never be able to achieve its goal of becoming a superpower in strategic and economic sense.
I have no doubt that the wisdom will prevail when our Congress and Indian Parliament debate this pact in the weeks and months to come. However, India's aim to become a superpower may be imaginary if its Constitution does not provide for Parliament's approval for all strategic and trade treaties. Lack of that provision in the Indian Constitution weakens the negotiating capacity of Indian diplomats.
In the absence of a Constitutional requirement for ratification of treaties by the Parliament, a weak and incompetent future Prime Minister whose party has overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha can give away Kashmir or make a irreparable harm to India's long term foreign policy under pressure or otherwise. Indians need to move to a politics of consensus on important issues. The checks and balances in Indian system are either non-existent or non-working. Indian people should be encouraged to participate in Parliamentary committees' proceedings so that people know what MPs are doing.
There are many Indian Americans who neither support or oppose this pact. However, Iran issue may push them to take a stand because we cannot ignore Iran factor due to its activities in Iraq. Iran issue makes many of us very uncomfortable.
***
Here is the full Hindustan Times Article published on August 4, 2007:
***
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times
NY/Washington, August 04, 2007
First Published: 11:27 IST(4/8/2007)
Last Updated: 11:40 IST(4/8/2007)
US Congress to wait and see about 123 agreementThe release of the text of the 123 agreement coincided with much of the US Congress preparing to leave for their late summer recess. While staffers expressed concerns that the Bush administration had conceded too much on reprocessing rights and nuclear fuel guarantees, most Washington observers feel the US Congress would eventually vote in favour of the 123 agreement. However, the margin of victory could be smaller than occurred for the Hyde Act. "There is less support today for the deal than there was last November," said an Indian official.
Besides the obvious procedural prerequisites of an India-IAEA safeguards agreement and a yes vote from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, two key obstacles could muddy a congressional okay for the 123:
* The wild card that could trip up congressional support would be any sense that India is consolidating an economic or military relationship with Iran.
* The nuclear deal's traditional opponents, the nonproliferation lobby, will insist India got too much leeway in fuel guarantees and reprocessing rights.
The NSG vote remains uncertain, largely because of the China factor. However, some Indian-American lobbyists like Ramesh Kapur of the Indian-American Security Leadership, believe that if Beijing overplays its hand in the NSG, an angry "US Congress could vote in favour of the 123 without NSG approval."
Questions about India's ties with Iran continue to cloud the minds of many US congressional staffers. Despite repeated State Department explanations, many in Washington believe in a mythical Indo-Iranian military relationship. Says Teresita Schaffer, South Asia expert of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The staffers don't like the deal – they didn't like the Hyde Act either. The key will be to get to the elected members."
Part of the problem is that Congress tends not to look at the big picture and instead focuses on the week's front page news – which is often about Iran.
The US corporate lobby believes Iran is the only issue that could sink the deal.
The nonproliferation lobby, which inspired a petition by 23 Congressmen after the 123 agreement's conclusion was announced, is less of a worry. Michael Krepon of the Henry Stimson Center earlier summed up this lobby's argument: "The Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. It appears that the 123 agreement fails to meet these minimal standards."
Sanjay Puri of the US-India Political Action Committee says at least four of the 23 congressmen are "opinion leaders" on Capitol Hill. "They are all from California. A lot of them were originally troubled by this agreement."
Arjun Bhagat, an Indian-American lobbyist from California, explains this represents a "very idealistic position" common on the West Coast. "Californians would probably vote disproportionately for the US to unilaterally disarm itself of its nuclear weapons." This is not about India, he feels, but about nuclear disarmament. Says Lisa Curtis, regional expert at the Heritage Foundation, "Most members are likely to wait and see how India's negotiations with the IAEA proceed as well as its efforts with the NSG."
US President George W Bush's political decline makes Republican support more difficult to predict. His party no longer automatically takes his lead. Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation strongly believed that the contentious "right of return" clause be part of the 123 agreement. Kapur says, "If we had a vote today, we might see less Republicans ayes and more Democratic support for the deal." Senior Democratic leaders like Senator Ted Kennedy, he says, have indicated they favour the 123.
There are signs that the Indian-American community has been less generous in donations to the Republican electoral kitty, partly because there is no clear Republican candidate. Kapur warns, "This is going to be an uphill battle. Don't take anything for granted." Schaffer agrees, saying the next few months will be a "nail-biter" for the nuclear deal.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=e65f1c02-2bec-42db-88e8-dd77147a15b2
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
The Hindu : National : Advani slams Manmohan statement
I could not believe that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lost sleep thinking of (families of) Indians who were involved in London-Glasgow terror plot. Dr. Manmohan Singh told reporters that he could not sleep all night after seeing the mother of the two Indians break down on television. When I read comments made by the UPA Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, I felt that UPA government is being run by a King who is surrounded by cronies and has no idea what is happening in the outside world.
These statements by Dr. Manmohan Singh expressing sympathy with Indians accused of terrorism in Australia and U.K. raise serious doubt about India's commitment to war on terror. By expressing sympathies with the families of Indians accused of terror, Dr. Manmohan Singh has hurt the sentiments of thousands of victims of terrorism in India and abroad. I am afraid that these statements by Dr. Singh have also hurt the feelings of the loved ones of hundreds of Indian soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Kashmir. It is my hope that these statements by Dr Singh do not represent the views of over one billion Indian people.
I do not believe that Indians have forgotten the fact that two of their Prime Ministers were victims of terrorism. It may not matter to Dr. Manmohan Singh but it does matter to us and we will not allow terrorists to change our way of life. If any section of society feels discriminated against or left out, they have a right to use full democratic process and seek justice. There is no justification for using bombs against democracies.
Mr. Prime Minister, where are you living these days? Who has been briefing you on the world affairs? It is high time that you fire your staff and hire some non-chamcha people who can tell you what has been happening in the world. I know this in my heart that your UPA coalition has no respect for the law. Here are some examples :-
(1) Once upon a time one your Cabinet Minister went into hiding to evade arrest on criminal charges.
(2) One of your Ministers has visited a convicted criminal in a Bihar jail.
(3) One of your MP reportedly told the media that the Court might have made a mistake while finding actor Salman Khan guilty of a crime in Jodhpur.
(4) Your Left allies in West Bengal did nothing to prevent Nandigram massacre.
Your statement showing sympathy for the families of Indians accused of terrorism shows your insensitivity towards the human values and the laws of United Kingdom. Mr. Prime Minister please find some time during the day (so that you don not lose your sleep) to think of victims of terrorism in Kashmir, 9/11, 7/11, and 1993 blasts. You are the Prime Minister of whole India not just a group of Indians. Please step up to the plate and deliver tough stance on anti-terrorism efforts. If you keep giving oxygen to terrorists they will come back to harm more people of our civilized society.
Mr. Prime Minister if you are seriously interested in friendship with America, please support us on war on terror and do not provide life systems to the terrorists. If you have decided to have sympathy for terrorists, we will have difficulty with our friendship.
Please take a lesson from your "Partner in Peace" General Mussharaf. No one knows better than him that promoting or supporting terrorists is like writing script for future terrorist attacks.
**
Here is an article that was published in the Economic Times on July 11, 2007:
Printed from
Sleepless in South Block
11 Jul, 2007, 0116 hrs IST,P R Ramesh, TNN
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his minders in the Congress have been known to pander to the minority community with extraordinary indulgence. Last week, the world sat and watched with horror — and then relief — at the botched terror attacks in Glasgow. A couple of days later, while interacting with a group of women journalists in the Capital, he had said he couldn’t sleep. What caused insomnia was not TV clips of the jeep attack on the Scottish airport but the visuals of the distraught mother of the Bangalore boys allegedly involved in the UK terror plot.
The dry-eyed, who have been opposing the PM’s tendency to bend to the will of grievance-mongers and bleeding heart liberals have rightly reminded Dr Singh that he never talked about sleeplessness when gun-wielding, RDX-strapped jihadis attack innocent men, women and children in J&K and other parts of the country. He did not lose sleep when jihadis bombed trains in Mumbai; instead he waxed eloquent about preserving the spirit of the Mumbaikars. When police under the Congress’ charge rounded up members of Tabligh-e-Jamaat for the involvement of hardline community elements in the attack on the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, his government’s leaders were advising the media to avoid hot-button terms like Islamic radicalism and militant jihadism. And when militants exploded bombs in a Delhi theatre, Dr Singh was presiding over a meeting to recommend to President A P J Abdul Kalam an illegal proposal to dissolve the Bihar assembly.
Naturally, questions are now being asked as to why the PM is indulging in this spectacle of “sensitivity” over the distraught family of the Glasgow bomber. If the attempt was to melt hearts, he has failed in the project miserably. For the discerning, there is nothing wise or compassionate in the PM’s efforts. They fear that it will be seen as the willingness of the ruling side to pander to hardline Islamic opinion. And there is revulsion over the glaring disregard for recent history and a strong feeling that we cannot permit political correctness to keep us from self-preservation.
The PM’s reflexes are not surprising as the regime presided over by him is suicidally persisting with the call for sympathy and the root causes that fuel violence. Even when the men who are tasked with protecting the lives of citizens argue for a new strategy to tackle members of the community who have been infected by the virus of Wahhabism, the itch is to act as public relations agents of liberals. It will affect inter-community relations is the constant refrain.
But anyone with common sense knows that it’s a flawed and dangerous approach. The involvement of the Bangalore boys in the UK terror plot explains the extent of the problem. It has demolished the myth that no Indian can be a member of a militant Islamic group. It also begs the question: why the Bangalore boys, brought up in well-to-do families, just can’t wait to die for the cause of religion. Why do they share the brotherhood’s concern for trans-national grievances such as “Israeli aggression”, “anti-Arab racism” and hatred for the west?
The government’s “commitment to tolerance” has been prompting it to look the other way when a sustained effort is made here to establish the hold of political Islam. Tabligh-e-Jamaat — the same group that indoctrinated the Bangalore boys — have been making a serious attempt to drive home the point that Islam has a different nuance than the rest of India. The ongoing investigations into Kafeel and Sabeel’s past have shown that they actively participated in Tabligh’s protests against Muslims following the customs followed by the rest of the community.
This is not the first time that the government has come across the rising influence of Tabligh. There was clear evidence to suggest that Barelvis were the target of Tabligh’s attack in Malegaon. Barelvis are considered inferior as they persist with “un-Islamic’ practices like ‘Shab-e-Barat’ involving visiting and lighting of candles at mazaars — a custom opposed by puritanical sects like Ahl-e-Hadis from which Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tabligh-e-Jamaat and Deobandis draw their inspiration. The Andhra Pradesh police, which investigated the Mecca Masjid blasts, have also pointed to the role of Wahhabis in the attack. The state administration publicised the involvement of Wahhabis in the blast.
All these point to the need to stop mindless violence in its tracks. The much-publicised insomnia is already being seen as overindulgence of a misplaced complaint that the entire community is being labelled as terrorists. And that will only send an impression that Islamists have made incredible progress in their efforts to play upon the grievance theory. Dr Singh insulates himself from the reality that the rest of us have to live with. May be, it would do the country some good if he skips some sleep and burns the midnight oil to find ways to end the dangerous vacillation on security issues. It may even help him get popular endorsement which he will desperately need less than two years from now.
***
I could not believe that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lost sleep thinking of (families of) Indians who were involved in London-Glasgow terror plot. Dr. Manmohan Singh told reporters that he could not sleep all night after seeing the mother of the two Indians break down on television. When I read comments made by the UPA Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, I felt that UPA government is being run by a King who is surrounded by cronies and has no idea what is happening in the outside world.
These statements by Dr. Manmohan Singh expressing sympathy with Indians accused of terrorism in Australia and U.K. raise serious doubt about India's commitment to war on terror. By expressing sympathies with the families of Indians accused of terror, Dr. Manmohan Singh has hurt the sentiments of thousands of victims of terrorism in India and abroad. I am afraid that these statements by Dr. Singh have also hurt the feelings of the loved ones of hundreds of Indian soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Kashmir. It is my hope that these statements by Dr Singh do not represent the views of over one billion Indian people.
I do not believe that Indians have forgotten the fact that two of their Prime Ministers were victims of terrorism. It may not matter to Dr. Manmohan Singh but it does matter to us and we will not allow terrorists to change our way of life. If any section of society feels discriminated against or left out, they have a right to use full democratic process and seek justice. There is no justification for using bombs against democracies.
Mr. Prime Minister, where are you living these days? Who has been briefing you on the world affairs? It is high time that you fire your staff and hire some non-chamcha people who can tell you what has been happening in the world. I know this in my heart that your UPA coalition has no respect for the law. Here are some examples :-
(1) Once upon a time one your Cabinet Minister went into hiding to evade arrest on criminal charges.
(2) One of your Ministers has visited a convicted criminal in a Bihar jail.
(3) One of your MP reportedly told the media that the Court might have made a mistake while finding actor Salman Khan guilty of a crime in Jodhpur.
(4) Your Left allies in West Bengal did nothing to prevent Nandigram massacre.
Your statement showing sympathy for the families of Indians accused of terrorism shows your insensitivity towards the human values and the laws of United Kingdom. Mr. Prime Minister please find some time during the day (so that you don not lose your sleep) to think of victims of terrorism in Kashmir, 9/11, 7/11, and 1993 blasts. You are the Prime Minister of whole India not just a group of Indians. Please step up to the plate and deliver tough stance on anti-terrorism efforts. If you keep giving oxygen to terrorists they will come back to harm more people of our civilized society.
Mr. Prime Minister if you are seriously interested in friendship with America, please support us on war on terror and do not provide life systems to the terrorists. If you have decided to have sympathy for terrorists, we will have difficulty with our friendship.
Please take a lesson from your "Partner in Peace" General Mussharaf. No one knows better than him that promoting or supporting terrorists is like writing script for future terrorist attacks.
**
Here is an article that was published in the Economic Times on July 11, 2007:
Printed from
Sleepless in South Block
11 Jul, 2007, 0116 hrs IST,P R Ramesh, TNN
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his minders in the Congress have been known to pander to the minority community with extraordinary indulgence. Last week, the world sat and watched with horror — and then relief — at the botched terror attacks in Glasgow. A couple of days later, while interacting with a group of women journalists in the Capital, he had said he couldn’t sleep. What caused insomnia was not TV clips of the jeep attack on the Scottish airport but the visuals of the distraught mother of the Bangalore boys allegedly involved in the UK terror plot.
The dry-eyed, who have been opposing the PM’s tendency to bend to the will of grievance-mongers and bleeding heart liberals have rightly reminded Dr Singh that he never talked about sleeplessness when gun-wielding, RDX-strapped jihadis attack innocent men, women and children in J&K and other parts of the country. He did not lose sleep when jihadis bombed trains in Mumbai; instead he waxed eloquent about preserving the spirit of the Mumbaikars. When police under the Congress’ charge rounded up members of Tabligh-e-Jamaat for the involvement of hardline community elements in the attack on the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, his government’s leaders were advising the media to avoid hot-button terms like Islamic radicalism and militant jihadism. And when militants exploded bombs in a Delhi theatre, Dr Singh was presiding over a meeting to recommend to President A P J Abdul Kalam an illegal proposal to dissolve the Bihar assembly.
Naturally, questions are now being asked as to why the PM is indulging in this spectacle of “sensitivity” over the distraught family of the Glasgow bomber. If the attempt was to melt hearts, he has failed in the project miserably. For the discerning, there is nothing wise or compassionate in the PM’s efforts. They fear that it will be seen as the willingness of the ruling side to pander to hardline Islamic opinion. And there is revulsion over the glaring disregard for recent history and a strong feeling that we cannot permit political correctness to keep us from self-preservation.
The PM’s reflexes are not surprising as the regime presided over by him is suicidally persisting with the call for sympathy and the root causes that fuel violence. Even when the men who are tasked with protecting the lives of citizens argue for a new strategy to tackle members of the community who have been infected by the virus of Wahhabism, the itch is to act as public relations agents of liberals. It will affect inter-community relations is the constant refrain.
But anyone with common sense knows that it’s a flawed and dangerous approach. The involvement of the Bangalore boys in the UK terror plot explains the extent of the problem. It has demolished the myth that no Indian can be a member of a militant Islamic group. It also begs the question: why the Bangalore boys, brought up in well-to-do families, just can’t wait to die for the cause of religion. Why do they share the brotherhood’s concern for trans-national grievances such as “Israeli aggression”, “anti-Arab racism” and hatred for the west?
The government’s “commitment to tolerance” has been prompting it to look the other way when a sustained effort is made here to establish the hold of political Islam. Tabligh-e-Jamaat — the same group that indoctrinated the Bangalore boys — have been making a serious attempt to drive home the point that Islam has a different nuance than the rest of India. The ongoing investigations into Kafeel and Sabeel’s past have shown that they actively participated in Tabligh’s protests against Muslims following the customs followed by the rest of the community.
This is not the first time that the government has come across the rising influence of Tabligh. There was clear evidence to suggest that Barelvis were the target of Tabligh’s attack in Malegaon. Barelvis are considered inferior as they persist with “un-Islamic’ practices like ‘Shab-e-Barat’ involving visiting and lighting of candles at mazaars — a custom opposed by puritanical sects like Ahl-e-Hadis from which Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tabligh-e-Jamaat and Deobandis draw their inspiration. The Andhra Pradesh police, which investigated the Mecca Masjid blasts, have also pointed to the role of Wahhabis in the attack. The state administration publicised the involvement of Wahhabis in the blast.
All these point to the need to stop mindless violence in its tracks. The much-publicised insomnia is already being seen as overindulgence of a misplaced complaint that the entire community is being labelled as terrorists. And that will only send an impression that Islamists have made incredible progress in their efforts to play upon the grievance theory. Dr Singh insulates himself from the reality that the rest of us have to live with. May be, it would do the country some good if he skips some sleep and burns the midnight oil to find ways to end the dangerous vacillation on security issues. It may even help him get popular endorsement which he will desperately need less than two years from now.
***
Monday, July 16, 2007
Let LoC convert into Line of Peace: PM
Let LoC convert into Line of Peace: PM
I am getting a weird feeling after reading some of the recent statements made by Dr. Manmohan Singh. I wonder who has been advising the Prime Minister during the last 2-3 months. Pakistan is heading towards a serious civil war like conflict. Waziristan and Baluchistan are on the verge of becoming Kashmir(s) of Pakistan. We don't even know how long Pervez Musharraf would last in power yet Dr. Manmohan Singh is ready to invest his money and time on the dictator. General Pervez Musharraf is the father of modern Islamist extremism in Pakistan and Kashmir. In my view, he is not capable of getting rid of his own creation. Pakistani Army and Intelligence have been infiltrated by extreme Islamists for many years now. India is making a serious strategic mistake by grating Pakistan an equal status and counting on General Pervez Musharraf as India's peace partner.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister please listen to the people of India and focus on strengthening India's armed forces instead of engaging in cheap vote bank politics. Pakistan is a serious threat to the future of India. You should listen to experts on this issue. Having a joint anti terror mechanism with Pakistan is like asking Dowd Ibrahim to help maintain law and order in Mumbai.
Furthermore, feeling sorry for the families of Indians accused of terrorism is a big and rude slap on the face of people worldwide who have lost their loved ones in attacks by Islamists.
Mr. Prime Minister, it is high time that you join the forces who are fighting against terrorists. You are letting your own people down by not remembering the Indian victims of terrorism. You are worried about the families of the people accused of terrorism. When would you start worrying about the soldiers who died in wars with Pakistan and in Kashmir?
**
I am getting a weird feeling after reading some of the recent statements made by Dr. Manmohan Singh. I wonder who has been advising the Prime Minister during the last 2-3 months. Pakistan is heading towards a serious civil war like conflict. Waziristan and Baluchistan are on the verge of becoming Kashmir(s) of Pakistan. We don't even know how long Pervez Musharraf would last in power yet Dr. Manmohan Singh is ready to invest his money and time on the dictator. General Pervez Musharraf is the father of modern Islamist extremism in Pakistan and Kashmir. In my view, he is not capable of getting rid of his own creation. Pakistani Army and Intelligence have been infiltrated by extreme Islamists for many years now. India is making a serious strategic mistake by grating Pakistan an equal status and counting on General Pervez Musharraf as India's peace partner.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister please listen to the people of India and focus on strengthening India's armed forces instead of engaging in cheap vote bank politics. Pakistan is a serious threat to the future of India. You should listen to experts on this issue. Having a joint anti terror mechanism with Pakistan is like asking Dowd Ibrahim to help maintain law and order in Mumbai.
Furthermore, feeling sorry for the families of Indians accused of terrorism is a big and rude slap on the face of people worldwide who have lost their loved ones in attacks by Islamists.
Mr. Prime Minister, it is high time that you join the forces who are fighting against terrorists. You are letting your own people down by not remembering the Indian victims of terrorism. You are worried about the families of the people accused of terrorism. When would you start worrying about the soldiers who died in wars with Pakistan and in Kashmir?
**
Saturday, June 30, 2007
IndianExpress.com :: Don’t be arrogant, Patil costly mistake, pull her out: Advani
IndianExpress.com :: Don’t be arrogant, Patil costly mistake, pull her out: Advani
Congress/UPA nomination of Mrs. Pratibha Patil is likely to increase problems for the ruling coalition. It is troubling to note that there are allegations that Mrs. Pratibha Patil used her political clout to protect her brother in a murder case. Mrs. Pratibha Patil will also carry the legacy of her failed leadership of banks and instances of "loot" in favour or her relatives/friends in the banks headed by her. I feel that Mrs. Pratibha Patil will not be an effective President, if elected. Both politicians and general public will hesitate in accepting her moral and ethical leadership as the "First Citizen" of the country. The high post of President of India will face an integrity draught during the tenor of Mrs. Pratibha Patil.
UPA has been successful in weakening the constitutional institutions like Election Commission by appointing Mr. Navin Chawla as Election Commissioner. We are seeing the results already as it is my perception that the Election Commission now favours UPA and misses no opportunity to take action against NDA/BJP. In Goa there was blatant abuse of Indian election laws but EC didn't take any stern action. Mr. Rahul Gandhi talked about Babri Maszid to capture votes in U.P. elections even though elections cannot be used to inflame religious tensions. No action was taken against him. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi openly wrote letters to Muslim religious leaders to capture their votes but no action was taken. The Congress Party accepted the "fatwa" in its favour during U.P. elections but no action was taken.
I hope the "Rashtrpati Bhawan" would not become a political arm of UPA if Mrs. Pratibha Patil is elected president. There are many exceptionally qualified women leaders in India. There is no shortage of women leaders well respected by a large section of society in India. It is not too late to pick one of those leaders and give India a chance to have an able and non-controversial ""First Citizen" like President Abdul Kalam.
**
Congress/UPA nomination of Mrs. Pratibha Patil is likely to increase problems for the ruling coalition. It is troubling to note that there are allegations that Mrs. Pratibha Patil used her political clout to protect her brother in a murder case. Mrs. Pratibha Patil will also carry the legacy of her failed leadership of banks and instances of "loot" in favour or her relatives/friends in the banks headed by her. I feel that Mrs. Pratibha Patil will not be an effective President, if elected. Both politicians and general public will hesitate in accepting her moral and ethical leadership as the "First Citizen" of the country. The high post of President of India will face an integrity draught during the tenor of Mrs. Pratibha Patil.
UPA has been successful in weakening the constitutional institutions like Election Commission by appointing Mr. Navin Chawla as Election Commissioner. We are seeing the results already as it is my perception that the Election Commission now favours UPA and misses no opportunity to take action against NDA/BJP. In Goa there was blatant abuse of Indian election laws but EC didn't take any stern action. Mr. Rahul Gandhi talked about Babri Maszid to capture votes in U.P. elections even though elections cannot be used to inflame religious tensions. No action was taken against him. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi openly wrote letters to Muslim religious leaders to capture their votes but no action was taken. The Congress Party accepted the "fatwa" in its favour during U.P. elections but no action was taken.
I hope the "Rashtrpati Bhawan" would not become a political arm of UPA if Mrs. Pratibha Patil is elected president. There are many exceptionally qualified women leaders in India. There is no shortage of women leaders well respected by a large section of society in India. It is not too late to pick one of those leaders and give India a chance to have an able and non-controversial ""First Citizen" like President Abdul Kalam.
**
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Edwards attacks Coulter, defends fundraising off her remarks - On Politics - USATODAY.com
Edwards attacks Coulter, defends fundraising off her remarks - On Politics - USATODAY.com
Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards did the right thing. Freedom of speech does not mean you can keep offending others without limits by making baseless accusations. Ann Coulter has gained popularity only among hateful audience of not many. We can say worse things about the Bush Administration. But we should remember that we are a civilized nation so we should not stoop low like Ann Coulter and call people "faggot".
I am pleased that there are people in this country who will respond to cheap stunts by some columnists who do these things just to gain popularity. In our society we give lot of value to an individual's dignity.
**
Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards did the right thing. Freedom of speech does not mean you can keep offending others without limits by making baseless accusations. Ann Coulter has gained popularity only among hateful audience of not many. We can say worse things about the Bush Administration. But we should remember that we are a civilized nation so we should not stoop low like Ann Coulter and call people "faggot".
I am pleased that there are people in this country who will respond to cheap stunts by some columnists who do these things just to gain popularity. In our society we give lot of value to an individual's dignity.
**
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Dollar `Vulnerable' to Drop in Investment, BIS Says
I am very concerned with ``vulnerable'' dollar. We are the on the top because the world trusts us with their money. If we can't maintain our superiority over others, there is a fear that people will explore ways to put their money elsewhere. We have closed our eyes to our money and opportunities going to other countries like India and China. We have our borders open to state-sponsored migration on our southern borders. We are sending our low paid jobs to India and China and at the same time we are allowing uneducated migrants to cross our borders from Mexico. I am afraid that we might be moving towards a developing country like mentality here.
I am very concerned with India and China's foreign currency holdings. "The Indian rupee has gained 8.6 percent against the dollar in 2007, compared with a 1.7 percent advance for the whole of last year. The Chinese yuan has climbed 2.4 percent so far this year, after rising 3.3 percent in 2006." We might see some Indian and Chinese companies starting to buy U.S. businesses at a cheap price.
2008 presidential elections are still about 17 months away. I am hoping that the Congress will take a note of this emerging situation and will act fast in the larger interests of the country. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHlb_k7gVajg&refer=home
**
I am very concerned with ``vulnerable'' dollar. We are the on the top because the world trusts us with their money. If we can't maintain our superiority over others, there is a fear that people will explore ways to put their money elsewhere. We have closed our eyes to our money and opportunities going to other countries like India and China. We have our borders open to state-sponsored migration on our southern borders. We are sending our low paid jobs to India and China and at the same time we are allowing uneducated migrants to cross our borders from Mexico. I am afraid that we might be moving towards a developing country like mentality here.
I am very concerned with India and China's foreign currency holdings. "The Indian rupee has gained 8.6 percent against the dollar in 2007, compared with a 1.7 percent advance for the whole of last year. The Chinese yuan has climbed 2.4 percent so far this year, after rising 3.3 percent in 2006." We might see some Indian and Chinese companies starting to buy U.S. businesses at a cheap price.
2008 presidential elections are still about 17 months away. I am hoping that the Congress will take a note of this emerging situation and will act fast in the larger interests of the country. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHlb_k7gVajg&refer=home
**
Friday, June 15, 2007
Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily - Yahoo! News
Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily - Yahoo! News
I am having hard time understanding what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace meant when he said that to quit in wartime would be letting down the troops.
The way our system works is that the military officials work under the supervision of an elected government. Secondly, the war in Iraq is in a very critical phase at this time. Thirdly, replacing General Pace before October 1, 2007 might have been a good decision.
General Pace has not been candid in his assessment of Iraq. It is not necessary for us fight all wars that the President likes. War has to be the last of all the solutions to any dispute. At the end of the day someone would have to take the responsibility for our inability to win Iraq war. There can be a long debate about whether we are winning or not winning the war in Iraq.
If we can't win a war after (a) Breaching the sovereignty of a nation, (b) Having thousands of war causalities, (c) Breaching the Geneva Convention and (d) Cooking up the intelligence to make a bogus case for war in Iraq, we need to evaluate our capabilities because next war may not be as small as this one.
It would have been better if General Pace made the way for his replacement so that the country can evaluate its new strategy in September 2007 when many GOP members of Congress would be forced to take a stand on Iraq war or lose 2008 elections.
***
I am having hard time understanding what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace meant when he said that to quit in wartime would be letting down the troops.
The way our system works is that the military officials work under the supervision of an elected government. Secondly, the war in Iraq is in a very critical phase at this time. Thirdly, replacing General Pace before October 1, 2007 might have been a good decision.
General Pace has not been candid in his assessment of Iraq. It is not necessary for us fight all wars that the President likes. War has to be the last of all the solutions to any dispute. At the end of the day someone would have to take the responsibility for our inability to win Iraq war. There can be a long debate about whether we are winning or not winning the war in Iraq.
If we can't win a war after (a) Breaching the sovereignty of a nation, (b) Having thousands of war causalities, (c) Breaching the Geneva Convention and (d) Cooking up the intelligence to make a bogus case for war in Iraq, we need to evaluate our capabilities because next war may not be as small as this one.
It would have been better if General Pace made the way for his replacement so that the country can evaluate its new strategy in September 2007 when many GOP members of Congress would be forced to take a stand on Iraq war or lose 2008 elections.
***
Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links
Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links
A lot is expected out of the President of the United States or even a presidential candidate. This attempt by Obama campaign to tarnish the image of the "Indian American" community has irked me. I do not like to write off a presidential candidate at such an early stage of campaigning. I am indeed getting closer to take Senator Barak Obama off my list as a serious contender for the post of the President of the United States in 2008 elections.
There is nothing wrong in criticising a politician's links to a person or a business owner or a special interest group. However, it is shameful that Senator Obama's campaign is not only targeting the Indian state of Punjab but also the Indian American Community at large. We don't deserve to be treated like this. Targeting a community is purely a racist move because not all Indian Americans are democrats.
Dear Senator Obama, come 2008 your name is unlikely to be on the presidential ballot because you are engaging in dividing the American people among ethnic or racial lines.
**
A lot is expected out of the President of the United States or even a presidential candidate. This attempt by Obama campaign to tarnish the image of the "Indian American" community has irked me. I do not like to write off a presidential candidate at such an early stage of campaigning. I am indeed getting closer to take Senator Barak Obama off my list as a serious contender for the post of the President of the United States in 2008 elections.
There is nothing wrong in criticising a politician's links to a person or a business owner or a special interest group. However, it is shameful that Senator Obama's campaign is not only targeting the Indian state of Punjab but also the Indian American Community at large. We don't deserve to be treated like this. Targeting a community is purely a racist move because not all Indian Americans are democrats.
Dear Senator Obama, come 2008 your name is unlikely to be on the presidential ballot because you are engaging in dividing the American people among ethnic or racial lines.
**
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Action on Sachar committee recommendations soon: Sonia- Hindustan Times
Action on Sachar committee recommendations soon: Sonia- Hindustan Times
If India wants be become a superpower, it needs to empower its citizens. I have been observing Indian politics for a long time. Indian politicians are best at setting up committees and for placing the action taken reports (ATR) before the Parliament. God knows what happens after that. New schemes come and no one seem to get benefits from these schemes. Sometime I wonder what kind of job security do the Indian bureaucrats have because I don't see any progress on the street. The poor darji (tailor master) in my locality is still there. The world has changed but a place (that I know) named Wazir Pura in U.P. is still the same.
Now Dr. Manmohan Singh shows a lot of care for Muslim people in India. I wonder when did Dr. Manmohan Singh visit a Muslim neighborhood last time? Does Dr. Manmohan Singh know a poor Muslim family for last 30 years like I do? Why not send this report to a Parliamentary Committee and hold public hearings on the subject? Why not invite experts who can tell us how to solve the social problems being faced by Muslims in India? Why not ask poor Muslim families and testify under oath before a Parliamentary Panel so we can ascertain why they have been left behind?
I have asked for a full copy of Sachar Committee report so that I can take a first hand look at the findings of the committee. I am getting bits and pieces in the media reports. I don't like what I have heard so far.
As a layman, I can summarize the Sachar Committee Report as a medical report talking about a patient suffering from anemia without any discussion about the causes of the disease (anemia) and prescribing that the patient be given 10 units of blood. The patient may be bleeding internally or may have other serious health conditions but I don't think Indian politicians care because after all it is a question of their "vote bank".
India cannot afford to leave any segment of its population behind if it really wants to influence the world in next 50 years. The consequences of leaving Muslims behind are going to be painful for the coming generations of all Indians.
As a society we need to take pains to find out if Indian Muslims are suffering because of (1) their family size, (2) lack of equal rights for the women, (3) reasons for children not going to school, (4) curriculum of the schools where children are being educated, (5) multiple marriages or divorces, and (6) lack of legal framework to hold the earning parent liable for the care of children in case of separation or divorce.
I will be writing extensively on this issue after I get the full text of Sachar Committee Report.
I will be dedicating my work on this issue to my High School teacher Mr. Naim Uddin Sir who helped me with my studies and showed me the way to success. Like we say in America, it takes a village to raise a child. Naim Uddin Sir was a very important part of that "village" for me.
***
If India wants be become a superpower, it needs to empower its citizens. I have been observing Indian politics for a long time. Indian politicians are best at setting up committees and for placing the action taken reports (ATR) before the Parliament. God knows what happens after that. New schemes come and no one seem to get benefits from these schemes. Sometime I wonder what kind of job security do the Indian bureaucrats have because I don't see any progress on the street. The poor darji (tailor master) in my locality is still there. The world has changed but a place (that I know) named Wazir Pura in U.P. is still the same.
Now Dr. Manmohan Singh shows a lot of care for Muslim people in India. I wonder when did Dr. Manmohan Singh visit a Muslim neighborhood last time? Does Dr. Manmohan Singh know a poor Muslim family for last 30 years like I do? Why not send this report to a Parliamentary Committee and hold public hearings on the subject? Why not invite experts who can tell us how to solve the social problems being faced by Muslims in India? Why not ask poor Muslim families and testify under oath before a Parliamentary Panel so we can ascertain why they have been left behind?
I have asked for a full copy of Sachar Committee report so that I can take a first hand look at the findings of the committee. I am getting bits and pieces in the media reports. I don't like what I have heard so far.
As a layman, I can summarize the Sachar Committee Report as a medical report talking about a patient suffering from anemia without any discussion about the causes of the disease (anemia) and prescribing that the patient be given 10 units of blood. The patient may be bleeding internally or may have other serious health conditions but I don't think Indian politicians care because after all it is a question of their "vote bank".
India cannot afford to leave any segment of its population behind if it really wants to influence the world in next 50 years. The consequences of leaving Muslims behind are going to be painful for the coming generations of all Indians.
As a society we need to take pains to find out if Indian Muslims are suffering because of (1) their family size, (2) lack of equal rights for the women, (3) reasons for children not going to school, (4) curriculum of the schools where children are being educated, (5) multiple marriages or divorces, and (6) lack of legal framework to hold the earning parent liable for the care of children in case of separation or divorce.
I will be writing extensively on this issue after I get the full text of Sachar Committee Report.
I will be dedicating my work on this issue to my High School teacher Mr. Naim Uddin Sir who helped me with my studies and showed me the way to success. Like we say in America, it takes a village to raise a child. Naim Uddin Sir was a very important part of that "village" for me.
***
Heat on Fed to ban abusive mortgage practices - MarketWatch
Heat on Fed to ban abusive mortgage practices - MarketWatch
Comments of Sunil K. Dixit before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20551
Public Hearing; Request for Comment – Date of Hearing June 14, 2007
Home Equity Lending Market – Docket No. OP-1288
My name is Sunil K. Dixit. I am submitting these written comments to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Rule Making Authority of the Board
The Board should play an active role in formulating rules not only to prevent abusive lending practices but also to ensure that credit is extended to only those borrowers who can establish their ability to repay the loan as per the terms of the loan. Board should exercise its rule making authority over all loan products available in the market including A paper, Alt A, Subprime, 2nd Mortgages, Fixed rate, Exotic, Adjustable Rate Mortgages, and Home Equity Loans. Today there are hundreds of products available in the market but there are no uniform underwriting guidelines used by all lenders. Therefore, the first and the most important step in the direction of reforming mortgage industry would be to standardize products available and underwriting guidelines.
There are many lenders or brokers who are licensed to do business in several states. There is a need to make some important changes in the way mortgage lenders and brokers are licensed. In my view, there should be one federal license for mortgage brokers. Having one national mortgage license for mortgage brokers would be similar to how stock traders are licensed. State regulations on mortgage brokers and/or lenders are burdensome and make compliance difficult for the brokers who originate loans in several states.
Prepayment penalties
Should prepayment penalties be restricted? For example, should prepayment penalties that extend beyond the first adjustment period on an ARM be prohibited?
Prepayment penalties should be restricted. For example, no prepayment penalty should be allowed on the loans on borrower’s primary residence or first time home buyers or people who have fully documented their income. Borrowers above a certain FICO score should not be subjected to any prepayment penalties on non-investment properties. The amount of prepayment penalty should not be more than 3 months’ interest. Prepayment penalty should only be allowed to be calculated on a fixed rate disclosed at the time of origination of the loan.
Would enhanced disclosure of prepayment penalties help address concerns about abuses?
Prepayment penalty disclosures need to be improved. In addition to these disclosures the lenders should be asked to provide sample computations for calculation of prepayment penalty for each loan. Prepayment penalties should not be allowed on high LTV/CLTV loans. Prepayment penalties on high LTV/CLTV would make it very difficult for the borrower to refinance should his/her financial situation and credit scores improve a period of time. Prepayment penalties should not apply in case of sale of a primary residence.
How would a prohibition or restriction on prepayment penalties affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
Lenders claim that prohibition on prepayment penalties will limit the availability of loans to borrowers with imperfect credit. Prepayment penalty should not be used to punish the borrower if he/she has taken a loan on his/her primary residence or his credit scores have significantly improved. A borrower should be free to choose any lender during anytime during the life of the loan. However, as a relief to the lenders, a borrower may be subjected to prepayment penalty during the first 9-12 months of the loan. Prohibition on prepayment penalty should not have a negative impact on the mortgage industry. In a competitive market lenders will need to adjust to this reality if prepayment penalty is prohibited or restricted.
Escrow for taxes and insurance on Subprime loans
Should escrows for taxes and insurance be required for Subprime mortgage loans? If escrow were to be required, should consumers be permitted to “opt out” of escrows?
Due to high debt-to-ratio (DTI) allowance for underwriting Subprime loans it is natural that the Subprime borrowers are left with lesser residual income than the conventional borrowers after payment of mortgage installments, property taxes and insurance. A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance.
Consumers should be allowed to “opt out” of escrows without paying any extra costs at the time of originations. We know that mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible for the purpose of calculating taxable income under the IRS rules. The tax deductibility gives borrowers an opportunity to reduce their tax withholding or tax liability at the end of the year freeing up extra money every month going into their pockets. They can use this cash to pay property taxes and insurance. In my view, it will be logical to make escrows mandatory in case of non-primary residence.
Should lenders be required to disclose the absence of escrows to consumers and if so, at what point during the transaction? Should lenders be required to disclose an estimate of the consumer’s tax and insurance obligations?
A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance. This statement can be provided along with other loan disclosures at the time of issuing the loan commitment.
How would escrow requirements affect consumers and the type of terms of credit offered?
Both mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible and provide extra cash to borrowers in shape of lessening their tax liability. Therefore, lenders should not use escrows to increase the cost of home loans or charge extra from the borrowers. Presence or absence of escrow requirement should have no impact on the type and terms of the credit.
“Stated income” or “low doc” loans
Lenders have introduced some very creative loan programs such as “stated income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents”. These programs allow borrowers to state income on the loan application without having to provide documentary proof to support the income so disclosed, or provide little documentation to support income or assets, or show no income on the loan application, or leave income, employment, assets and liabilities blank on the loan application. One would think that these creative loan programs promote homeownership for all Americans. On the contrary, these programs have created an anomaly in our home mortgage system and have opened doors for possible abuse both by borrowers and lenders.
Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for certain loans, such as loans to Subprime borrowers?
The most important question is that if a borrower cannot document the income, what would be the criteria to ensure that he/she can afford to make housing payments? Or what would be the control procedures to ensure that the borrower has not overstated the income to qualify for the loan?
Few suggestions can be made to address the problems created by “stated income” or “no income” programs:
(1) Availability of “stated income”, “no income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents” programs must be strictly regulated. These loans should be available to borrowers in very exceptional circumstances and only after thorough scrutiny of income and assets. These restrictions should apply to all borrowers including the Subprime borrowers. It should be mandatory for all borrowers to sign IRS Form 4506 so that the lender can verify borrower’s income from the IRS. The loan should not be funded unless the IRS verification of income is completed.
(2) Mortgage interest deductibility is a great tax incentive for homeowners. However, this tax deduction should not available to all taxpayers. The mortgage interest deductibility of the mortgage interest paid by the borrowers who obtained mortgage using these creative mortgage programs should be subjected to restrictions under the tax laws. Borrowers who cannot document their income should not be entitled to the benefits of the tax laws. If one has to take the benefit of the tax laws, it is important that income shown on income tax returns can be reconciled with the income shown on the mortgage application. If tax deductions are based on actual income then why the mortgage interest deduction should be allowed on a loan obtained by one of the above creative mortgage loan programs?
(3) For stated income borrowers, the income indicated on form 1003 (application for housing loan) should be reported to the IRS database so that the IRS can reconcile borrower’s 1003 income with the taxable income reported on the tax returns for that year and subsequent years.
(4) For all stated income loans, originators must be asked to sign an affidavit confirming that they do not have any knowledge of borrower's income being overstated and they have satisfied that the borrower complies with the underwriting criteria of a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.
Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for higher-risk loans, for example high loan-to-value ratios?
Stated income or low doc loans should not be prohibited for high-risk loans. Instead, all borrowers’ income should be verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans.
How should a restriction on stated income or low doc loans affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
If borrowers’ income is verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans, there will be no impact on consumers because loans would be made available only to those who have the capacity to repay the loans.
Should lenders be required to disclose to the consumers that a stated income loan is being offered and allow the consumer the option to document income?
The lenders should be asked to provide a disclosure to the borrowers indicating that their income would be verified with the IRS using IRS form 4506 and that the loan will not be funded if the verified income is not enough to qualify for the subject loan.
Unaffordable loans
Should lenders be required to underwrite all loans on the fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments?
All loans should be underwritten with fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments. The debt-to-income ratio with taking into consideration fully-indexed rate should not exceed 50%.
Should there be a rebuttable presumption that a loan is unaffordable if the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio exceeds 50% at loan origination?
From all practical purposes, a loan allowing debt-to-income ratio of more than 50% is unaffordable. Let us assume an average (hypothetical) income tax rate of 25%, an average (hypothetical) state tax rate of 3.5% and 7.65% FICA and Medicare deduction. The total deduction on account of these taxes would be 36.15% of the gross income. After adding 36.15% to debt-to-income ratio of 50%, the borrower would be left with only 13.85% of the gross income to take care of other living expenses.
Are there specific consumer disclosures that would help address concerns about unaffordable loans?
None.
How should such provision affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
Home loan should be offered only to those who can afford to make a full repayment. It doesn’t not make sense to stretch the guidelines to give loans to borrowers who are unable to prove that they can pay back the loan.
***
'Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners. Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners.'
— Mark Pearce, deputy commissioner of banks in North Carolina
Comments of Sunil K. Dixit before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20551
Public Hearing; Request for Comment – Date of Hearing June 14, 2007
Home Equity Lending Market – Docket No. OP-1288
My name is Sunil K. Dixit. I am submitting these written comments to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Rule Making Authority of the Board
The Board should play an active role in formulating rules not only to prevent abusive lending practices but also to ensure that credit is extended to only those borrowers who can establish their ability to repay the loan as per the terms of the loan. Board should exercise its rule making authority over all loan products available in the market including A paper, Alt A, Subprime, 2nd Mortgages, Fixed rate, Exotic, Adjustable Rate Mortgages, and Home Equity Loans. Today there are hundreds of products available in the market but there are no uniform underwriting guidelines used by all lenders. Therefore, the first and the most important step in the direction of reforming mortgage industry would be to standardize products available and underwriting guidelines.
There are many lenders or brokers who are licensed to do business in several states. There is a need to make some important changes in the way mortgage lenders and brokers are licensed. In my view, there should be one federal license for mortgage brokers. Having one national mortgage license for mortgage brokers would be similar to how stock traders are licensed. State regulations on mortgage brokers and/or lenders are burdensome and make compliance difficult for the brokers who originate loans in several states.
Prepayment penalties
Should prepayment penalties be restricted? For example, should prepayment penalties that extend beyond the first adjustment period on an ARM be prohibited?
Prepayment penalties should be restricted. For example, no prepayment penalty should be allowed on the loans on borrower’s primary residence or first time home buyers or people who have fully documented their income. Borrowers above a certain FICO score should not be subjected to any prepayment penalties on non-investment properties. The amount of prepayment penalty should not be more than 3 months’ interest. Prepayment penalty should only be allowed to be calculated on a fixed rate disclosed at the time of origination of the loan.
Would enhanced disclosure of prepayment penalties help address concerns about abuses?
Prepayment penalty disclosures need to be improved. In addition to these disclosures the lenders should be asked to provide sample computations for calculation of prepayment penalty for each loan. Prepayment penalties should not be allowed on high LTV/CLTV loans. Prepayment penalties on high LTV/CLTV would make it very difficult for the borrower to refinance should his/her financial situation and credit scores improve a period of time. Prepayment penalties should not apply in case of sale of a primary residence.
How would a prohibition or restriction on prepayment penalties affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
Lenders claim that prohibition on prepayment penalties will limit the availability of loans to borrowers with imperfect credit. Prepayment penalty should not be used to punish the borrower if he/she has taken a loan on his/her primary residence or his credit scores have significantly improved. A borrower should be free to choose any lender during anytime during the life of the loan. However, as a relief to the lenders, a borrower may be subjected to prepayment penalty during the first 9-12 months of the loan. Prohibition on prepayment penalty should not have a negative impact on the mortgage industry. In a competitive market lenders will need to adjust to this reality if prepayment penalty is prohibited or restricted.
Escrow for taxes and insurance on Subprime loans
Should escrows for taxes and insurance be required for Subprime mortgage loans? If escrow were to be required, should consumers be permitted to “opt out” of escrows?
Due to high debt-to-ratio (DTI) allowance for underwriting Subprime loans it is natural that the Subprime borrowers are left with lesser residual income than the conventional borrowers after payment of mortgage installments, property taxes and insurance. A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance.
Consumers should be allowed to “opt out” of escrows without paying any extra costs at the time of originations. We know that mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible for the purpose of calculating taxable income under the IRS rules. The tax deductibility gives borrowers an opportunity to reduce their tax withholding or tax liability at the end of the year freeing up extra money every month going into their pockets. They can use this cash to pay property taxes and insurance. In my view, it will be logical to make escrows mandatory in case of non-primary residence.
Should lenders be required to disclose the absence of escrows to consumers and if so, at what point during the transaction? Should lenders be required to disclose an estimate of the consumer’s tax and insurance obligations?
A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance. This statement can be provided along with other loan disclosures at the time of issuing the loan commitment.
How would escrow requirements affect consumers and the type of terms of credit offered?
Both mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible and provide extra cash to borrowers in shape of lessening their tax liability. Therefore, lenders should not use escrows to increase the cost of home loans or charge extra from the borrowers. Presence or absence of escrow requirement should have no impact on the type and terms of the credit.
“Stated income” or “low doc” loans
Lenders have introduced some very creative loan programs such as “stated income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents”. These programs allow borrowers to state income on the loan application without having to provide documentary proof to support the income so disclosed, or provide little documentation to support income or assets, or show no income on the loan application, or leave income, employment, assets and liabilities blank on the loan application. One would think that these creative loan programs promote homeownership for all Americans. On the contrary, these programs have created an anomaly in our home mortgage system and have opened doors for possible abuse both by borrowers and lenders.
Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for certain loans, such as loans to Subprime borrowers?
The most important question is that if a borrower cannot document the income, what would be the criteria to ensure that he/she can afford to make housing payments? Or what would be the control procedures to ensure that the borrower has not overstated the income to qualify for the loan?
Few suggestions can be made to address the problems created by “stated income” or “no income” programs:
(1) Availability of “stated income”, “no income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents” programs must be strictly regulated. These loans should be available to borrowers in very exceptional circumstances and only after thorough scrutiny of income and assets. These restrictions should apply to all borrowers including the Subprime borrowers. It should be mandatory for all borrowers to sign IRS Form 4506 so that the lender can verify borrower’s income from the IRS. The loan should not be funded unless the IRS verification of income is completed.
(2) Mortgage interest deductibility is a great tax incentive for homeowners. However, this tax deduction should not available to all taxpayers. The mortgage interest deductibility of the mortgage interest paid by the borrowers who obtained mortgage using these creative mortgage programs should be subjected to restrictions under the tax laws. Borrowers who cannot document their income should not be entitled to the benefits of the tax laws. If one has to take the benefit of the tax laws, it is important that income shown on income tax returns can be reconciled with the income shown on the mortgage application. If tax deductions are based on actual income then why the mortgage interest deduction should be allowed on a loan obtained by one of the above creative mortgage loan programs?
(3) For stated income borrowers, the income indicated on form 1003 (application for housing loan) should be reported to the IRS database so that the IRS can reconcile borrower’s 1003 income with the taxable income reported on the tax returns for that year and subsequent years.
(4) For all stated income loans, originators must be asked to sign an affidavit confirming that they do not have any knowledge of borrower's income being overstated and they have satisfied that the borrower complies with the underwriting criteria of a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.
Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for higher-risk loans, for example high loan-to-value ratios?
Stated income or low doc loans should not be prohibited for high-risk loans. Instead, all borrowers’ income should be verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans.
How should a restriction on stated income or low doc loans affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
If borrowers’ income is verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans, there will be no impact on consumers because loans would be made available only to those who have the capacity to repay the loans.
Should lenders be required to disclose to the consumers that a stated income loan is being offered and allow the consumer the option to document income?
The lenders should be asked to provide a disclosure to the borrowers indicating that their income would be verified with the IRS using IRS form 4506 and that the loan will not be funded if the verified income is not enough to qualify for the subject loan.
Unaffordable loans
Should lenders be required to underwrite all loans on the fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments?
All loans should be underwritten with fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments. The debt-to-income ratio with taking into consideration fully-indexed rate should not exceed 50%.
Should there be a rebuttable presumption that a loan is unaffordable if the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio exceeds 50% at loan origination?
From all practical purposes, a loan allowing debt-to-income ratio of more than 50% is unaffordable. Let us assume an average (hypothetical) income tax rate of 25%, an average (hypothetical) state tax rate of 3.5% and 7.65% FICA and Medicare deduction. The total deduction on account of these taxes would be 36.15% of the gross income. After adding 36.15% to debt-to-income ratio of 50%, the borrower would be left with only 13.85% of the gross income to take care of other living expenses.
Are there specific consumer disclosures that would help address concerns about unaffordable loans?
None.
How should such provision affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?
Home loan should be offered only to those who can afford to make a full repayment. It doesn’t not make sense to stretch the guidelines to give loans to borrowers who are unable to prove that they can pay back the loan.
***
'Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners. Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners.'
— Mark Pearce, deputy commissioner of banks in North Carolina
**
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
World Politics Review | U.S.-India Nuke Deal Could Hinge On Behind-the-Scenes G-8 Meeting
I am wondering if this is the time to write obituary on the sad demise of U.S.-India nuclear deal.
I think the two key issues holding up this deal are:
(1) India’s demand that it must be allowed to reprocess the extra nuclear fuel, and
(2) India’s right to carry out nuclear experiments.
There is a growing discomfort in the U.S. political circles with India’s relationship with Iran. Perhaps, India is making a serious diplomatic mistake by not distancing itself from Iran. If India was so keen to maintain its independent foreign policy and closeness to Iran, it should not have negotiated a nuclear deal with the United States. A lot has been said in Indian media about India’s right to maintain good relations with any country it wishes (in this case Iran). I wonder if Indian politicians recognize America’s right to deny concessions on the nuclear deal.
With all fairness to Bush Administration, America has a right to protect its sovereign and strategic interests just like India does. A democratic controlled Congress, with most probably a democratic president in 2008, would result in more adverse attitude towards India on this nuclear deal. Time is running out for both parties.
The million dollar question is: -
Would the U.S. Congress go along with the Bush Administration if it made concessions to India’s satisfaction to close the deal?
In my view, there is still some (little) chance that the deal would be done before President Bush leaves office in 2008.
In the end, I must say that India is making a serious mistake by upgrading the status of a country like Iran. Iran has never supported India in time of need. It would do the same in the future. I am at complete loss that India finds a country run by Mullas so dear to its foreign policy.
***
I am wondering if this is the time to write obituary on the sad demise of U.S.-India nuclear deal.
I think the two key issues holding up this deal are:
(1) India’s demand that it must be allowed to reprocess the extra nuclear fuel, and
(2) India’s right to carry out nuclear experiments.
There is a growing discomfort in the U.S. political circles with India’s relationship with Iran. Perhaps, India is making a serious diplomatic mistake by not distancing itself from Iran. If India was so keen to maintain its independent foreign policy and closeness to Iran, it should not have negotiated a nuclear deal with the United States. A lot has been said in Indian media about India’s right to maintain good relations with any country it wishes (in this case Iran). I wonder if Indian politicians recognize America’s right to deny concessions on the nuclear deal.
With all fairness to Bush Administration, America has a right to protect its sovereign and strategic interests just like India does. A democratic controlled Congress, with most probably a democratic president in 2008, would result in more adverse attitude towards India on this nuclear deal. Time is running out for both parties.
The million dollar question is: -
Would the U.S. Congress go along with the Bush Administration if it made concessions to India’s satisfaction to close the deal?
In my view, there is still some (little) chance that the deal would be done before President Bush leaves office in 2008.
In the end, I must say that India is making a serious mistake by upgrading the status of a country like Iran. Iran has never supported India in time of need. It would do the same in the future. I am at complete loss that India finds a country run by Mullas so dear to its foreign policy.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
