Why the Nuclear deal should be opposed ?

 

 

 

We have seen certain persons opposing the nuclear deal and nauseam like the lefts. But none has explained why, quoting the relevant clauses which are against the interest of India. I have gone through the IAEA safeguards agreement, which is available in the internet. With my limited knowledge, I have not seen any clause in the agreement which is detrimental to the interests of India. Where is the “in perpetuity” clause in the agreement ? Which clause forbids the “exit” clause.

Time and again we are hearing about the hyde act. Why it is relevant to us ? If any agreement between two parties, which agreement does not mention that the said agreement is subject to all such acts passed in their parliament/congress, should we assume that the said agreement is subject to such acts viz. hyde act passed by the US congress.

Should we reject the nuclear agreement simply because it is initiated by the Congress? Should we oppose the agreement simply because it is with the US ? Should we oppose the agreement simply because Muslims don’t like US? In my humble opinion, the test should be whether it is in the interest of India. Whether it is beneficial for India.

We need nuclear power to tide over our power crisis. Nuclear power is said to be clean compared to thermal power. We acutely need power for development. Without development we cannot give our downtrodden population a decent living. Many of our nuclear power generation reactors are working much below the capacity. We don’t have enough uranium reserves. We need to commission more nuclear power generating units to meet our increasing requirements. From whatever I could gather, this agreement is in the interest of India and does not in any way mortage our interest.

The agreement speaks about safeguarded and not safeguarded nuclear fuel, equipment etc. The agreement is for safeguarded items only. There is no bar on India to conduct research etc.

 

“AFFIRMING that cooperation under this Agreement is between two States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both Parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation” Being a layman I am not able to understand the intricacies. But from what is quoted above from the 123 agreement, the said agreement does recognise that India is a country possessing advance nuclear technology.

This agreement does mention inspection in perpetuity. But the inspections are for the nuclear material, equipment etc. supplied under the agreement and under “safeguarded” materials as per IAEA agreement. As far as I know it does not include the materials, reactors, equipments etc., which are not under safeguard.

Article 14 states that both the parties can terminate the agreement after giving a notice of one year, though the initial agreement is for 40 years renewable for further 10 years.

Article 16, sub-para 3 states that Articles 5, 6(c)6,7,8,9,10 and 15 will still be applicable even after the termination is made effective so long as nuclear material,non-nuclear material, by-product material, equipments, components subject to these articles remain in the territory of the party concerned…..” But this is in respect of the safeguarded materials.

How and why the Hyde Act is applicable to this agreement.

I really don’t understand why this agreement should be regarded against the interest of our country. Should we reject a deal simply because it is offered by US or disliked by the likes of Karat.I can understand the dislike of the communists. Anything good for the country is anathema for the commies. Should we also fall in line.

 

The left is anything that has something to do with US. Nuclear deal should be discussed at length, clause by clause. It should be assessed on its own merits. A nation should have no friends nor foes. It has only its own interest at heart. A national party should have only the interest of the nation at heart and should rise above petty politicking. Let us consign the left into dustbin.

Responses