Your very first argument is wrong.
It is not quotes of an individual senetor,
it is clearly ststed in the Henry Hyde’s Act.

It is obvious you have not read the original text of the Hyde’s Act,
neither are you aware of our own nuclear technology programme.
In fact, it is possible you have not read any documents at all.

You probably haven’t got a clue how the Taliban came to power, have you?
It is obvious your knowledge about the rise of Talibans, ISI, Pakistan, or America’s foreign policies, why they are meddling with middle east, why Iran …is an absolute ZERO.

Hence I do not see any point in replying to any comments you have made.

Your comment proves what I have been saying, anybody and everybody is an expert and believes they are right.

Before I sell off my country to the Americans, I would rather believe the opinions of our own nuclear scientists.

Please peddle your garbage elsewhere where they will be accepted without questions.

2. I fail to see why this is significant. US maintains restrictions to sell certain technologies to events its very close allies: UK, Japan, Israel. Surely India will also not be willing to sell it’s missle and nuclear technology to any country even if they are friendly ones.

3. This is the same point as #2.

4. US has promised to work with the NSG to meet it’s obligations under the 123 agreement. Considering that the US has so far delivered on everything it’s promised (the Hyde act passed congress by a HUGE margin), there is no reason to suspect that the US will not continue to do so. The US is the dominant force in the NSG. All nations in the NSG except for China will follow the US lead.

5. Inspections in perpetuity are only for the new plants supplied by the US (and NSG countries). India can still pursue its current and future military program. Since the new plants are only to be civilian plants, I don’t see the harm in having inspections.

6. Only the new reactors supplies by the US will have safeguards. I fail to see how this is any worse then the present situation. Also, the text says nothing about the US stopping supplies from other NSG members. Again a very misleading heading, which has nothing to do with the text underneath.

7. NO it wont. India has always refused to sign the FMCT, and she will continue to do so. Nothing in this agreement is contingent on that. The quote you have given is taken completely out of context. It only says that the US will ask India to work towards a FMCT. This is the same as India requesting that the US should eliminate it’s nuclear stockpile. It’s all very nice rhetoric, but not of this is binding in any way.

8. Very misleading heading. The text only calls for US inspections if the IAEA decides that it is unable to do it’s job for some hypothetical reason. This is a very unlikely scenario, since the IAEA manages to do its job just fine in every other country on the planet.

9. The heading is completely misleading. Nowhere in the subtext is there any mention of IAEA inspections on India’s military nuclear facilities. Also, see my response to #8. Every nation argues that other nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals. If it is not binding then it is meaningless talk.

I totally agree.
We call ourselves independant, but we are over eager welcome to American imperialism. It is sickening.
I do not think, even a fraction of these pro-US people know about US’s past track record. They have destroyed countries and government at will that have stood in their way.

But thanks for visiting and your comment.

Isn’t it strange, so much is being written by the pundits, but hardly any mention in the press of what the nuclear scientists themselves think? After all it is something they have to struggle with for the next 40 years.

After Pokhran, America tried to shackle us with sanctions and went back on the 1963 agreement.
But our scientist have been brilliant to carry on with exploding success.

So now they are trying to tie our hands again with temptations.

just to keep the comment short, I have posted the link to your blogsite instead.

I have read this (your) article and infact I have it bookmarked, waiting to be worked into a new blog. I totally agree with your point of view. The public have the right to know, what is the best for their country.

Hiding the clauses, in Hyde Act and the Agreement that are not in the best interests of India, with rhetorics is criminal.
We elect politicians to office to do a job FOR us, not for any foreign power.

Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts.

Need for Clarity
A poorly drafted treaty driven by business motives is a recipe for international misunderstanding

First published in The Sunday Statesman, August 19 2007, http://www.thestatesman.net

By SUBROTO ROY

Confusion prevails over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Businessmen, bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, scientists and now the public at large have all joined in the cacophony in the last two years. On Wednesday August 15, America’s foreign ministry made the clearest most unequivocal statement possible as to the official American Government interpretation of the Indo-US nuclear deal: “The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear co-operation is terminated, as well as there is provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement” (Sean McCormack). Yet our Prime Minister had told Parliament two days earlier: “The agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary”. What is going on? Our politics are in uproar, and it has been suggested in these pages that the country go to a General Election to allow the people to speak on the matter. Clearly, we need some clarity…

Click Here for the full text.

…The answer to our present conundrum must be patience and the fullest transparency. What is the rush? If it is good or bad for us to buy six or eight new American reactors now, it will remain good or bad to do so a year or two from now after everyone has had a thorough think about everything that is involved. What the Manmohan-Montek Planning Commission needed to do first of all was a thorough cost-benefit analysis of India’s energy requirements but such elementary professionalism has been sorely lacking among our economists for decades.

(The author is Contributing Editor, The Statesman)
Posted in Dabhol/Enron fiasco, India-US Nuclear Deal, India’s Lok Sabha, Economics and Energy, India’s Democracy, India-United States business, India’s Energy, International Law, Manmohan Singh, India’s Polity, India’s Foreign Policy, War.

Not too long ago, the 1971 War, America had sided against India and had encouraged China to help Pakistan against us
we had their warships muscleflexing in the Bay of Bengal.

There evil foreign policy wants to destroy us. And they will get their way.

My country is bursting full of hypocrites, who will sell their country to be able to become “American”. If you read carefully the blogs that are pro-Americans, it is invariably by an Indian in USA.

Read the questions I have quoted from the two original documents, none of these bloggers will answer the questions, they sidetrack with ridicule and pure rhetorics.

The first of the nine points – the concern that America always has an hidden agenda (compliance with its foreign policy) when it offers to help a country – I’m in no doubt about that. That is the way Ameirca has worked throughout its recent history. The timeline of atrocities committed by the CIA in order to get other countries to comply is extremely disturbing.

They are fairweather friends at best.