Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Any political person, who knows, there is no chance for him to occupy power again, can commit any crime against the country. So, Dr. Man Mohan Singh is determined to sign the Nuke deal with the USA. (“Come what may”, as his less capable Goebbles has asserted.)
Congress has made a farce of India since Nehru days. The latest has begun with grooming Rajiv’s son Rahul for the top post. In words of sycophants like Arjun Singh, he would be the best choice for Prime Minister post as he carries in his body and mind the legacies of Rajiv Gandhi!
Most of Indians do not know what were the legacies of Rajiv Gandhi. But almost all of them know that Rajiv Gandhi had profusely rewarded R.K. Dhawan, the man, who had attracted judicial needle of suspicion in Indira Gandhi murder case, after he had “inherited” her chair as India’s Prime Minister.(What a contribution to democracy!)
To the Congress it was no crime. How CBI had to help Ottavio Quattrocchi, intimately linked to Sonia Gandhi, in Bofors kickback under Rajiv regime is not unknown to any. So, it is established that Congress has developed a habit of supporting any crime against the country “come what may”.
With such a party at the background, Prime Minister Singh is determined to sign the nuke deal with USA as per his scheme.
If he signs the deal he will no more return to power; but India will perish forever.
Peoples of India had thrown the Congress into the dustbin from where it would never have resurrected again in a normal condition. But, once in power the party of profit fetchers under Vajpayee acted so sly and so much against peoples’ interest that all the bad that had happened to the country under Congress rule seemed like mere dots of smudge. Yet the peoples did not excuse Congress.
They refused a fresh mandate to Vajpayee. But they did not grant power to Congress.
If Man Mohan Singh, as Congress Prime Minister, is now assertive of his power to sign the nuke deal with USA, it has become possible only because the Communists and their left allies have helped the Congress to head a hybrid government. During my long span of experience with dogs that I have always adopted with love and care, I have seen that every hybrid is not as reliable as expected.
As far as the nuke deal is concerned, this is the truth.
Singh government has not allowed the country know the truth.
In these pages I have shown earlier, how the deal is designed to serve the interest of USA. I have quoted US Congressmen holding the deal as “a bonanza for US firms” (Reuters, August 25, 2007). I have quoted Senator Joe Lieberman as he unreservedly declared (August 14, 2007, Reuters) that the deal “is so clearly in the interests of the United States” that both the houses of USA Congress would sure endorse it. Both of these statements of top policy makers of USA – “it (the nuke deal) is a bonanza for US firms” and “it is so clearly in the interest of the United States” – expose the reason of why USA is so very eager to get the deal signed.
Prime Minister Singh has not told the country as to how India will benefit from the deal that is “a bonanza for US firms” and to what extent and if the deal would be “a bonanza for US firms” what should it be for Indian people, as roles of both the countries being different, the result cannot be the same “bonanza” for both. The people of India have therefore a right to know the proportion of benefit, if any they are really to derive. On the other hand people of India have a right to know as to why Lieberman described the deal as “so clearly in the interest of United States”. Is it because, the deal shall help USA get rid of her over lived old generation reactors most of which are running on extended licenses while posing serious threat to human life and eco-system there? Man Mohan Singh has not helped peoples of India know the real reason.
In the guise of secure energy he has been trying to hoodwink our people.
Tony Blair during his tenure as Prime Minister had also advanced this idea in UK.
Experts of Oxford Research Group on detail study rejected the idea. Its conclusion was
“If a decision to go with nuclear power is taken then the UK will implement a flawed and dangerously counter-productive energy policy – one from which the blowback may be a lot worse than higher heating bills”.
The Report captioned “Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming”, edited by Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, with a foreword by Jürgen Trittin, (March, 2007) allows us to know the issues dealt with.
Peruse an excerpt:
“By comparing the security consequences of civil nuclear power to its contribution to tackling climate change, Oxford Research Group shows that rather than making a positive contribution, an expansion of civil nuclear power would:
· Make efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons much more difficult.
· Increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.
· Make a negligible short-term contribution to lowering CO2 emissions.
· Make a negligible contribution to energy security.
Finally, we show that nuclear power is not needed. Germany, for example, already has more generating capacity from wind-power than the UK nuclear component and within six years will have more solar powered capacity too. If the UK pursued similar policies, by 2020 wind would provide well over six times and solar three times the generating capacity major industrial players estimate for a nuclear new build”.
It further said,
“Much of the disagreement about the security implications of nuclear power revolves around whether the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism risks can be managed. Using the most recent research we can show that these risks will become much harder to manage. In fact a new nuclear build would take us into uncharted and very dangerous waters.
“For these reasons the UK government should apply the precautionary principle. The Prime Minister’s justification for replacing the UK’s nuclear weapons system is based on a version of this principle: in an uncertain future in which new nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism are likely, the ‘ultimate deterrent’ is justified. Judged against this argument, building more nuclear power plants is self-defeating in the extreme: they would increase the very threats nuclear weapons are intended to deter”.
Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh should tell the peoples of India, if the ORG has erred in its analysis and if any such analysis by any expert group of India has justified the deal, how have they done and whether or not their views were juxtaposed with ORG views and the outcome thereof justifies Singh’s closed mind in matter of the deal with USA?
On the other hand, scientists of our own country are also not in favor of the deal. Former president A P J Abdul Kalam has stressed that India should seek to achieve self-sufficiency in nuclear power through thorium fuel-based reactors as “in the country we have a shortage of uranium (which the American reactors would need). But we have one of the largest reserves of thorium” (October 24, 2007-PTI). Placid Rodriguez, president of Indian Nuclear Society and former director of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam has stoutly said that factors like energy security and development, highlighted in support of the Indo-US nuclear deal “are misleading”. Emphasizing like Dr. Kalam on self-reliance through Thorium, he has said, “Energy security does not come from nuclear or few reactors imported unless we ultimately reach the thorium technology” (Agencies, November 21, 2007) Dr. Katepalli R Srinivasan, Director of International Centre for Theoretical Physics, has categorically stated that the deal will not be beneficial to India as the heat produced from nuclear fission might put the country’s environment in danger. Like the ORG advice, he has stressed that instead of relying on nuclear energy, the country should look at available renewable sources of energy to meet the energy requirement.(UNI, January 05, 2008 ) There are many more experts in the country who have expressed their doubts on desirability of the deal with USA. But the above three views from three most eminent nuclear scientists of the country deserve serious attention of the country. Man Mohan Singh has not helped the country in knowing how his obstinacy to sign the deal with USA is more scientific than the views of these three top most scientists.
Besides this closed-minded conspiracy to keep people in dark about the deal on areas discussed, Man Mohan Singh has committed a crime against the country by not telling the Parliament the truth that the Hyde Act makes it compulsory that the Parliament “must agree to the text” of that Act.
I had, in these pages, earlier dealt with the matter. It seems pertinent now to confront Singh with the hard truth. I am going to quote from Nuclear Policies published in World Nuclear News on 10 December 2006. Here it is:
“On 9 December the US Senate voted to approve the ‘Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’ after a series of revisions since President George Bush and Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh signed an initial agreement in July 2005.
Once President Bush has signed the document and it becomes law, four further agreements must be made:
(1) A specific agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding safeguards of nuclear materials.
(2) India-specific trade guidelines must be drafted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation cartel which has restricted nuclear trade to NPT signatories since 1992.
(3) The USA must conclude a ‘123’ agreement with India on nuclear cooperation. Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the USA and any other nation. And
(4) The Indian parliament must agree to the text”.
The stipulation No.4 is most pertinent. It makes it binding on India to see that “the Indian Parliament must agree to the text” of the ‘Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’, called the Hyde Act, which conversely makes it clear that despite this stipulation, if the government of India signs the deal, it will be presumed that the Indian Parliament has “agreed to the the text” and the provisions shall be activated accordingly.
Man Mohan Singh has suppressed this vital but devastative fact from the Parliament of India. He has never placed the Hyde Act before it for the Parliament to “agree to the text” of that Act.
The Hyde Act is a danger to Indian sovereignty. Singh’s party is aware of this danger.
Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi on April 16, 2008 after meeting US jockey of the deal James Clad and a group of Lawmakers at Washington DC had told the media that the “Hyde Act is clearly the biggest bug-bear – the red rag to a raging bull” and referring to some of the provisions of the Hyde Act, he had wondered as to how can we stop dealing with Iran or send troops to Iraq or sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty? “There is no way in which these provisions are ever going to be accepted or implemented by India,” he had said, according to PTI.
If a Sonia sycophant could react to the Hyde Act this way, the Indian Parliament would never have agreed to its text.
Unless the Indian Parliament “agrees to the text” of the Hyde Act, USA cannot legally force it on India. But, according to Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as stated before US Congress, the deal has to be ‘consistent’ with the Hyde Act.
The US Congress aware of the mischief of the Hyde Act had guessed how India would react to its bulling clauses. Therefore, while passing the Act, it had stipulated that before execution of the deal, the text of the Act must have to be agreed to by the Indian Parliament.
Now, keeping the Parliament in total dark about this, Singh is rushing into sign the deal “come what may”. Once he signs, knowing absolutely clearly what the Hyde Act aims at, India’s sovereignty would be severely jeopardized. India would be bound to dance to the tune of USA.
Singh will one day be shown the door and that is bound to happen. But if he is tolerated any more and kept in his chair till he proceeds to sign the deal, the country shall suffer forever.
At this critical juncture, the Communists have a major role to play. They have so far saved the country from danger to her sovereignty by stymieing the signing of the deal. They have exhibited matchless political patience and maturity by not being rash in their decisions. But, now they should cast aside all their reservations against the BJP and take all possible steps to topple the hybrid government of Man Mohan Singh before he signs the deal. There is no other way to save the country from the worst disaster in her independent life.
During all these days the Communists have not opposed BJP on the platform of political economy. They have opposed BJP on the question of communalism.
Communalism is not a political term. It is a politically facilitator term.
If Advani with his Tilak exhibits his communal color, Man Mohan Singh with his turban is also an exhibitor of his communal culture. Have the Communists supporting him so far not supported communal assertions howsoever feeble that be? And, when Communist leaders with their families stand in folded hands before Durga statues in Dasahara at Kolkata, what picture then they give? What are those who amongst the Communists castigated Brinda Karat over her allegations against Ramdev?
So, there should not be any stress now on who is or who is not a communalist. The only emphasis should be given on saving India from falling into the trap of the Hyde Act. And it needs that the leftists and the rightists should rip open their respective cocoons to stand united to save the country from the treachery of her own Prime Minister.