Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

The nuclear deal

The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal has been described as a win-win situation for both countries. But what the nation is entitled to know is whether this implies that the self-reliant research path that India has adopted thus far is unable to meet the energy needs of the country. If so why could we not have turned to Russia? The U.S.' refusal of nuclear technology to Pakistan means the Pakistani nuclear establishment will continue to remain outside the ambit of international inspections.

T.T. Krishnan,
Chennai

As the pro-U.S. interests pat their backs, one needs to look at the deal hard. As it requires the U.S. to change its law in a sensitive area, this ink amounts to nothing more than an expression of interest by two CEOs. Secondly, much will hinge on what is in the fine print, and the amendments that may follow. The manner in which the deal has been signed reflects a direct recognition by India of the U.S.' policy to do away with multilateralism. It is questionable if the historical atmosphere of mistrust can be washed away by a few drops of ink. The only saving grace is that there was a better quality of debate on the deal than any other issue in the past.

Pravin S. Joshi,
Pune

There is much more to George Bush's agenda than signing the nuclear deal. He wants India's support to engineer regime change in countries not falling in line with U.S. interests. The growing Asian economies, and the prospect of cooperation in the energy field among India, China, Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian countries are a challenge to the U.S. It will leave no stone unturned to wean India away from such possible tie-ups.

Raju Thomas,
Bangalore

Many are protesting the deal, especially the separation of civilian and military facilities. They seem to be unaware of the dismal energy scene. We are dependent on fossil fuels for transport and power generation. For 8.5-10 per cent growth, we have to develop alternative fuels. Nuclear power may offer some affordable relief.

Dharma Rao,
Hyderabad

Why does the U.S.' urge to liberate the citizens of undemocratic countries not apply to Pakistan? Not only has Mr. Bush conferred on Pakistan the status of a major non-NATO ally, he also does not seem to have any problem with the clandestine nuclear deals of some of its scientists.

Sangeetha Unnithan,
Thiruvananthapuram

The nationwide protests against Mr. Bush were uncalled for and in bad taste. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been at the forefront of all major peace initiatives. In fact more wars have been averted by its timely intervention. If force was resorted to, it was for compelling reasons.

Jayant Ratna Didla,
Guntur, A.P.

The brouhaha over sniffer dogs surveying Rajghat before Mr. Bush's visit is over reaction. Do our Upanishads not unequivocally state Vasudaiva kudumbakam — the whole universe is one family? Why should we take offence to the presence of man's best friend? I am more offended by some of our unscrupulous politicians desecrating Rajghat by their visits.

Srinivasan G. Srivilliputhur,
Los Alamos, U.S.

The dogs were part of the President's security and no one can object to their presence. More so when they are the favourite pets and people allow them to freely roam about their homes.

C.V. Krishnamoorthy,
Bangalore

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Facts are sacred
Dealing with Hamas
Some questions raised by the budget
MI5 was warned of plot to kill Attlee's Ministers?
Corrections and clarifications
Let the IAEA do its work on Iran
Emerging nations threaten G7 dominance
Punctuating the English language
Godhra report
The nuclear deal
Vaiko's crossover

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu