Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

The nuclear debate

I see no inconsistency between the editorials of Aug. 20 (“Put the nuclear deal on hold”) and Aug. 6 (“A sound and honourable 123”). The Aug. 6 editorial encapsulates the vital terms of the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal and concludes that it is sound and honourable. Now, in the wake of widespread opposition and the fact that a majority in Parliament is opposed to the deal, the Aug. 20 editorial says it should be put on hold leaving the important issues open for discussion. There is no change of stance.

V.K. Sathyavan Nair,
Kottayam

The editorial (Aug. 20) has rightly advocated the need to take a re-look at the deal. The onerous clauses in the 123 agreement cannot be overlooked. They should be read along with the Hyde Act. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would do well to address all the issues in Parliament. Given the opposition to the deal, he should defer its operationalisation until a national consensus is arrived at.

A.S. Farida,
Kancheepuram

The editorial was timely and to the point. India is not going to gain much from the deal. Dr. Singh should bear in mind the famous words of Thomas Carlyle: “Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand.” It may be more worthwhile to explore wind energy.

C.N. Balasubramanian,
Tiruchi

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have a big role in determining the policies and programmes of the government. But it is expected of the ruling dispensation to evolve the largest possible consensus in Parliament on any issue. Particularly when the government of the day is entering into a deal of great import with far-reaching consequences, it becomes all the more necessary for it to make all-out efforts to be transparent without putting any spin on the facts.

Shahabuddin Nadeem,
Bangalore

The Left parties have approached the issue with a great deal of responsibility. Instead of issuing an ultimatum to the government, they have chosen to communicate their known position on the 123 agreement. What they have demanded — a full-fledged debate on the agreement and the Hyde Act — should have actually found a place in the government’s business agenda.

N. Sekar,
Salem

Although the Prime Minister and senior bureaucrats were aware from the beginning that the deal is a sensitive issue that affects the sovereignty and interests of the nation, they did not take the opposition parties or even the country’s nuclear establishment into confidence during the negotiations. After painting itself into a corner, the Congress is resorting to emotional blackmail and branding all those opposed to the deal unpatriotic.

V.V.S. Mani,
Bangalore

The U.S. has clarified that if India conducts a nuclear test, all nuclear cooperation will end and all material will have to be returned. The nation cannot mortgage its interests by accepting the conditions imposed by the U.S. In view of the raging controversy, it is desirable to get Parliament’s approval before operationalising the deal.

K.V. Seetharamaiah,
Hassan

Democracy, socialism, secularism, and non-alignment were the hallmarks of our policies during the Nehruvian era. We have moved far away from socialism in the name of globalisation, secularism is gasping for breath under the weight of Hindutva, and our independent foreign policy is about to be tied to the apron strings of the U.S.

Ever since Pearl Harbour, America has not fought any war on its soil thus saving its cities and people. It chooses Afro-Asian countries as the dumping ground for its outdated weapons and testing ground for new conventional weapons. Why should we walk into the American trap?

Ali Akhtar Khan,
Aligarh

The view that George Bush is the most India-friendly President should be discounted. He might have been very persuasive but going by his record it is clear that he has only the interests of the American nuclear lobby in mind and wants to widen America’s sphere of influence. By holding the deal in abeyance till a new President is elected, India will not lose anything. It is apparent that the Hyde Act contradicts the 123 agreement. The Americans have perhaps assured Dr. Singh that they will go easy on the provisions of the Act. But unless India has something in writing to the effect that the 123 agreement will override the Hyde Act, the Damocles’ sword will always hang over its head.

Divakara K. Varma,
Toronto, Ontario

The energy security that Dr. Singh is talking about can be built using hydel and thermal power. Nuclear plants are prone to risk, proof of which were the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is shuddering to think of what could happen if a similar accident were to occur in India. It is better to limit our nuclear facilities to the scale and ability of our indigenous programme rather than expand it at a hectic pace and at a high cost.

S. Kamat,
Bardez

Never before has there been such a heated debate on any foreign policy issue. It is common knowledge that the U.S. has acted as a big brother in its dealings with other nations. But the chances of its dominating India are slim. India has always stood forth as a nation that does not succumb to any external pressure. It can be hoped that it will continue to follow an independent foreign policy. However, there is no question that the government must move cautiously with regard to the implementation of the deal.

Sonali Sarin,
Mathura

Our Constitution framers would not have envisaged a situation in which a person can become Prime Minister with the help of different parties with different ideologies. Which is perhaps why they did not provide for voting on a foreign treaty in Parliament. But now the position is different. In future, we may have a coalition in which the Prime Minister’s party may not have more than 20 MPs. Now is therefore the time for us to decide whether to treat democracy, majority, Constitution, and numbers as just words or see the spirit behind them. We should not fool ourselves that we live in a democracy, where technically a person with the support of even one MP can become Prime Minister and enter into agreements with other nations.

A. Ananthakrishnan,
Chennai

The impasse over the nuclear deal is unfortunate. The country desperately needs more energy to meet the demand from domestic users and industry. Nuclear power is favoured for several reasons and the U.S.’ offer of continuous nuclear fuel supply has been accepted in the nation’s interest. Doubts over the deal’s possible impact on our sovereignty have been addressed.

N. Hariharan,
Coimbatore

India’s energy requirement will increase in tune with the development needs. Nuclear fuel is sure to play a big role in achieving energy security. Dr. Singh has negotiated the deal in a sound and honourable way. It is in the national interest that the 123 agreement be implemented with some fine-tuning. It is well nigh impossible to import nuclear fuel without some safeguards. It will be good if the political parties see reason and act accordingly.

V.K. Balakrishnan,
Chennai

India has got the best nuclear deal possible. The 123 agreement takes care of the promises made by the Prime Minister in Parliament. The deal will bring to an end the nuclear apartheid that came into effect in 1974. It is the greatest post-Independence achievement of India in the field of foreign relations, and the biggest feather in the cap of the Congress government.

Shailesh Kumar,
Bangalore

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

Stories in this Section

Restoration of justice
Producing a synthetic bacterium
Looking beyond ballot-box democracy
The nuclear deal: key issues and political circumstances
Security at what cost?
Guantanamo in Germany
Corrections and clarifications
The nuclear debate
“Ignorance of software piracy can no longer be excused”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu