Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Non-deal with Russia

I read N. Ram’s article, ‘Explaining the non-deal with Russia’ (Nov. 30). As one who is fully aware of the past history of the Koodankulam agreement as an insider, I must say the article has analysed the issue excellently. Before the final agreement for the two reactors at Koodankulam was signed, I remember the Russians telling me they were under intense pressure to abort it. However they did not budge, saying this was covered under the 1988 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed before the revised Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines were put in place. I don’t think this IGA could have been extended to include additional reactors in view of the enormous changes that have taken place since 1988. It is strange that after finalising the text of a fresh IGA for four additional reactors contingent on fixing an appropriate safeguards arrangement with the IAEA and securing amendments to NSG guidelines, the government has refrained from signing even though the Russians were prepared. It is obvious that the U.S. may have played a role or our government does not wish to displease the U.S. at this juncture. So much for our professed independent foreign policy decisions!

A.N. Prasad,

As history is witness to Russia being a steadfast ally of independent India, one cannot but echo the concerns raised by the article. Although the MoI signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Vladimir Putin in January was not accompanied by the fanfare witnessed when the joint statement on the Indo-U.S. agreement for civil nuclear cooperation was released, there were hopes that even if the Indo-U.S. deal fell through, India could manage to alleviate its acute energy crisis by falling back upon the proposed four Russian 1,000 MWe reactors and fuel for the Koodankulam project. As Mr. Ram reasons, unlike the U.S. domestic laws that tend to reduce America’s less powerful partners into becoming its client states in the name of bilateral cooperation, cooperation with Russia has always been based on mutual trust. One hopes Dr. Singh will pursue the matter with Russia and sign the deal at the earliest.

Nalini Vijayaraghavan,

One wonders how the Prime Minister could have missed the opportunity to ink the deal with Russia especially when it provides fuel for the lifetime of the reactors and contains little unpalatable constraints.

B. Jayanna Krupakar,

I am disappointed with the government’s endeavour to facilitate a unipolar world by following a pseudo non-alignment foreign policy. The UPA’s self-inflicted pan-Americanism will bequeath to its successors a climate of shrunken global economic opportunities.

Shubha Gupta,

One fails to understand why the intergovernmental nuclear agreement was not signed with Russia even though it is much less restrictive than the Hyde Act. The pretext given for not signing the deal is difficult to believe. Such critical issues should be made clear.

Anadi Mitra,

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

Stories in this Section

Musharraf’s democracy
Who needs Islamophobes?
Russia seeks to reassert itself on the world stage
Behind the Adivasi unrest in Assam
Climate Change –should India change?
Prabakaran’s plaint
Non-deal with Russia
AIIMS chief’s removal
Welcome initiative

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