The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the "Hyde Act", is the legal framework for a bilateral pact between the US and India, under which the U.S. will provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency-safeguards on civilian Indian reactors. This act provides the legal basis for a 123 Agreement with India. The 123 agreement requires separate U.S. congressional approval and Indian cabinet approval and will define the exact terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation.
So today Independent views will analyze the points creating controversies in this agreement..and wat's the hidden agenda behind it...
United States - A country which has ample of resources still it survives mainly on taxes and the arms deal. Indian subcontinent was always a disturbed zone..so America always had a buyer for its arsenal in this subcontinent..that's Pakistan...and always India was under its scanner..bjut with advent of Pervez Musharraf and successful ongoing talks regarding solving of bilateral issues between India and Pakistan..it virtually stopped the arms race..though still the both countries are the largest arms importer...but there was another problem rising on the horizon and that's China..and America wanted an ally in this subcontinent to have a check..so first they blew up Afghanistan..and set an nearby NATO command base and then it chose Pakistan..who was in eager demand of recognition and made it a NATO ally..but Indian economy sudden got a boom and India started to have ties wid gulf and other countries and started to expand it's arsenal of warcrafts..and America wanted to be on that purchase table of billion dollars arms sale..so America tapped on the weak point of India..yeah the energy crisis and ongoing Nuclear technology.. so it floated a new agreement bypassing NPT (Non- proliferation Treaty) and NSG (Nuclear suppliers group) to make India it's ally..
123 agreement has it multi role advantages for US..of which Independent views is gonna give you touch of few of that..
1) It will have direct access to India's nuclear technology which is hidden and under wraps coz India is no signatory of the NPT and IAEA
2) Stopping the enrichment program and thus indirectly halting India's military Nuclear Program
3) Booking a seat in Major Arms deal.
4) Have a check on China by making India a superpower and thus concentrating Chinese attention to India
5) Keep a check on Tehran - New Delhi ties.
But US is facing a problem to convince the congress coz supporting India's Nuclear program will make India a credible threat coz of it's foreign policy..as India is not any member of any allied group and has ties with most of the countries and they fear leaking of nuclear technology.
India - But in India..it's not the multirole advantage US is getting, but the problem is little bit different..
India has a fragile political system due to the multi-party democracy...so one of the allies , the left front of ruling coalition has a problem with the Nuclear deal and rest of the opposition is not agreeing coz it's their duty not to agree to the government..as they are the opposition and they jus get the literal meaning of it..
So what's the problem with Leftist...
They had made the enrichment issue their top agenda..that US in return wants India not to enrich the spent fuel which can be used as fuel for Nuclear Bomb..
But today Independent Views will give u an insight of the problem..
Actually left is fearing that making US as an ally will make India, a threat for Middle east countries or the gulf region. It is not that the fear that oil will be stopped..but CPI(M) is ruling party in Kerala...and a big junk of the Keralite population has their folks working in Iran and middle east, which the gulf countries have made clear that they wud make them all return back to India...So CPI(M) in Kerala knows that if the people are thrown out of the gulf countries ..they will throw away the government in Kerala..and will make CPI(M) a minor party..so they started the furore to stop India from signing in the Nuclear Deal, which may had checked the ongoing energy crisis in India..
So now ..Independent Views believe that reader's are abreast of the political and economic scenario regarding the Nuclear deal. Any question or criticism will be answered and adding up of views will be highly appreciated.
13 years ago
12 Views:
Would like to have your views on Mr. Bush's remark that Indian Middle class is the reason for rising prizes.
Any way this nuclear deal thing is debatable,India should go for ita as it will solve major power/energy problems. I think, India should develop indegenous technology like they demonstrated by launch of 10 staellites in space and the pokhran test
Mam...
I will soon write about it...coz i havnt researched much abt the ques..and here I always present facts n then my opinions...
Mam
India has nuclear technology..but it lack nuclear fuel and thorium breeder and making them fuel grade is tough task and India is slowly going toward it...so i fink soon the problem will be solved by us..but by then we need fuel desperately..our oil reserve is finishing....
ya, sourish, this is what I wanted to point out, that India needs nuclear energy for power generation. I didn't write about fuel, as I was not very sure, whether it was uranium or thorium. That's why I wrote that it should go for indiginous technology, where it should search for alternatives for which it doesn't have tod depend on US. I don't remember now, but I had read long back about an element which is in abundance in India and uranium/thorium could be extracted from it, but I am sorry, I have forgotten totally. I am in favour of India going nuclear
yeah mam
beachees of kerala has abundance of thorium..but the technology to process this fuel and a suitable reactor for that..India definitely is lacking...
Whew!!! I am going to read this again. I feel totally ashamed of my ignorance now :|
lol
nuffin to worry.. ppl r there to take care of this :P
u can go n read my other blogs :P
for fultoo entertainment :P
I may sound naive and a lil late but souresh,
i think instead of going for the nuclear deal we should find safer alternatives because not even the setup is expensive but also its maintenance requires a lot of resources. Secondly security wise ..our neighbors are not that friendly ...which makes it more risky for the import of radioactive materials ... lately it takes a lot of efforts to take care of the residual considering its hazards...I suggest bio-fuel is a better alternative ,we can also consider researching on the use of solar energy...Lately more and more we try using renewable resources more we give life to our earth.
...w8in 4 your say...
I may sound naive and a lil late but souresh,
Bhai u were not a lil naive in it..but only in my name it's Sourish :P
i think instead of going for the nuclear deal we should find safer alternatives because not even the setup is expensive but also its maintenance requires a lot of resources.
Yeah.. u r true in it but actualy enrgy coming ouuta this is way higher than the expenditure
Secondly security wise ..our neighbors are not that friendly ...which makes it more risky for the import of radioactive materials
"
security concerns are there..but as it is ver confedential..and these are highly secured consignments..
... lately it takes a lot of efforts to take care of the residual considering its hazards...I suggest bio-fuel is a better alternative ,we can also consider researching on the use of solar energy...Lately more and more we try using renewable resources more we give life to our earth.
...w8in 4 your say...
You are absolutely correct..but alternative fuel are still costly and in research..so we can't help its pace..and we need to do sumthing abt the ebergy needs now and that too very fast.. :)
nd nuclear energy is comparitively safe alternate as much protective environment for disposal is there..
I think it was Salman Rushdie who said something like
"freedom of expression comes with the freedom to offend others. "
but ofcourse.
mystic rose
so if we go by the definition of Rushdie then it can be concluded that democracy should be a tyranny..
because if we don't express and they continue to abuse our freedom..then it is no less than a democratic dictatorship....
No, just know that there are always people who misuse their rights. encroach on others'. rights come with civic sense. Ideally everyone will be wise and compassionate enough to live and let live. IDEALLY.
But this, what you said about curtailing freedom of expression IS tyranny. outdated, paranoid, inane.
yeah the burning example is the gandhi's new gen...have u heard his dialogues...they were such intimidating....
wat u r saying I agree completely to it...but for that a legal system should be there to impose the limitation...not lawsuits...
I have high hope from this election..I hope people do choose some good leaders
Post a Comment