Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

123 agreement

The article “The 123 agreement: from bad to worse” (Aug. 25) is a timely and comprehensive reality check of the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement. In their enthusiasm to clinch the deal, the governments of Manmohan Singh and George Bush seem to be turning a Nelson’s eye to the long-term consequences of operationalising it.

By viewing their glasses as half-full rather than half-empty, the two leaders are jeopardising the interests of their nations. If the habitually whimsical U.S. Congress decides to pull out of the deal one fine morning, the IAEA safeguards might turn out to be a veritable albatross for India.

The UPA government should not brush aside the opposition to the deal as mere political posturing by rivals.

Nalini Vijayaraghavan,

Thiruvananthapuram

The manner in which the UPA government is selling the deal raises doubts in my mind.

Are we being told everything or only what the government wants us to know? To the U.S. or, for that matter, any donor nation, everything is business not only in terms of cash but also in terms of strategic interest. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s assessment of Mr. Bush as the friendliest U.S. President is coming in the way of objective evaluation. In foreign relations, the guiding principle should be what Indira Gandhi said — a nation’s strength depends not on what it can borrow but what it has.

I would feel more proud being an independent Indian than being a vassal of a superpower.

Binayak Patro,

Bhilai

The government seems to have negotiated the deal without taking its allies into confidence at every step. Instead of broadly saying whatever is being done is in the interests of the country, it would be better if the Congress cleared the doubts and apprehensions of the Left parties, fact for fact, and proceeded with the deal.

D. Balakrishnan,

Coimbatore

The U.S. is known for violating international norms. It targeted Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the past and is now targeting North Korea and Iran.

Are these not pointers to what is in store for us?

What is the guarantee that the U.S. will not violate the terms of the 123 agreement? Why should India walk into the trap of such an undependable country?

A. Akbar Sheriff,

Tiruchi

The Hyde Act prevails over all matters related to the deal, including the 123 agreement. But Dr. Singh and his advisers continue to downplay this. There is no doubt that Dr. Singh entered into the agreement in good faith. India wants uranium, and the U.S. has plenty of uranium to sell. But the trouble is: the UPA government seems to have placed excessive faith in Mr. Bush’s goodwill. Friendly Mr. Bush and his friendly officials will be gone in six months but the Hyde Act will prevail, and it is quite transparent in stating that it intends to cap India’s nuclear programme. Sentiment and goodwill cannot rule over hard-nosed pragmatism.

R.P. Subramanian,

New Delhi

The executives of both the U.S. and India are lame duck. We should wait for the elections in both the countries before proceeding any further on the deal. Uranium as a fuel is disadvantageous as we have to depend on outside sources. We should redouble our efforts at Kalpakkam to have alternative fuel. We should follow the Koodankulam route to build nuclear plants. Let us hasten slowly. The 123 agreement is written in water.

A.R. Chandrasekaran,

Chennai

The article should serve as an eye-opener on the extent to which the U.S. government has gone to accommodate India’s concerns. We should shed our obsession against the west. The 123 agreement will enable the country to have access to dual use technologies with applications in material science, medical diagnostics and several other fields.

A. Krishnamurthy,

Chennai

It is obvious that the objective of entering into the deal is to get more uranium for producing electricity. It will also enable us to buy material from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. One should not forget that the deal was initiated by the BJP — which is now opposing it — when it was in power. The nation should work towards removing the fear that the deal will compromise our sovereignty.

S. Chinnadurai,

Chennai

If the issue is put to vote, the government is sure to fall. But the country’s collective resolve not to lose the golden opportunity the deal can offer will surely bring the Congress and Mr. Singh back to power in the event of a general election. Perhaps that is what Dr. Singh meant when he referred to Shelley’s famous lines “if winter comes, can spring be far behind?”

T.R.S. Rangan,

Bangalore

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

Stories in this Section

Resurgent terror, wider implications
Calming the markets
Will the triumph turn into a tragedy?
Terrorism and human security
Little time, few options for Musharraf
123 agreement
Unwarranted
Horror in Hyderabad

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