Why US is offering Nuclear know-how to India than it's alliance Pak(on terrorism)? Why protest from Indians ?

Answer 1

The nuke deal controversy shows a chilling distance
between politicians and people


The fracas over the Indo-US Nuclear deal, 123 Agreement and Hyde Act has revealed one chilling fact. It has revealed how easily the elite politics of Jawaharlal Nehru University and the India International Centre - politics that have no resonance with the people - can dominate parliament and government. It has also shown how so called "people's representatives" are bizarrely removed from the people and how a complete non-issue has become a reason to talk of a change of government. The dangers of becoming distant from voters were revealed in the Shining India campaign of the NDA when debates in the CII and the financial papers were seen to be reflective of the entire country. Now there is a similar danger that the UPA government is becoming a prisoner of Lutyensland and confusing gossip sessions in Central Hall and strategic studies seminars with the concerns of Indian citizens.


The crux of the Indo-US nuclear debate is as follows. The Pro-Deal argument is that it opens a door for supply of nuclear fuel without India having had to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. This is truly an enormous concession given the fact that nuclear proliferation is such a dominant US and international concern. If the deal goes through, India will be able to buy nuclear equipment not just from the US but also from France and Russia. The deal will give India electricity, high technology and catapult the economy into high growth. An economy growing at eight and a half per cent needs electricity above all and the deal will bring bijli to Bharat. By way of example, experts cite that almost 80 per cent of France's electricity supply is nuclear. China too has invited bids for four nuclear power plants between 1000 and 1500 MW at Sanmen and Yangjiang.


The Anti Deal argument is that the deal is too expensive, it will make India dependent on the US for fuel supply, and India will become a servant of America which bombs and invades countries at will. In response, the pro-Deal argument says, most Indians support America anyway. The biggest foreign investors in India are American. By the end of the Cold War over a million Indians were resident in the US as opposed to almost zero in the USSR and few Indians perhaps have yet learnt the Cossack dance or the works of Anton Chekhov. The Indo-US deal is only an affirmation of the massive people-to-people contacts that already exist between India and America: government has simply followed where the people have led.


But has any politician or leader bothered to explain what the deal means or does not mean to the people? Has the Prime Minister addressed the country on the deal? Has the leader of the Opposition talked to the people? Does the Indian voter even have a right to know what the deal is? In a television story recently, most MPs confessed they couldn't tell 123 from 420.


The artificial ruckus over the Indo-US nuclear deal is an unfortunate example of completely disconnected politicians and perhaps an equally disconnected media, both entities united in their JNU-IIC mentality. The Left is supposed to uphold "people's issues". If the Indo-US deal is a "people's issue", please can the people be informed why? The Left says it will launchc mass agitations against the deal. What will be the slogan that will galvanise the Indian masses? "You don't send your son to America; let only the bureaucrats kids go?"


Apart from the nuke deal, here are some other issues that perhaps parliamentarians can turn their attention to. Bihar is experiencing the worst floods in 30 years. 3 million have lost their homes. Thousands are living on highways, or under trucks and government relief consists of throwing bags of sattu at those who have lost everything. On the flood debate, parliament could not even get a quorum. In Chennai, the garbage disposal problem is so acute, that residents in certain localities can't sleep at night because of the stink. Urban infrastructure be it in Chennai or Mumbai or Kolkata is almost non existent. Poverty has still not been banished. According to a shocking recent report, 836 million Indians live on a per capita income of less than Rs 20 per day. For 40 million Indians per capita income has improved only from Rs 9 per day to Rs 15 per day.


Here's something else MPs can think about. More than forty died in the twin blasts at Hyderabad last week, many of them students. What did the Hyderabad police do after the blasts? Did they immediately cordon off Lumbini Park and Gokul Chat Bhandar and seal the bomb blast site? No. Did they launch a methodical investigation to track down the culprits? No. What happened instead? The bomb blast site became a tourist spot for visiting VIPs, bystanders and the media. VIPs from YSR Reddy to Jana Reddy to LK Advani tripped over bits of crucial forensic evidence, roaring, "Bring back POTA" or "the HUJI is to blame!" A dog was seen sniffing at blood. Camerapersons were seen dashing about.


Is this not just a little bit ridiculous? When the London terror threat occurred this year, what did we see? Did we see the British Prime Minister grandstanding at the bomb blast site screaming out a political speech about how Pakistan has hatched the plot? What's the first thing we see about bomb blast sites in London and New York? We see yellow police tape cordoning off the evidence. Media and VIPs are strictly forbidden. The police go about methodically tracking evidence. By contrast, India has lost the highest number of lives to terrorism (after Iraq), over three thousand Indians have died since 2004 in terrorist attacks and India's police are still fire-fighting on terrorism. Bringing back POTA or blaming the ISI are only highly visible rhetorical flourishes, what is needed instead are substantive steps and a professional realization that the 21st century terrorist is winning, leaving India's 19th century police force to scratch their heads. Do the MPs care?


The blame immediately shifts to the media-both print and electronic. It's the media that's responsible. The media does not show floods, the media does not show poverty, the media sensationalizes blasts; the media is luring politicians to become trapped into a hall of mirrors where reality doesn't matter. Is this true?


21st century media like all technology is an amoral being; its avalanche of images is anarchic. Floods, parties, police brutality, fashion, riots, food, starvation, murder, justice, cocktails, nuclear debates, media provides the democratic noise of everything Indian, the media caters to all tastes. The media plays its role, politicians must play theirs. It is unfair to blame the media for the politicians own lack of self belief and confidence to remain committed to the needs of voters. That a JNU-IIC debate could so completely dominate national politics over the past few weeks even setting off a chain of events predicting the government's fall, is only a little short of a farce. The in-house elitist chatter about the Hyde Act, 123 Agreement at a time of floods, collapse of urban infrastructure, bomb blasts and a horrifying poverty report reveals a grim truth: that India's powerful are closet-monarchists whose contempt and scorn for the people is so deep seated that they prefer to live in fortresses from where the public can barely be seen.

Answer 2

First we have to understand what they are offering. They are only offering the nuclear fuel for power sector. Why are they offering. They are in need of money. India can survive without nuclear power. Then we have to find other means to fulfill the power gap. There will not be any significant change in India. The policy is to be opposed whether it is good or bad.

Answer 3

Since there are a lot of problems with Chinese industries, U.S. has to move to India. For industries, energy is a definite requirement. With experience in China, Nuclear is a good choice because it is "greener"- less pollution.

Some analysts would say that India can help U.S. to limit China. However, the communcial cooperation between China and India is in fact much deeper. Perhaps, it is more about economic gain for U.S. selling Nuclear technology to India. U.S. has to get more money to pay its mortgage.

India also need money. Reselling those technology to China can stablize the economy in India and U.S.

Answer 4

I think that such questions only give rise to these tensions you are talking about, there is no need to provoke on this issue as the current Pakistani issue is related to the dictatorship and not nuclear weapons or such.

Answer 5

There's a right way and, a wrong way to build things. Chernobyl is one example, the wrong way.

Isn't it better we help those that already have nuclear power and do it the right way, then let them stumble along and really screw things up?

Answer 6

that is not what U want