March 03, 2006

India-US Nuclear deal , rejoinders to Leftists and opponents

India-US Nuclear deal , rejoinders to Leftists and opponents

by Anonymous everestpeak

1. The usa with tactful and strategic thinking fooled the south block mandarins by striping the closely guarded secret 'OPERATIONCHANAKYA which the Indian nuclear community has build indigenously by making it opened to safeguards nude).

Comment : The technology which we use that is closely guarded is in the FBR. And the FBR are not part of the deal. The PHWR are pretty much similar to the others in world belonging to the era of 60s and 70s. Also, we lack the technology to build 1000MW reactors.
All the 5 NPT states - have that capability.

2. The deal gave a new logic to the nations like china and other non NPT nations to get technology w/t signing the treaty ,as we are seeing Musharraf already gave a statement regarding this.

Comment : Mushraaf - giving a statement is not the end of NPT. Pakistan always was to get equated with India - be it in technology or any other field. We should not run our business based on what Pakistan or rather others say. We should think of our interests first. And our main interest is to sustain our growth and provide enough energy security to sustain it.

3. The Indian Government doesn't even think once that usa is giving the uranium to run the reactor ,not the technology but the propaganda is that usa is giving the tech ,really usa is unaware of the developments of Indian nuclear establishments so this deal has given them to take the whole thing into there hands.

Comment : The USA not only gives us the Uranium but also builds the reactors. The building is done by companies. We need go to USA based companies - we can ask Russia or France to help us build one. At the time of building we usually have ToT or joint collaboration so that we can learn the process. We have carefully avoided the "safeguard perpetuity" clause and made it conditional on sustained fuel supplies. Also, there is no point India building PHW reactors as we do not have Uranium deposits to sustain them. The best bet for India in FBR which depend on Thorium as fuel. And India has abundance of Thorium deposits.

By all estimations....FBR should be commercially viable in next 20 years. As a pilot we already have 2 reactors producing power from FBR and 2 more under constructions. And these do not come under safeguards.
Recall that USA and host of countries have stopped research on FBR, but we have continued on it. And FBR is out of safeguards. Hence no problem there.

4. The India should also have asked to give the military technology concerning to nuclear weapons ,what for this deal we r better than usa in civilian side so atleast know India should start to get some military technology to improve its warhead technology.

Comment : Our civilian technology is bit lacking behind since we cannot build 1000MW reactors. We were planning to ask Russia to help us build one.

Military Nuclear technology would be a non-starter.

5. The govt of India headed by manmohan is thinking that it has done great job which nobody has done that. yes its true it gave the key to the usa which no pm has done that .manmohan reality and his immature mind is been exposed by this deal which will show bad results def to India in coming time.

Comment : I have to disagree with you on this. But, who knows how time will turn out. Either way, the results of this pact will be seen only after 6 to 7 years.

6. If at all usa once stops the give the fuel what next for India ,market is there no doubt but for that market why to go usa .we will go to IAEA and ask for safe guards and take the fuel from France or any country .
Comment : NPT is a close club. Why France, even Russia has said no for us. They said. only after USA-India deal happens they can talk about nuclear co-operation.

7 Aatleast to protect our strategic edge India should keep the upcoming nuclear projects under military side to get the enough fuel for warheads.

Comment : That's why we have the FBR out of the safeguards.

8. Special provision should also be laid in the deal that India whenever wants to change the status of civilian into nuclear ,it can do it w/t any objection.
Comment : This comes under when the fuel supply stops. Also, the PWHR does not help us much since the plutonium produced is not much. Where as the FBR use Thorium and the net result of Thorium is plutonium which is weapons grade. Thus making a civil to military does not give us much benefit.

9. The NSA of India is thinking as if he is the aparachanakya who run the operation successfully, but if tomorrow any misadventure happens and India faces tough side on nukes he will be severely punished by 100 crore Indians.

Comment : Time will tell. But I believe it was job well done. Remember this process was started by Brijesh Mishra when the Vajpai govt. was in power. This whole process was done over 2 govts. Either way, Manmohan played the cards deftly - by highlight the objections of Dr. Anil Kakodkar, which was unheard in Indian Govt.

March 02, 2006

Agenda for internal security

The first tattva
By Varun Gandhi

Over the past millennium, India has been continuously invaded and her cultural representations devastated. Indians at the time did not look beyond their immediate neighbourhood and failed to augment their military strength. They had an insular domestic policy, and did not review military developments and social changes occurring beyond their horizon.

Modern India stands tall among the world’s great nations, but the thousand years old mentality of military nonchalance continues to influence the non-violent Indian mind. On the one hand, Pakistan spends nearly five per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence and China nearly $ 70 billion (Rs 308 lakh crore), while India on the other hand spends a conservative 2.9 per cent of her GDP or $ 18.86 billion (Rs 83,000 crore). The Indian reluctance to aggressively build-up military strength has haunted India in the past millennium, and will continue to haunt her in the new one as well, if India’s policies do not change.

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu, the Chinese General considers security preparedness to be of vital importance to the state. He views it as a matter of life and death for the state, an important subject of inquiry which cannot be neglected. India is surrounded by nations that have a past history of aggression against her. They have seized her territories, continue to aggressively arm and rapidly modernise their armies. Even though relations may improve, nonetheless the military arming goes on unabated. A non-violent India cannot afford to sit back quietly and remain a mute spectator. India should confront these scenarios, not from the docile platform of the past 50 to 60 years, but from a new dominant stage of her own making. India needs a dynamic agenda for her national security. An agenda that is bi-focused to take care of India’s immediate needs, yet cater to a far focussed vision. It should be strategic and dominant by nature.

In a 1909 essay titled, “The place of India in the Empire”, the former British Viceroy, Lord Curzon of Kedleston writes, “It is obvious, indeed that the master of India, must, under modern conditions, be the greatest power in the Asiatic Continent, and therefore, it may be added, in the world. The central portion of India, its magnificent resources, its teeming multitude of men, its great trading harbours, its reserve of military strength, supplying an army always in a high state of efficiency, and capable of being hurled at a moment’s notice upon any point either of Asia or Africa. All these are assets of precious value. On the West, India must exercise a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan. On the North, it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the North-East and East it can exert great pressure upon China, and it is one of the guardians of the autonomous existence of Suam. On the high seas it commands the routes to Australia, and to the China Sea.” Of course, it was in British India’s interest to arm India militarily to protect their trading routes. Nonetheless, this statement reflects upon the dream of patriotic Indians, who have long desired a more assertive India. However, this legacy of imperialist Anglo-Saxon tradition was not followed by an Independent India believing in the principles of non-violence and non-alignment.

The failure of India in creating a strategic culture was suited to her extraordinary influence in her neighbourhood, but now a new agenda for the 21st century is required. India must step out of her self-imposed limitations arising out of post-Partition geography, and define her role prominently in her neighbourhood. The rise of India in this century is intricately linked to various factors that include her economic development, social stability, fiscal expansion towards infrastructural development, raising the human development index of her masses, and importantly increasing her security preparedness.

I would divide India’s security agenda into five basic elements—the panch-tattvas. They are internal security, external security, dominance and missile arsenal, border security, and intelligence gathering. The most potent attack is an internal attack that weakens the State from within. For an internally weakened State, external aggression is an expected reality. India needs to be strengthened from within. Therefore internal security becomes our first tattva.

The greatest threats to India’s internal security are from the rise of extremism propagated by agencies across our borders, the spread of the Naxalites, the demographic morphing of India’s North-East by illegal migrants from Bangladesh, deterioration of our urban police force, estrangement of the public from the police due to police cruelties, and the increase in organised crimes. The attack on the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore, the bomb-blasts in Mumbai’s Gateway of India, in Delhi’s markets, and the attack on Indian Parliament highlight a nefarious agenda. What can India do to prevent these occurrences? Some would say better intelligence gathering. But no amount of intelligence gathering saved the US from 9/11, or Israel from the suicide attacks. Therefore, India must evolve a strategy of immediate counter response, everytime Indian interests or citizens are targetted.

February 26, 2006

Sonia’s message

Delhi has always taken care that no regional leader or party becomes
strong in India's politics, particularly Maharashtra of which Nehru had a
great phobia. Because Maharashtra and Mumbai was the cradle of freedom
movement and in the past at least, it was the most politically aware

Title: Sonia’s message
Author: Editor
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: February 24, 2006

Maharashtra has been ruled by the Congress party since independence,
except for a term when the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance was in power for four
and a half years. Congress workers describe Maharashtra as a ‘loyal’
state. When the Janata Wave was sweeping the north to the decimation of
the Congress, it was Maharashtra to stop the onslaught and stand behind
the Congress and Indira Gandhi in 1977. But most leaders from
Maharashtra do not feel comfortable with Delhi.

Irrespective of the post they occupy, these leaders are perennially
haunted by some phobia, including the legendary Y.B.Chavan. On their part,
top leaders of the Congress party ensure that no state-level
functionary becomes too powerful to stand up to the high command.
AICC president Sonia Gandhi’s current tour of Maharashtra would be
remembered for a variety of reasons. But true to this Congress tradition,
she has sent out conflicting signals. Sonia sidestepped an invitation to
visit Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh’s Latur constituency but made it
a point to attend rallies organised by former State Congress president
Govindrao Adik and revenue minister Narayan Rane in their pockets of

Needless to say, both Adik and Rane are chief ministerial aspirants.
Deshmukh had to praise them, though he paid them left-handed compliments.
Sonia declared in Rane’s presence that he would have to work under
Deshmukh. At the same time, she asked Rane to strengthen the Congress party
in his Konkan region.

Expectedly, Sonia attacked the NCP and the Shiv Sena, too. If a lay
person tries to find a coherence meaning out of all these statements made
over a matter of 36 hours, he would be at a loss to understand what
Sonia actually meant. But that is politics. Every statement by a political
leader is open to interpretation in a number of ways.

Sonia is no exception to the rule. If Deshmukh feels he is becoming too
strong, Rane is waiting in the wings to warn him. Rane becomes too
ambitious, there are many to remind him that he would have to work under
Deshmukh. At the same time, Adik would lose no opportunity to start a
tirade against Deshmukh. If he does so, the chief minister would be
powerless to stop him because Adik has been blessed with Sonia’s presence.
All this rigmarole would continue and the Congress high command would
silently watch the farce, without making an attempt to stop either side.
This has been experienced time and again. Deshmukh was removed from
chief ministership in 2003. He continued to say thereafter that he did not
know the reason why he was asked to put in his papers. When he returned
to the helm of affairs after the assembly elections in 2004, he was as
surprised to don the mantle as most others. Again, he did not know why
he was chosen.

However, he made one correction. Deshmukh now does not forget to
declare his loyalty to Sonia. He does it with alacrity. That he is a survivor
was proved when he managed to continue even after his government was
taken to task for the inaction in the face of the 26/7 deluge last year.
It is over six months now but no concrete step has been taken, as was
observed by the high court the other day, to tackle the potential threat
from the Mithi river. Farmers continue to take their own lives due to
mounting debts. The state has been reeling under load-shedding. Water is
already scarce in many areas. Only two days ago, a youth was killed in
Amaravati when police opened fire on a group of agitators who were
demanding water. Incidence of malnutrition and atrocities against women
have been rising constantly.

Of course, Maharashtra is not alone to witness such tragic
developments. But considering that it was a prime state just a decade ago, one
shudders the prospects it is facing. It would be unfair to blame Deshmukh
for all the ills that have gripped the state. At the same time, he can’t
shirk from the responsibility as leader of the team. Time and again,
Deshmukh has declared loftily that he would regain Maharashtra’s lost
glory. Unfortunately, little has been achieved.

Given the present culture of political parties, Sonia can’t be expected
to be too concerned about all these factors. Her priority, and
justifiably so, is to expand the mass base of her party. She has bestowed power
on leaders like Deshmukh. It is now their job to strengthen the
Congress in their respective areas. Sonia made a cursory reference to the
promises given to the people in the party manifesto at the time of the
election and emphasised that they need to be translated into reality.
Though Sonia did not say so, she has amply conveyed that if a leader
proves inadequate to discharge the task she has assigned to him, the
responsibility would fall on somebody else. At the same time, she has made
it clear to ambitious elements like Rane and Adik that running state is
no easy job. That is Sonia’s message!

RSS demands scrapping of Sachar committee


Nagpur, Feb 26: The RSS today demanded scrapping of the Justice (retd) Rajender Sachar Committee forthwith and dubbed the move as "height of appeasement of Muslims."

On the third and final day of its meeting here, the Akhil Bhartiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) of the Sangh passed a resolution asking the Centre to disband the Sachar panel which it felt was posing a threat to country`s unity, integrity and true secularism.

The Sabha also opposed all moves to give minorities reservations on the basis of religion, RSS spokesman Ram Madhav, told reporters on sidelines of the concluding session of Sabha.

RSS will not allow another partition of country on basis of religion, Madhav said adding, the Sachar Committee was asked to identify the states, regions, districts and blocks where there was dominant Muslim population.

"Will this not push the country towards another partition, because precisely the same was the basis of 1947 partition," the resolution said.

It is very unfortunate that the committee even resorted to most dangerous move of dividing the armed forces on religious lines by seeking a headcount of Muslims. The government backtracked on the whole issue because of the firm stand taken by present and past top officials of armed forces, Madhav claimed.

RSS abolishes post of spokesperson

The RSS today decided to discontinue the post of spokesman of the organisation, sources said.

No reason was ascribed for the decision.

The post was created when RSS ideologue M G Vaidya was appointed spokesman.

He was succeeded by Ram Madhav who has been holding the post till today.

While Madhav was inducted in the national executive, Vaidya continued to be a permanent invitee in the executive, the sources added.

The new team announced by general secretary of RSS, Mohan Bhagwat at the end of three-day Akhil Bhartiya Pratinidhi Sabha include Madandas (Mum), Bhaiyyaji Joshi and Suresh Soni (both Delhi) will be Sahasarkarvayh.

Sureshrao Ketkar has been nominated as new Pracharak Pramukh, the post previously held by veteran H V Sheshadri who died sometime back, sources added.

Bureau Report



by B. Raman

The strengthening of physical security measures to prevent possible terrorist strikes, particularly by Al Qaeda and the International Islamic Front (IIF), against means of public transport such as civil aviation, ports and shipping services and underground and other railway stations has been one of the important homeland security measures taken by the US and other countries in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist strikes by Al Qaeda in the US homeland. The successful terrorist strikes by suspected Al Qaeda elements in Madrid in March 2004, and in London in July last year underlined the importance of such measures and the inadequacy of physical security relating to public transport.

2. Among the strengthened physical security measures relating to ports and shipping services undertaken all over the world are the following:

Physical security of ports and their installations, including oil storage tanks etc.

Physical security of ships, oil tankers etc berthed at ports.

Physical security of containers, particularly to prevent the clandestine use of containers for smuggling in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) material and causing their explosion after the containers reach a port.
Physical security of ships, oil tankers etc in the high seas and in maritime choke points such as the Malacca Straits.

3. To be able to successfully stage a terrorist strike against maritime targets such as those mentioned above, the terrorists would need information regarding ports and their installations, the personnel employed on different duties, the details of the physical security measures and the movement of ships, oil/gas tankers, container traffic etc. The collection of such information would be facilitated by the presence of sleeper cells in the ports and the sea-going vessels.

4. To be able to create such sleeper cells, the terrorists will have to penetrate the staff of the port and shipping services---either at the time of the recruitment of new staff or by winning over those already recruited and in service. The only effective way of preventing this is through a thorough security vetting of the new recruits as well as periodic in-service vetting of those already employed. Such vetting is more effective when the port services are run by indigenous companies than when they are run by foreign companies. Domestic security agencies will be able to ensure a security vetting of the staff more thoroughly in the case of indigenous companies than foreign companies.

5. When foreign companies are allowed to run port services, the security vetting of their staff is likely to be unsatisfactory and this could be exploited by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations to set up sleeper cells in ports targeted by them. The running of port and airport services by foreign companies has, therefore, an element of inherent risk, which adds to their vulnerability. While the privatisation of port and airport services need not necessarily weaken physical security, the handing over of responsibilities for the running of these services to foreign companies can dilute it. This would be particularly so if the foreign company concerned comes from a country, whose intelligence and security agencies are not particularly known for their alertness and competence.

6. One should not, therefore, be surprised by the controversy and alarm in the US----in the Congress and outside--- over the acquisition of the Peninsular and Oriental, a British company, by the Dubai Ports World (DPW), a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The P&O is presently responsible for commercial operations at the US ports of Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia. Its acquisition by the DPW and the proposed transfer of its responsibilities in the US ports mentioned above to the DPW have caused concern that if the DPW is allowed to run the port services this could weaken the security architecture of these ports at a time when Osama bin Laden has threatened another terrorist strike by Al Qaeda in the US homeland.

7. The Bush Administration has sought to justify the proposed entrustment of these responsibilities to the DPW on the following grounds:

The DPW would be running only the commercial services at these ports and would have no responsibility for physical security, which would continue to be in the hands of US companies/agencies.

The UAE Government has been a time-tested ally of the US in the Gulf region and has been co-operating with the US in its war against terrorism.
Not to allow the DPW to run these services would amount to distrusting it just because it is owned by an Arab Government. Such distrust would be counter-productive at a time when the US needs strong allies in the Islamic world.

8. Those opposed to the DPW taking over these responsibilities have been highlighting the likelihood of a weakening of port security as a result of this. In justification of their misgivings and fears, they have been citing the close relations in the past of the UAE Government with the Taliban before 9/11, the evidence that some of the funds used by Al Qaeda for the 9/11 terrorist strikes had allegedly been transmitted through Dubai-based banks and the use of Dubai by Dr. A Q. Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, as a meeting and trans-shipment point for the clandestine proliferation of military-capable nuclear equipment to Iran and Libya without being detected by the UAE authorities.

9. While the UAE Government might be viewed by the US Government as a sincere ally in the war against terrorism, the following worrisome factors have not received the attention they deserve in the debate in the US on this subject:

Dubai is an important hub of hawala money transactions in the Gulf area. The informal money transfers through the hawala method without leaving any paper trail are used by heroin smugglers and other international criminal mafia groups for money-laundering and terrorist groups for funding their operations.

Dubai has always been a safe haven for the trans-national criminal mafia gangs of South Asia, which invest their ill-gotten wealth in the real estate and other business activities in the UAE. For many years, the trans-national criminal gang of Dawood Ibrahim used to operate from Dubai, without the UAE authorities taking any action against him and his gang members.

The explosions in Mumbai (Bombay) in March 1993, organised by Dawood Ibrahim and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which killed about 250 innocent civilians, were orchestrated by Dawood and the ISI from Dubai. The terrorists, who participated in the operations at Mumbai, were first taken to Dubai and from there to Pakistan on the basis of plain paper visas issued by the ISI officer posted in the Pakistani Consulate in Dubai. The ISI got them trained in the training camps of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), a founding member of bin Laden's IIF, and then sent them back to Mumbai via Dubai. The HUM was designated by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation under a 1996 law in October 1997. The explosives used in the Mumbai terrorist strikes were sent by the ISI to Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai, who had them clandestinely sent to Mumbai in his boats. The investigation by the Mumbai Police into the explosions brought out the details of the use of Dubai by the ISI and Dawood Ibrahim for organising the terrorist strikes. The airport authorities of Dubai had helped the terrorists to travel to Pakistan for clandestine training with plain paper visas without any entry in their Indian passports regarding their clandestine travel to and from Pakistan. The UAE authorities never alerted India to the activities of this gang directed against India from the UAE territory. After the explosions, they pressurised Dawood Ibrahim to leave Dubai, but did not arrest him and hand him over to India for facing trial. He shifted to Karachi, from where he has been operating now. He and his cohorts frequently visit Dubai from Karachi in connection with their smuggling and other operations, but they have not been arrested by the UAE authorities despite the existence of red corner notices repeatedly issued by the INTERPOL since 1993 for arresting them and handing them over to India. The intelligence and security agencies of the UAE and Pakistan have been colluding with each other in protecting Dawood Ibrahim from the legal consequences of his involvement in trans-national crime and international terrorism. In October 2003, the US Treasury designated Dawood Ibrahim as an international terrorist following evidence of his links with Al Qaeda, but even then no action has been taken against him and his business empire in the UAE and Pakistan by either the UAE or Pakistan.

In December 1999, some Pakistani terrorists belonging to the HUM hijacked an aircraft of the Indian Airlines and took it to Dubai. Instead of terminating the hijacking, arresting the hijackers and handing them over to India, the UAE authorities allowed the aircraft to fly to Kandahar, the then headquarters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. During the negotiations conducted from Kandahar, the hijackers forced the Government of India to release Omar Sheikh, who subsequently masterminded the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, and Maulana Masood Azhar, who subsequently formed the Jaish-e-Mohammad, which has joined the IIF.

In December 2001, a group of terrorists attacked the security guards posted outside the US Consulate in Kolkata. After the commission of the offence, the leader of this group fled to Dubai, where he was arrested by the local authorities and handed over to the Indian Police. During the investigation, it came out that in the past he had been frequently traveling to Pakistan via Dubai for meeting officials of the ISI and terrorist leaders based in Pakistan.

In August 2004, Qari Saifullah Akhtar, the Amir of the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), one of the members of bin Laden's IIF, was found to be operating from Dubai. He was arrested by the UAE authorities and handed over to the Pakistani police. He was a close adviser to Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Taliban. Before 9/11, the HUJI was running a number of training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan for training terrorists from India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, southern Thailand, the Central Asian Republics, the Xinjiang region of China and Chechnya in Russia.
The Lashkar-e-Toiba of Pakistan has active branches in the UAE and Saudi Arabia for co-ordinating its activities in India, South-East Asia and Australia and for transmitting money through the hawala channel.

10. The authorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria have been following similar policies with regard to international jihadi terrorism----to close their eyes to the activities of the terrorists from their territory so long as these activities do not pose a threat to their security and so long as these are not detected by foreign intelligence agencies and to act against them only when their activities are detected by foreign intelligence agencies and brought to their notice.

11. There is so far no evidence to suspect that the DPW may have links with criminal and terrorist elements. Presumably, for its commercial operations in the US ports, it would be deputing staff recruited in the UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries. In view of the past tainted record of the intelligence and security agencies of the UAE, would the US authorities like to depend on their security vetting to prevent the penetration of its staff deployed in the US by Al Qaeda and the IIF? If not, would it be feasible for the American authorities to impose a condition that all the staff of the DPW deployed on its US operations would be recruited only in the US after security vetting by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: