India preparing for a war in the next 10 years: Business for US Corporates from Indo-US Nuclear Deal

In my last post on this issue several months back, I had reproduced how much the American Nuclear supply companies stood to gain from this deal. Well, among others, our security analyst Raghavan (whom I had quoted in my last post) too got it wrong. The Nuclear Deal and the arms supply to India is seemingly poised for a major jump. Indeed the kind of investment seem to imply that we want to go for a war in the next decade or so.

Here are excerpts from a blog post from someone who maybe thinks all this is great news - Indians in the USA who stand to benefit from the deal through their careers/ companies. India is to become a major centre of weapons in the coming decade is the clear message. Much of the so called FDI that is being invested in India is to be utilized by the revenue being generated more efficiently by Chidambaram & Co., for buying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from a country that has been obsessed with that idea for a long time now.

Business and Indo-US deal

Power Plays: Business Implications of the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal

From: India Knowledge@Wharton Article , Aug 09, 2007 http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/india/article.cfm?articleid=4217

Two big U.S. delegations -- representing 180 companies and 38 companies respectively -- visited India in the past year, looking to sell items such as Westinghouse nuclear reactors, uranium from South Dakota and Lockheed Martin fighter jets.
...Still, political groups in both countries threaten to block the deal, even as the emerging geopolitical realities and the economic benefits appear to outweigh the concerns. India Knowledge@Wharton spoke to corporate executives, analysts and Wharton faculty members to understand the business ramifications of the deal.

Staying Below the Radar
Initially, it appeared that most of the debates about the U.S.-India nuclear agreement were largely political. A deafening silence marked the business implications -- and with good reason: Many senior executives were waiting for the political clouds to clear and for the final terms of the agreement to be revealed. As GE India's CEO T.P. Chopra told India Knowledge@Wharton in an interview, the final form of the agreement would affect GE's nuclear power strategy in the country. Some business leaders point to other challenges. "First, some hurdles still remain," says the CEO of an Indian company that has been negotiating with U.S. firms for defense joint ventures. "The last thing we want is to give ammunition to the Left-wing parties. They would love to project the U.S. as greedy capitalists selling the country for a few dollars more. Business will keep silent until it's all signed, sealed and delivered." (The Congress Party-led Indian government depends on support from the Left, which has rejected the deal.)
...
According to an ...News report, "Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, and General Electric, are among four companies poised to share $14 billion of orders from India as nations led by the U.S. prepare to lift a 33-year ban. Toshiba's Westinghouse Electric and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom will probably also win contracts to each build two 1,000 megawatt reactors, according to Nuclear Power Corp. of India chairman S.K. Jain." The report noted India can begin purchasing equipment following NSG approval of the agreement.

....(the report) added that "the orders will form the first phase of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's plan to build 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of current generation. India needs to add to the 3% of electricity that comes from Russian-designed reactors to meet soaring energy needs and reduce its reliance on coal-fired power plants." The report also quoted one source who said India would "try to diversify its suppliers and it's highly likely all four [Areva, GE, Westinghouse and Rosatom] will win the contracts."
...
For U.S. companies, multi-billion dollar opportunities are opening up. "It is not just in the nuclear area," says Shivanand Kanavi, a commentator on technology issues who is currently writing a book on India's nuclear program and is the author of Sand to Silicon, a book on the digital revolution. "There are opportunities at several levels and in several sectors."

One obvious opportunity is that U.S. companies will be allowed to sell both nuclear reactors and technology to India. This is big business -- roughly $150 billion worth, according to estimates from the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC). The numbers are extrapolated from the Indian nuclear industry's plans to increase nuclear power output from around 3,500 MW now to 60,000 MW over the next three decades. The Atomic Energy Commission has doubled its target for 2024 from 20,000 MW to 40,000 MW. Nuclear energy today accounts for barely 3% of India's total generation of 120,000 MW.

A clear beneficiary of the new regime is the public-sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) -- the entity negotiating the deals with Areva, GE, Westinghouse and Rosatom cited in the Bloomberg report.
...
Regulatory Bottlenecks
At the recent annual general meeting of Tata Power, the group's chairman, Ratan Tata, told shareholders: "If the government opens the sector for private investment, Tata Power would be certainly interested in operating a nuclear power plant." A critical challenge for businesses, however, will be securing the government's green light. Today, only companies with a 51% government stake are allowed to generate nuclear energy. In practice, this has boiled down to only NPCIL. Two years ago, the 89.5% government-owned National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) had approached NPCIL with a proposal that it enter the nuclear generation arena. But the talks have not made much headway. (Incidentally, NTPC shares rose on the release of the text of the 123 Agreement; NPCIL is not listed.)

For the private sector to enter the fray, the regulatory environment will need to change. In May, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar told a meeting in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) that the Atomic Energy Act would be amended as soon as possible to allow private-sector participation. Draft legislation has already been circulated.

...Over the years that the Indian nuclear industry was shunned by the Western world, many of these companies have built up a good deal of expertise. HCC, for instance, was the first Indian construction company to undertake civil engineering works for pressurized heavy water reactor power projects in India. "HCC has constructed four out of the seven nuclear power plants in India," says chairman and managing director Ajit Gulabchand. Four new plants are under construction, with HCC building two of them.

"It is fast becoming accepted that nuclear energy is 'green' compared to conventional energy sources, and it is also quicker to implement," says Gulabchand. "There is a renewed global focus on building new capacities."

M.V. Kotwal, who heads the heavy engineering division of engineering giant L&T, now sees openings to set up "light water nuclear reactors of the boiling water type or the pressurized water type." He says the technology for such reactors, which need enriched uranium as fuel, is available with the U.S., France, Japan and Russia. Whereas L&T is equipped to manufacture the main reactor vessels as well as steam generators, pressurizers and other critical equipment for such nuclear power plants, "it is a problem at times to source some of the raw material which is manufactured by European, Japanese and Russian companies," says Kotwal. "After the clearance of the agreement, it will be easier to source such material and hence to speed up the Indian program."

...Meanwhile, the perestroika in the nuclear arena will extend to exploration. The public-sector Uranium Corporation of India will be bidding for mines abroad. Meanwhile, at home, the private sector is being allowed into uranium exploration. For starters, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) will outsource areas like data collection and analysis.

All of this is, however, small change compared to defense deals, which have U.S. companies waiting anxiously. A conservative estimate says that India will spend $70 billion in defense procurement over the next five years. (The $150 billion estimated for nuclear power projects is spread over 28 years.)

Take just one component: fighter jets. India is in the market for 126 multi-role combat aircraft. At $10 billion, this is one of the world's biggest single-supplier contracts.

... Boeing's recent win of a $11 billion order for 68 aircraft from Air India, and its announcement that it would invest $1.7 billion to buy goods and services from Indian companies. Lockheed Martin has approached Hindustan Aeronautics, Bharat Electronics, BHEL, and the Tatas for joint defense projects, he adds.

Today, Russia is India's biggest defense supplier. Israel stands at No. 2, having overtaken France, the U.K. and the U.S., who had been hamstrung by various restrictions but now want part of the action. India this year expects to spend $10.5 billion on military equipment, including $4 billion for the air force, $2.8 billion for the army and $2.5 billion for the navy. Some 70% of those capital needs are met though imports....

"Ultimately, economics determines everything," says Chaudhuri, who feels those compulsions will override political opposition to the deal. To support that point, he says that despite widespread criticism of China's political system and its human rights issues, the U.S. business community is "very close to China."
source:http://reflections-shivanand.blogspot.com/2008/04/business-and-indo-us-deal.html

More on the Indo-US Deal

I had earlier promised not to post further on this issue. But, it does not seem to leave us at all. The Americans want it, the PM is willing to sacrifice the government at one time and only his chair at other time for it (nothing is clear and neither seems to be happening, poor Deva Gowda). The Congress wants it, now, BJP too seems to want it (so if there is a chance of them coming back, it would come up again) and the US Ambassdor is talking to them too. Only the Communists are between the deal and the Nation, bless them for that. Here is one more news item that calculates the economics of the deal -

American Interest in Nuclear Deal by B.S.Raghavan in Business Line

...India’s plans of installing 40,000 MWs of nuclear power in the next 20-30 years, it is clear that the nuclear deal will mean a business of $80 billion for the lucky ones who win the contract. Allowing for the price escalation in later years, the figure may even exceed $100 billion, enough to inject adrenalin into the economy of the countries in which the supplier firms are located.

Remember, this does not take account of the requirements of components and spares, financing of service and maintenance and royalties on technologies — all of which may assure a steady flow of $10-20 billion more for the supplier firms during the life-time of the reactors. Certainly not a prospect to be sneezed at. As regards the intangible benefits to the US, an article “America’s Strategic Opportunity with India” by Mr R. Nicholas Burns, US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the point man for all that concerns the nuclear deal, published in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, gives an authentic exposition.

First and foremost, the deal is calculated to serve the national security interests of the US by bringing India into the international nuclear non-proliferation mainstream; second, it “will not assist the country’s nuclear weapons program in any way”; third, it gives the US control over the newly-to-be-built facility to reprocess spent fuel as it can operate only as per the specific arrangements and procedures laid down by the US; fourth, “should India decide to conduct a nuclear test in the future, then the US would have the right under US law to seek the return of all nuclear fuel and technology shipped by US firms”; and, finally, “an increasingly powerful India represents a singularly positive opportunity to advance (the US) global interests”.

Why would the US not pitch for it?

Moving beyond Nuclear Power

Prayas is a Pune based group that has been talking about energy in India seriously. Wanted to bring to notice their write-up on the Nuclear Power issue.

...If there’s real concern about energy security, then far more important areas need urgent attention. Coal provides more than 70% of India’s electricity. Yet, only 45% of the potential coal bearing area has been systematically explored, and knowledge of our coal reserves is abysmal. Productivity in our coal mines is only 7-10% of that in American and Australian mines. Yet, we are slow in adopting new technologies, resulting in poor coal quality and yield, and higher costs and emissions. More efficient use of coal, particularly in power generation, would pay handsome dividends towards energy security. But there is no strategic programme to assess, develop and deploy emerging technologies even as privatization is being promoted as a panacea....

...The most painful is the callous disregard for the energy needs of the poor. Nearly 65% people still use conventional, non-commercial fuels such as wood and dung for cooking. With a severe shortage of these fuels, the rural poor —especially women—spend hours every day collecting cooking fuel. A World Health Organization study indicates that nearly 500,000 people die every year in India due to indoor air pollution, largely a result of inappropriate burning of wood and dung for cooking. Thus, cooking fuel poses the real energy crisis for a majority. It is ironic that the focus is on India acting responsibly to protect the global environment and address the problems caused by developed nations, not on the environmental crisis at home.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/10/23221235/Moving-beyond-nuclear-power.html

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: A Time in History where things could have gone the other way...

Maybe my last post on this issue. Just to summarize and also share some of the things I have been reading. I had thought that the conclusion on this deal was foregone (My posting in late August which has since then come true). But, there are disturbing trends that need to be understood by all of us in India.

1. The 'we don't care' attitude of the Congress Party on this issue needs to be noted. There is little that has changed since August when the Left first came up with objections to the deal, which means, the new found arrogance in the congress leadership must stem from something else. Could it be that they have found out that in the case of an election, they stand a chance to win without much ado? I am sure intelligence agencies and back room technical boys in the Congress are capable of doing a month long job to come up with such conclusion, the time gap for the change in the Congress posture seems to be just right.

But, perhaps there are other reasons too. The recent issue of Tehelka carries an interesting news item, 'Young Brigade Goes Nuclear' which talks about the new bunch of young Congress leaders owning up the Nuclear Deal . Though the article carries interview with only one of the leaders named, if this is to be taken at face value, it is bad news. The Nuclear Deal somehow seems to have become associated with the 'paradigm shift' in the Congress. Nothing is more stupid than a young bunch of new comers talking of paradigm shift owning up to a deal that provides many opportunities for jingoism and showmanship. More importantly in this article, the Chairperson of Congress Future Challenge Committee is talking about 'creating a new USP' for the party! Nuclear Deal is the new USP for the old Congress! (USP for the uninitiated is a marketing term that means Unique Selling Proposition, used to promote the one feature in any product that needs to be communicated to the customer as being unique and ahead of the competitor, it is often a publicity gimmick as the fundamental product can only change itself in so many ways). Corporations provide for such flexibilities, a national government that is already fractured in its inheritance cannot. Certainly not a party that is responsible for much of the fracturing.

2. I am still to come across anyone of our nuclear deal promoters who thinks of this as a complete, cost-effective or clean solution. The entire debate has been dominated by scientists-technocrats who have an undying fascination for trying out latest technical possibilities and bureaucrats who are chest thumping about how this is a great deal that they have brokered, leave alone the fact that USofA does not get pushed by a piddly platoon of IAS officer from India. Obviously, the safety of the technology and the nitty-gritties of the deal have covered more print space than the priority and ethics of the deal.

I have been trying to understand the larger issues related to nuclear energy, if indeed energy is our problem for which we think this is the only solution as some of our eminent scientists want us to believe. (My earlier post on the on-line references) It was good to note that the Communist leaders too seem to be doing their homework on this issue to some extent (my posting on Sitaram Yechuri's article). Personally for me, an eye opener was reading the book, 'The Nuclear Barons' by Peter Pringle & James Spigelman. This book is a must read for anyone wanting to understand as the authors put in the sub-title, 'how (the nuclear barons) created our nuclear nightmare'. How the entire nuclear research, bomb and technology has been developed through scientific ambition, often mis-placed political ideas by technologists, political jingoism and commercial greed. Though this publication is two and half decades old, its gripping narration style and factual presentation makes it invaluable in understanding the evolution of the nuclear technology. I would like to quote a small portion from the Epilogue of the book that is worth reading:

' the core of the proliferation problem is the expansion of nuclear-generated electricity: more nuclear power plants mean more fissile material available for diversion into bomb projects. There is no way of preventing this at present: the nuclear materials market is too large and too diverse to be controlled through export sanctions and the current early-warning system of a diversion of nuclear material, known as safeguards, is inherently ineffective.

Even withouth the link to nuclear profileration, nuclear power carries dangers of a magnitude that we ought not to accept. There is something profoundly stupid about continuing to multiply a series of engineering marvels that fifteen billion curies of radiation. We do not know enough about radiation and cannot be sure enough of our technical prowess to allow this system to dominate our energy supply. Morever, the instinctive human fear of radioactivity is not irrational, as the nuclear advocates assert; it is also so universal and so enduring that it is a political fact of life.

...The problem as the entire nuclear history illustrates only too forcefully, is that we have never been able to devise human institutions dedicated to minimizing their own activities. We must continue, therefore, to treat the claims of those in charge of the nuclear complex with suspicion; by their past actions they have not earned our trust or our confidence. Their almost compulsive sense of self-importance has been given a serious blow by the strength of the citizen reaction...but it has not been defeated. Those who want to expand nuclear power continue to repeat the old refrain that we have no choice, yet, that has always been wrong and it is wrong today.

The nuclear story so far has been about a scientific and technological revolution that transformed a yarning to understand and control the powers of nature from fiction to fact. It was a stunning achievement of many clever men. What is in question now is not their cleverness but their wisdom.'

3. US of A must be the biggest arms supplier to the world. It has been investing in arms in different parts of the world where it reaps a rich harvest of war in subsequent decades. I see the entire facilitation of the nuclear technological growth in the Sub-Continent as a way of investing in this region, so that in a couple of decades a successor of G.W.Bush may launch another armed search for WMD in India and a war would be justified. Indian government will buy the technology now, buy delivery mechanisms through back door deals later and will be held accountable for the same much later, perhaps politically isolated (not unlike Iraq after Desert Storm), and later invaded and destroyed. This would ensure that the commercial interest of the arms manufacturers in the US is taken care of for the next few decades, not to talk of the Haliburtons to re-build the country after its destruction. This may sound far fetched right now for us in India, but, history with other regional powers since the WWII cannot be denied. If further proof is necessary, then it is provided by Prof. Chomsky in his article on Indo-US Nuclear Deal:

The Indo-US deal mixes military and commercial motives. Nuclear weapons specialist Gary Milhollin noted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony to Congress that the agreement was "crafted with the private sector firmly in mind," particularly aircraft and reactors and, Milhollin stresses, military aircraft.
(Source: US/Indo Nuclear Agreement: Derailing A Deal, By Noam Chomsky, 08 August, 2007, The Khaleej Times)

4. The mix of young leadership wanting to make a 'paradigm shift' in the ruling party utilizing terms and models of the market, the eagerness of our technocrats and bureaucrats to move the country into another 'club' where there doesn't seem to be a non-destructive precedence and where the partner / promoter nation has clearly stated that they are looking at their own strategic and commercial gains from the entire deal, sounds like being in the middle of a political environment where an expression of the concerns is a statement of helplessness.

We as a nation have placed capacity to produce WMD at such a high level, that a government doesn't mind being pulled down in the process, this has never been done by any government before for any other cause including production of food grains. This moment in the political history can be seen as a point of departure towards accepting the role of a nuclear bully, capable of producing WMD at a speed if it so desires. The role and the script is not ours, nor the raw materials and technologies, but, our political eagerness to perform this role of a nuclear bully will bring in a major shift in our dealing with the world from now on. Time to recall what an old man said 6 decades back:

(Non-Violence) is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy. I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts non-violence, it will spell certain suicide for mankind.’ - M. K. Gandhi, talk with a British Journalist, Sept 1946

Iran & America: Interaction wasted

The politics between Iran and USA has been making news for some time. But, for me what seems to be a wasted interaction is the visit and speech of the Iranian President to a US university. The intolerance of the US academia as represented by the speech of the head of an academic institution, an university at that towards a head of a state, after having invited him to give a speech is lowest form of insult one can think of. In a country founded on the freedom of expression, it is a sign of reigning intolerance, obsessive self-image and utter lack of knowledge of political protocol, social etiquette and common sense.

Herewith reproduced two reports:
1. The US response to the Iranian President's speech in their University and
2. A letter from the heads of Iranian universities to the US University

1. What's he doing here, ask Americans

Rasheeda Bhagat, New York, Sept. 26

Most Americans couldn’t even swallow the fact that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been allowed to come to New York to address a session of the United Nations General Assembly.

His request to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath was firmly turned down on security grounds, and there is a bitter debate raging on why the Columbia University should have bothered, or rather, dared, to extend an invitation to the “obnoxious man, whose government is raging a proxy war against the US in Iraq by supplying arms that are being used to kill our sons”.

This is the argument being heard on all TV channels and newspapers where the ‘experts’ being interviewed are pouring a series of abuses on the Iranian President.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker, who was interviewed by a TV channel did not mince his words in criticising the man “who had American blood on his hands”.

Others called him a monster, belligerent, provocative, bellicose and ‘pure evil’. Columbia President Lee Bollinger, under a lot of flak for extending an invitation to Ahmedinejad, was quite hostile as he introduced his guest to a packed hall on Monday, and criticised his policy towards Israel and his denial that the Holocaust had happened.

“When you come to a place like this it makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” he said.

But the man under fire remained unfazed through most of this speech but did mention later in his address how he had been subjected “to a wave of insults”.

The Iranian leader was both booed and applauded, as two groups of students clashed over his visit. Predictably, in his address, Ahmedinijad provoked the audience by saying that if the “root causes” of 9/11 were examined – “why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved” –, it would help “fix the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq”.

Obviously, all this was too much to take for a country deeply anguished and bitterly resentful of 9/11.

When asked at Columbia University about the repression of homosexuals in his country, the visitor denied that there were any gays in Iran and added that America has homosexuals, not Iran! This was galling enough for American TV channels to run footage of two blindfolded teenage gay boys about to be hanged in Iran. Repression of women’s rights in Iran was another issue over which he was grilled.

On Tuesday the Iranian President made a defiant speech at the UN General Assembly where he declared “closed” the debate over Iran’s nuclear power, described the UN sanctions against his country illegal and termed the permanent members of the Security Council “arrogant” and “bullying”.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/09/27/stories/2007092751172400.htm

2. Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US, Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses to 10 questions by Iranian academics and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Lee Bollinger, Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr.
Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization
(MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

More on Indo-US Nuclear Deal"

With the government agreeing to the commie demand and set-up some commission, here is something I read online that was rather neat, from one of the Communist leaders. As a non-television watcher I might of missed Sitaram Yechuri, a regular in televisions I know, but, in this online posting he sounds acceptable:

In 2006, 3.9 gw of nuclear power was generated, 3 per cent of India's total power generation. In the most optimistic scenario, after the operationalisation of this deal, this would grow, at best, to 20 gw by 2016, or just over 6 per cent of the projected generation.
Further, is nuclear power cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option. As compared to coal, it would be one-and-a-half times more expensive. Compared with gas, it is twice as expensive. So is the case with hydro-electricity.

Given the abundance of coal reserves in India, the Planning Commission estimates that thermal energy would dominate power generation in India. As far as hydro-electricity is concerned, given the potential of nearly 150 gw, only 33 gw has been installed as of 2006. In addition, over 55,000 MW could be imported from Nepal and Bhutan. The tapping of such huge hydro-potential will not only augment our energy capacities at half the cost of nuclear energy, but will also tame these rivers, which regularly consume the lives of thousands. This year's floods according to the United Nations, are 'unprecedented' in human memory.
Thus, the government's argument that the Indo-US nuclear deal is to augment our energy resources sounds untenable. Huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on the US. The profit bonanza to multinational corporations is there for all to see with the attendant benefits to sections of corporate India.
Recollect that for more than three decades the West has not installed new nuclear power reactors. Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests? If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro, thermal, gas, clean non-renewable and solar electricity, India's energy augmentation would be many times higher. Thus, the nuclear deal not only exposes India to greater
vulnerability, it drains a huge amount of our scarce resources.

Apart from drawing India into the US strategic military alliances in the region like the forthcoming joint military exercises with the US, Japan, Australia and Singapore, and the effort at pressurising India's foreign
policy positions, this deal does not even guarantee full and complete access to civilian nuclear technology as assured by the Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha. In fact, the 123 agreement forbids the transfer of dual-use
technologies. The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies also break down if the 123 agreement is terminated. The 123 itself explicitly states that the national laws will prevail upon termination, meaning, the Hyde Act. India would be subjected to international safeguards in perpetuity even after the 123 is terminated.

That is sound stuff and quite a few sensible questions that deserve to be answered. Thought I am not a great fan of the Commie politicians (or for that matter any politicians), I cannot but agree to his questions, particularly on the energy capacity issue.

Something else that bothers me is why are we only getting opinions from Nuclear scientists, politicians and career bureaucrats on this deal? I saw splashed across newspapers the other day a lecture by M.R.Srinivasan, distinguished scientist no doubt, but, a nuclear scientist and certainly a stake holder in the developments afoot. Why should we not have the someone from the Vidharba Farmers Association talk on the Nuclear Deal or for that matter those who have been displaced by the various dams for hydro power in this country or even those who live close to the existing nuclear stations? A colleague of the Indian Ambassdor in the US, (this man deserves to be respected for being candid about his views in public at least once in his career) defends him in the news paper, a series of nuclear scientists write on the deal, even Kalam makes a comment...why is our public discourse cornered and opinions made on behalf of a billion people by a select few, there are fewer of these than who sit in the Parliament.

The Voice of (some) People on Nuclear Deal...

Hot Press...just now got to see this Rediff Article by Sandeep Pandey, Medha Patkar and Aruna Roy (read full story at http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/23guest1.htm)

...The deal is part of a successful attempt by the United States to build a strategic relationship with India, in confronting the rising capitalist challenge from China where India will be used as its client in the region. Directly or indirectly, the US will also enter the Indian subcontinent, to manage intra-regional, inter-country relations. This whole process is likely to escalate the arms race between Pakistan and India, sabotaging the India-Pakistan peace process. How can we ignore that fact the US sells arms to both India and Pakistan? and I add, how can you ignore the fact that unless India were to enter into such an exclusive relationship, how can Pakistan be cajoled to enter into one too and thereby ensure continuous market for nuclear based technology in the sub-continent for the USA.

The agreement also facilitates a full-fledged international exchange of nuclear fuel and technology with insufficient caution and control. There will no doubt be a corporate rush to extract, export and misuse nuclear fuel and technology, and it will be very difficult to prevent misuse even for the arms trade. Highly superficial clauses don't instill any confidence against such a possibility.

However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner. The whole cycle of nuclear production beginning with uranium mining, is fraught with catastrophic dangers, and as a nation we cannot use the decisions of another country as justification for our own. Places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, Kota and Pokhran in Rajasthan, have already demonstrated the ongoing dangers of nuclear use to the common citizen.

We, in India, have inherited rich renewable sources of energy, which are environmentally benign and abundantly available. The solar, wind, and ocean waves along with human power need to be fully tapped and put to use with people's control. Appropriate technology, research and development for production of cheaper equipment and tools, need to be combined with just distribution, for the right priorities. There is no political will for this in the ruling establishment. Estimates show that India can generate far more energy through alternative, environmentally sound sources. The nuclear energy option should be put up for widespread public debate giving citizens a full opportunity to make an informed choice.

This deal, however, raises questions beyond nuclear energy, opening up large spaces for US government and corporate control in India. This, no doubt, is a symbol of imperialism already demonstrated through the Iraq war and the obvious links of US policy with corporate control over resources. With unbound exchange of information, data and material, knowledge and technology the dominant global power is all set to encroach upon Indian reserves and impinge upon our sovereignty. The deal ensures supply of sufficient nuclear material to nuclear reactors in India for the next 40 years, but the precautionary agreements to negotiations and consultations are only promises for the future. All this is subject to approvals and conditions to be monitored by the US Congress, while sidelining Indian Parliament....

Ditto. Though I have little doubt about demanding tall order such as amending constitution. my earlier blog posting...

Politics of possessing arms

To me the entire nuclear deal with the US of A looks rather uninteresting and I have not bothered to follow the news stories. But, few amusing things that I observed which I wanted to share:
1. The entire deal seems to be about India'a ability to produce nuclear arms, or to put it in Bush lingo, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the American need to control Indian ability to create these WMD
2. America is willing to share some knowledge or skill or whatever if India will tell them what it does with the raw material that it used to make WMD. The American policy seems to say that 'as long as we know what you are doing, its fine with us'. What about the WMD of America, would they in return inform India what they do with their raw material or for that matter any other country? Seems rather unlikely.
3. Now there is a news that Australia who is one of the suppliers of the raw material with which we can make arms, wants to compel India to sign-up with America for them to supply us. In this day of free market economy, it looks childish. Australia should be happy to sell their raw material to whomsoever is willing to pay the highest price, what is their business what is done with these materials and how are the WMD to be deployed. Do they insist on such deals with all those people they supply stuff. In return can India too can ask Australia what the hell goes into the strange shining red un-edible thing the export to us in the name of Apple? Why not?
4. Our own political fight to me looks even more funny, the Commies want the ability to test shoot weapons, like the hero in old movies, they can once in a while target practice the WMD without being inspected by Uncle Sam. Some representative of Uncle Sam says, 'no go' for this, don't understand what is his problem. They should know that commies have never ruled India and are most unlikely to do anything on their own ever beyond street theater. And it is so harmless, after all Americans test shoot at real targets like Iraqis or Afghan mountain goats.
5. Now why would the commies be interested to WMD target practice is beyond my understanding. If it is deterrence, then against whom? Only Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka don't have nuclear weapons among our immediate neighbours. Bhutan is too small, Nepal are commie friends for now, Bangladesh are bengalis and hence friends of 80% of the commie leaders of India and that leaves Sri Lanka which has enough problems of its own for it to be deterred by a nuclear practice shot from India. The commie heads of India can be pre-occupied with meaningless banter endlessly.
6. What is the Congress' problem? It seems to be saying 'look we made a deal, we don't care what anyone thinks, we go ahead with', I suppose this is the PMs idea of 'inclusive growth' which is so much tom-toms these days.
7. And finally, Georgie old man, where were you all these days, we missed you. What an amusing analysis, if only Pranab and others in the Cabinet had any sense of humour they would have laughed their hearts out with his analysis. What is he supposed to have said, 'that in the US the head of the state cannot bluff so much' and, 'in China for such a deal the PM would have been shot'. That is by far the boldest reality statement on the two super powers by any politician in India today. Georgie's best since the time he (rather late in the day) admitted to being frisked on arrival at the US airport when he was a minister in the cabinet. At one stroke, he had lampooned the US President (how much Bush has bluffed in the US over the WMD among other things in the last few years is well recorded) and on the other, done a provocation on the Chinese, who have been doing a major PR as a built up for the Olympics.
8. P.S. - I think the only sad part of this entire comedy show being enacted is the non-participation of the old bunch of BJP jokers. Poor sods, they are so much caught up in self doubt these days.

Maybe my understanding is simplistic, but, I think realist. The US will prevail is foregone conclusion. Communists don't have the guts to pull the plug on the Congress, they have never had it going so good for them, they will eventually settle for some face saving formula. The congress does not care one way or the other, even if there were by-elections tomorrow, with no visible opposition, they perhaps can win with a better majority. Ultimately nuclear technology is the power and politics of possessing arms, the powerful and vulnerable want to own, possess, create, sustain as much arms as possible as they consider themselves weak without the weapons. The politicians don't understand arms, but, think it is their right to control them. Arms are no great development priority, inclusive or otherwise, nuclear arms are extremely destructive and there is no logic for nuclear energy for a poor country as the technology for it is extremely costly. We can live peacefully without both, but, we may then miss all the comedy!

Freedom from the Bottled Water

Ninety Four years old Seetharam Iyer is one of the frequent visitors to my office, many times just to say 'hello' if he is passing by. Couple of weeks back in one of his visits, I was pouring out drinking water from the jug on to a tumbler, when he sharply said, 'enough, stop', and went on to explain, 'don't you buy this water?', 'yes', I said. So, 'it is enough to pour out as much water as is required for me, why fill up the glass every time and then the remaining water will be wasted any way, today it is all money'. A moment for stopping and pondering over for me, a learning.

We are so much used to throwing the left over water from a glass when we want to either empty it or clean-up or wash, most of us have not realized that water is no longer free, indeed it is getting costlier by the day. I often wonder why meetings, particularly, seminars and conferences are so proud of the plastic water bottle so much that they give it the most prominent place in the table. In every public meeting, on the podium or on the table in front of the dignitaries this cheap plastic bottle has come to adorn almost flaunting our ignorance as much as our indifference. I have repeatedly seen even in meetings where speakers talk of the corporate take over of water and how water is costlier than milk, etc., there is a bottled water on the dais. Do we wait for a day to ban bottled water in public like it is happening for cigarette for us to understand that the utter un-ethics of the entire water trade, but, also the magnitude of the incidental plastic garbage that is generated out of it?

Recently PepsiCo acknowledged that the 'Aqua Fina' with the mountain image was not to be taken at face value and that it is actually only selling 'tap water' in the bottle. Related News Item
A group in the US has been fighting the corporate take over for quite some time, pointing out how the per capita consumption there is 400 litres per day as against 10 litres in countries like ours. But, we are a country of 1 billion people and do not have to wait for international consultants to descend on us and teach us how to reduce plastic garbage by reducing bottled water usage. Can we declare freedom from bottled water in our events and travels, if not in our homes and offices?