Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is facing the threat of a mutiny from the left parties in his coalition government over the recently-finalized — but still not finally approved — U.S.-India nuclear deal, also known as the “123 Agreement.”
As he addressed Parliament today, some members of Left parties staged a walk-out, while others made so much noise that MPs who actually wanted to hear what was said had to use their translation headphones. On the right, the BJP has also been critical of the deal, though I tend to think it’s more because of political opportunism than anything else: one gets the feeling they wish they’d pulled this off.
Thus far, the Congress Party hasn’t seemed seriously concerned about a collapse of the government; no one is yet talking about votes of no-confidence, mid-term polls, or rejiggering the deal to make critics happy.
Are the Communists and others on the left bluffing when they say they’ll walk away from the Coalition government over this? I tend to think so, though I could be wrong. Indian politics — with the combination of regional and caste parties in addition to the left/right axis — is often so complicated, it makes the U.S. system seem laughably simple. Still the Times has a certain wry tone in its summary of where the opposition is coming from:
At one point in Mr, Singh’s speech, the Left parties, which provide crucial support to his Congress-led coalition government, walked out of the house. The Left has opposed the nuclear accord with the United States since it was announced, less over the specific provisions of the accord than over the general principle of closer ties to America.
“We do not share the optimism that India can become a great power with the help of the United States,†Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said on Saturday. (link)
(This is where I sniff in Prakash Karat’s general direction.)
For those who have kind of let the whole U.S.-India nuclear deal slip past them in recent months, Siddharth Varadarajan has a good point-by-point summary of the agreement here. And the full text of the agreement, released by the U.S. State Department, is here.
If you don’t think it is okay to raise such questions on a blog whose very title invokes a spirit of rebellion, then I wonder what brings you to this blog in the first place.
LeftyProf, could you please quit it with the grandstanding? People are obviously engaging with your arguments, and this repeated lofting of the “mutiny” question is getting old. Don’t hector us.
Otherwise, I agree with just about everything in Kush’s comment (#48). And when I read the Praful Bidwai piece you linked to above, it struck me that a moderate investment in nuclear power might in fact a much better way to go than simply adding polluting coal plants indefinitely. There are environmental costs, but also environmental gains to going this route — disposal is not a trivial concern, nor is the risk of meltdown. But given the Indian Ocean “brown cloud,” the rapidly retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, and the ongoing health problems associated with suspended particulate matter, those might be risks worth taking. Development/industrialization in the Indian subcontinent is not going to be reversed.
Kush Tandon:
No doubt. The weaknesses and internal contradictions of the state-capitalist model that preceded liberalization had led to this crisis. True enough.
Hmm…. I think this is not quite so simple as you make it out to be. The Argentinian economy “is seeing a come around” after completely tanking, thanks to neoliberal policies. The disasters produced by neoliberalism have been written about so extensively by progressive economists the world over, it’s hardly necessary to reproduce the arguments here.
There is no doubt that right now, the Indian economy is growing. In my comment earlier, I had said: “It is true that, given the Indian economy’s current phase of expansion, there is a sense of optimism among the urban middle classes. How long this expansion will last is a different matter entirely. Not to mention the impact of these policies on the rest of the population.” I think I will stick with this assessment.
Well, here’s what Praful Bidwai writes in the article I mentioned earlier:
I think the jury is still out on the benefits of nuclear power.
I won’t say much about this, except to remind you that “growth rates” do not equal progress. The question is, who benefits from this growth? And who pays for it?
You seem to ask a lot of questions.. It is all good.
I benefit from the growth. My family / friends / neighbors / city benefits from it.. And I was not born into a rich family. I was not poor either. I could claim the status of suburban lower middle class. I have relatives in the villages and they have no complaints either..
If you know people who have actually suffered from the growth please let us know.
Okay, my last comment on this thread, I promise. Indeed, my last visit to this blog.
Amardeep:
What grandstanding? Ponniyin had said in comment #38
You call this “engaging with my arguments”? On what planet? In effect, I was being told that my questions are out of place. I responded by reminding Ponniyin that this is a blog that invokes a spirit of rebellion by its very title, and therefore if s/he thinks such questions are not okay, s/he is probably in the wrong place. Where’s the grandstanding?
You never did respond to my earlier question regarding ideology either–and that was asked very much in the spirit of wanting to know what the bloggers on this site, in this case you, consider to be so “mutinous” about their project, given the conformist nature of the discussions that I have seen here. Rather than explain that project, you fired off a sarcastic comment, then dropped the issue entirely, and when I raise the question again, you now berate me for “grandstanding.” How commendable.
Clearly, my sense that this blog is a space for progressive, non-conformist folks, for … well, mutineers … was mistaken. Oops, sorry. Didn’t mean to grandstand. I see now that this really is a waste of time. So–please excuse me if I don’t respond to any further admonishments.
Another question comes to my mind now, what do you put first the environment or the working class people? Surely you can imagine the environmental costs of lifting the living standards of all the (poor) working class people. All the goods that they need, all the energy they need that they don’t have now?
So what is a better hope for the ordinary working people other than the growth?
There are a lot of questions prof, don’t be afraid to answer some of them yourself!
Grapes are sour?!
You never did respond to my earlier question regarding ideology either–and that was asked very much in the spirit of wanting to know what the bloggers on this site, in this case you, consider to be so “mutinous” about their project, given the conformist nature of the discussions that I have seen here.
Uh, no, you wanted me to pin myself down to a specific political platform. I choose not to do so. If you want to know about the project behind this blog, please go read the FAQ.
Rather than explain that project, you fired off a sarcastic comment, then dropped the issue entirely, and when I raise the question again, you now berate me for “grandstanding.”
Actually, I didn’t drop the issue in the sense that I did go to your blog and write a substantial comment on specific political issues you raised. Perhaps they represent an ‘ism’ (or ideology), perhaps not. I try not to traffic in grand generalizations, but specific issues. My days of sitting around trying to figure out what the hell Althusser or Laclau and Mouffe are talking about are long past.
Clearly, my sense that this blog is a space for progressive, non-conformist folks, for … well, mutineers … was mistaken. Oops, sorry. Didn’t mean to grandstand. I see now that this really is a waste of time. So–please excuse me if I don’t respond to any further admonishments.
That kind of rhetorical move is, I’m afraid, the definition of grandstanding. Cheers.
This is scary when viewed in the light of Bhopal. In order to sustain the (disputable) safety of a state-of-the-art facility that deals with and produces copious amounts of extremely hazardous materials, you have to already have a fully functioning, state-of-the-art infrastructure to support it. This isn’t the case in the US, and it’s certainly not the case in India. You also have to have companies running it that care deeply about the lives and safety of nearby residents, and the environmental track record of US corporations in India doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Dominique LaPierre and Javier Moro’s Five Minutes Past Midnight in Bhopal gives a detailed explanation of both the negligence and infrastructure-failure aspects that led to the Bhopal disaster. Read this, and then tell me: would you want to draw your drinking water from a well near the site of a “safe” nuclear plant?
You also have to have companies running it that care deeply about the lives and safety of nearby residents, and the environmental track record of US corporations in India doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Sarah, these are valid concerns, and I think even enthusiastic supporters of this deal would be foolish not to worry about the safety issue.
But I can offer one thing — one of the surprises in the agreement is the strong insistence on safety, particularly environmental safety. One of the reasons the clause about IAEA inspections might actually be a good thing is that it will require India to maintain world class standards in running and maintaining its plants. No building shortcuts, no watering down the cement…
I hope it turns out that way. But you’ll have to forgive me for remaining skeptical; governments and corporations do so much “greenwashing” and so little actual maintenance of infrastructure, safety standards and disaster cleanup that it’s hard to believe such good intentions will be honored…
Sarah,
Sure, the infrastructure in India in general is very shakey.
That is the very reason that if you want to explore the nuclear energy route, you have to have first-world, state-of-the-art support structure. Therefore, the Indo-US deal. Indian reactors are aging, due to trade embargo (post 1978/ 1998) are woefully out of date, and their uranium stockpile is low. Thorium is not an option yet.
US gets a peg in South-West Asia (from India to Iran and beyond). You control part of their energy supply, you almost control everything of that country, and have an ally for a reason. That is why US is so keen.
Regarding nuclear reactors, US has somewhat mixed record, USSR/ Russia’s pathetic.
But, France does it. Japan is seriously exploring the nuclear option too.
Personally, I believe in buffet approach to energy – you try different things, and see what works for you, you should have a mixed entree so you are not dependent on vagaries of one (uranium supply, OPEC, daily price of oil and gas, sunshine in your village).
Union Carbide was negligent in a “third world” country with corrupt and daft politicians. Maybe, this time around GE and others will be more careful, with F-16/ F-18/ Boeing orders from India on the horizon. We’ll see. You cannot be so scared all the time
Just curious, So are you against the deal or against the concept of “nuclear power”..
You have valid concerns about the safety and I fully share those concerns, in fact if something happens to Kalpakkam, my city goes to ruins. That’s why I’m asking the opponents of nuclear power/ deal if they have any other “cost effective” alternatives in mind.
I guess you’re more trusting than I am. I think that given the abysmal safety record of nuclear power it’s reasonable to be scared.
I really wish we could trust nuclear power. It’d be great if it were as ‘clean’ and wonderful as proponents like Al Gore make it out to be; it’d be an easy answer that would solve a lot of problems quickly. Unfortunately, the evidence simply doesn’t bear out that view.
Ponniyin, you want an easy, ready-made answer, and I don’t have one. The global economy is built on oil and gas, and it’s moving the world into an environmental crisis. We have some options like solar and wind power that either haven’t been explored fully on a major scale or haven’t yet been able to produce power in the amounts needed. We have sources that help with global warming but pose extremely dangerous problems on a much more short-term basis (nuclear power). We also have the option of reducing our energy consumption by doing things like moving toward organic and local agriculture, cutting unnecessary production (does my toothpaste really need to come in a tube inside a box covered in plastic??), funding public transportation and gasoline alternatives, and installing expensive cleaning equipment inside already existing factories, but those solutions put the financial burden on big business, and big business won’t do that voluntarily. That would probably take major civil uprisings, which aren’t really on the horizon at the moment.
So, sorry, no easy answers. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question the supposedly easy answers that are handed to us; I don’t think that’s ‘as good as keeping quiet’ at all. How are we going to find viable answers if we’re not even willing to ask the questions??
Ponniyin Selvan,
I refuse to believe you really think it is that simple. I am hoping that you wrote that merely to score a point on a blog site over somebody who tried to make you read between the lines.
I am a product of a line of people who lost their way when they gave up their socioeconomic niche VERY QUICKLY and moved to the city to find a new place in society. That diasporic journey is not an easy, healthy job when your skills are traditional and ‘obsolete’ and you have no new skills or education to survive with dignity in the town. What I am trying to say, without giving too many personal details, is that I call my previous generation ‘the lost generation’ of my family. In other words, I come from a very dysfunctional background and there are socioeconomic reasons to my personal story. This observation of mine was reinforced yesterday when I was listening to my grandmother cry on the phone that the last piece of hard-earned land her father acquired in his lifetime was sold for a [mere] sum of Rs. 16 lakhs by a relative who also decided that his fortunes could lie only in the city. I can both share my grandmother’s pain and lost hope (apparently she always dreamed of dying with dignity in the house/land she was born on) and also appreciate the reason for the charge of hypocrisy hurled at her when she attempted to tell this rural relative that Rs. 16 lakhs alone will not improve a newcomer’s life in the city.
Anyway, dysfunctionality in personal stories may not rank too high anywhere, least of all on blog sites such as this, unless you yourself happen to be the blogger. Even I, despite writing it, am squirming because even I am confused about when the economics should trump over the social/psychological and when it should not, or if it is even relevant to this particular discussion when I am choosing not to give more background details.
But it bothers me more when you do not appreciate the complexities of life at all levels in India.
Malathi/LeftyProf/Sarah,
I think what Ponniyin and others are asking is: If Rao/Manmohan/Liberalisation is bad, and if the license/bureucracy preceding it for 35 years was bad: Then what is good? What is your prescription for the problem? If you were the finance minister of India, what specific policies would you implement?
M. Nam
I stand corrected: Manmohan Singh was not dropped from the cabinet, I checked. But he and Narishma Rao took a lot of flak from all directions when he initiated the opening of the Indian economy.
Because any negative costs of development are externalized and do not figure in the balance-sheet of the corporation when calculating profits (unless it’s too late). Because economic models haven’t even started (with very few exceptions perhaps – Paul Hawken) to figure in the cost to environment when calculating profits and loss, or the concept of sustainability. I’m not opposed to progress or growth (hey, I’m a simple layman, not a powerful policy-maker or economist or industrialist), but I do think that in the name of progress, such concerns are repeatedly ignored, and then come back to bite us in the ass – either Bhopal in India, or Enron, Love Canal, SuperFund sites in the US (and others that sarah mentioned). In general, I view corporations with distrust for the simple reason that there is plenty of history and evidence that they do not care for the well-being of people and the environment if it comes in the way of profits, and willingly lie about it. Hey, it gives PR and law firms plenty of work and business, so it’s all good for the economy, I guess.
I don’t think that we should go back to sticks-and-stones age, but I do think that as we talk about progress and growth rate etc., we also start thinking about the ecological impact and figuring it into our calculations and discussions. I don’t think it’s a simplistic issue of jobs vs. environment – a common and fallacious argument put forth – mostly during election times for obvious reasons. An example would be the declining returns of fishing industries due to unsustainable fishing over the years – today we end up with lesser fish and lesser jobs in our race to maximize profits or output.
I always get a kick out of people who have this fascination for anything big – big dams, big nuclear reactors, big power plants. Wonder why. :p Or maybe I just need to stop worrying. /rant over
Nuclear power plant is a nice and powerful national symbol, but why don’t we talk about all the effects of pollution at the mining places where the ore is mined, or the indigenous people who are affected, or the fact that radio-active material will be with us for generations to come, or that there have been issues and accidents with how nuclear reactors are operated. How much do the corporations really tell us?
Also wondering why solar power (and other renewable energy resources) gets such short shrift when India does not have the issue that countries in northern latitudes have – too little sunlight. Is it because there’s more opportunities for corruption and lining the pockets for all involved when constructing huge dams and nuclear power plants? Is it not practical, or is it lack of political will? Somewhat moot point, but would solar power have been profitable and practical today if considerable effort and money had been spent on research a few decades ago? Or is it not as sexy as a big dam or a big nuclear plant?
And, I wish I had a silver bullet to offer that would solve all our problems, but right now, this is my (somewhat critical) voice, and how I see things now. It is bound to change as I learn more. Maybe something along the lines of Green Economics would be the model/theory I hope develops over the next few decades.
I don’t know what is good. I don’t even know what is bad. I am not ashamed to say this. I would make a bad leader/decision maker because the ‘grey’ in the issues always hold me back from deciding ‘black’ or ‘white’. I am barely surviving in this complex with my set of professional skills, as are some of you. Therefore, despite a Master’s degree in Conservation (yes, I am one of those!) I am still undecided on the ‘evils’ of nuclear energy. My Master’s thesis advisor, a respected wildlife biologist, is not, but as I said to him, “you didn’t live 160 kms away from Chernobyl for 5 years.”
So I cannot even attempt to critique/propose an economic/political policy which will be signed with or without me understanding most of it.
In general, what I appreciate from people like LeftyProf is their ability to gather what has not been said/represented and add it to what has been said. You may decide that his contribution is not benefiting you– as a member of a self-select subpopulation here–but I appreciate being reminded of things I deliberately wish to forget, unlearn or remain ignorant of.
What I don’t appreciate is the faint air of derision I sense he/she gets on this site. I also respect the fact that the man (woman) wears his/her label on the handle. He/she at least has the courtesy to tell us quickly what the angle or agenda is. I truly respect that. After all, if all of us wore our agendas on our handles we will see several interesting ones such as ‘self-interest’, ‘elitist’, ‘upper class’, ‘Ayn Randian’, ‘reservation beneficiary’, ‘DMK politics survivor’, ‘Arundhati is a goddess’, ‘Liberalization policy beneficiary’, etc.
malathi, well-said. I think your thoughts echo mine. And I do hope that LeftyProf comes back and engages in discussion. I have observed this on blogs, that any discussion gets bogged down due (maybe that’s just the nature of discussions) to neat little boxes that we like to put others (and ourselves) in – libertarian, capitalist, environmentalist, socialist, communist, marxist, atheist, saffronist, secular, pseudo-secular and so on. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle and we’re looking at it from different angles. The fable of elephant and the blind men comes to mind.
I come from the sustainable living and renewable development angle, and that health of people and community comes before monetary profits (which is not the same as no development, and no profits). If we had two or three uninhabited earths available to us for natural resources, then I probably would be gung-ho for progress and development too. But that’s not the case. /end-meta-post
Amit and Malathi, I have very little to add to that– thanks for those thoughtful contributions!
As for me, I’m a socialist, so in the world we live in, nobody’s about to make me finance minister of anything. But if you want to know what I think would be a start, see my comments at #63.
I think this is the very reason what India should oppose the deal. If opposing is not possible, just try to hold the deal in abeyance (civil disobedience headed by Arundhati Roy/Medha Patkar types). Or plain old bureaucracy, letting GE et all tangled up in the Indian judicial system (meaning in 20-30 years maybe very few reactors will be built)
It is critical, that nuclear power as proposed by Americans(i.e. uranium based) do NOT become more than what it is now (3-4%). In this way US never gets a lever to blackmail India to do what it wants. I would hate to see a day when an Indian prime minister will become the Indian version of Tony Blair
So, how do we solve the energy crisis Few ideas of mine 1) Coal (India’s 4th largest coal reserves). Short term solution (say next 20-30 years) 2) Thorium based nuclear power. ( India is the world second largest Thorium reserves) Problem with Thorium is presently technology is not there. And not much development is not going on in this sphere. Huge investments in developing a cost effective safe throium powered nuclear plant technology be done ASAP. 3) Our northern neighbor Nepal with their Himalayan ranges has plenty of Hydro-potential. Encourage political stability there, build dams/help Nepalese build them. Even within India plenty of hydro-power potential. 4) Look at other innovative things, solar, tidal on coasts….
There is no one solution, plenty of options available. If worst come to worst we can import gas from Myanmar for the short term. Once Thorium gets in operation, India has plenty of supplies for a century of more.
No energy supply is worth forfeiting India’s sovereignty and having American/NATO soldiers marching near India Gate in Delhi.
Indian(#71) I am afraid thats not going to happen, the deal will go through despite the opposition & we’ll soon be building the reactors in maybe 3-4 years time. What i am interested in(& hope) is how soon can we build up enough thorium out of the spent uranium that we don’t need it anymore from the US & can do out own thing .. talking abt independence day we should be independent in those terms as well.
Vishal, India already has more than enough Thorium to go the plutonium route for nuclar power generation. What we need is to invest in technology to make that route safe.
Yeah, I guess so. But then Narmada dam took upwards of a decade. So if the opposition can string along and delay these American backed nuclear power plants for becoming a significant part of Indian energy scene. My point is this, if Americans blackmail India into unreasonable things (like sending troops to North Korea/Iraq/XYZ country) we can then back out of the deal with many options available (including the thorium one).
US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal if India conducts a nuclear test
The true intentions of US are coming out even before the ink is dry on the paper. As I said, this deal is an instrument to relegate India to a second-class nuclear status and impose CTBT – a treaty that the US Senate itself has refused to ratify – through the backdoor. This is MM Singh’s Simla playing out right in front of us.
On the question of environmental concerns, a quick google search for “turamdih” leads to a number of news reports about waste and leakage from the uranium mine and illness, deformities resulting in the local village population. It’s a serious and valid question to ask whether the existing infrastructure, capability, and willingness exists on the part of Indian business and government to adequately safeguard radioactive material. That’s also why international oversight of reprocessing is important. UCIL (Uranium Corp of India Ltd.) will say one thing in their press releases, but a lot of people are saying the reality on the ground is quite different.
Also, France has much more of its energy met by nuclear power than the US does (about 60% I think). Both France and Russia among others will be vying for the contracts, and as Amardeep pointed out, it’s not in the US interest to incorporate specific assurances that it will work with India to provide fuel sources in the event US tech and material are returned.
Amardeep, the following words, coming as they do from an English Professor, still continue to haunt and bother me. So please indulge my straying away from the specific issue highlighted here.
I see this as you being privileged enough to try on different hats, and pick and choose what suits personally you, what is necessary at a minimum for you to survive in the world that was partly chosen for you, but mostly built by yourself.
So I would term that as the ideology of the privileged, and hope that it doesn’t merely come across as pure derision.
All of this you are entitled to. It is within your rights, your pursuit of your personal goals, happiness.
But some among the rest of us cannot, should not, easily discard the hats that we were destined to be born with in order to wear the hats of those who tell us how to prioritize, think, feel, vote, live. It is a boring and unpopular burden in some ways. That probably explains why not all of us are true to the worlds that surrounded us. Hence my gratitude to theorists. And I would appreciate if you, in your capacity as an educator, will understand that sentiment.
If my daughter comes to you 15 years from now seeking your help to understand why her mother, who read and loved a myriad of Indian English books, cherished one particular, almost-obscure book (‘Nectar in a Sieve’ by Kamala Markandaya), will you be ready for the challenge? Will you understand that this is the only book that comes anywhere close to portraying her mother’s people’s story? Despite the overrepresentation in numbers, the rural, Southern, under-class is systematically underrepresented in literature, media, internet, western diaspora.
Admittedly, this is a straying on my part from the specifics to the large generalization. I apologize.
“Vishal, India already has more than enough Thorium to go the plutonium route for nuclar power generation. What we need is to invest in technology to make that route safe.”
As far as i understand, we still need some amount of Uranium to get the Thorium cycle started. Its the thorium fast breeder cycle that we a looking for, I am not even a physics student so maybe wrong. I just hope the scientists & negotiators know what kind of binding they’re putting us into.
India has always been on the side of tyrants, despots and fascist regimes with its mindless anti-American and anti-West bias. India hardly gained nothing by playing the lead stooge of the Russians; neither did India gain anything by sucking up to the Chinese. The Russians turned India into of model of third world penetration by KGB and the Chinese walked away with hundreds of square kilometers of Indian territory. While the smart Japanese and Europeans lost no time in understanding the importance of being on good terms with the US and proceeded to rapidly rebuild their war ravaged economies India preferred to go the way of economic stagnation and regression. India needs to work in close co-operation with the US and give up its antipathy to the West. The nuclear deal can go a long way in easing the power situation which threatens to become critical in a few years. The gap between the demand and supply of power is going to increase and at the moment there seems to be no other way than to follow the example of coutries like France and US that generate a substantial amount of power by nuclear route. Energy Statistics
What about the Aussies ? http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/28flip.htm
re: the value of growth –
Growth isn’t inherently bad. The growing inequity between the richest and poorest Indians (and indeed citizens nearly any country these days) as a result of this growth and who has benefited MORE from it is bad.
No one denies that the gap between rich and poor is increasing (anyone been to the brand spanking new Chennai City Centre?), but most people don’t talk about it. Instead, this central issue (the growing disparity between the richest and the poorest) is glossed over in more aggregate statistics like gross domestic product, or simply in terms like “The Economy.” What’s good for “The Economy” is good for everyone. The questions “How good?” and “For whom?” never arise.
So the question of whether or not the nuclear deal OR economic growth is good for India is a bad, awful question. That’s a judgment call I make. Ideology? Call it what you will. But the reason I make it is because most people who consider the question in these terms do so at an aggregate, abstract level, without considering the needs and interests of every citizen within the nation. Someone please tell me what the value is of a nation in which every citizen’s interests are not taken into consideration when making policy?
The point isn’t to come up with answers. We’re not even close to ready to do that. The point is, as LeftyProf put it, to start asking other questions. For example, in all of these debates in the Indian press about the nuclear deal, I haven’t seen a single piece on the value of nuclear energy with regard to the environment or people living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. Doesn’t this seem like a very basic question which should be answered and debated in the public realm?
All this talk of calling for solid answers and solutions sounds well and good, but how can you have a solid answer to a flawed question?
oops – if any admins are reading this thread, maybe you could change my name to ptr_vivek in #80 to avoid confusion?
even if you say that. if you don’t start answering questions you won’t end up anywhere. what your hoping for is for someone else to take up responsibilty for these “questions” and spare yourself that fate.
Hi PS – I’ve been using this handle since I started commenting – any chance you can change your handle to avoid confusion?
sorry didnt’ realise, this better?
Hi,I think its a good deal for us Its a new starting for india. We never do in last sixty years that do it now. So we have to appriciate our prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh He is realy a good man & he is doing good job.
This shows how selfish u.s. is.
& This tells how much it can twist your arm.
India is one of the countries were oppurtunities are never to be and this one[nuclear deal] is something which the govt have to put a hand on but when the hosts on the other side turn to be matlabi, what can anyone do. the US is really selfish. three cheers for Dr.Singh