ആണവ കരാറുമായി മുന്നോട്ട് പോകുവാനുള്ള യു.പി.എ സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെ നടപടികളില്‍ പ്രതിഷേധിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ഇടത്പക്ഷ കക്ഷികള്‍ പിന്തുണ പിന്‍‌വലിച്ചതിനെ തുടര്‍ന്ന് സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ 2008 ജൂലൈ 22 ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച ഒരു വിശ്വാസവോട്ടെടുപ്പിനെ അഭിമുഖീകരിക്കുകയാണല്ലോ. നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ പരമാധികാരത്തെയും സ്വാശ്രയത്വത്തെയും സ്വതന്ത്രവിദേശനയത്തെയും ആണവ പരിപാടികളെയുമൊക്കെ പ്രതികൂലമായി ബാധിക്കുന്ന തരത്തില്‍ അമേരിക്കയുമായി ഒരു തന്ത്രപരമായ സഖ്യത്തിനാണ് ഈ കരാറുകളിലൂടെ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ലക്ഷ്യമാക്കുന്നത് എന്നത് ഏറെക്കുറെ വ്യക്തമായിക്കഴിഞ്ഞിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ഇത്രയും കാലം ജനസാമാന്യത്തെ ബാധിക്കുന്ന വിവിധ ആവശ്യങ്ങള്‍ ഉയര്‍ത്തുകയും പൊതു മിനിമം പ്രോഗ്രാമില്‍ ഉറച്ചു നില്‍ക്കണമെന്ന് ആവശ്യപ്പെടുകയുമല്ലാതെ മറ്റ് അവിഹിതമായ യാതൊരു വിലപേശലും നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ലാത്ത ഇടതുപക്ഷത്തെ മന:പൂര്‍വം ഒഴിവാക്കാന്‍ നടത്തിയ നീക്കങ്ങളും ആണവ കരാറിന്റെ കാര്യത്തില്‍ സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെ നിലപാടുകളിലെ സുതാര്യതയില്ലായ്മയും ഇന്നിപ്പോള്‍ വെളിവായിട്ടുണ്ട്. മറ്റു ബദലുകള്‍ അന്വേഷിക്കാതെയും തിരക്കിട്ടും രാജ്യത്തിലെ ജനങ്ങളെയും പാര്‍ലിമെന്റിനെയും വിശ്വാസത്തിലെടുക്കാതെയും മുന്നോട്ട് പോകാനുള്ള സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെ തീരുമാനത്തെ എതിര്‍ക്കുക എന്നത് ജനാധിപത്യവിശ്വാസികളായ, രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ ഭാവിയെക്കുറിച്ച് ഉല്‍കണ്ഠയുള്ള ഓരോരുത്തരുടെയും കടമയാണ്. ആ രീതിയിലുള്ള പ്രവര്‍ത്തനങ്ങള്‍ നടക്കുന്നുമുണ്ട്.
എങ്കിലും, ജൂലൈ 22ന് നടക്കുന്ന വിശ്വാസവോട്ടെടുപ്പില്‍ യു.പി. എ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ വിജയിക്കുക എന്നാല്‍ അത് നാളിതു വരെ രാജ്യം പിന്തുടര്‍ന്നിരുന്ന സ്വതന്ത്ര, ചേരിചേരാ- ബഹുധ്രുവ വിദേശ നയ സങ്കല്പങ്ങളെല്ലാം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ഒരു അമേരിക്കന്‍ സാമന്ത രാജ്യമായി തീരുന്നതിലേക്ക് നയിക്കും എന്ന കാര്യത്തിലും ആ സഖ്യത്തില്‍ നിന്നും പുറത്തു കടക്കുക എന്നത് അത്യന്തം ദുഷ്ക്കരമായിരിക്കും എന്നതിലും സംശയമില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ട് തന്നെ വിശ്വാസവോട്ടെടുപ്പില്‍ ഈ രാജ്യത്തിലെ ജനങ്ങളെ പ്രതിനിധീകരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് വോട്ടവകാശം വിനിയോഗിക്കുവാന്‍ പോകുന്ന ഓരോ ലോകസഭാസാമാജികനെയും നാം എങ്ങനെ ചിന്തിക്കുന്നു എന്നത് നേരിട്ടറിയിക്കുന്നത് രാജ്യത്തിലെ പൊതുജനാഭിപ്രായത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് ഒരു നേരറിവുണ്ടാകുവാന്‍ സാമാജികരെയും സഹായിക്കുമെന്ന് പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് പറയേണ്ടല്ലോ. അത്തരമൊരു അഭിപ്രായ വിനിമയം കരാറിനെതിരായ ജനാധിപത്യപരമായ പോരാട്ടത്തില്‍ ഒരു നല്ല ചുവടുവെയ്പായിരിക്കുമെന്ന് ഞങ്ങള്‍ കരുതുന്നു.
ഈ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തില്‍ വോട്ടെടുപ്പില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കുവാന്‍ പോകുന്ന ലോകസഭാ സാമാജികര്‍ക്ക് ഒരു ഇമെയില്‍ സന്ദേശം വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം അയച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അതിന്റെ പൂര്‍ണ്ണരൂപം താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു.
Respected Member of Parliament,
We are constrained to address you all on the issue of nuclear co-operation agreement that is being entered into by the Government of India and the US Government and the subsequent political turmoil taking place in the country and the ensuing parliament session in which the UPA Government is seeking vote of confidence.
The very haste exhibited to sign the agreement itself is raising doubts as to the purpose of the very agreement. The ingenuity shown by the Prime Minister in pitting the very existence of the Government against that of the Nuclear co-operation agreement is, again, raising many doubts.
The nuclear cooperation agreement can not be viewed in isolation from the overall context of India-US strategic relations, its impact on our foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.
If the nuclear cooperation agreement is viewed in the context of our energy security, access to technology and the development of the three stage nuclear programme, there is no emergency to rush with it. Our scientists did wonderfully well in indigenising the Pressurised Water Reactors, and then developing it further to 540 MW. Our scientists are world leaders in fast breeder reactor technology. The planned three stage nuclear programme would depend largely on technologies based on fast breeder reactors, and in the future, thorium, in which India is the richest in the world, as fuel. The US concessions and offers are just to get India into the agreement with a view to create hurdles for our indigenous advancement in the very nuclear technology as also energy sector as a whole, including our programmes for regional co-operation such as Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipe line. US bombs Iraq, threatens Iran and demands India to support US. Will the support to US safeguard our national interest ? In fact US is trying to get out of the trap, it has made itself in by attacking Iraq, by dragging India into the war through the military alliance, jeopardising our energy security, which is far more served through strengthening our ties with the oil rich nations of the region.
Despite the indigenous advancement, leave alone the proposed agreement in the name of energy security, while nuclear energy being considered as one of the many sources, the thrust cannot be on nuclear power on any factor that are worthy of consideration like cost, immediate for installation, future for maintenance, risk management and nuclear waste disposal, the likely risks arising out of nuclear radiation and attendant hazards etc. In India, even today we are using solar energy (5% of total consumption) more than nuclear energy which comes to only (3%). India has to concentrate on tapping the inexhaustible and wasted solar energy more than any thing else. The recent development in the field of photo-voltaic cell technology has made them cheaper by more than 50% and is likely to be cheaper further. It is a question worth pondering whether US is discarding its nuclear plants, by shifting them to other countries, in preference to solar energy, which has many advantages over large power plants and has become viable compared to other sources. Therefore, the nuclear energy option need not compel the Government to risk its existence.
If it is viewed in the context of the national sovereignty and autonomy, the 123 agreement, itself being derived out of the US Act, also cannot be viewed in isolation to the Hyde Act, which US Government is bound to honour. It is the experience, world over, that the US is always acting in accordance with its national security considerations, as always pronounced by itself, even in attacking a far away land like Iraq. Can, India, then nurse a wishful thinking that our interests will be upheld even in violation of Hyde Act ?
The United States does not see the nuclear cooperation agreement as a stand-alone one. It is part of American design to try in India a wide ranging strategic alliance which will adversely affect the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy. This nuclear cooperation agreement is going to bind India with the United States in a relationship which goes contrary to our cherished goals of national sovereignty and independent foreign policy and an economic development based on the priorities of our people. In the US imperialist design, India is considered as its subordinate ally, which negates all the values which India stood for in the past.
The objections and the apprehensions raised by wide spectrum of well meaning citizens of the country, the Left and other political parties, organisations and concerned scientists need to be examined before proceeding further. All they are asking the government to do is not to rush through with the next steps which are necessary to operationalise the deal.
Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the representatives of the people to see that a mandate is not given for proceeding further with the nuclear co-operation agreement. If the vote is for the Government, it becomes a mandate for the agreement. Naturally, since, by its own volition, the Government of India has put itself in this unenviable position, no body can be blamed for getting itself voted out. National interest shall be placed above the interest of the Government. It is hoped that your goodself being the sovereign representative of people of India, will seriously consider these issues on this vital matter affecting our country's future and act in the interest of Nation rather than that of the Government.
Workers Forum
ഇവിടെ ബഹുമാന്യരായ ലോകസഭാംഗങ്ങളുടെ ഇ മെയില്‍ ഐ ഡി ലഭ്യമാണ്.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
2008 ജൂലൈ 22 ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച നടക്കുന്ന
വിശ്വാസവോട്ടെടുപ്പില്‍ ഈ രാജ്യത്തിലെ ജനങ്ങളെ പ്രതിനിധീകരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് വോട്ടവകാശം വിനിയോഗിക്കുവാന്‍ പോകുന്ന ഓരോ ലോകസഭാസാമാജികനെയും നാം എങ്ങനെ ചിന്തിക്കുന്നു എന്നത് നേരിട്ടറിയിക്കുന്നത് രാജ്യത്തിലെ പൊതുജനാഭിപ്രായത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് ഒരു നേരറിവുണ്ടാകുവാന്‍ സാമാജികരെയും സഹായിക്കുമെന്ന് പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് പറയേണ്ടല്ലോ. അത്തരമൊരു അഭിപ്രായ വിനിമയം കരാറിനെതിരായ ജനാധിപത്യപരമായ പോരാട്ടത്തില്‍ ഒരു നല്ല ചുവടുവെയ്പായിരിക്കുമെന്ന് ഞങ്ങള്‍ കരുതുന്നു.
ഈ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തില്‍ വോട്ടെടുപ്പില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കുവാന്‍ പോകുന്ന ലോകസഭാ സാമാജികര്‍ക്ക് ഒരു ഇമെയില്‍ സന്ദേശം വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം അയച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്.
It is really funny that people talk about India's non-alignment past. The fact is that the non-alignment movement was always on the side of the communist bloc throughout the cold war era.No one could expect anything else from a movement which included Cuba and Yugoslavia. Let me ask one question? If India was truly non-aligned why did we were silent first during the crushing of the Hungarian uprising and later when USSR invaded Afghanistan? Where were our communists those days?
Mr. Binu,
Don't be buried in the past. Come on, wake up and think of our country's destiny.......!
ബിനു, ബൈജു
വായനയ്ക്കും അഭിപ്രായങ്ങള്‍ക്കും നന്ദി
ബിനു പറയുന്നത് കേട്ടാല്‍ തോന്നും ചേരിചേരാ പ്രസ്ഥാനം തുടങ്ങിയത് കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റുകാരാണെന്ന്..അമേരിക്കയുടെയും ബ്രിട്ടന്റെയും പിറകെ നടന്നിട്ടും നവ സ്വതന്ത്ര ഇന്ത്യയെ അവര്‍ സഹായിക്കാന്‍ തയ്യാറായിരുന്നില്ല എന്നത് ചരിത്ര സത്യം. നാറ്റോ സഖ്യത്തില്‍ പെട്ട രാജ്യങ്ങളുടെ മുന്‍കോളനികളായിരുന്നു ചേരിചേരാ പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിലെ ബഹുഭൂരിപക്ഷം രാജ്യങ്ങളും. അവര്‍ക്ക് തങ്ങളുടെ ദേശീയ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യ സമരത്തെ പിന്തുണച്ച സോവ്യറ്റ് യൂണിയനോട് താല്പര്യം തോന്നുക സ്വാഭാവികം. ഇവിടെ പ്രശ്നം അതല്ല, ന്യൂക്ലിയര്‍ നോണ്‍ പ്രോലിഫിറേഷന്‍ ട്രീറ്റിയില്‍ ഒപ്പുവയ്ക്കാതിരിക്കാന്‍ ഇന്ത്യ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാണിച്ചു കൊണ്ടിരുന്ന സാഹചര്യങ്ങള്‍ മാറിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നതാണ് മുഖ്യ വസ്തുത.
Appeals from Nuclear Scientists to the Members of Parliament On The India-US Civilian Nuclear Co-operation Agreement
1. We were part of a group of senior nuclear scientists who had in the past expressed our grave concerns and objections to India entering into a nuclear co-operation agreement with the US under the aegis of the Hyde Act 2006. We had written earlier to the Parliamentarians on this matter, and the Prime Minister had given us an opportunity to meet with him and discuss our views.
2. At this critical juncture, when the Government is about to rush the safeguards agreement through the IAEA, there is a great deal of disquiet among the scientific community at large in this country. Should the country be entering into such a long term binding arrangement without a detailed and rigorous examination of the IAEA Safeguards? Should a Government, based at best on a wafer thin majority and a divided Parliament, commit the country in this manner? We, therefore, are strongly of the opinion that the Government should not proceed to seek IAEA Board approval for the current draft safeguards agreement, until its implications are debated more fully within the country, and with a group of experts who were not party to the IAEA negotiations.
3. The government is enthusiastically pushing the Deal on the basis that it will bring about energy security to India, since it will enable the import of foreign nuclear power reactors. But, analysts have convincingly and quantitatively shown that this additional power will come at a much higher cost per unit of electricity compared to conventional coal or hydro power, which India can generate without any foreign imports.
4. Once the Deal is in place, it is also clear that India's commercial nuclear interactions with the US, as well as with any other country, will be firmly controlled from Washington via the stipulations of the Hyde Act 2006 enforced through the stranglehold which the US retains on the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Any argument to the effect that the Deal will be governed only by the bilateral 123 Agreement is untenable, because this Agreement in turn is anchored in US domestic laws, which include the Hyde Act. And, the Hyde Act contains several stipulations which are extraneous to the issue of bilateral nuclear co-operation, including foreign policy behaviour which India needs to adhere to if the Deal is to be kept alive. The real issue facing India, therefore, is whether or not we want this mythical extra 'energy security ' through this Deal, paying two to three times the unit capital cost of conventional power plants, with the additional burden of subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and indigenous nuclear R&D program of our own.
5. The nuclear Deal could also have other serious repercussions, including a potential weakening of India's nuclear deterrent and an inability to protect & promote indigenous R&D efforts in nuclear technology. A combination of the extreme secrecy with which the government has carried forward this deal, the media hype they were able to generate in its favour, the parochial interests of opportunistic individuals & organizations, and the unfortunate ignorance of the issues involved among the general public have put the country on a dangerous path, likely to lead to the detriment of the current & future generations of Indians. Today's urgency to rush to the IAEA Board, in consonance with the American timetable, to get the safeguards agreement approved and thereafter clinch the Deal during the tenures of the current governments in India and the US must, therefore, be replaced with an openness & introspection that is vital for a serious debate which the situation demands.
6. The central issue about the IAEA safeguards agreement has been the doubt as to how "India-specific" these are. In particular, since it is distinctly clear from the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement that no uninterrupted fuel supplies have been guaranteed in these documents for reactors which India will place under safeguards, the Government had assured that this defect will be corrected in the safeguards agreement. Since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-supply guarantor, it is not surprising that Indian negotiators have failed to obtain any assurance in this regard. All that the IAEA Agreement states in its preambular section is that it notes uninterrupted fuel supply and support for a strategic fuel reserve is the basis of placing Indian facilities in safeguards. It places no obligation on the IAEA other than merely noting this. The corrective measures, indicated in the preambular section, have nothing that anchors them to any section in the operative part of the agreement. Against such unspecified and vague mention of corrective measures, India's obligations are clear and binding. In effect, India has agreed to place its facilities that it will list out in the Annex under perpetual safeguards without any link to an uninterrupted fuel supply.
7. The Government is asserting that the IAEA safeguards have "provisions for corrective measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Taking this into account, India is placing its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity". The nation would like to know clearly what these "corrective measures" are, before plunging headlong into this Deal. India being merely allowed to withdraw the Indian-built civilian PHWRs from safeguards , and that too after stripping them of all spent & fresh fuel and components of foreign origin , is no corrective step at all because such action does not ensure uninterrupted operation of these civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Even here, Article 32 of the Safeguards Agreement appears to stand in the way of any such withdrawal. Besides, this relaxation does not apply to the imported power reactors, which will use up the bulk of our investments in nuclear power; these units will perpetually stay under safeguards, even after fuel supplies are denied. The Hyde Act prohibits the US Administration from directly or indirectly (through the IAEA or other countries) assisting India with life-time fuel supplies after suspension of the Deal. Therefore, the Government owes a clarification to the Parliament and the public about how they intend to avoid the consequential huge economic loss from the non-operation of these extremely costly imported reactors , as a result of fuel denial .
8. The 123 Agreement states that the imports under the Deal "shall be subject to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards Agreement between India and the IAEA and an Additional Protocol, when in force". While the actual draft of the Additional Protocol (AP) applicable to India may have to be negotiated and agreed to at a later date, it is absolutely necessary that a prior agreement between the IAEA and India on the essential features of such an Additional Protocol must be reached simultaneous with the finalization of the safeguards agreement and certainly before signing it. The most intrusive actions under the IAEA safeguards are always taken on the basis of this protocol, including the "pursuit clause" which permits interference with our non-civilian programs on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion. India needs to make it clear what the limits are beyond which we will not entertain any IAEA action or intrusion, and it should be clear that a standard Model Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapon States will not be acceptable to India. The leverage to debate and get the kind of restricted Additional Protocol we want will be entirely lost once a safeguards agreement alone is first put in place and the installations put under safeguards. As we understand, the limitations within which India is willing to enter into the Additional Protocol regime was neither discussed by Indian negotiators at the IAEA nor do they appear in the safeguards draft or its attachments. In this context , the Government needs to clarify their thinking on the Additional Protocol , before entering into the safeguards agreement .
9. Reprocessing the spent-fuel arising from burning fresh imported fuel in our civilian reactors provides us valuable additional plutonium, which in turn can be recycled into future civilian fast breeder reactors (FBRs) or advanced heavy water reactors (AHWRs). Reprocessing, therefore, is at the core of India's plans to build long-term energy security.
The government had all along pledged to secure an unqualified right to reprocess spent-fuel and even termed India's right to reprocess "non-negotiable". But, in the 123 Agreement, what has finally been obtained is merely an empty theoretical right to reprocess. The actual permission to reprocess will come after years, when a dedicated state-of-the art reprocessing plant is built anew to treat foreign fuel, along with a host of allied facilities. There will be a large number of safeguards & Additional Protocol issues related to this, and all these hurdles will have to be crossed to reach the beginning of reprocessing. Much of the fundamental basis on which all this will be done has to be discussed and settled now at the outset, while the overall safeguards agreement is being finalized. But, the Government has not done this exercise during the recent set of negotiations with the IAEA, and this deficiency will come to haunt India in future unless it is rectified.
10. Similarly , there are many other key safeguards-related issues of crucial importance which have not been addressed in the current draft . Furthermore , none of the issues included presently has been handled adequately or in an acceptable manner. We therefore appeal to the Members of the Lok Sabha to direct the Government not to proceed further with the current safeguards agreement , and ask the Prime Minister to initiate wide-ranging and structured deliberations on the Indo-US Nuclear Co-operation Agreement , both within Parliament and outside , to develop a broad consensus on this Deal among political parties and the general public , before proceeding any further .
SIGNATORIES :
1. Dr.P.K.Iyengar , Former Chairman , Atomic Energy Commission
2. Dr.A. Gopalakrishnan , Former Chairman , Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
3. Dr.A.N. Prasad , Former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Center
Intellectuals Lash Out Against the UPA Government -
A Statement On The Nuclear Deal
We the undersigned are disturbed by the manner in which the government of India is rushing ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal, even though during the only discussion on it in the Lok Sabha to date, a majority of MPs was clearly against it. The confidence vote on July 21 cannot for obvious reasons, be construed as a vote on the deal; and the Prime Minister's statement about the deal being brought to the Lok Sabha before being clinched means very little, as he would in effect be presenting a /fait accompli/. Thus a major decision affecting the country's future energy and foreign policies, is being pushed through despite enjoying only minority support, evidently in order to meet the US President's time-frame. The mendacity that has marked this decision also adds to our fears.
To be sure, meeting the country's energy needs is of paramount importance. But what role nuclear energy will play in this has never been discussed, even within the government, let alone in public. Nuclear power scarcely figures in the Approach Paper for the Eleventh Five Year Plan; no cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power has ever been made; and even its economic costs (leaving aside safety issues) have never been properly evaluated because of the range of implicit subsidies it enjoys. While not all of us may be opposed to nuclear power per se, we believe that the optimal energy-mix for the country in the coming years must be based on careful calculations. Since such calculations have never been made, the government's attempt to justify the deal through general references to our energy needs and to the current high oil prices, appears to be patently disingenuous. Indeed, even by its own claims in support of the deal, nuclear power will meet no more than 8 percent of our total needs in twenty years' time.
Even if nuclear energy is to be given high priority, the precise role of imported technology in this sector needs careful examination. Indian nuclear scientists and engineers have painstakingly built up an indigenous nuclear industry over the years. Their effort must not be negated, and our self-reliance undermined, through a deal that, by emphasizing imported technology, makes the country vulnerable in the long run.
The country today is facing a rate of price inflation that is unprecedented in recent years. This inflation, superimposed on a prior collapse of rural incomes, of which the tragic suicides of peasants and village artisans in several states are but one manifestation, is causing great distress to the people. But while the government urges the nation to have patience with regard to inflation, it rushes impatiently to sign a nuclear deal. Keeping faith with President Bush obviously has greater priority for it than keeping faith with the people of the country.
We appeal to our esteemed parliamentarians to exert pressure on the government not to rush headlong into this deal. Let there be a wider and more honest debate on all relevant issues, so that the people can properly decide what is good for the country and its future.
1. Dr. Ashok Mitra, Former Member, Rajya Sabha
2. Mr. S.P.Shukla, Former Member, Planning Commission.
3. E.A.S.Sarma, Former Union Power Secretary, Former Adviser
(Energy), Planning Commission, Former Chairman, Nuclear Power
Pricing Committee, DAE
4. Ms. Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajasthan.
5. Professor Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Institute for Development Studies,
Kolkata.
6. Professor Utsa Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
7. Professor N.Krishnaji, Formerly of Centre For Development Studies,
Trivandrum.
8. Dr. A.D. Damodaran. Former Director, National Institute of
Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, and also formerly
Nuclear Fuel Complex, Dept. Atomic Energy
9. Professor Jayati Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
10. Professor Nasir Tyabji, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
11. Professor C.P.Chandrasekhar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
12. Professor Sushil Khanna, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
13. Professor Prabhat Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
14. Dr. Parthapratim Pal, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
15. Dr. Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
16. Professor V. K. Ramachandran, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
17. Professor Madhura Swaminathan, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
18. Professor Rahul Roy, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi
19. Professor Mohan Rao, Jawaharlar Nehru University, New Delhi
20. Dr. Ayesha Kidwai, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
21. Professor Kamal Chenoy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
22. Professor Anuradha Chenoy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
23. Dr. Praveen Jha, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
24. Dr. Vikas Rawal, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
25. Dr. Himanshu, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
26. Professor T. Jayaraman, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
27. Dr. R. Ramakumar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
28. Professor Shakti Kak, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
29. Professor Venkatesh Athreya, M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation,
Chennai
30. Dr. Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Department of Linguistics, Delhi University
31. Dr. Hany Babu, Department of English, Delhi University
32. Dr. Archana Prasad, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
33. Mr. Dinesh Abrol, NISTADS, New Delhi
34. Mr. D.Raghunandan, Centre of Technology and Development
35. Dr. Satyajit Rath, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi
36. Dr. Vineeta Bal, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi
So the Prime minister of India and others in simple terms are cheating the Indian constituencies. Is it because they do not understand themselves the implications of entering into a shabbly negotiated agreement that has far reaching implications on the various aspects of the Indian life as that of the nuclear agreement that involves a foreign country as brute as America, or do they not care for the people f India? For me the second is the latter.
Whether the nuclear agreement is good or bad for India is not clearly the issue at hand now. The Indian ruling congress is so incompetent to take care of the interest of its people who entrusted them with the ruling of the nation. For this stupidity they need to be punished.
Currently it is neither an issue of the politics, it is to oust an incompetent and ineffective government that can only play second fiddle to a corrupt foreign nation at the expense of the national interest.
Dear M Keralam
Thanks
Post a Comment