Nearly two and the half decades back, America banned trading ventures with India. Reason behind that, India added a golden chapter in its history. The glorious moment of Phokharan Nuclear Test became the eyesore of uni-polar world’s chief. Earlier to this India denied to sign over CTBT. In 1999 again “Buddha smiled” in India’s 2nd Nuclear Test, which shook the US supremacy at nuclear front. That straightforward message of not compromising with nation’s security interests learnt lesson to US, though cold war had ended, still Asian tiger never diminishes whosever before him... Of course, the nuclear programme is one of the major key contents of India. As imperialism of earlier 19th century has wore mask of new liberalism or globalization. Thus, on the name of market oriented globalization of security measures where we are going is the million-dollar question for India. It’s not the market- driven force behind Indo-US nuclear deal or any kind of fuel, safeguards transfer deal, moreover than that, it’s the US fear of 9/11who always haunts him in terms of socio-cultural acceptance in world community rather than the corporate acceptance. US can capture on Iraq, Afghanistan but he isn’t willing to burn his hand, bearing India’s rivalry. Hence, here he grown up to keep vulture eye on day-to-day development on Indian nuclear programme. Question arises, who has given right to US to monitor India’s nuclear programme. IAEA has appointed to observe the nuclear programme, but like “her majesty” of British Queen, does India could gain support system from tyranny of US of IAEA. Where sovereignty of Indian nuclear programme’s exists? How can we forgot that it’s the same US, who destroyed Iraq, blaming him to keep bio-chemical weapon. Ultimately what happened, we all know, did US accepted his fault or take responsibility of tolls of dead in Iraq?
The country, which felt no fatigue to sing the praise for scientist of DAE for their extremely good job, keeping tri-colour high, suddenly started pointing out over their competence. Conserving nation’s pride, which made missile man an Indian president, should we swallow this sudden shift of the decreasing faith over DAE without much irritation? As per saying of DAE chairman Anil Kakodar, the sensitive question of civilian-military separation revolves around to mention fast breeder reactor in Civilian list, whether it would be favourable to India or not? Supporting to US diplomacy, first of all US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns give consent to India plan, presented by Foreign Secretary, Shayam Saran. The scene completely got changed after January, when US stated India Plan as “inadequate and indefensible from the non-proliferation perspective” and we started making doubts of efficiency of DAE officials.
If India aggress to IAEA safeguards, it would be difficult to have approval of NSG to enable nuclear commerce. The argument of uniform nuclear policy of IAEA gives US delegation of power such as verifying neutron coincidence, radiation monitoring system and fuel flow monitor along with video surveillance. As a nuclear weapon state, this US nuclear policy is simply hazardous to the country because if we require a certain level of operation for our nuclear reactor, whether it would be of energy security or military requirement, we would be not able to do so due to the US mechanism of regulation, not less than having US check post at Diego Garcia in Indian ocean.
Apart from this moving fuel from one section to another, there would be need to inform IAEA, means we will have to wait for the arrival of IAEA’s monitoring or inspection group. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) can generate Plutonium (P-240), being in Civilian list we will be bounded not to do so. Bringing Japan as a precedent in order to convince India is totally vague as Japan is a non-nuclear weapon state contrary to India. Besides it, India has added significant milestones to its nuclear programme without seeking any external help. From ensuring availability of source component to nuclear technology, unlike Japan he has been independent.
Being the citizen of a developing nation, do we really need the fast breeder reactor, where often catastrophes were taken place by man-made mistake. Are we not on the way of creating another Chernobyl, we should question ourself. Country such as France, which total energy production consists of 75% of nuclear power, are we equally responsible to execute our duty to this extent very well. Remember, power brings responsibility with performance, do we ready for that. If we can negotiate over Kyoto protocol, GM food caring nation’s interest, we should look this matter carefully. Public only can feel proud of through much hyped media reporting, but intellectual country representatives have to judge its aftermaths or consequences.
The country, which felt no fatigue to sing the praise for scientist of DAE for their extremely good job, keeping tri-colour high, suddenly started pointing out over their competence. Conserving nation’s pride, which made missile man an Indian president, should we swallow this sudden shift of the decreasing faith over DAE without much irritation? As per saying of DAE chairman Anil Kakodar, the sensitive question of civilian-military separation revolves around to mention fast breeder reactor in Civilian list, whether it would be favourable to India or not? Supporting to US diplomacy, first of all US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns give consent to India plan, presented by Foreign Secretary, Shayam Saran. The scene completely got changed after January, when US stated India Plan as “inadequate and indefensible from the non-proliferation perspective” and we started making doubts of efficiency of DAE officials.
If India aggress to IAEA safeguards, it would be difficult to have approval of NSG to enable nuclear commerce. The argument of uniform nuclear policy of IAEA gives US delegation of power such as verifying neutron coincidence, radiation monitoring system and fuel flow monitor along with video surveillance. As a nuclear weapon state, this US nuclear policy is simply hazardous to the country because if we require a certain level of operation for our nuclear reactor, whether it would be of energy security or military requirement, we would be not able to do so due to the US mechanism of regulation, not less than having US check post at Diego Garcia in Indian ocean.
Apart from this moving fuel from one section to another, there would be need to inform IAEA, means we will have to wait for the arrival of IAEA’s monitoring or inspection group. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) can generate Plutonium (P-240), being in Civilian list we will be bounded not to do so. Bringing Japan as a precedent in order to convince India is totally vague as Japan is a non-nuclear weapon state contrary to India. Besides it, India has added significant milestones to its nuclear programme without seeking any external help. From ensuring availability of source component to nuclear technology, unlike Japan he has been independent.
Being the citizen of a developing nation, do we really need the fast breeder reactor, where often catastrophes were taken place by man-made mistake. Are we not on the way of creating another Chernobyl, we should question ourself. Country such as France, which total energy production consists of 75% of nuclear power, are we equally responsible to execute our duty to this extent very well. Remember, power brings responsibility with performance, do we ready for that. If we can negotiate over Kyoto protocol, GM food caring nation’s interest, we should look this matter carefully. Public only can feel proud of through much hyped media reporting, but intellectual country representatives have to judge its aftermaths or consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment