The answer, according to Sitaram Yechuri, is Iran.

The CPI(M) member of Parliament, writing in the Hindustan Times makes a point Seymour Hersh made in The New Yorker, that with Israel making preparations to launch a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's alleged nuclear facilities, pressure was growing on New Delhi, especially with time running out for Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert facing corruption charges.

"If such an attack on Iran happens, then it would be virtually impossible to ‘sell’ the go-ahead on the Indo-US nuclear deal to sections of the Congress and the UPA allies. This explains the desperate hurry to move ahead."

Read the full article: Why did you turn your back on the nation, Mr PM?

Link courtesy Anand V.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

IS PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AMERICA’S ECONOMIC HIT MAN IN INDIA?

In the run up to a confidence vote on the survival of UPA coalition government in India, the whole record of Prime Minister’s a decade old performance seem to be reaching a point of climax, when he gets to sign the final deal of civilian nuclear deal with the US administration, head by the lame duck US President, George W. Bush.

At this stage, it will be proper, nay incumbent on all who care for India, its freedom, integrity, its future prosperity, be they the politicians, media people or common well-wisher to read and absorb, the contents of the New York Times bestseller book: Confessions of an economic hit man, written by John Perkins and published in 2004. It is not a fiction novel. In fact, it is the true story of a flesh and blood individual who had a live conscience to expose the most heinous criminal policies widely practiced by his own country, the USA.

Like our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, John Perkins, too was an economic expert, though the career and mission of both seem to be overlapping, at least at first look. The standard pattern of US strategies to control and exploit victimized nation, may differ from country to country and given different parameters of American interest involved.

But the fact that India is a target nation and with due respect to our Prime Minister’s commitment to his nation and its people and the future of the whole subcontinent, he is probably unaware that he is a prime candidate for the epitaph of an American Hit Man in India, once the role of assessing his career goes to the current or future historians.

An account in WIKIPEDIA writes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (ISBN 0-452-28708-1) is a book written by John Perkins and published in 2004. It tells the story of his career with consulting firm Chas. T. Main.

Before employment with the firm, he interviewed for a job with the National Security Agency (NSA). Perkins claims that this interview effectively constituted an independent screening which led to his subsequent hiring by Einar Greve, a member of the firm (and alleged NSA liaison) to become a self-described "Economic Hit Man."

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with huge debts they could not hope to pay, these countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to sell their health, education, electric, water and other public services to corporations. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

Controversy and criticism

Perkins's first boss at Chas. T. Main, Einar Greve, initially declared to journalists that "basically [Perkins's] story is true" and that "what John's book says is, there was a conspiracy to put all these countries on the hook, and that happened." [1] Subsequently, he denied Perkins's allegation that he ever worked as a liaison with the NSA and contradicted other claims made in Perkins's book, stating that Perkins "has convinced himself that a lot of this stuff is true."[1] Perkins comments on Greve's change of heart in the "Epilogue" of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." He points out that Greve initially supported the truth of the book, only to switch his opinion several months later. Perkins suggests that Greve was pressured by outside forces to denounce the book as false.

Some of the book's critics have questioned whether Perkins makes a significant contribution to the debate on global finance and the development of the Third World. For instance, columnist Mark Engler of In These Times, has written that "the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin."[2]

According to the New York Times, "the book's popularity seems driven more by the mix of cloak-and-dagger atmospherics and Mr. Perkins's Damascene conversion" than by insight into "the larger issue of America's role in emerging economies."[3]

Columnist Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post reacted sharply to Perkins' book [4]: "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." Mallaby, who spent 13 years writing for the London Economist and wrote a critically well-received biography of World Bank chief James Wolfensohn,[2] holds that Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong."[4] For instance he points out that Indonesia reduced its infant mortality and illiteracy rates by two-thirds after economists persuaded its leaders to borrow money in 1970. He also disputes Perkins' claim that 51 of the top 100 world economies belong to companies. A value-added comparison done by the UN, he says, shows the number to be 29.

Other sources, including articles in the New York Times and Boston Magazine, as well as a press release issued by the United States Department of State, have referred to a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the claim that the NSA was involved in his hiring to Chas T. Main. In addition, the author of the State Department release states that the NSA "is a cryptological (codemaking and codebreaking) organization, not an economic organization" and that its missions do not involve "anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries."[5]

Critics, including Sebastian Mallaby and the State Department, have also referred to public remarks Perkins has made, as well as previously published books. His published works include books about South American tribal culture that deal with shamanistic techniques for creating self-empowerment, techniques to enhance health and longevity, as well as first hand accounts of metaphysical "travelling" through visions & dream wanderings.[3] Mark Engler questions Perkins's "New Age leanings," and accuses him of "delving into a type of essentialism that, thankfully, has been long banished from university anthropology departments."

The State Department release refers to a presentation at a bookstore, where Perkins allegedly asserted that the US Government was involved in the assassinations of John and Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon and several US senators who died in plane crashes, and expressed concern regarding alleged inconsistencies in the US investigation of the events surrounding the September 11 attacks of 2001. The State Department release therefore identifies Perkins as a conspiracy theorist. In the book, however, Perkins repeatedly emphasizes that the dynamics he describes are systemic and specifically not the result of conspiracy:

"Although unconscious, deceived, and—in many cases—self-deluded, these players were not members of any clandestine conspiracy; rather, they were the product of a system that promotes the most subtle and effective form of imperialism the world has ever witnessed."

[edit] References

1.         ^ Tkacik, Maureen, "The True Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," Boston Magazine, July 2005.

2.         ^ Engler, Mark, "Failures of a Hit Man," In These Times, April 18, 2005.

3.         ^ Confessing to the Converted, by Thomas Jr., Landon, New York Times, Sec. 3, Col, 1, p. 1, 2006-02-19.

4.         ^ a b The Facts Behind the 'Confessions' by Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post Op-Ed, 2006-02-26

5.         ^ Confessions – or Fantasies – of an Economic Hit Man?, US Department of State, 2006-05-10

[edit] Additional reading

•           New Confessions and Revelations from the World of Economic Hit Men, John Perkins, 2007-03-15.

•           John Perkins talks about his book with NOW's David Brancaccio (video), 2005-03-04.

•           Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions, Interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, 2004-11-09.

•           In hock to Uncle Sam, The Guardian, Nick Lezard, 2006-02-10.

•           Recipe for empire, New Statesman, March 6, 2006, Paul Kingsnorth

•           The sinister side of U.S. biz; Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), July 29, 2005, By Judie Kleinmaier

•           Incapable catharsis, The Weekend Australian, February 18, 2006, Matthew Bright

•           Hit and Miss; There are good reasons "the mainstream media" has ignored John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man., East Bay Express (California), February 1, 2006.

•           Undermining poor nations in the name of profit, The Boston Globe, February 08, 2006, by Michael Langan

•           A miss not a hit, Sunday Times (London), March 5, 2006, David Charters

•           Confessions--or Fantasies-- of an Economic Hitman, US Department of State

•           Conscience, confession from an agent of greed, The Seattle Times, January 22, 2006, Steve Weinberg

•           A hit man repents, The Guardian, 2006-01-28.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man"

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The game plan for the Economic Hit Man, is clear. He/She has to work for the US with an agenda, which can never be a win-win situation for both, the US and the victim country; in our case: India. India has to lose for the US to win. The whole façade of helping out India has to be looked into seriously by neutral observers in India, who do not hold brief for special interests.

The time is of essence and now that the signing of the strategic partnership agreement with the US has become the benchmark for the very survival of the ruling coalition government, the priority of saving of the government has become an automatic approval of the controversial deal with the US.

Such railroading of complicated issues must be stopped and politicians who are now more concerned about the sharing of power, should be made aware of the sinister nature of US economic hegemony over India, as a client state. And this is nothing to do with ideology, religion, region, ethnicity, caste and class. If the nation suffers, everybody suffers.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

BY BARUN ROY

REALIZE

Its’ faith on the National Parties may be misplaced

The formation of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha and its acceptance thereof was the result of the resentment against the 21 year old draconian rule imposed upon the people of the Hills by the Saviour turned Dictator Subash Ghisingh and his party Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF). While Bimal Gurung, the President of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) has so far rode sumptuously over the gracious love of Gorkhas in the Nation and abroad, he must not take it for granted for the people who helped him oust Subash Ghisingh may as well turn against him if he does not deliver. Subash Ghisingh realized that to his peril and so must all the politicians in the Hills and beyond.

The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha Chief’s declaration that March 10, 2010 will herald a new era of Gorkhaland in the Darjeeling Hills and Dooars Terai may have come too early and not based on much reasoning. Sources in GJM point out that since Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has declared its desire for the formation of smaller and more administratively effective states in the nation, the formation of Gorkhaland after the installation of BJP lead National Government is essentially a foretold conclusion. If there is such a thing as a ‘foretold conclusion’ politics sadly would lose all its charm for me. Yet, if one were to take the said reasoning as a concrete fact for the declaration of the date for the inauguration of Gorkhaland, I wonder would BJP keep up to its promise for yet the Temple at Ayodhya is to be built. An issue which helped it to gain a seat at the National Government and which again brought it done from that same seat after its failure to deliver. At the same instance if we were to look into the Congress Party’s declared stance on Telangana when the formation of the State of Telangana was in the manifesto of the Congress Party so much so that after the formation of the Congress Government at the Centre, the first Presidential Speech to the Nation declared the formation of Telangana as inevitable. Yet we know today that the term of office for the Congress Party in the National Government is to be completed, Telangana as yet remains to be realized. Congress Party insiders today declare that within the months of the declaration of the General Election the Congress Party and its allies will declare their desire to form the Second States Reorganisation Commission after their coming back to the power. But will that promise again be delivered? I bet not. The National Parties be it Congress or the BJP have the habit of picking on the regional parties to get the best out of them as long as they get the regional parties in question to support them during the General Election. The Gorkha National Liberation Front boycotted almost three General Elections to help the Communist Party of India Marxists candidates win the Darjeeling Constituency through the majority Dooars Terai vote. Wooed by the Congress later, it supported Dawa Narbula even though the People’s Democratic Front (PDF) an all party conglomerate sans GNLF and CPIM came to support the Congress candidate. Today, Dawa Narbula can’t even make his stand on Gorkhaland clear, albeit his personal stand even if he was voted to the Parliament on the issue of Gorkhaland.

Gorkha Janmukti Morcha thus must realize that the National Parties may not always deliver on its promises and that their stance on issues shifts with the position of sun on the earth, declaring March 10, 2010 as the inauguration of the state of Gorkhaland is not at all a good idea.

The Key to Gorkhaland is not in Kolkata

All political leaders in the hills must realize that the Key to Gorkhaland is not in the hands of the State. Kolkata or the State Communist Party of India Marxist Government neither has the will nor means to work towards the formulation of Gorkhaland or for that matter Kamtapur or Greater Coochbehar. There are only two ways in which a new state could be formed in India – i) Direct Political will shown through a Party forming the National Government or the largest party in the National Parliament. A State after discussion and setting up of a Parliamentary Committee on the same can be set as a Bill being passed forthwith through a simple majority. ii) Formation of a States Reorganisation Commission.

While the BJP in the coming Lok Sabha election may go to the polls with the promise of “we are in favour of smaller states and hence, we will create as many as 50 to 60 states in the nation” winning over the regional parties as in GJM, the possibility of their sticking to their promises might not be possible as almost all states with sizeable political participation in the centre will be against its break up into smaller states, solely because their political power will diminish effectively. At the same instance, the Congress Party may go to the polls promising the setting up of the Second States Reorganisation Commission. Which still, albeit it creates after its inauguration of Governance at New Delhi, the realization of newer States may still not be possible unless a nation wide exigency forces it to do so. Where Gorkhaland will then stand only time can tell? Parties like Gorkha Janmukti Morcha should then realize that statehood movements like Gorkhaland must be made into a national issue based on which political strategies are made at the Centre…not at the State…where the formation of states like Gorkhaland becomes a political beneficiary motive for the National parties like Congress and the BJP. And this can only be done, once again, as I repeat by bypassing the State and by bringing together all the statehood movements all over the nation under one umbrella making it a powerful entity both in terms of strength, number, political reach and most importantly Member of Parliaments. Only then with the National Parties who run the national Government be interested. Or else separate statehood movements will only be ‘pockets of disturbances’ in the Indian National Map.

Realize that some of its political programmes are a bit impractical

Gorkhaland Personnel

The Gorkha National Liberation Front raised the Gorkha Volunteer Corps (GVC) under the stewardship of Chhatray Subba as the overall Tactical Commander, the result being that the Gorkha National Liberation Front and the Gorkha Volunteer Corps fought a protracted civil war leading to more causality on both side than the Gorkhaland Agitation itself. Chhatray Subba later went on to form the Gorkha Liberation Organization, whereof his alleged involvement in the attack of the GNLF Chief’s motorcade at Saat Ghumtee led to his subsequent arrest and his imprisonment without trail. Subash Ghisingh immediately pursued a vindictive purge everyone he deemed to be against him. Most of the said purge then was carried out by Bimal Gurung himself, Gorkha Janmutki Morcha’s President and Founder. Albeit, Bimal Gurung is not the same man (as told to this author himself by the GJM President – “I am not the same person…I am different today. I am responsible towards the people and have duties towards them”), his decision to form the Gorkhaland Personnel (GLP) is still a bit too reminiscent of the Gorkha Volunteer Corps, of which he himself was once an Area Commander (Singamari-Singla Constituency). Further more, the involvement of the Ex-service men and statements coming out of them – “GLP will act as the filter in the society,” as stated by Retired Colonel Ramesh Allay, intellectuals in the hills today, increasingly find themselves asking the question - GVC ‘filtered’ out much of ‘independent reasoning’ from Gorkhaland Movement I, will GLP not repeat the same? GJM must come out with a concrete programme on “why GLP is essential and how it will operate… what will be its parameters of operation and upon what philosophy is it based.” I wonder, individually though how long will the GJM leadership refrain itself from using it against the opposition?

Intelligence reports emitting from Darjeeling Hills and Dooars Terai suggest that the State Government is closely watching over the recruitment drive and the developments vis-à-vis the GLP. Initials assumptions may very well suggest an immediate crack down on the training sites by the State Enforcement Authorities. Darjeeling Combat Force has not been raised to tackle the farmers protesting in Nandigram. The 9mm Glock, Berretta and AK 74 armed, grenade welding Commandos have selective missions to carry, and I worry they might be the young innocent youths who are today making beeline at the recruitment drives held by the GJM for the Gorkhaland Personnel. No matter how unarmed and peaceful they might be…all the State Government needs is an excuse to quell the disturbance or as it will then see as – armed rebellion. Gorkha Janmukti Morcha thus must tread cautiously least that the ‘Democratic and Non Violent Gorkhaland Agitation’ that it has so far championed may not be labeled otherwise.

Gorkhaland Personnel may otherwise be called the “Gorkha Red Cross” or the “Gorkhaland Human Aid Workers” or perhaps even more politically correct “Gorkhaland Volunteers” spreading across the Hills and Dooars Terai and indeed the nation as such, spreading the message of Gorkhaland, educating people, helping them and weaving them all together in the fabric of unity, humanity and brotherhood and most importantly on their unanimity of love towards Gorkhaland and nation as a whole. The Gorkhaland Volunteers can be a Volunteer’s Organisation with active participation of school and college children, teachers, lecturers, professors, academicians, doctors, engineers, professionals, authors and the whole acting together as a mass organization. The key Philosophy being mass social youth activism instead of Militancy styled youth movement. The participation of the Gorkha Janmukti Vidyarthi Morcha (Gorkha People’s Liberation Students Front) and the Gorkha Janmukti Yuva Morcha (Gorkha People Liberation Youth Front) could be vital in this movement of social activism. Gorkhaland Volunteers could be trained in Landslide Relief and Evacuation, Earthquake Relief and Evacuation, Fire fighting etc. This would bring about more people involvement in the movement heralding a new era of people participation. In fact, seminars on Gorkhas and Gorkhaland could be organized by and for the Gorkhaland Volunteers preparing them to act as ambassadors of Gorkhaland to other part of the nation and world as a whole. The Gorkhaland Volunteers singularly or with association with other individuals and organizations can establish ‘Help Desk’ for students in all colleges and institutions in the nation, regional students’ chapters and support groups. Indeed an entire philosophy of how, why, what, when, and where of the Gorkhaland Volunteers could be worked out in consultation with every individual concerned who aspires for Gorkhaland.

Gorkhaland Vehicle Registration Drive

The issue of GL plates is fraught with so many legal implications that even the Central Committee today accepts the fact that it might not as well be applicable. The latest policy shift of implementing it in a phased manner is just an example of GJM’s lack of conviction on its own programme. The replacing of WB vehicle plates by GL plates will make a vehicle liable for seizure under Road Transport Act. A Criminal Case of using fake vehicle registration number could be applicable to all those who uses it. While the moral question of “stating one’s resentment to West Bengal’s Authority over Darjeeling Hills and Dooars Terai and a semblance of Gorkhaland could be simply brought by every individual willingly and voluntarily on their part by crossing over the WB and writing GL on top of it.” This would essentially show one’s resentment more effectively at the same time make it impossible for the authorities to act on it legally. There is no law to persecute anyone for defacing the Vehicle Registration Number. The authorities will not be able to arrest the driver or seize the vehicle because it essentially has the original and valid Vehicle Registration Number albeit “much vigorously resented by the owner of the said Vehicle as shown by the crossing out of the WB”. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha would not have to maintain a Transport Department and go through the seething number of 20,000 plus applicants for GL plates nor would it have to maintain the records of the said number of vehicle owners in the Hills and Dooars Terai.

Revitalize - Convince Oneself and the People

Gorkha Janmukti Morcha is lately seen as backing up on its programmes too frequently. So far, as recent memory serves GJM has declared indefinite strike five times and withdrawn it five times. Even the forced exodus of all the tourists from the hills promised thereafter with resolute fight for Gorkhaland brought about a flak. The tourists left stuffed on trucks like herds of animals only for the hills to go back to normality within a few days. This did bring about media focus on the hills but what resulted out of it was negative publicity which the Gorkhaland Movement can least afford. GJM has to understand that it has to make practical and effective agitational programmes if it wants to achieve Gorkhaland in the too short a period it has offered itself – 21 months as of July 2008. It will also have to put in a convincing act and lead the people through it no matter how hard it might be. Hunger strikes should not be frequently and continuously applied as a means of agitational programme. Further students should not be made to participate in it and if at all Hunger strikes are forced upon by circumstances they should be resounding forcing the national and the global media to focus on it. Hunger strikes if at all needs to be applied it should be staged in New Delhi, State's Capital and possibly before the United Nations. Indefinite strikes will only lead to more hardship for the local people and its effective use upon the State and the Central Government is lost in the fact, that it does not affect them; a more effective agitational programme should thus be devised. The GJM’s request to the people not to pay taxes is such an effective tool. The payment of telephone bills and the electricity bills albeit may not work as the Public and Private Sector Companies now operating in this sector may simply cut off their services sending the Hills and the Dooars Terai into Medieval oblivion. Revolutions in the 21^st Century cannot be fought using candles and smoke signals.

A new set of programmes must thus be worked upon using intellectual Gorkha Minds. GJM must revitalize! Accept its weakness and work upon them. Accept its strength and not gloat upon them. Be Humble! Be Approachable! Be open to suggestions and criticism! Only when it opens up to suggestions and criticism can it grow and learn. It should not be rigid like the Gorkha National Liberation Front and rule and deliver party policies through closed doors; it should remain to be a People’s Party.

RESTRATEGIZE

The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha will have to take a step back and restrategize. Given that it has only 21 months to lead the people into Gorkhaland, it has to learn to be more effective at grass-root levels and at the national level. It has to learn to handle media and more so the national and international electronic media to its advantage. Media savvy Team of Professionals should be handling the media. They should be initiating programmes, acting as liaison officers and as an effective Public Relations Personnel of the Party. It would not be a bad idea to have individuals efficient in politics, journalism and different languages handling the media. A party media spokesperson speaking in chaste Bengali to a Bengali TV or in chaste Hindi to a Hindi TV will be a battle half won. The leaders will have to learn to project themselves to the National media and brush up on there expressive and language skills. Seminars and Workshops on “How and Why Gorkhaland” should be the order of the day and the party should pick up vital points from them not just stick to what it has already laid for itself. In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that it should “restrategize everything involving how and when Gorkhaland can be achieved” seeking as much feedback from the intellectuals and the lay as it can.

Bimal Gurung and all the leaders working in the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha has so far done well with their share of victories and defeats, they have yet to play a big role in the conjoined destiny of the people and the land, bringing all the parties together on the issue of Gorkhaland and working together will take them far and in the same instance working with all the leaders and parties involved in the separate statehood movements all over the nation will help them achieve Gorkhaland.

“I am not against this or in favour of that. I am against misrule of any kind whether it is brought about by a Government or a party. I believe in every man’s right to Freedom and Self Determination even if he is a Muslim who is Black and is a Gay living in the middle of Manhattan, USA” – Barun Roy (To New York with Love. A Novel Published by Mandalay Books, 2006 )

God is Great. BUT Amar Singh is GREATEST. He is Omniscient, Omni Present and of course at a ‘price’ this Omni Fixer is bountiful too.

‘A friend in need is a friend in deed’, in-fact; was only and only for to prove that Shri Amar Singh is here for the rescue of friends, and rescued them he did.

“Yada yada he tou Phhase Jaye, Income tax Mare Chhappa,

Tadataman Sharan me Aaao meri, Bhar Kar Suitcase mein Paisa.

Kashat mein door Karoon Sab Ka, Aise Phenkoon Passa;

Apana Ullu tou Seedha ho; Tum log Bhi Dekho Tamasha’”

(Read it @ Kaka Hathrasi style)

Bolo Shri Amar Singh Maharaj ke JAI!

Offstumped here and Retributions too failed to understand the importance of Shri Shri Amar Singh Ji Maharaj. Come on man! After all Amitabh, Anil Ambani, Suborto Sahara and of course Mulayam too are not his ‘friends’ for nothing! And when need arose, even for the rescue of the almighty ‘Balidaan Moorti’ Ma Sonia and Dr. Economist MMS, came Shri Shri Amar Singh Ji Maharaj.

Yada Yada Hi CPI(M) sya, Galai-ni Bharv-ita Sonia

Pavitra –ye- Manmohan Naam,

Vinash – E – che BHAJAPA Kaam.

Secular-E-NaaM Sansthanpana-E

Sambhavimi Amar Mulayam Yug –E Yuge.

Sab 'Prem' se Bolo Amar Singh Ji Maharaj ki Jai.

I warm all those who call Shri Amar Singh Ji Maharaj as a ‘fixer’ or dealer or in simple term as a ‘Dallal’. Dare, you call him a name, lest I take you to court for ‘hurting my religious’ sentiments.

I am Amar Bhakat from now on.

After all Amitabh, Anil Ambani could not have been wrong- incidentally, I too share my first allaphabate of name with Amar, Amitabh and Anil.

Regards.

For months now, the left parties have been holding the UPA government to ransom on the n-deal. The differences between the two has even brought their relationship to break point. The Congress is desperately hunting for prospective allies, like the Samajwadi Party, to save the government.

What we are seeing right now is political opportunism of the obnoxious kind. But...

What if the BJP came to the Congress' rescue?

After all, there's no rule that an opposition party shouldn't support the ruling party. After all, it was the BJP government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee that had given flight to the nuclear dreams the second time round in Pokhran, a decade ago.

If the BJP can bury their animosity for the Congress, I believe this will help create history.

Here's how:

1) It would send a strong message to the nation and the world that the BJP will not its political rivalry with the Congress come in the way of "supreme national interest".

2) Such a move would surely impress lots of voters who may not see the BJP the way the BJP would like to see them. This could be encashed by the party in the next general election.

3) The general elections are less than a year away. So the timing would be just perfect, and the BJP's magnanimity will be fresh in the minds of voters till that time.

4) The BJP will earn the applause of the electorate for putting national interest above its own interests, for saving the government, and for avoiding a mid-term poll.

5) Backing the Congress will help the BJP clip the wings of its arch rivals, the left parties, who have been contributing nothing to the nation's progress, but setting hurdles in its path at every opportunity. The BJP's move will drastically reduce the importance of left parties altogether.

6) Manmohan Singh was never able to think and act on his own, as he always had to bow to the demands of his allies. By saving his government and allowing him to complete his term, the nation and the world will be able to see if he is capable of doing anything bold and effective. If he succeeds, good for him and good for the country. If he fails, good for the BJP.

Do you see any harm in the BJP backing the Congress on the nuclear deal? Does the BJP have the large heart required for this? Does the Congress have the humility to accept such support? Will such a move help restore the trust of the people in politics and politicians?

The resurgence of the movement for a separate state of Gorkhaland carved out of West Bengal has revived the debate within political parties on smaller states. In the absence of unanimity, each political party has worked out its own logic for supporting or resisting demands for smaller - or not-so-small - states.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) favours splitting up states, barring a few, for better governance while the Congress party prefers not to have a fixed position on the issue. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) is against smaller states per se but its parent, Communist Party of India (CPI), is all for them – barring a few ones. Clearly, political India has no single mind on whether smaller states are good for the country.

The campaign for Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh had the strong backing of the tribals, who felt they were not getting their due from the plainspeople. Those clamouring for Uttaranchal - also mainly a hilly region and home to many tourist and Hindu pilgrimage centres - wanted to get out of the clutches of the mammoth Uttar Pradesh. In 2000, all three states - Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand - were carved respectively out of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. That success only emboldened the feelings of those who say they too need separate states.

Gorkhaland

Gorkhaland is the name given to the area around Darjeeling and the Duars in north West Bengal. Residents of the area, mostly Gorkhas have long demanded a separate state for themselves to preserve their Nepali identity and to improve their socio-economic conditions.

The Gorkhaland movement in the 1980s turned violent amid charges by the Marxists that the Congress was secretly backing the Gorkhas so as to undermine the CPI-M in West Bengal. Its advocates say they are not satisfied with the limited autonomy granted to them. A separate Gorkhaland would be made up mainly of the hilly parts of northern West Bengal, close to Nepal. Its capital would be Darjeeling, a tourist paradise. The CPI-M is fighting the Gorkhaland movement tooth and nail. Splitting West Bengal would mean the party losing an area of its present influence and administrative jurisdiction.

If you are in Kolkata between 27 June and 2 July, you may do well to visit the Seagull Arts and Media Resource Centre, Kolkata, for an exhibition of photographs of Singur. There will also be a panel discussion and a film festival.

This information comes to Kafila from Trina Banerji of the Citizens' Initiative which blogs at Development Dialogues.

Programme details:

Photo exhibition: The photographs will remain mounted for viewing everyday from 2 to 8 pm at the Seagull Arts and Media Resource Centre, Kolkata.

Panel discussion and open forum
Friday 27 June, 4:30 pm: ‘On the Representation of Displacement and Development’

Speakers:
- Professor Samik Bandyopadhyay (Senior Film Critic and Scholar)
- Dr Kavita Panjabi (Professor, Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University)
- Dr Rajarshi Dasgupta (Fellow in Political Science, CSSSC)
- Dr Paromita Chakravarti (Senior Lecturer, Department of English, Jadavpur University)

Film festival

Saturday 28 June 2008

11.00 am: Bombay: Our City – Anand Patwardhan (India: 1985, 82 min)
2.00 pm: Mahua Memoirs – Vinod Raja (India: 2007, 80 min)
4.30 pm: Czech Dream – Vit Klusak and Felip Remunda (Czechoslovakia: 2004, 90 min)
6.00 pm: An Aura of Development – Shubhasree Bhattacharyya and Sumantra Roy (India: 2008, 65 min)
7.00 pm: Unnayan - Banduker Nole – Pramod Gupta (India: 2007, 44 min)

Sunday 29 July 2008

11.00 am: A Narmada Diary – Anand Patwardhan (India: 1996, 60 min)
2.00 pm: Still Life – Zhang ke Jia (Hong Kong: 2006, 111 min)
4.30 pm: Mahua Memoirs – Vinod Raja (India: 2007, 80 min)
6.00 pm: Teardrops of Karnaphuli – Tanvir Mokammel (Bangladesh: 2006, 60 min)

About Citizens' Initiative:

We at The Citizens’ Initiative are trying to organize a continuing open discussion on the paradigms of development and the relationship, in this context, between politics and ethics. These issues, we feel, are extremely important given the kind of state-sponsored violence that people are facing all over India and particularly in West Bengal.

The group of students, researchers, and teachers that is the CI started out in February 2007 to debate and question the cost of development and the growing schism between ethics and contemporary political culture. Questions have also begun to arise on the naive equation of the 'partisan' with the 'political', and the brushing aside of any non-partisan civil political action as not just irrelevant, but, as in some circles it is fashionable to say, 'anti-political.' The role of the civil society in a democracy is a subject of critical re-examination now, and it is the disregard for non-partisan opinion and the consequences of it that have led us to discuss and take more concrete actions.

We launched this initiative with a one-day seminar on 16 February 2008 on 'Development and Ethics', where the speakers were Dr Dilip Simeon and Dr Aseem Shrivastava. Dr Dilip Simeon taught history at Delhi University for several years and is currently a Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi. Dr Aseem Shrivastava has a doctorate in Economics from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He has taught Economics at various universities in the US and India, and Philosophy at Nordic College in Norway. He is an independent writer who writes on various contemporary themes like globalisation, human rights and US foreign policy. At the seminar, Dr Simeon spoke on ‘Ethics and Contemporary Political Culture’, and Dr Shrivastava’s talk was titled ‘SEZ and the Cost of Development’.

Our next event was a workshop on the legal possibilities of the common citizen’s redress of wrongs. Mr Sabir Ahamed of the RTI Mancha spoke on the Right to Information and Mr Sujato Bhadra of Association for Protection of Democratic Rights spoke on Public Interest Litigations.
We have visited Singur six times since February 2008. A full report of our findings is to be released shortly, and a brief interim report is now ready for dissemination. In the last few months, we have carried relief – in the form of clothes, rice and pulses – to Dobandi in Singur (in March 2008), and organized a medical camp there (on 18 May 2008) with the help of the Centre for Care of Torture Victims. But neither of these efforts reflects our primary objectives. Our most ardent wish is to everywhere induce long-term reflection on models – and ethics – of development, and to contribute to reconstructive thought and efforts in the areas already adversely affected by the present political take on development. We have extensively photographed life in Singur and how it has been affected by the fencing-off of the land for the Tata Motors factory. Very few people in Kolkata have any idea of what Singur looks like, and press photographs can perhaps tell only a minuscule portion of the story. Our photographs are aimed at covering this invisible distance between the affected village and the urban centre – to put it simply, to show what development looks like in reality.

However, we should stress that we have not been to Singur as unaffected photographers who are there to snatch images and leave. We wish to be able to propose/introduce alternative means of livelihood for people who have for generations been based in agriculture. Unhappily, the government’s promises that alternative training and employment shall be the norm rather than the exception among all peoples displaced from land and/or livelihood, have been resoundingly empty. In even our limited ways, we hope that we shall, in a few months, be able to organize in Singur training workshops on certain alternative means of livelihood like machine knitting, embroidery, machine embroidery, and even cultivation of mushrooms.

citizensinitiativecal@gmail.com

According to many news reports, MS is very angry about the entire episode and has threatened that he would resign if the nuclear deal does not go through. MS, however, had said the same thing last year, but nothing happened. The Left will not change its mind. Its intention has been clear from day one. So empty threats will not work. And MS should know that.

A year back, I was very strongly in favor of the deal. Now I don't think it is a good idea, particularly because of the way it is being pushed through. A strategic tie up with the US is a good thing, but not at the cost of running roughshod over substantial political opposition, however opportunistic it may be. It is time that the Indian parliament is given the right to decide on the fate of international treaties, and the government should start working on whatever needs to be done to make this happen, so that similar fiascoes do not occur in the future.

Come January 2009, I think that Obama will be the president of the US. And there is no way the Democrats will walk down Bush's path. Further, if the current storm blows over and MS accepts the fact that the deal is dead, the government will complete its full term and the general elections will be held in May '09. If the UPA somehow manages to cool down the economy, there is a real chance that they can come back to power, even with reduced numbers, simply because the BJP's NDA has been in tatters since 2004 and it has not bothered to mend the same. The only thing the Congress has to figure out is how to put the brutish Left in its place - there can be but one husband in a marriage, and he cannot be a wifebeater; the present UPA-Left relationship fails on both counts.

Let the next government deal with the deal, if the US bothers to renew it that is.

didapat dari milis APICS-ID.

Sebenarnya jika ingin mempelajari atau belajar mengenai Business Process ERP System, dapat melalui module2 CPIM dari APICS (http://www.apics.org) yang terdiri dari 5 module (hal ini digambarkan seperti bangunan rumah, lihat gambar di atas) sebagai berikut:

- Basic of Supply Chain Management (BSCM)

- Master Planning of Resources (MPR)

- Detailed Scheduling and Planning (DSP)

- Execution and Control of Operations (ECO)

- Strategic Management of Resources (SMR)

BSCM – Basics of Supply Chain Management (Module 1)

This module covers basic concepts in managing the complete flow of materials in a supply chain from suppliers to customers. The Basics module introduces supply chain concepts and emphasizes basic terminology, but it also covers relationships among activities in the supply chain. Knowledge of the material in this module is assumed as a prerequisite for the other CPIM modules, which cover similar topics
but in much greater depth.

Four main topics have been used to organize the domain of Basics of Supply Chain Management. The relative importance of a topic is not necessarily reflected by its level in the outline. The relative
importance of these topics will vary among industries, but for study purposes the percentage figures given below can be used as guidelines.

I Businesswide Concepts,
II Demand Planning,
III Transformation of Demand into Supply,
IV Supply

MPR – Master Planning of Resources (Module 2)

This module examines both supply and demand planning for mid- to long-term independent demand. Major topics include demand management, sales and operations planning, and maser scheduling. Both priority planning and capacity planning issues are addressed.

Demand Management is the function of recognizing all demands for goods and services to support the marketplace. It includes forecasting, order servicing and customer relationship management, and distribution planning Sales and Operations Planning is a process that brings together all the plans for the business (e.g., sales, marketing, product development, manufacturing, sourcing, finance). The result is
an integrated set of plans by product family.

Master Scheduling is the process of generating, reviewing, and updating the master production schedule to keep it consistent with the production plan.

I Demand Management,
II Sales and Operations Planning,
III Master Scheduling

DSP – Detailed Scheduling and Planning (Module 3)

The subject matter of Detailed Scheduling and Planning includes inventory management, material requirements planning, capacity requirements planning, and procurement and supplier planning.
Detailed Scheduling and Planning translates product-level plans and schedules generated at the master planning level into requirements that can be procured or produced. This process supports the strategies
and objectives established by the company, as constrained by lead time, cost, equipment, personnel, or other constraints. The subject matter therefore encompasses anything required to bridge the master
planning area with the execution and control area of the CPIM body of knowledge. Relevant strategy-level implications are also considered.

I Planning Material Requirements to Support the Master Schedule,
II Planning Operations to Support the Priority Plan,
III Planning Procurement and External Sources of Supply

ECO – Execution and Control of Operations (Module 4)

Execution and Control of Operations encompasses the principles, approaches, and techniques needed to schedule, control, measure, and evaluate the effectiveness of production operations. This certification module addresses a broad base of production operations including project, batch, line, continuous, and remanufacturing environments. It provides feedback about how well plans are being executed and provides information for customers and suppliers about the status of work in process (WIP). The importance and emphasis of the principles, approaches and techniques addressed are relative to the production environment, the labor environment, and the physical organization of the plant, brought about through effective people management and leadership.

I Prioritizing and Sequencing Work to be Performed,
II Executing the Plans, Implementing Physical Controls, and Reporting Results of Activities Performed,
III Evaluating Performance and Providing Feedback

SMR – Strategic Management of Resources (Module 5)

The subject matter in the Strategic Management of Resources module includes higher-level thinking on strategic planning and implementation. This requires an understanding of how market requirements drive the resources and processes of all organizations.
The strategic management of resources has the potential to dramatically increase any organization's competitive position. Operations strategy is the foundation upon which operations planning
and control decisions should be based. Strategic decision-making significantly affects the organization and often requires widespread changes. To contribute to this effort, the candidate must understand
how an organization develops its strategic goals, and how it configures its systems and technologies to address strategic objectives.
This examination focuses on the relationship of existing and emerging systems and concepts to the strategy and the functions related to operations planning and control The successful candidate must
understand how Strategic Management of Resources relates to the CPIM body of knowledge as defined by the other CPIM modules.

I Aligning the Resources with the Strategic Plan,
II Configuring and Integrating the Operating Processes to Support the Strategic Plan,
III Implementing Change

Lima modul akan dibahas pada kegiatan dengan nama Group Study di mana tiap kota akan ada Group Study, jika ingin sudah yakin menguasai lima modul tsb silakan ikut ujian CPIM. mohon lebih lanjut silakan kunjungi web IPOMS di alamat http://www.ipoms.web.id/j/ 

At last I am happy, if any one of the government authorities have read my blog Chidambaram Fears Inflation Ghost.

Still our Finance Minister Chidambaram is not speaking to the people well. He is so frustrated, because he is not able to fishing from muddy water, sell out the shares, privatise public properties etc.

People are singing on Congress at restaurants, parks, streets, buses, trains and public places, wherever they meet. Congress became smelly globally. It is a sinking ship. The alliance partners are not happy and they are ready to jump from the ship, because the travellers have no hope on the Captain.

Each and every media say the truth that the Left was good ally for the Congress. They never bargained for some seats, ministership, money, any other thing etc. They seldom wanted the Congress must work for people's progress and implementation of CMP, as the Left parties are working for people's welfare. Congress fell down in a huge confusion as the Left withdrawn their outside support from the UPA government. A little time will take Congress to stand aright. It is an outcome of 60 years' anti-people policy. History will be written that Congress has broken its own leg to push the Left.

Now Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will seek for trust vote in the Parliament on July 22, after the Left withdrew its support. Congress is working overtime to bring the magic number of 272. Politicians, MPs and media says an MP gets 25 crores to vote in favour of the government, to move one party to another and abstain from voting.

The people will certainly punish, if government does not work for Indian poor or if work for American Bush.

Read also: Peaceful Demonstration from Aggressive Front

Read also: Those who feel fear, come around me.

New Delhi, July 13, 2008 (PTI): CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat and BSP supremo Mayawati, two staunch opponents of the Indo-US nuclear deal, met on Sunday in an apparent move to take on the Government during the trust vote in Lok Sabha on July 22.

Karat, who is spearheading the Left opposition on the deal, drove to the UP Chief Minister's residence here for the meeting.

This is the first meeting between the two leaders after the recent political developments that saw Mayawati withdrawing support to the Government followed by the Left last week.

After the 45-minutes meeting, the Marxist leader hailed Mayawati's opposition to the nuclear deal and said the two parties would cooperate in the "struggle" against the agreement.

"We wanted the two parties cooperate in the struggle against the Government," Karat said in apparent reference to the trust vote being sought by the Manmohan Singh ministry.

While the Left has 59 MPs in the Lok Sabha, the BSP has 17.

Karat had on July 11 said he was in touch with "all parties" which can take a stand against the deal, an issue on which the Left parties withdrew support to the Government reducing it to a minority.

Mayawati has so far declined to divulge her strategy on the trust vote but there were reports that she was attempting to woo several SP and Congress MPs in UP into her fold to vote against the Government in the trial of strength in the Lok Sabha.

Mayawati has been increasingly attacking the Centre in the wake of her arch detractor Samajwadi Party joining hands with Congress over the issue of the nuclear deal which the BSP is dubbed it as "anti-Muslim".

Yesterday she had hit out at the Centre for "targeting" her after the CBI issued a fresh affidavit in a disproportionate assets case.

She had accused the Congress of "targeting" her at the behest of Samajwadi Party, a charge dismissed by the ruling party.

In the Lok Sabha, which has an effective strength of 543, the ruling side has to cross the halfway mark of 272 to prove a simple majority.

The ruling UPA has an assured support of 221 MPs belonging to alliance partners, which includes the Congress' 153, RJD's 24, DMK's 16 and NCP's 11. The five-MP JMM, although an ally of UPA, has not yet revealed its cards.

N. Ram

N. Ram,Editor interviews top BJP leader L.K. Advani on the present political crisis, the nuclear deal, election prospects, and other key issues. The one-hour indepth interview was conducted at the residence of the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday.

Advaniji, how do you see the present political situation in the country, with the Left withdrawing support and the Samajwadi Party being drafted in to make up the numbers along with smaller players?

It is surprising that this kind of final outcome should have taken so long. In fact, I will recall the first statement in this regard, which made everyone who follows political events feel that this alliance between the Left and the Congress could not continue for long. This was when the Prime Minister told The Telegraph correspondent, and perhaps consciously, that so far as the deal was concerned, the government had decided to finalise it. It was non-negotiable. And so if the Left parties didn’t like it, they were free to do what they wanted. I was told by those related to that interview that he wanted it to be published very prominently.

At least I assumed that this was very calculated and either they had decided, ‘All right, we’ll go to the people on this issue,’ or they had made alternative arrangements to continue in the government. Because 61 members is not a small figure. When you have two major partners in the government taking up positions of this kind, I said, ‘This is the starting point.’ Apart from the discussions held in both Houses of Parliament on this issue several times where it appeared that there was a wide gulf in the thinking. But even then, all the while, the replies given by the Prime Minister were of a nature that made Parliament feel, even we who were opposed to it for different reasons, that they would not agree to what America wanted, and that the assurances given in Parliament would be taken due care of either by America itself or if it did not do it, the deal would not go through in its present form.

I think it was some time in August 2007 that this exchange took place, the Prime Minister’s statement and the reply from the other side, in which Prakash Karat’s statements had been as resolute — I won’t use any other word. And it seemed that it was the end.

‘Close contest’

Unfortunately since then, the whole thing has been dragging on in a manner as to make even the common man feel that the government is not concerned with anything else. It’s concerned only with this and it is not able to make any progress. This is apart from the other factors, namely prices, the condition of the farmers, the repeated assaults on internal security either by the terrorists or by the naxalites, or even what’s happening around us, which often indicates a failure of foreign policy — numerous failed states around us, the happenings in Nepal …The common man, particularly agonised by prices and his day-to-day life, feels: ‘What kind of government is this, which seems so obsessed with one agreement that nothing else seems to matter with it!’ This is one main reason why the people have been getting more and more disillusioned with the government.

And the aam aadmi, who doesn’t go into the nuances … and for many in the country perhaps this is something esoteric, asks: ‘What is this deal, about which they are quarrelling so much?’ So when it came yesterday, I said: ‘At least, it’ll be a new chapter now.’ That chapter will depend very much on whether they are able to survive the vote of confidence that is going to be taken in Parliament. Today it seems it’s a close contest, at least on the face of it. And particularly if the reports about the Samajwadi Party are correct. Some say it is five, some say it is eight, I don’t know.

Are you satisfied with the government opting for a vote of confidence ahead of going to the IAEA Board of Governors, a demand that the BJP made first?

Yesterday, immediately after our meeting here, where we gave an official reaction on behalf of the party, I had a lecture. There I said, ‘I welcome it. I demanded it and I’m told they propose to have a special session soon and move a vote of confidence, seeking the approval of the Lok Sabha. Manmohan Singh said on the plane itself: ‘I’ll see to it that all parliamentary norms are observed.’ I said in this situation that’s the parliamentary norm. Because the government had been formed on the basis of the support extended to it by these 61 members of the Left parties, who have withdrawn their support. Whether others’ support will be forthcoming or not is a subsequent matter. It has to be tested on the floor of the House.

Possibilities

If the government fails to win the vote, an early general election is certain. If it makes it through, as it evidently expects to do, what will the political scenario look like? Will it strengthen the stock of the Congress party and the UPA ahead of the 15th general election? That’s the big question.

Suppose, for instance (as it is said), they propose to convene a special session of the Lok Sabha on the 21st of July. If they win a vote of confidence, the situation continues to be what it is today. Then the option is before them of holding an early general election or holding it in 2009. It’s their choice. But if they lose this confidence vote, I’m sure they will resign. The President will ask them to continue until alternative arrangements can be made, which means until the elections are held and another government comes in.

The situation today is that if the Central government asks the Election Commission to prepare for the Lok Sabha election, the Election Commission, as I can see it, is sure to tell them that by November so many State Assembly elections are due. So the Lok Sabha election can be held along with them. That would be what seems natural. These are the two possibilities, unless the Election Commission wants to advance one or some of those Assembly elections. The States due to go to the polls are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, and Mizoram. It should not be difficult to hold these Assembly elections together and link up the Lok Sabha elections with them.

But during this period, however short or long it is, do you see the Congress and the UPA improving their political stock?

What improvement can come about at this point of time? It’s the fag end. Everyone — the government as well as the opposition as well as the Communist parties — will all be engaged in preparing for the elections. And a government which has lost a vote of confidence in the House would have no choice for taking any new initiatives. That’s a parliamentary convention.

You have listed the key issues before the people, as you see them. At a time of 13 per cent inflation, how will implementing the nuclear deal play with the electorate?

My own feeling all along has been that the nuclear deal is not an issue of the people. After all, the proposal is, ‘We are short of energy sources and nuclear energy will provide us the wherewithal — after 25 years!’ And that too a small percentage of our requirements. It is welcome, whatever it is. But it is not crucial, it is not vital for the people.

We were against it but we reiterate that our opposition to this deal has been different from that of the Communist parties. The Communist parties feel — they may not have spelt it out that way, but I found an article in your newspaper that is quite clear on that — that we are accepting their [the United States’s] supremacy over us by becoming part of their strategic alliance. It’s not merely the 123 agreement by itself. We are opposed to the 123 agreement because it is also preceded by the Hyde Act. We do not agree with the government’s stand that ‘the Hyde Act has nothing to do with us, we are governed only by the 123 agreement.’ Whenever they have made a statement of this kind, it has been immediately rebutted by the American spokesman.

Therefore, our objection has been not to the strategic relationship, which 123 may involve. Our objection has been to the Hyde Act, which imposes a constraint on our strategic options in the nuclear field. Furthermore, I would say, it was during our period, when we were in government — we did not start the nuclear deal, as is often said — but we did start the process of strategic relationship. I for one — it was not my Ministry at all — but I said several times that India and the USA are the two major democracies of the world — one the strongest, the other the largest. It would be in the interest of the world, of these two countries themselves, if there is a relationship beyond merely friendship. If you call it a ‘strategic relationship,’ it is fine. It should be there.

So we are not against any strategic relationship with the USA. In fact, I would feel that the Communist parties, after all that has happened, also should be able to get out of that mindset. After all, during that entire period of the Cold War, we also were never very favourable to the USA. Because at that time, their relationship was entirely with Pakistan. They were hostile to us. In a way, it is America which has made even the Congress government change Pandit Nehru’s approach of utilising nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. That was a consistent policy followed by India not only when it was under the Congress regime of Pandit Nehru but even when it came to Morarji Desai, in whose government we also were there. (Vajpayee was there, I was there.) Before going to the U.N. once, when he was to make a speech about nuclear weapons, he categorically said, ‘India will never go in for nuclear weapons.’ Categorical. He read it out to us deliberately, because he knew ours was the only party in the country which had been advocating that course of action.

So it was America which during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 sent its nuclear fleet here. It was this which prompted Indira Gandhi to go in for Pokhran-I in ’74. She did Pokhran-I in ’74; we completed the process in ’98. In between, efforts were made but somehow they were not completed. Preparations were made but they were not executed. I don’t want to go into all that. Once [former President R.] Venkataraman, in a book release function, publicly complimented Vajyapee-ji for what he had done, saying ‘When I was Defence Minister, this was planned but somehow we could not go forward with it. I compliment you for completing it.’

I am referring to all this because there is that basic difference between what happened in our time [and the rest]. And yet our relations with America — yes, they imposed sanctions on us. I cannot forget that Pokhran-II was criticised not only by the Leftists but even by Dr. Manmohan Singh in the Rajya Sabha. He severely criticised us. ‘Why have you done it?’ There was a very sharp exchange between my colleague K.R. Malkani, Editor of The Organiser, who was a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha, and Manmohan Singh. He said he did not buy the argument that the economic sanctions would not hurt India, ‘You do not understand what will happen to the country’s economy by what you have done!’ Malkani said, ‘Nothing will happen. You wait and watch.’ Actually nothing happened. One by one, all those restrictions were lifted. In fact, today some of those restrictions imposed after ’74 may be continuing but not those imposed after ’98.

Basically I feel, for a long time America has been wanting to make every non-nuclear country part of the non-proliferation regime, by having them sign the NPT. Even Pandit Nehru or Morarji Desai, who were not in favour of making India a nuclear weapon state, said: ‘We are not going to sign any Treaty which binds us now.’

Our complaint about this [deal] is that in the name of energy autonomy, you are surrendering our strategic autonomy. This is what we oppose.

One criticism of your stand is that there is an underlying continuity of nuclear policy between 1998 and now. In the sense Prime Minister Vajpayee made a number of policy commitments, for example on joining the CTBT and the unilateral moratorium on nuclear explosive testing, and this was continued through the Jaswant-Talbott talks.

I know that. When any country by itself says something, there is no restriction or a change in policy. And secondly, even the argument given now, that in any case there will be economic sanctions, that is always there. But economic sanctions coming, as they came in ’98 or as they came in ’74, were not because we violated any law or violated any agreement or any international commitment. This would be a violation of an international commitment. If we sign this agreement, we accept the Hyde Act. At one stage, therefore, what I had suggested was this — if they discussed it at length with us, we might have suggested it. I said, ‘All right, after all the Hyde Act is a domestic law of America. Let our legal experts consider whether India’s own Atomic Energy Act can be amended in a way as to insulate India from the consequences of the Hyde Act. Let’s examine that.’

One of my biggest complaints about this government, and Dr. Manmohan Singh personally, has been that if they were really so serious about it that they have brought their own government to the brink on this basis, what was the difficulty in accepting our suggestion that ‘this matter has been discussed thrice in Parliament after you signed that joint statement with President Bush; and numerous misgivings, numerous questions have been raised. You have answered many of them very categorically: “If this does not happen, then the deal will not take place.”

Let a parliamentary committee examine all that and then make the suggestion to you. If they had done that, we would have made this suggestion there. We would have offered other suggestions also. Instead of that, first they said that no committee could be formed in respect of a proposed international agreement. And then they formed a committee with the Left. A UPA-Left committee was formed, which again and again … even today Prakash Karat was quoting that: ‘This is what they have said, this is what they have said.’ It’s a very curious way of running the government and a very curious way of implementing something you think is very important.

One last question on this particular issue. I think the BJP’s position is, should you come into government, as is distinctly possible, after the 15th general election, you will renegotiate the deal. You said that about WTO earlier. Is it feasible, is it practicable to renegotiate this agreement, assuming it goes through?

If it is not practicable, if America says, ‘No, we are not going to renegotiate,’ we will naturally deal with the situation as it is there. But the objective is there. Sometimes people say, ‘You do not agree with this agreement. So will you rescind it, scrap it?’ I would like to tell them that if the major objection to this is that it brings us into a strategic relationship with America, that’s not our objection. A strategic relationship with America, as I have said, was first talked about when we were there. The objection is particularly to the Hyde Act. So our objective of renegotiation would be: Is it feasible to reword this agreement or to do something? The option of having our own domestic law, which insulates us from the consequences of the Hyde Act, is always open. This is what we would examine.

(Part II of the interview will follow.)

Source: The Hindu

The Left parties have issued the following statement:

On The IAEA Safeguards Agreement

Why the Text was Hidden till Submission to the IAEA?

The Left Parties had opposed the operationalisation of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal after the passage of the Hyde Act. After the 123 agreement was finalised, it was pointed out that the agreement was in conformity with the Hyde Act. The Left Parties had then asked the UPA Government not to take further steps to operationalise the nuclear deal.

In the UPA-Left Committee, the UPA claimed that they should be allowed to proceed with the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which would incorporate uninterrupted fuel supplies and various corrective measures, which the Government had failed to secure in the 123 agreement. The Left Parties were skeptical about these issues being resolved in the IAEA. The UPA refused to show the negotiated text for the last four months.

The text of the Safeguards Agreement has now become public. It is clear that the text was hidden from the Left Parties and the Indian people in order to suppress the fact that India is about to bind its entire civilian nuclear energy programme into IAEA safeguards in perpetuity without getting concrete assurances for uninterrupted fuel supply, right to build strategic reserves and right to take corrective steps in case fuel supplies are stopped.

IAEA Safeguards in Perpetuity without Concrete Fuel Supply Assurance

The text of the draft "Agreement Between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities"; the so-called 'India-specific Safeguards' agreement sent to the IAEA Board of Governors on July 9, 2008, makes it clear that the repeated assurances made by the UPA Government in Parliament and outside, on securing uninterrupted fuel supply assurances and strategic fuel reserves have not been fulfilled. There are no concrete corrective measures in the main enforceable body of the Agreement, only a vague mention of "corrective measures" in the preamble.

Under the Hyde Act, IAEA safeguards are to be imposed on India's civilian nuclear facilities in perpetuity. The UPA government had repeatedly claimed that India would put its civilian reactors under safeguards under the strictly reciprocal condition of assured fuel supply. If fuel supply was disrupted, as happened in Tarapur, India would have the right to take corrective measures, including taking reactors out of IAEA safeguards.

The key question therefore with respect to IAEA safeguards is: how to ensure that once India's civilian reactors go under safeguards in perpetuity, the country would not be blackmailed by the withholding of nuclear fuel supplies, as the United States did in Tarapur following Pokhran-I?

The preamble to the Safeguards Agreement notes that India is offering its civilian nuclear facilities for IAEA safeguards on the "essential basis" of "the conclusion of international cooperation arrangements creating the necessary conditions for India to obtain access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continuous access to fuel supplies from companies in several nations, as well as support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors." The real point is that the preamble merely 'notes' India's intentions in these respects. IAEA has neither any obligation regarding fuel supplies or building strategic reserves nor does this noting India's basis for this offer give India any additional rights through this agreement. Therefore to read into this clause either a guarantee for fuel supplies or IAEA's support for building up a strategic reserve is misleading the people.

"Corrective Measures": Vague and Ineffective

The preamble of the IAEA Agreement notes: "India may take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies." Neither the "corrective measures" nor the precise relationship between these "corrective measures" and the in-perpetuity imposition is spelt out in any meaningful terms in the text. This means that should India for any reason decide to take the items subject to the Agreement out of IAEA safeguards on the contention that the "essential basis" no longer applies, it will open itself to the serious charge of violating an international agreement. In this connection, it is worth remembering that although India claims the right, under the provisions of the 1963 Indo-US agreement on Tarapur, to reprocess the considerable quantities of Tarapur spent fuel that have accumulated to India's great inconvenience and expense, it has not been able to enforce the claimed right to reprocess, which has long been disputed by the United States.

As against the vagueness of the "corrective measures" figuring in the preamble, what is spelt out clearly in the body of the agreement (Paragraph 32) is that India can withdraw its facilities from safeguards only if it is (a) jointly agreed between India and IAEA, and (b) if these facilities are no longer usable for any nuclear activity. What does this mean? It can only mean that India can withdraw any facility it wants out of IAEA safeguards only if it strips it of all capability of producing nuclear energy and that too only after the IAEA determines that "the facility is no longer usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards."

Even if the Agreement is terminated by mutual consent, the termination of safeguards on the items subject to the Agreement [these are material and facilities as defined in Paragraph 11(a)] would stay in place in accordance with GOV/1621 till all the conditions of GOV/1621 are met. The conditions of GOV/1621 are so stringent that the rights and obligations of the parties continue to apply on all nuclear materials till they have been returned or all fissionable materials supplied or produced goes out of the inventory – that is, until all the facilities and material, nuclear or non-nuclear, supplied to the country under these safeguards are either returned or consumed or no longer usable for any nuclear activity. Therefore, this provision will not allow a single reactor to be taken out of safeguards.

Preambular References Non-Enforceable

It is well established in international law that the preamble is a part of the treaty or international agreement and it can be used to give colour and tone to the interpretation of the operative part of the treaty/agreement. This does not however mean that it can be used to create additional rights or obligations that are not contained in the clauses of the Treaty/Agreement.

The text of the IAEA Draft Agreement makes clear there are no corrective measures identified in the operative of the clauses of the Agreement. The mention of corrective measures is only in the preamble and here too, no concrete corrective measures have been defined. Unless there are specific provisions in the operative clauses, a phrase such as "corrective measures" inserted in the preamble cannot create either omnibus rights or obligations outside the text of the treaty. A similar example is for instance the TRIPS Agreement in WTO. The preamble states that it recognizes "the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological objectives". However, can any country use the "public policy objectives" to override, for instance, the need for providing product patents as
contained the body of the TRIPS agreement?

The way a facility can be withdrawn from safeguards has been spelt out in the main body of the draft agreement. Therefore, if the UPA government is trying to argue that the preambular statement of "corrective measures" gives India some kind of overriding right over all clauses in the body of the Agreement, it is committing a deliberate fraud on the people.

The final arbiter with regards to any interpretation of the Agreement and dispute settlement is the Board of Governors of IAEA. The Board of Governors decision is final in this regard and if India is held to be non-compliant, even though it is not so by its own interpretation, India can be referred to the Security Council for action including sanctions. The Iran case is an example. Though many countries including India had publicly endorsed Iran's right to the fuel cycle, it was referred to the Security Council for violation of its Safeguards Agreement by the Board of Governors at US's instance.

Left Parties' Concerns Not Addressed

The Left Parties, on July 8, 2008, asked the UPA government to spell out the following:

 In case the US or other countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Group renege on fuel supply assurances for imported reactors, will India have the ability to withdraw these reactors from IAEA safeguards?

 If the US/NSG countries renege on fuel supply assurances, can we withdraw our indigenous civilian reactors from IAEA safeguards?

 If we have to bring nuclear fuel from the non-safeguarded part of our nuclear programme for these reactors in case of fuel supply assurances not being fulfilled, will we have the ability to take it back again?

 What are the corrective steps India can take if fuel supplies are interrupted by the US/NSG countries?

 What are the conditions that India must fulfill if the corrective steps are to be putinto operation?

What is clear now is that every one of these concerns remains, and that the unspecified "corrective measures" inserted in the preamble of the Safeguards Agreement will not address any of them.

India to be treated as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State for Safeguarded Facilities

Except for the preamble, which explains the context in which India is entering this Safeguards Agreement and outlines the basis of India's concurrence, the main body of the Text is a true copy of INFCIRC-66/Rev.2 (1968), which is the standard agreement applicable to all Non-Nuclear Weapon States of the NPT. The India-specific part comes not from INFIRC 66 but from the fact that India has kept a part of its nuclear programme out of IAEA safeguards. But for the facilities it proposes to put under IAEA safeguards, it will be treated as a Non-Nuclear Weapon States. Clearly, India will not have any special rights in its safeguarded facilities and this directly contradicts the assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament. Nuclear weapon states, as defined in the NPT, have the right to take any facility out of safeguards, a right India will not have for the reactors it is offering to IAEA for safeguards.

Against India's Interests

It is clear that the IAEA Safeguards Agreement does not address the fundamental problems in the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. As a result of operationalising the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, India will place its costly imported reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards and risk their permanent shutdown in case it fails to toe the US line on foreign policy issues. Thus going ahead with the Safeguards Agreement will be harmful to India's interests.

Prakash Karat                                                              A.B. Bardhan

Debabrata Biswas                                            T.J Chandrachoodan

Dear Member of Parliament, 

The Indo-U.S. bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation has raised a number of issues which are of vital importance to the nation. Through this open letter we wish to place before you the considered views of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). 

Ever since the Joint Statement issued in July 2005 during the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington in which the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement was announced, there has been a debate in the country about the merits of such an agreement. Political parties, nuclear scientists, the media and concerned citizens have been expressing their views. Parliament has also discussed the agreement at various stages.  However, the current debate is crucial as the bilateral text has been finalised and the Government is planning to take the next steps to operationalise the agreement.  

It is our contention that the nuclear cooperation agreement should not be seen in isolation from the overall context of India-US strategic relations, its impact on our foreign policy and our strategic autonomy. Further, the nuclear cooperation agreement must be seen in the context of our energy security, access to technology and the development of the three stage nuclear programme.

The bilateral "123" agreement has also to be seen also in the light of the assurances given by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 17 August 2007.

The Left parties have asked the Government not to proceed with the next steps to be taken to operationalise the agreement.

Implications of the Hyde Act

Members of Parliament will recall that in August 2006, there was a debate on the draft law being discussed by the US Senate and the House of Representatives to amend the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to give exemption for the proposed  nuclear cooperation agreement  with India.  The two draft legislations before the House of Representatives and the Senate contain many provisions which were detrimental to India’s interests.

The Prime Minister  had given certain categorical assurances on the points raised regarding this draft legislation.  The nine points which the Left parties had raised were covered by the Prime Minister’s statement.   However, subsequent to that, the Hyde Act (Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act” was adopted by the US Congress in December 2006.

<