Don't Aid India's Nuclear Program

The author Amitabh Pal very well knows, that in todays world, a nation which is strong economically AND militarily is respected. India has remained a mute spectator to nuclear hypocrisy enacted by the nuclear powers ever since WWII ended. India has also seen that these countries continued to keep their nuclear stock intact, but continued to tell other countries not to possess them!! India has also seen that other countries countinued to improve on their nuclear capabilities and the UNSC could do nothing about this... With such a pitiful situation existing in the global politico/military scene, no country or individual (the author included) has the right nor the moral high ground to question India going nuclear nor India developing its nuclear capabilities to become a strong military power. India does not tolerate double standards any more. It would be better if these individuals press on the 5 Nuclear Haves to eliminate all their nuclear arsenals instead!

When countries that has signed the pact(read China) proliferate the nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan and N Korea, the question is how valid is the pact itself. So what difference does it make if a country has signed it or not? Now can you name any instance where the nuke technology has gone outta India. The matter of the fact is a country's commitment to safeguard the technology. Who has given any liberty to anyone to judge if India has the right to explore nuclear science or not? US has just retracted a statement if India's middle class can eat or not? So what else is US govt administration debating about these days when the recession is on?

Lastly Amitabh Pal.... you should be ashamed of yourself being a person of Indian origin. Your are a traitor.

A completely presumptuous and biased article. Totally based on a lopsided view of Indian society and Indias position on the global stage. May I remind the author that Pakistan has been receiving US military support for quite a few years now, and the US continues to try and prevent developing countries from obtaining progressive technology (namely nuclear) which could be used for many other purposes apart from defence. So why, when they have finally stepped down from their high chair, is the move being criticised? Poor journalism.

I just want to share some facts that I think important. First of all the idea of scrapping the nuclear deal is totally immature. People tend to talk about India do this and that, but not what some members of the NPT like China did? I believe the main reason India pursue it's nuclear ambition is to secure its 1 billion plus population from future conflict with China. Do you expect that International community or American will come for the aid when being attack by China. The fact is even US cannot contain China's growing influence in countries like North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe and recently Myanmar. Who proliferate the weapon technology? The answer is China. It gives its know how to Pakistan to counter India. Can you justify this action? Iran and North Korea on the other hand, gets the informations from from Pakistan to counter US and Israel's threat. One have to know that for the past 30 years India had never prolifirate to win allies. The idea to have a nuclear weapon is solely based on the security of its territoty and its people. I think instead of blocking the deal the author should endorse all the nuclear weapon countries to destroy its stockpile mutually for a better world.

At least the "bad behaviour" did not include dropping atom bombs on population centers twice within a week.

Absurd, India is a nuclear weapons state. It's track record is clean than many countries in the P5. So on what basis the U.S will try to keep India away. For long India has been kept away for not being so aggressive like the P5. India's high ethics has put it outside the P5. Technologically India is on par with the west. So on what basis the P5 will keep India out. It's high time that India being a responsible nuclear power is provided the place in the P5 to become P6 and end the nuclear Apartheid.

Mr.Amitabh Pal,
What are you talking about?
Don't you think a nation of 1 Billion people has no right to protect herself? The population of this world is approx. 6.5 billion and one sixth of that people live in India. Don't you think one sixth of world people have no right and they don't need safety and protection? They have no say in the world order. A country like USA with 300 million people and a country like UK with 40 million people have the right to decide the future of world and can support Pakistan in the crisis with India. Who decided the Security Council consists of USA, UK etc. I understand the presence of China which has close to 1.3 billion people. USA and UK can attack a country for oil. What kind of a journalist are you. Are you trying to get a name and fame in USA at this cost of your mother land? They people those who don't respect their mother and mother land, in my eyes they are the biggest traitor. Saurav

Accusing India of bad behaviour ? Which school of journalism you go to ?
Looks like this was written by a moron like Ed Market Damn-Mass. This article is so biased. India has all the right to nuclear arms and Energy.It has all the rights to protect itself. You are one of the liberal progessive western thinking damn people who want to dominate and stop the Indian progress.If not US, India will do agreements with other countries. It is in good interest of US to have a healthy relationship with India. The day Asian powers make a cartel like NAFTA,all the Western powers will really be in trouble. How can a country like India with a population of 1,132,657,000 be without nuclear Energy when US with a population of 30 million can have it ?

If the US or Britain has a right to have nuclear weapons, India has exactly the same right. Amitabh Pal and Ed Markeys of this world are hypocrites. Yes nuclear weapons are repugnant as Amitabh Pal says. But why does he or the likes of Ed Markey doesn't think that US shouldn't have it?

India doesn't and shouldn't have to apologize for its nuclear program until the real nuclear sinners like the US, Britain, France etc. dispose of their nuclear capabilities. If Ed Markey is concerned about how to convince Pakistan, North Korea etc. to go non-nuclear, what he should do first is stop being a hypocrite and work for nuclear disarmament of his own country first, and do his preaching when he achieves that!

Hypocricy, thy name comes in different forms, such as Amithabh Bal, Ed Markey etc.

AMITABH, you are crazy. India & china do needs nuclear technology. They are starting 2 or 3 coal fueled power generation projects a month. They are the biggest polluters of environment in the world after us.(At least US pollution has started coming down, for them its going up ). If we can the indians to stop using coal as there only source aof energy, and get them to use cleaner techs like nuclear, the world have won a great battle.

The WORST article I have read in months!

As I said before, this article is a typical knee-jerk reaction of a section of the so-called "progressives", who don't have an inkling about Indian political and security dynamics, yet insist on proffering the kind of solution that reminds one of Marie Antoinette's infamous "let them eat cakes" comment.

----------
"It legitimizes a nuclear weapons program that is primarily an ego trip on the part of the Indian ruling elite."
----------

India's need for nuclear weapons are about as legitimate as those of the other nuclear weapons states. Here are the facts:

1. India offered to sign the NPT as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State, many times, before it finally went nuclear only if the five NWS agreed to a 30-year time frame to disarm.

2. The US and UK conducted a joint nuclear test in Nevada as recently as 2006. Why should the US exclude India (a nation of 1.1 million living in a dangerous part of the world), but "reward" UK which has no need of nukes?

----------
"It accelerates the nuclear arms race in the region, forcing Pakistan to expand its program and inducing China into a more aggressive nuclear posture, too."
----------

1. China has 450 nuclear warheads housed in MIRVs, and in possession of megaton range thermonuclear weapons. India has about 60 warheads with a maximum of 200 kilotons. Why should China be "induced" into a more "aggressive nuclear posture" (unless it wants to remain the regional nuclear hegemon)?

2. China has only a handful of ICBMs - say about two dozen or so. The rest are all IRBMs, MRBMs. Where could they possibly be aimed at?

3. China wishes to complete its occupation of Tibet by staking a claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Possessing nukes gave it a psychological advantage until India tested in 1998, showing that India is no pushover. Nuclear weapons, however unlikely to be used, are a psychological cum strategic insurance against Chinese misadventurism.

----------
"It encourages the squandering of the Indian government's scarce resources even when the country desperately needs to uplift its people."
----------

1. India, despite its large population of people living below the poverty line, is still the world's fourth largest economy in PPP terms. India's economy bigger than that of Russia (PPP as well as market rate). How can Russia, with its smaller economy, afford such a large arsenal then, whereas India cannot?

2. The possession of nuclear weapons actually allows the nation to cut back on costly conventional weapons. All these years, the Chinese PLA managed to get away with obsolescent military hardware as China possessed nukes.

----------
"It draws India into the Bush administration's ill-conceived global project."
----------

1. The Bush administration is on its way out. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the deal. Even Barack Obama won't oppose it. So do most other nations, including possibly anti-nuclear Japan and pacifist Norway.

2. India is an independent minded country. It is not a US ally, but aligns its pro-Western policies with that of the US as their interests match. Do you really think that Bush has some long term "global project"? If so, spell it out.

----------
"And it reinforces the notion of nuclear weapons as legitimate, when they are repugnant and unworthy of any decent nation."
----------

1. Nuclear weapons have been legitimatized through their continued possession by the five NWS, starting with the USA. They have reneged upon their past commitments under the NPT. Why do they not disarm and get rid of their "repugnant" weapons?

2. China proliferated those "repugnant" weapons to Pakistan in the 70s and 80s. How "decent" was that?

3. The US as per the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion is violating the NPT by threatening to use nukes on Non Nuclear Weapons States.

India on the other hand is one of two nuclear powers that has a strict no-first-use policy.

Firstly Indian track record is impeccable on the issue of Nuclear profileration while all the other countries named in your article are despots.Secondly if US is scared of China that is US's problem, but India needs a deterrent against China. By the way, US has the blackest record in terms of Human Rights when we talk of Japan (Nuclear attack), Palestine, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Guantanamo .......... and the list is endless (many to come). Thirdly, it is better to rely on a sincere non-proliferating country rather than the self-serving so called NPT signatories, when they thought their nuclear programme is all done they impose a ban.
Though whenever India is pushed against the wall it has come out to be a winner in its own right including the cryogenic equipment.

Why can all the countries not scrap all the nuclear arsenal rather than getting into all repressible self-serving NPT?

I guess what takes the sting away a bit is the fact that India is a Democracy with a rapidly growing middle class.

The stronger India is, the better off this world is.

Don

The person who has written this article is of Indian origin. I have read alot of articles about Indian Nuclear program but I have never read such a biased stupid article. Which journalism school you went to. It's very easy to sense your personal hatred towards India. Im not sure if you have some blood relation with Mr Pal of RAW who was working in Indian secret service but used to sell secrets to outside world. U namak haraam.

I think this is very harsh statement given by Amitabh Pal.He is infact not taking consideration that India is the largest democracy of the world so it has every right to protect its own people when their is neighbour like notorious China and Pakistan.The nexus between the two is main area of concern for India and for becoming a self Relient even if it has misused some technologies that is fully justified.

By the way Amitabh shoud read history books also to Know about India(After Freedom) Then he will get the complete view.

Being a neculear weapon state will only reduce the war type of situation between any other country and India.