NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: Go beyond making pro forma noises

The first International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons will be observed on 26 September 2014. Will the Bhagavad Gita, which Robert Oppenheimer cited to explain his philosophy of life before and after the Trinity nuclear test of 1945, inspire Modi, Obama and their contemporaries in the comity of nations to do their duty by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs?

New Delhi
25 September 2014

The redrawing of the boundaries of Ukraine may have come at an inopportune moment in the contemporary discourse on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Ukraine’s dismemberment at the hands of Russia, coming as it did after it renounced what was the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world at the time of disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union, could impel certain nuclear holdouts to retain and refine their nuclear arsenals or spur some nuclear threshold states to cross the Rubicon and seek to insure themselves against potential violation of their sovereignties. It didn’t help that Russia also signalled its intention to finesse its security strategy by further developing its nuclear capabilities, which, in turn, has forced the US and NATO to revisit some of the underlying assumptions of their extant policies in eastern Europe. At the same time, those developments have once again brought to the fore and highlighted the perils of indiscriminate nuclear sabre-rattling and the human and humanitarian costs of atomic pursuits. Already, there are in excess of 16 thousand nuclear weapons worldwide today. According to a latest data published by an American magazine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the largest concentrations of nuclear weapons are residing in Russia and the US, which together possess 93 per cent of the total global inventory; while Pakistan is reported to be quantitatively and qualitatively increasing its arsenal and deploying its weapons at more sites. Also, the failure of the nuclear-haves to break free from the vice-like grip of “Pehle Aap” (Hindi for you first or after you) culture, which pervades their thinking insofar as delegitimising the use of nuclear weapons and reducing their salience in international affairs are concerned, stands exposed. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), for instance, is held up on account of the inability of eight countries – the US, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – to sign and/or ratify it. The US has signed but not ratified the treaty, which China cites to defend itself; Pakistan, in turn, finds in India’s reluctance to even sign the treaty, let alone ratify it, a convenient escape clause for itself. Possibly, an early US ratification could have a domino effect on the remaining seven countries.

India’s own attempts at pushing for an international consensus on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament date back to 1954 when Jawaharlal Nehru became the first statesman to call for a “stand still” agreement on nuclear testing after the US conducted a series of nuclear tests, including the detonation of a nuclear device that was equivalent to a thousand Hiroshimas, in the tiny Pacific Ocean archipelago of Marshall Islands. That was followed by Indira Gandhi’s joining five other heads of state and/or government in issuing the Appeal of May 1984 to draw world attention to nuclear disarmament and Rajiv Gandhi’s now eponymously-named “Action Plan to usher in a worId order free of nuclear weapons and rooted in non-violence” that was unveiled on 9 June 1988 at the United Nations General Assembly. However, by then India had decidedly begun to embrace a foreign- and security policy that was dictated by realpolitik; and the nuclear tests by India in 1998 validated it. The consequent decline in India’s moral stature and political will ensured that her voice on disarmament remained feeble. However, it was around the same time that Kazakhstan was making itself heard, first by renouncing its nuclear arsenal and subsequently by forging a Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, which was signed by all five Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. On 2 December 2009, the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly accepted Kazakhstan’s proposal for declaring 29 August as the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. On this occasion last month, the victims of nuclear tests such as a 46-year-old armless painter Karipbek Kuyukov and the Hibayushas (Japanese for survivors of an explosion) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki came together to shake off the international community’s inertia and to urge them to expedite disarmament talks which are otherwise progressing at a glacial pace. Kazakhstan’s efforts towards a global test ban, leading to an eventual ban on nuclear weapons, needs to be admired in India and around the world.

The way forward

Kazakhstan, Japan or Marshall Islands are not alone in their endeavours. Joining them in a campaign to showcase the humanitarian costs of nuclear tests and nuclear weapons are Norway and Mexico, which hosted the first two editions of a global conference. Austria will host a third in December this year. Considering India’s own past efforts at campaigning for disarmament, it would do well to consider making common cause with like-minded countries such as Japan and Kazakhstan. The essential features of the four-fold Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan are similar to the four specific steps that Japan’s foreign minister Fumio Kishida articulated recently in an article published by Foreign Affairs, a leading American magazine on international relations. For his part, Prime Minister Narendra Modi could use his talks with world leaders and his intervention at the United Nations General Assembly this year to signal his government’s intent. Mr Modi has already said in an interaction with Japanese journalists on the eve of his just concluded visit to Tokyo that “there is no contradiction in our mind between being a nuclear weapon state and contributing actively to global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.” Incidentally, the first International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons will be observed on 26 September, on the eve of Prime Minister Modi’s address to the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. According to the United Nations, “As of 2014, not one nuclear weapon has been physically destroyed pursuant to a treaty, bilateral or multilateral and no nuclear disarmament negotiations are underway.  Meanwhile, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence persists as an element in the security policies of all possessor states and their nuclear allies. This is so despite growing concerns worldwide over the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of even a single nuclear weapon, let alone a regional or global nuclear war.” In 2015, the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference will take place; the year will also mark the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings. Also, the United Nations plans to convene no later than 2018 a high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to review the progress made in this regard. All these occasions could be used by the international community to discuss nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. A push for a global no-first-use could be a good starting point of those talks, to begin with.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe

Although Mr Modi has iterated India’s commitment to a universal, non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament and a unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing, Japan’s special sensitivities continue to cause a delay in signing of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with India. In such a situation, even a tentative first step in this direction would endear India to those sections of the Japanese society that remain sceptical of civil nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT and non-CTBT country such as India. Towards the end of his visit to Japan, Mr Modi had said that he had gifted copies of the Bhagavad Gita to his Japanese interlocutors, including the Emperor. He explained his actions thus: “I have nothing more valuable to give and the world has nothing more valuable to get.” Hopefully, going forward, the Bhagavad Gita would help resolve the moral dilemmas confronting many a world leader and stir their collective conscience to do their duty. As for Mr Modi himself, he maintains that he is an incorrigible optimist. “Some people say a glass is half empty; some people say a glass is half full. I say the glass is half filled with water and half filled with air,” he had told the BJP Parliamentary Party, by way of an explanation, soon after he led the party to a historic win in the May 2014 parliamentary elections. That personal philosophy of Mr Modi could come in handy for India as it negotiates a minefield that is the contemporary global discourse on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Will the Bhagavad Gita do to the leaders of India and the United States what Lord Krishna did to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra in the Mahabharata? Will the Bhagavad Gita, which Robert Oppenheimer cited to explain his philosophy of life before and after the Trinity nuclear test of 1945, inspire Modi, Obama and their contemporaries in the comity of nations to do their duty by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs?

ATOMIC MESS !

* This article was first published by Tehelka (http://www.tehelka.com) weekly magazine on 12 September 2014 under the headline The Nuclear Disarmament Mess.

------- + -------

Why India could join hands with Japan and Kazakhstan to push the world on the road to nuclear disarmament, says Ramesh Ramachandran

Pix Courtesy: Reuters

Astana and Semey in Kazakhstan
29 August 2014
On 29 August, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with a group of Japanese journalists ahead of his visit to Tokyo and sought to reassure them about India’s commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament and a unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. The same day, in the far-away steppes of Kazakhstan, former Japanese diplomat Yasuyoshi Komizo joined the locals of Semey, a small town located on the banks of the Irtysh river, bordering Russia, to mark the International Day Against Nuclear Tests by observing a moment’s silence in honour of all victims, living and dead, of nuclear tests.

Komizo, 66, who now serves as the chairperson of Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and the secretary general of Mayors for Peace, also planted a sapling of the Gingko Bilopa tree, which survived the 6 August 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Present on the occasion was armless Kazakh painter Karipbek Kuyukov, 46, who is a second-generation victim of the nuclear tests at Semey and the face of the anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan.

Kuyukov, who holds a brush in his mouth or between his toes to give expression to his creative spirit, was born near Semey and is one of more than 1.5 million people, as per a United Nations estimate, who suffered the consequences of nuclear testing.

Today, he divides his time between painting and campaigning for a global ban on nuclear tests as an honorary ambassador of The ATOM Project (an acronym for Abolish Testing. Our Mission), which Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev launched on 29 August 2012.

The coming together of the victims of nuclear tests such as Kuyukov and the Hibayushas (Japanese for survivors of an explosion) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only victims of atomic bombings, is instructive for India and the world.

A Study In Contrast

The Republic of Kazakhstan was not even born when the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi unveiled his now eponymously-named “action plan to usher in a world order free of nuclear weapons and rooted in non-violence”, on 9 June 1988 at the UN General Assembly.

However, since then, while India’s moral heft and political will to pursue the twin issues of non-proliferation and disarmament to a logical conclusion have seen a decline, Kazakhstan — undaunted by the prospect of a David versus Goliath battle or unfazed by the criticism of not making enough progress towards genuine media and political freedoms — has taken upon itself to champion the cause of a global test ban leading to an eventual ban on nuclear weapons. And it has all the right credentials, to boot.

On 28 February 1989, a poet-activist by the name of Olzhas Suleimenov, now 78, founded the Nevada- Semey anti-nuclear movement to mobilise public opinion against the nuclear explosions conducted by the then USSR at the Semey (formerly Semipalatinsk) test site and to show solidarity with similar movements in the US for closing down the Nevada nuclear test site.

A groundswell of public opinion following the launch of the movement ensured that the erstwhile USSR did not conduct another nuclear test at Semey after 19 October 1989 (although it would not be until after the 24 October 1990 test at Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean, that the erstwhile USSR completely stopped all nuclear tests.)

On 29 August 1991, Nazarbayev, president of what was then the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, officially shut down the Semey nuclear test site. (Kazakhstan became an independent country on 16 December 1991.) It brought to an end a 40-year-long history of nuclear tests at Semey, which began on 29 August 1949; a total of 456 tests (including 116 above-ground tests) were conducted at Semey. He followed it up by announcing that Kazakhstan would voluntarily renounce its nuclear arsenal — the fourth largest in the world at the time — that it had inherited from the erstwhile USSR.

That process was completed by 1996 but his ambitious endeavours didn’t stop there. Next on his agenda was a Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, which was signed by all five Central Asian States — Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan — on 8 September 2006 at Semey and came into force in 2009. This May, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council signed the protocol to this treaty, giving negative security assurances and committing themselves not to use nuclear weapons against the Central Asian States.

On 2 December 2009, the 64th session of the UN General Assembly accepted Kazakhstan’s proposal for declaring 29 August as the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. The Resolution 64/35, which was adopted unanimously, called for increasing awareness “about the effects of nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions and the need for their cessation as one of the means of achieving the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world”. (India and seven other countries — China, Pakistan, the US, Iran, North Korea, Israel and Egypt — are still to sign and/or ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty or the CTBT.)

During his visit to Semey in April 2010, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the leaders of all countries, especially the nuclear powers, to follow the example of Kazakhstan on disarmament and non-proliferation.

In memoriam People gather at the Stronger than Death Monument in Semey, Kazakhstan, to mark the International Day Against Nuclear Tests on 29 August
Pix courtesy: Ramesh Ramachandran

Among the latest to join countries such as Kazakhstan and Japan in a concerted campaign for a global test ban leading to eventual disarmament is Marshall Islands, a tiny archipelago in the Pacific Ocean, where the US had conducted a series of nuclear tests, including the detonation of a nuclear device that was equivalent to a thousand Hiroshimas. (In April this year, Marshall Islands filed a lawsuit against India and eight other nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice at The Hague for not disarming themselves.)

In comparison, India’s quest for a nuclear-free world dates back to 1954 when the late prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru became the first statesman to call for a “stand still” agreement on nuclear testing. Three decades later, the late prime minister Indira Gandhi joined five other heads of state and/or government in issuing the Appeal of May 1984 to refocus the world’s attention on nuclear disarmament. However, by then a combination of circumstances and national security imperatives had already begun impelling India towards effecting a shift from a foreign and security policy based on moral considerations to one that was dictated by realpolitik; the nuclear tests by India in 1998 are a case in point.

As Rajiv Gandhi had said in his 1988 speech, “Left to ourselves, we would not want to touch nuclear weapons. But when, in the passing play of great power rivalries, tactical considerations are allowed to take precedence over the imperatives of nuclear non-proliferation, with what leeway are we left?”

Reconciling Dilemmas

To the proponents of non-proliferation and disarmament, the discourse in India today, unlike the time when it sought to punch above its weight in the international arena, has markedly shifted away from a moral self-righteousness to the pursuit of a foreign policy bereft of a moral compass. Yet, there is an overwhelming body of opinion, both within the government and without, that India can and must play an effective role in working towards attaining the goal of disarmament. As Prime Minister Modi himself said in his interaction with the Japanese journalists in New Delhi, “There is no contradiction in our mind between being a nuclear weapon state and contributing actively to global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

He iterated India’s position a second time, this time during the course of an interaction with the students of Sacred Heart University in Tokyo, that India’s commitment to non-violence is total; it is ingrained in the “DNA of Indian society and this is above any international treaty”. Modi went on to assert that “India is the land of Lord Buddha. Buddha lived for peace and suffered for peace and that message is prevalent in India.”

On the face of it, Modi’s remarks are consistent with those of his predecessors, particularly Manmohan Singh, who had wrestled with the pros and cons of disarmament in the light of the relevance (or lack thereof ) of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan and India’s moral stature in pushing for a global consensus on the issue.

A committee constituted in the second term of Manmohan Singh had recommended, among other things, that India should lead the campaign for disarmament because over the decades, it has been in the forefront of such efforts and its emergence as a power to be reckoned with would further enable it in this endeavour.

The Road Ahead

What Rajiv Gandhi said in his 1988 speech rings true even today: “Humanity is at a crossroads. One road will take us like lemmings to our own suicide. (The) other road will give us another chance.”

Surely, the latter road passes through Semey. The least India can and must do is to lend its voice and weight to the efforts being championed by Kazakhstan and Japan alike. The essential features of the four-fold Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan are similar to the four specific steps that Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida articulated recently in an article published by Foreign Affairs, a leading American magazine on international relations. In the article, Kishida, who, incidentally, hails from Hiroshima, hoped that a consensus could be reached at the 2015 NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference on a new plan of action to reduce nuclear weapons and ensure non-proliferation.

The year 2015 would also mark the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings. New Delhi and Tokyo would do well to dovetail their efforts for greater synergy. Doing so will also endear India to those sections of the Japanese society that remain sceptical of civil nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT and non-CTBT country such as India.

For its part, Kazakhstan has listed nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation among its key foreign policy priorities in the event of its election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for the 2017-18 period. As for India, Prime Minister Modi’s talks with the leaders of China and the US and his intervention at the UN General Assembly this month should be a good starting point for it to lay out its vision for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs. Therefore, going forward, there is ample scope for India, Japan and Kazakhstan to coordinate their positions.

For if, as Modi said, the friendship between India and Japan will determine what the “Asian century” will look like, then it behoves of them to partner like-minded Asian countries such as Kazakhstan for an alternative universality. A 2012 strategy document, titled ‘Nonalignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the 21st century’, published by the New Delhi-based think-tank Centre for Policy Research, had concluded that “India should aim not just at being powerful. It should set new standards for what the powerful must do.”

In a similar vein, Jonathan Granoff, president of the US-based Global Security Institute, had said on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan in 2008 that “the world needs the compass point of leadership”. Will India, and Modi, oblige?

The Armless Crusader

Painter Karipbek Kuyukov is a living testimony to the damage caused by radioactive fallout from nuclear testing, says Ramesh Ramachandran

Trailblazer Karipbek Kuyukov
Pix courtesy: Ramesh Ramachandran

The remoteness of Semey (formerly Semipalatinsk) proved to be its undoing. A land that was once home to Kazakhstan’s most famous poet, Abai Kunanbayev, or the place where Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky of Crime and Punishment fame was exiled to, is today infamous for the nuclear pursuits of the erstwhile Soviet Union. The Cold War saw the Soviets use the vast steppe around Semey for conducting a series of nuclear tests. Consequently, this nondescript town, which today has a population of only a little over 300,000, has seen some of the worst human, man-made tragedies.

Karipbek Kuyukov, 46, is a living testimony of the damage caused by radioactive fallout from the explosions. He was born in 1968 in the village of Yegyndybulak, about a 100 km away from Semey, where the former Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapons between 1949 and 1989. Little did his unsuspecting parents know that years of indiscriminate nuclear testing during the Cold War would rob their son of the simple pleasures of life that you and I, who are far removed from the steppes of Kazakhstan, would take for granted. Kuyukov was born without arms — an unwitting victim of his parents’ exposure to nuclear radiation.

“When I was a child, my parents used to tell me stories about how the ground trembled,” Kuyukov recalls. “Growing up, I remember the armoires shaking and the rattling of dishes.”

He spent an early part of his life at an institute in St Petersburg (formerly Leningrad), where his father hoped he would learn to use prosthetic arms. The young Kuyukov tried but failed to master the prosthetic; he wouldn’t tell if it militated against his aesthetic sensibilities but he lets you in on his intimate thoughts and how and why he chose art to give expression to his creative talent. “My soul was looking to create something beautiful,” he reminisces.

What began as a painfully slow and exhausting attempt at redeeming himself eventually transformed into a cathartic, and almost transcendental, experience — one that would not only give meaning to his life but hold him up as a conscience-keeper for generations to come.

“I will be the happiest if I am among the last victims of nuclear tests,” says the diminutive painter, who has made it his life’s mission to encourage people, as opposed to governments, to seek a ban on nuclear tests and to make a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. Left to themselves, governments will forever cite reasons for holding on to their nuclear arsenals but people can turn the tide when they force governments to sit up and take notice of the will of the people, he reasons. And that is the message he seeks to convey through his paintings. Holding a brush in his mouth and between his toes, Kuyukov has painted on themes ranging from fear and loneliness to the mushroom cloud and nature.

“Through my works, I want to share with the people the horrible consequences of nuclear tests, the pain and suffering of the victims of nuclear tests and the agony of mothers,” he says. Today, he spends a considerable part of his time campaigning for a ban on nuclear tests in his capacity as an honorary ambassador for The ATOM Project. (The ATOM Project is a global petition drive to mobilise international public opinion against nuclear tests and to deliver those petitions with signatures to the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons.)

“The last 25 years of my life have been a battle. When I joined the movement, I remember that in those days when neither the Internet nor mobile phones existed, we collected signatures on sheets of paper from every region,” Kuyukov says. “I don’t have arms to hug you but I have a heart and it belongs to you!”

According to The ATOM Project, “Today, many in the area around the former Semipalatinsk nuclear test site (or The Polygon, as it was known) do not live past 60 and, as a result of exposure to radiation, the genetic code of those parents and grandparents was permanently altered, resulting in horrific birth defects to this day. According to the UN, in all, more than 1.5 million people in Kazakhstan are believed to have suffered premature death, horrible radiation-related diseases and lifetimes of struggle as a result of birth defects.”

The ATOM Project has designated 11.05 am (the local time in respective countries) on 29 August of every year as the occasion to observe a moment’s silence in honour of all victims of nuclear tests. At 11.05 am, the hands of a clock form a ‘V’ for victory and it therefore chose this time to signify a victory of common sense over fear and for global efforts towards a nuclear weapons-free world.

Kudankulam stalemate over, PM to discuss N-safety at Korea summit next week

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

Echoes of Kudankulam would be felt in distant Seoul next week when heads of state or

government from about 50 countries gather in the South Korean capital for the second

edition of the nuclear safety summit.

On their agenda will not only be nuclear safety but also the future of nuclear as an

energy source, post the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.

While there is a strong popular sentiment against nuclear energy in Japan and a host of

other Asian nations, South Korea and India stand out as an exception where

governments have signalled their intention to pursue the nuclear power path.

The March 26-27 summit, which will be attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,

Chinese President Hu Jintao and US President Barack Obama, among others, can be

expected to discuss issues such as guidelines for nuclear safety.

The US hosted the inaugural nuclear safety summit in 2010.

A week before Dr Singh leaves for Seoul, Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa ended

the eight-month-long uncertainty over the future of the Kudankulam nuclear power project

by giving her go ahead.

Work at the site had been affected by the protests by locals spearheaded by a People's

Movement Against Nuclear Energy, which feared a Fukushima-like catastrophe in

Kudankulam.

The decision to restart work at Kudankulam coincides with China's decision to resume

construction of nuclear power plants. China currently has 13 nuclear power plants with

varied capacities.

China suspended approving new nuclear power projects and launched nationwide safety

inspections at nuclear power stations and facilities in operation and under construction

over safety concerns after the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

According to state-run Beijing Review, China at present has approved 43 nuclear power

plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million KW. These plants are located in 16

provinces, including eight in inland areas.

Incidentally, South Korea is one country where Prime Minister should find himself at

ease. In a poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org a few years ago, Dr Singh was voted

among the most popular "regional" leaders in South Korea with 47 per cent South Korean

nationals saying they trusted him more than others.

In the 20-country poll, 30 per cent of Chinese leaned positively towards Dr Singh

although the Chinese views of him had become more negative as compared to the

previous poll. He also enjoyed an overwhelming support (83 per cent) among Indians.

In contrast, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari fared poorly on the confidence index. Only

34 per cent of the Pakistanis had confidence in him.

BJP's NDA partners pitch for minus-Modi formula for next parliamentary election in order to bait new allies

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on the cover of the
26 March 2012 issue of the Time magazine of the U.S.

Hyderabad

17 March 2012

Making it to the cover of Time magazine may prompt two-time Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's followers to believe that he has it in him to lead India, but BJP's allies seem to think otherwise.

These parties seem to be making up their mind that the NDA's electoral prospects in the next parliamentary election, whenever it is called, would be better served without Modi in the lead. Some of them have suggested sotto-voce that the NDA could hope to become more acceptable to voters and allies -- present and potential -- alike, if the likes of a Narendra Modi or even an LK Advani are not projected as shadow premiers. They are calling it a minus formula, similar to the minus-one or minus-two formulae seen in the politics of neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan.

For one, the JD(U), which is the second largest constituent of the NDA, sees Modi as a liability and it does not fancy the idea of going to polls with him at the helm. More so, when JD(U) leader and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar himself is seen as a potential choice for prime minister. What goes in Nitish's favour, as compared to Modi, is the degree of acceptability towards him among non-BJP, non-Congress political parties, some of whom are coming together to constitute what is loosely being called a third or federal front comprising regional parties such as the Trinamul in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, and, now, SP in Uttar Pradesh, where Mulayam Singh Yadav's party has emerged the winner of the recently concluded Assembly election.

The third front is not without problems or internal contradictions, though. Complicating matters for this motley group is that there are many potential contenders for prime minister, including, but not limited to, Mamata Banerjee and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Already, Samajwadi Party sources have indicated that their next goal after getting a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is to make "Netaji", as Mulayam is called in his party, the prime minister. The SP has indicated its support to the UPA in the event of the Trinamul pulling out of the alliance and there it is speculated that the Congress could offer Mulayam a Cabinet berth to return the favour.

From the Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru edition

From the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad edition

For its part, the Trinamul would not mind an early election because it is better placed than its rivals after winning the last Assembly election. However, if Congress veteran and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is to be believed, Mamata has a huge challenge ahead of her simply because she is not fluent in Hindi. "If you don't know Hindi, you cannot be a prime minister. There are certain skills that are required for certain work. That is why Narasimha Rao became a good prime minister", Mr Mukherjee had famously remarked in 2009 when asked whether he was in contention for the top job. The language handicap notwithstanding, Mamata's Trinamul could emerge as the pivot of this front and a potential kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament, where no party or alliance has absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the question asked about Modi has been used for Rahul Gandhi, too. A section of the Congress party is in favour of seeing the Gandhi scion succeed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before the next parliamentary election, if only to enthuse party cadres and voters alike, but Congress President Sonia Gandhi has dismissed the possibility for now. Like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Dr Singh is faced with a career dilemma: they would want to know when is a good time to retire. Dr Singh's anxiety is compounded by the fact that for one who invested a large quantum of political capital in the UPA-1 on seeing the India-US nuclear deal through, even at the cost of risking his own government, he is today having to explain why nuclear projects in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal have not taken off. Also, big-ticket reform measures such as entry of FDI of up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail, or in insurance sector, has been put on hold for want of consensus among the UPA allies.

Hillary Clinton - SM Krishna strategic dialogue long on intent, short on strategy; US makes it clear to India that it will not dump Pakistan

Indian delegation led by external affairs minister SM Krishna and US delegation headed by Hillary Clinton participating in the second India - US strategic dialogue at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi on Tuesday, 19 July 2011

New Delhi

19 July 2011

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton interspersed her conversations in New Delhi with ifs and buts, conveying to a discerning Indian audience that the US was hedging on its commitments and, in the process, reinforcing a suspicion that the second edition of the India-US strategic dialogue was long on intent but short on strategy.

Ms Clinton's remarks during the course of her talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna on Tuesday, and a joint media event which followed it, were littered with qualifications: The US will support full civil nuclear cooperation with India but the bilateral pact has to be "enforceable and actionable in all regards"; the US stands by the clean Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver to India but the Indian nuclear liability law needs to be aligned with global practices; and, the US government cannot tolerate safe havens for terrorists anywhere but "we do see Pakistan as a key ally" in the war on terror and "we want a long-term relationship with" it.

There was no express commitment from Ms Clinton to either sell or to allow the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India following the NSG decision to bar their sale to non-NPT signatories such as India. There was no mention of it in the joint statement either. All she would venture to say in response to a question posed to her at the media interaction was that Washington supports the September 2008 clean waiver for India and it will push for India's membership of multilateral export control regimes such as the NSG.

Instead, Ms Clinton hastened to remind India of its commitment to ensure a level playing field for US companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector. She voiced Washington's desire to see the Indian nuclear liability law tweaked to protect American corporate interests.

"We would encourage engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the liability regime that India adopts by law fully conforms with the international requirements under the convention[.] We are committed to [the nuclear pact.] But we do expect it to be enforceable and actionable in all regards," Ms Clinton noted.

She also reminded New Delhi to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation by the end of 2011. The treaty will allow foreign companies supplying nuclear material and technology to India to tap into a global corpus of funds in order to pay damages in the event of a nuclear accident.

Amplifying Ms Clinton's remarks, the joint statement said that the participation of US nuclear energy firms in India should be on the basis of "mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated."

Dwelling on regional issues, Ms Clinton said that Pakistan has "a special obligation to [cooperate] transparently, fully and urgently" in the interest of justice for the victims of the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. She iterated that the US will continue to urge Pakistan to bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice but she qualified it by saying that "there is a limit to what both the United States and India can do".

Ms Clinton said that sale of defence technologies will help the Indian and American militaries to work together on maritime security, combating piracy, and providing relief to the victims of natural disasters. She also pushed for market access, reduction of trade barriers, and US investments in India, indicating that Washington viewed its ties with India in transactional, not strategic, terms.

For India's part, Mr Krishna sought to impress upon the American delegation that it was necessary for the US to factor in Afghanistan's ground realities and work closely with President Hamid Karzai's government so that conditions could be created where terrorists did not make any more advances in Afghanistan.

Mr Krishna said that India and the US had agreed to resume negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. He urged the US to consider a "totalisation agreement" with India for the purpose of avoiding double taxation of income with respect to social security taxes. The agreement is essential for determining whether an Indian national is subject to the US social security or medicare tax or Indian social security taxes.

A bilateral aviation safety agreement and a memorandum of understanding on cyber security were the two tangible outcomes of the India-US dialogue.

Ms Clinton called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and met with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, among others.

Japan may suspend N-talks with India, puts Manmohan Singh's ambitious nuclear programme in jeopardy

New Delhi

16 July 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's ambitious nuclear energy
programme risks being grounded even before it could take off with Japan
signalling its intention to suspend negotiations with India, and other
countries, for sale of nuclear-power equipment and technology.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan of Japan has indicated his personal preference
for phasing out nuclear power in his country. It could not have come at
a worse time for Prime Minister Singh, whose government is reeling
under the effects of a recent Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) decision to
restrict the sale of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies.
His government is also battling pressure from American government and
companies alike, to cushion the impact of Indias civil nuclear
liability law on the suppliers. That and the growing climate of
disenchantment with nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster in
Japan could potentially unravel Prime Minister Singhs nuclear gambit
for which he has had to invest significant political capital in his
first term in office.

Japan needs to sign bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with India

and have it ratified by its parliament before it can export nuclear
power technology and equipment. Compounding the problem for India is
that a delay in wrapping up the India-Japan bilateral nuclear pact will
pose a handicap for companies, both Japanese and foreign. Two major US
firms, General Electric and Westinghouse, are either partly or wholly
owned by Japanese companies. Even the French state-owned nuclear power
group Areva has a tie-up with Mitsubishi of Japan.

From the editions in Bengaluru (right), and Chennai (bottom-right)

India is keen to tap Japans experience of constructing the Rokkasho

reprocessing plant with indigenous technology in 1992. India has
concluded negotiations for a reprocessing pact with the US which will
allow setting up of at least two dedicated facilities for reprocessing
US-origin spent nuclear fuel under IAEA safeguards. India and Japan

share similarities in their strategies for the development of nuclear
power. Both have adopted a closed fuel cycle, which entails management
of toxic waste by reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. Also, they have
opted for a comprehensive fuel cycle, from mining to reprocessing. The
Rokkasho plant has built-in IAEA monitoring equipment and other
advanced design features and India can do with Japan's experience for
designing a state of the art, modern reprocessing facility here.

India and Japan have held three rounds of negotiations so far. Both
sides exchanged views on various aspects related to nuclear energy as
recently as April this year, during foreign secretary Nirupama Raos
talks in Tokyo. Both sides will continue to discuss the way forward
for cooperation in this sphere, a statement issued towards the end of

her visit had said.

India, Netherlands FMs discuss new NSG rules, but statement skirts issue

New Delhi

5 July 2011

A statement issued after external affairs minister SM Krishna's talks with his Dutch counterpart Uri Rosenthal in New Delhi on Tuesday was silent on the new Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines limiting the sale of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies to NPT signatories only. However, the issue was understood to have been discussed in the meeting, coming as it did less than a fortnight after the NSG plenary at Noordwijk in the Netherlands, which concluded on June 24.

The Netherlands is currently the chair of the 46-member NSG.

India has not signed the NPT, and, therefore, it views the revised guidelines as impinging on the clean waiver it got from the NSG in September 2008. The guidelines have not been published in open text as yet, but the Dutch minister's visit here would have served India to fully discuss them and draw appropriate conclusions from it. The sentiment in the NSG on India's quest for the membership of the group, and the sale of two new reactors by China to Pakistan, were understood to have been discussed, too. In May, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had met with the NSG Troika, comprising the Netherlands, New Zealand and Hungary, in The Hague.

The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, West Asia, North Africa, and UN reforms figured in their discussions, too. The Dutch minister had visited Afghanistan before arriving in New Delhi. The Netherlands was the first NATO ally to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan in August 2010, but it was helping in training the Afghan security forces, which India was doing, too.

Meanwhile, France reiterated its commitment to full civil nuclear cooperation with India in all aspects, including, but not limited to, nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear fuel. In his second statement in five days, France's ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont said, " ... nothing in the existing and future guidelines shall be interpreted as detracting from that exemption or reducing the ambition of our bilateral cooperation."

He qualified it by saying that the scope of bilateral civil nuclear cooperation would be consistent with France's national policies and international obligations, including the NPT. The reiteration by France follows foreign secretary Nirupama Rao's interview to an Indian television channel in which she hinted that India could choose not to buy nuclear reactors from countries that would not sell ENR technologies to it.

After US and Russia, France reassures India on clean NSG waiver

New Delhi

1 July 2011

After the United States and Russia, France has iterated its commitment to full civil

nuclear cooperation with India.

The French government has said that the Nuclear Suppliers Group's (NSG's) recent

decision, to bar transfer of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies to non-

NPT signatories, does not undermine the waiver granted to India in September 2008.

"The decision taken by the NSG is not a measure targeting any particular State. This

decision is the fruit of prolonged discussions initiated in 2004. Coming after the decision

of exemption from the full-scope safeguards clause, adopted in favour of India in

September 2008, it does not undermine the principles of this exemption," Jerome

Bonnafont, the French ambassador to India, said.

In a statement, the envoy also said, "France confirms that this NSG decision in no way

undermines the parameters of our bilateral cooperation, and is committed to the full

implementation of our cooperation agreement on the development of peaceful uses of

nuclear energy signed on September 30, 2008."

Bonnafont emphasised that France was strongly committed to the development of an innovative, broad-based and dynamic civilian nuclear cooperation with India.

The NSG held its plenary at Noordwijk in the Netherlands in June.

Further, Bonnafont said President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced his support for India's membership of four multilateral export control regimes during his visit to India in December 2010, and
France iterated its "full and complete support" to India's membership of the NSG in
its meeting which concluded on June 24.

In September 2008, France became the first country to sign a bilateral civilian nuclear

accord with India after the NSG granted a landmark waiver to New Delhi, reopening

global civilian nuclear commerce after a gap of 34 years. The French envoy's assurance

on his country's commitment to full civilian nuclear cooperation came a day after

outgoing US ambassador Timothy Roemer stressed that Washington was firmly

committed to NSG's clean waiver to India.

NSG tightens rules, but US reassures India

New Delhi

24 June 2011

Access to sensitive nuclear technologies used for the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel just got tougher, with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approving new guidelines to limit their transfers only to the countries complying with their non-proliferation obligations and that meet agreed standards for nuclear safeguards, safety and security.

On the face of it, the three non-NPT signatories of India, Pakistan and Israel could be affected by the amendments, but, equally, other countries of concern could be the targets, too. However, the US department of state has clarified that the new restrictions should not be construed as detracting from the "unique impact and importance" of the US-India nuclear deal or diluting the US' commitment to full civil nuclear cooperation with India.

Simply put, the new guidelines would not impinge or adversely affect the "clean" NSG exception given to India in September 2008 or restrict India's access to enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies. Also, India remains on course for becoming the 47th member of the nuclear cartel, which was formed in 1974 in response to the nuclear test by India earlier that year.

A US state department press release said, "The NSG's NPT references, including those in the ENR guidelines, in no way detract from the exception granted to India by NSG members in 2008 and in no way reflect upon India's non-proliferation record." It also noted that "efforts in the NSG to strengthen controls on the transfers of ENR areconsistent with long-standing US policy that pre-dates the civil nuclear agreement [with India] and have been reaffirmed on an annual basis by the G-8 for years."

Further, it iterated the US' support for India's membership of the NSG and three other export control regimes -- the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Missile Technology Control Regime -- in a phased manner. The US was understood to have circulated a note on India's membership of the NSG, proposing in it that signing on to the NPT need not be a mandatory criterion. India recognises that becoming an NSG member will take time because the group operates by consensus, and all members, China included, need to unanimously make a decision.

On the eve of the NSG's meeting, India had voiced deep reservations about a move by the cartel to withhold the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to the non-NPT signatories. It had contended that doing so would dilute the import or the message of the exemption granted to India in 2008. Recently, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had discussed this, and other matters, with Ellen Tauscher, the US under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, in Vienna. Ms Rao had also impressed upon her American interlocutor that India's membership of the four export control regimes should be a package deal.

India voices reservation on NSG move to deny transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies

New Delhi

19 June 2011

India has voiced deep reservations about a move by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to withhold the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology (or ENR) to non-NPT signatories such as India. New Delhi has contended that doing so would dilute the import or the message of the exemption granted to India in September 2008.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao was understood to have discussed this, and other matters, with Ellen Tauscher, United States under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs in Vienna last week. Ms Rao also met Yukiya Amano, the director-general of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

A government source said that India's quest for the membership of multilateral export control organisations or regimes, such as the NSG, the Australia Group (to prevent the spread of chemical and biological weapons), the Wassenaar Arrangement (for dual-use goods and technologies), and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), figured in those discussions.

India and the US do not agree on everything, the source pointed out, indicating that certain issues required further negotiations. Simultaneously, India was reaching out to the other NSG members, including the NSG Troika comprising New Zealand, Hungary and the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has urged the international community to jointly combat piracy in the Indian Ocean region. At least 550 persons, including 39 Indian nationals, were still being held hostage by Somali pirates. There have been 165 incidents, including 45 hijackings, this year.

It maintained that it could not provide security to every single sailor or pay ransom to secure their release. "If we pay ransom for one, then all Indian soldiers will become sitting ducks for pirates as they will know that government will pay," a source said.

After the 2006 vote against Iran, India abstains on Syria, but questions remain

(L) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and, on the right, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

New Delhi

10 June 2011

India abstained in Thursday's (9 June 2011) vote in the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA), which decided to report Syria to the United Nations security

council (UNSC) over its alleged covert nuclear programme.

The 35-member board of governors of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog decided by

a 17-to-six vote, with 11 abstentions, to refer Syria to the UNSC for building an

undeclared nuclear reactor at a site in Dair Alzour (which was unilaterally destroyed by

Israel in 2007), for not allowing the IAEA to carry out investigations, and for not adhering

to its safeguards agreements.

The last time the IAEA reported a member-state to the UNSC was Iran in February 2006.

India's votes against Iran had been widely criticised at home, but Thursday's abstention

did not go unchallenged either.

A section of the official circles described India's decision to abstain, and to not cast a 'no

vote' along with Russia and the others, as being dictated by a desire to keep the US and

Israel in good humour. It felt that the IAEA vote was meant to bully President Bashar al-

Assad of Syria into submission and to set in motion a process to effect a regime change

(similar to Libya) in order to disrupt the Syria-Iran axis.

However, New Delhi defended itself by maintaining that states were required to comply

with safeguards obligations and it has consistently been against clandestine

proliferation. At the same time, it pointed out, scope for dialogue should be fully utilised.

The IAEA's referral of Syria to the UNSC should be seen in the context of the attempts by

the West to push for a UNSC resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on protesters.

With Russia indicating that it might veto any such UNSC resolution against Syria, New

Delhi was of the opinion that putting it to vote in the 15-member UNSC, of which India is a

non-permanent member, would be pointless.

In Thursday's vote, 17 countries voted for reporting Syria to the UNSC. They were: the

US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Germany, Italy, Japan, South

Korea, Australia, Belgium, Cameron, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, and the UAE.

Six countries voted against the motion: China, Russia, Pakistan, Ecuador, Venezuela

and Azerbaijan. India and 10 other countries abstained, which included Argentina, Brazil,

Chile, South Africa, Peru, Jordan, Kenya, Niger, Tunisia, and Ukraine. Mongolia was absent from the vote.

Iran spoils maiden flight of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's new plane

New Delhi

31 May 2011

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to India made headlines even before her aircraft landed in New Delhi Tuesday morning. Iran first refused permission to the Airbus A-340 "Konrad Adenauer", Germany's equivalent of the US' Air Force One, for flying over its airspace but later relented, delaying her arrival in New Delhi by two hours.

She more than made up for the avoidable distraction by immediately plunging headlong into the talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in which she reaffirmed Germany's 10-year-old strategic partnership with India; inked four pacts to expand bilateral cooperation in areas such as vocational education and training, science and technology, and research; and exchanged views on a wide swath of issues such as trade, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and reform of the United Nations security council (UNSC), which Germany and India are spearheading along with Brazil and Japan.

While Prime Minister Singh was "in agreement" with Ms Merkel on the need for UNSC reforms and he shared similar views about regional peace and security, some divergences were discernible in their positions on issues such as the way forward in Libya, whether a non-European should head the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and nuclear energy.

Ms Merkel, whose government announced plans Monday to shut down all nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022, wants the focus to shift to renewable sources of energy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster. For his part, Prime Minister Singh insisted that making use of nuclear energy, together with maximum possible emphasis on renewables, was a combination India needed if it was to meet its emission targets.

However, the differences did not dissuade Ms Merkel from offering to partner with India in nuclear safety and green energy. Defence and security dialogue was progressing satisfactorily, too. Indian counter-terrorism officials were expected to meet with their German counterparts in September to discuss operational matters, including, but not limited to, equipment and technologies. Also, external affairs minister SM Krishna would participate in the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December.

From Germany's perspective, the contract for the sale of multi-role aircraft to the Indian air force will be of considerable significance given that the Eurofighter Typhoon is one of two aircraft on New Delhi's shortlist. Speaking at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Singh, Ms Merkel said, "With the Eurofighter we have made good proposals and want to intensify our relationship with India. The Eurofighter is the best product on offer".

Incidentally, the diplomatic standoff between Iran and Germany over denial of permission to the "Konrad Adenauer", named after post-war Germany's first chancellor, coincided with the visit here by an Iranian delegation for resolving the issue of oil payments. India is seeking an alternative mechanism for making payments for the imports of crude oil from Iran after Germany discontinued the practice of routing the payments through the Hamburg-based Europaisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (or EIH Bank.)

Iran's relations with Germany, which along with the five permanent UNSC members (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) had held negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme, has deteriorated of late. Recently the European Union and the United States imposed further sanctions on Iran.

The Iranian ambassador in Berlin was called to the German foreign ministry to explain the snub. Iran is since understood to have blamed "technical [and] organisational events", according to a media report, for the lapse due to which Ms Merkel's aircraft was forced to circle over Turkey for a couple of hours.

Ms Merkel is the second European head of government to have visited India on a refurbished aircraft. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France had used a new official Airbus plane, dubbed Air Sarko One, for his December 2010 visit here, although unlike Ms Merkel, he had already flown on it on its maiden flight to South Korea for the G-8 summit in November.