• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• Business Line
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

One can only hope the Prime Minister and his aides would have learnt the lessons from the nuclear deal turmoil that threatened to create a chasm between the political and scientific establishments. The consultative process had been stood on its head, leading to fouling up of atmosphere and reading of all kinds of motives.

The nuclear deal had in a large measure to do with scientific and technological questions, and all that the Prime Minister is doing now by way of reconciling the differences of opinion between the political decision-makers and the scientific community, he should have done before drawing up the July 18, 2005 joint statement with the US President, Mr George Bush. It is puzzling why a savvy person like Dr Manmohan Singh signed the deal first without having answers for the questions it was bound to raise.

The forceful case he made out in Parliament still suffers from many ambiguities. The sequencing of the steps leading to the deal has been left dangling. It is not clear whether the waiver for India from the binding restrictions of the US Atomic Energy Act is conditional upon, or independent of, concluding an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on India-specific safeguards. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is continuing to sit on the fence.

More than all, there is no firm answer in the Prime Minister's speech on what India proposes to do if the US Congress' legislation makes short shrift of his assurances. Dr Manmohan Singh has said that if in their final form the US legislation or the adapted NSG Guidelines impose extraneous conditions, "the Government will draw the necessary conclusions, consistent with (his) commitments made to Parliament."

Does this peculiar phraseology mean that the deal will be scratched? If so, why not say so in simple English?

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Science & Technology | Politics | Power | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Trouble in the neighbourhood

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line