New Delhi, India: September 4, 2008 - Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist, NIA Chairman -  President Bush's writing such a letter to the US Congress linking India’s commitment to abstaining from conducting a nuclear test to nuclear supplies as per Washington Post, makes no difference, its routine and there is nothing to be panicky or to be disturbed.  

It simply says that the United States would help India deal only with "disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions.

I, released an article in International Reporter (E daily India) on 2nd Septemaber 2008 and  had suggested to the Indian Govt.that they have a reasonable and balanced alternative, which is dignified and also does not seriously violate any clause of the NSG.

India should make a statement reaffirming its commitment to non-proliferation that it would not go for another nuclear test and if the circumstances press it hard and completely compel India to do so, the member countries of NSG who have any objections may stop supplying fuel to India to meet their conditions.

The letter also says: "The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments."

In my opinion, this is a balanced letter, President Bush or any other President could not say that India should be given a clean chit of getting the fuel for use in the process of both Nuclear Explosive and Peaceful purposes.

India should not forget that the deal is for the civil use and once it is granted, it can’t be misused for nuclear explosives, the logic is natural and understandable, and India must respect the views of the NSG countries. Where is the problem whether or not President Bush has written a secret letter; such letters are always classified as secret and there is nothing unusual or volatile?

Prime Minister of India Mr. Manmohan Singh has correctly said in Parliament that  the agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary. India, in fact, is going for getting a waiver for fuel for the civil purposes and not for making N/bombs, bur no one wants to understand it, the media should not be upset on this trivial point of a letter by President Bush.

So far the fuel supply by other countries is concerned it is to be granted only for peaceful purposes and not nuclear explosive. Why the NSG countries give their waiver for explosive purposes? India should reiterate their stand reasonably and not stubbornly that they would only use the fuel supply only for peaceful purposes and if they do otherwise, the NSG countries have every option to reconsider their waiver in future whether to continue to suspend the supply.

The political parties in India are also creating hue and cry unnecessarily. Even Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, had declared that India had imposed self ban to exploding nuclear bombs, and he said very wisely. Let us follow this great leader of his time.
 
PM Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Adviser M K Narayanan should not take the latest Press Report of Washington Post seriously, it doesn’t say anything unusual or out of track, just a routine and official, in fact it is just a political strategy by the opponents to damage the deal.

India should come out bold being a peaceful country that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal is for peaceful purposes only and India shall remain committed to that.

If India violates or misuses or diverts the fuel into Nuclear explosive, the NSG countries have every right to reconsider their decision.

India should not be over excited on the letter written by President Bush; it is the US who would do its utmost to get the waiver cleared and that’s in their interest and also their prestige is at stake and if they fail, they lose their superior reputation all over the world that they enjoy undisputedly.

One thing India and America should insist is that the majority decision of the NSG should apply and not unanimous voting, since the unanimous decisions are always politicized and paralyze the genuine waivers. Over and above, it is against the principle of majority decision.
 
However the letter, made public by Republican Howard L. Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, does not appear to be at variance with the stand as claimed. It simply says that the United States would help India deal only with "disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions.

"The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments," the letter said.

The letter implicitly states the US administration had discretion to disrupt nuclear fuel supplies to India swiftly and that the supply assurances made by the United States are not legally binding, but simply a commitment made by President Bush.

It also stipulates that US can request India to return items transferred from it including fresh fuel. In addition, the US has the right to terminate the agreement on one year's written notice.

The State Department also took the line that ceasing nuclear cooperation with India would be a "serious step."

"The US would not take such a serious step without careful consideration of the circumstances necessitating such actions and the effects and impacts it would entail," it said.

The Department was asked whether US would limit any transfer of dual use technology to India's enrichment and reprocessing facilities to those that were participants in a bilateral or multinational programme to develop proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies.

In its response, the Administration said it was not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items "whether under the agreement or outside the agreement."

If India were to develop such facilities, potential dual-use transfers could be considered only under the exceptions granted in the Hyde Act, it said.