Most readers of this blog would know by this time the fate of the Nuclear Deal. It is more likely to go through the Indian Polity. However, a very good of friend mine, Mouly, has some takes on it. Though he had been against the Nuclear Deal from Day One and me for it from Day One, We have had pretty interesting conversations/arguments on the merits and the fate of the deal all these days. We even felt good/bad respectively when the Communists took up the Nuclear Deal more than Inflation and other burning issues with the Government. But, seems like our feelings were short lived- But that's for another day.

Coming to the post, Mouly makes some points on why the Deal would be "disastrous day" for India in his words. I would like to counter those points, though the wise man that he is, he had already put on the counters for some of those pointers.

Nuclear test: Contrary to what has been officially projected, The deal implicitly takes away India's right to conduct further nuclear test.

Counter: India has already declared a unilateral moratorium on further testing, with Vajpayee announcing that all the tests to validate the design and yield have been completed after the May 11, 2001 tests. So, the inability of testing comes mostly from we ourselves breaking the moratorium than any treaty.

Uninterrupted fuel supply: There is no concrete assurance on the uninterrupted and perpetual fuel supply even though India has committed to perpetual IAEA/US safeguards and inspection regime which cannot be revoked or suspended for any reason at any time after the agreement comes into effect.......

Counter: Right now, we don't let any agency to inspect our nuclear facilities and also we don't have any demarcation on whether a facility is a civilian or a military facility and the inspection is only for Civilian sites - not for Military sites- it is not as if we are throwing away everything to an external agency- we are opening up only those facilities that would receive foreign fuel. As a vendor, I think anyone would be interested in how their product is being used. If non-proliferation concerns can be added to it, better to everyone. Also, the above concern assumes that India's stature would remain the same as it is in the NSG for eternity- We would not remain the same way we are right now. Things will change for sure.

Inspection regime: As part of the deal, India is obligated to segregate and open up its civilian nuclear facilities for inspection of IAEA and the US.

The inspection is only by the IAEA and not by the US in case the deal is terminated. All in all, I would definitely welcome the agreement. I don't see a point of being secluded from the World Community on Nuclear issues. With Oil becoming dearer by the day and Coal being the worst polluter, Nuclear Energy is a much cleaner option.

I would say, with the Left withdrawing support, this would be the best thing to have happened to India in the past 4 years. But, the timing of the left withdrawal did bring a smile to my face. They waited till SP came out open in support of the deal and the recent pronouncements of the UPA constituents don't surprise me a bit- already there are talks about how grateful UPA is to have had the left support them for 4 years and kept the communal forces out of power and how UPA wouldn't want the left to leave the coalition and would welcome the left if they chose to come back. Seems like a carefully orchestrated drama forced on the People of India!

While I used to follow the US press when I was in India itself, it wasn't all that of immediate relevance to me. But when I came here, I started following US new editions more carefully, gleaning for information with their content and context. Enough said about the BBC, now its time for Reuters.

Some days back when I was reading through the daily news, I came upon this article. It's a 3 page article and needless to say, touches one of the most stormy issues in the International politics today. Inspite all these, the flow of the article and the news that it conveys is, IMHO, simply inconsistent with general journalistic judgment.

Sample these:

"The purpose appears not to be to shore up Iran's political partners in Iraq against the Sunnis, but to cause problems for American troops," said a former intelligence official who closely monitors events in the Middle East.

.........

The secretive Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards has circumvented Shi'ite organizations like the Mehdi Army to enlist individual militants and train them in the use of explosively formed penetrators, the officials said.

These allegations against Iran are all made by unnamed, unidentified "Officials"-there are no attributions to any one. Remember these were the same tactics used earlier before the war on Iraq. Now, its an open secret on who the public opinion was manufactured leading to Iraq War.

The heights of such scandalous attribution comes here:

WARNING TO U.S TROOPS?

Some experts believe Iran has supplied traceable weapons to show the United States what ground troops might face in any military intervention.

"Tensions between these two countries have escalated dramatically since 2003, and everybody has suspected for a long time that Iraq could become a battlefield," said Vali Nasr, Middle East expert at the Naval Postgraduate School.

"I'm sure these (munitions) have been used to let it be known that the Iranians have these capabilities in Iraq."

Added an intelligence source: "They could be saying, 'This is the merest taste of what you would face if you came across the border or bombed us or knocked out our nuclear reactors'."

Here, the sentence structure seems so like that the quote "I'am sure these have been....." can easily me mistaken for Vali Nasr, whereas in reality it is again said by some "intelligence source". What is this, but stroking hysteria? A population already scared with 9/11 and yet to come back to normal doesn't need further than these words to panic.

I have just one question- What Next?

I am just waiting for more Indian noises! I fail to understand the excitement over this news(purely and only from the perspective that I am ranting about here) and the tag "Indian-American". I am afraid we live in such a hypocratic world that I wonder what makes us think she is Indian anymore. I am sure Sunitha got where she got, not because of her nationality. She got there through her hard work, intellect and merits. To claim a national pride where there exists none - or at least to rejoice in such nationalistic jingoism, sucks.

I am skeptical whether Sunitha would claim herselves an Indian, anymore than Musharaff would claim himselves an Indian. I wonder how come none of our news papers ever call Musharaff an "Indian-Pakistani". In the same league, how about calling Advani, as "Pakistani-Indian"? Such stupidity!

I had never been a votary for this thing called "Nationalism"[Though I can understand there is some shred of pride in me, in the fact of being called an Indian- Old habits- die hard]- When are we going to come out of the Nation State? I think the time has come for Nation State to wither..But frankly, I am unable to see an alternative. May be just states and not Nation States would be a solution. But states can't survive without becoming a Nation State- else America would have been a province of England still.