[Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: 123 Agreement

Sukla Sen suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Aug 14 22:08:50 MDT 2007

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:06:49 -0700
From: David Walters <dave.walters at comcast.net>
Dear David,

you've every right to "get it", the way you want to.
That's incontrovertible.

But the ongoing deal has three dimensions. It has
already been elaborated and explained. You've put
forward no argument, other than assertions, to refute

As regards the article is concerned, I evidently did
not deal with it in details, only pointed out the
fundamental fallacy. I believe that the comparison
with Pakistan is one of the clinching arguments.

The claim that through the deal "the US ends of up
controlling India's access to fuel supplies to it's
reactors" is of course just bunkum. Would you care to
explain how?
Rather through the deal, India will have access to
fuel supply which it is denied at the moment.

The deal is being opposed on three different counts.
Already explained in details. We are sorry that we are
not in a position to pay any heed to all your sage
advice on how to conduct the struggle. 

Nevertheless thanks for all the unsought for


David wrote:

Sukla, you don't get it. India is doing *exactly* what
Brazil and 
Argentina is doing (which I notice has raised a single
hackle here on 
this list). The driving force is energy, no bombs.
Bombs have held up 
India's access to the energy (IMO). The article in 
/Analytical Monthly
Review/, published in Kharagpur, West Bengal, India is
spot on and you 
have not challenged ONE assertion in the
article...that is, that the US
ends of up controlling India's access to fuel supplies
to it's new 
reactors. This puts you in an awkward place because
you don't think 
India ought to develop nuclear energy, so you don't
necessarily see
as a bad thing, I would suppose. I've been arguing
from the beginning 
that the problem with what has become the 123
Agreement is
and nothing else.

You should address the points in this well written

On nuclear weapons. If you don't believe your country
should have 
nuclear weapons then *get rid* of the nuclear weapons.
It's a policy or
programmatic position. You are either for or against
them and then act 
accordingly. If you are serious about the threat they
poise to India, 
then don't *hinder* the campaign against them by
latching them on to 
nuclear energy because of the misperceived notion that
weapons somehow 
organically flow from the energy side of the equation.
There are 
probably millions of Indians who abhor their country's
procession of 
nuclear bombs but support India trying to develop a
safe, clean and 
cheap energy source such as nuclear fission. By tying
them together as 
you do you neither fight nuclear weapons or enlighten
anyone on the 
reality of nuclear energy.


Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html 

More information about the Marxism mailing list