|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
India - USA Nuclear Deal
What do you think about the much discussed India - USA civil nuclear deal? Poll whether you support the deal or not and discuss about the issue.
I hate what the stupid politicians are doing. Esp those stupid communists.
India needs energy and this deal would help us in getting energy.
India needs energy and this deal would help us in getting energy.
| vineeth wrote: |
| What do you think about the much discussed India - USA civil nuclear deal? Poll whether you support the deal or not and discuss about the issue. |
The deal is hardly discussed much here in Europe.
Basically, if USA can have nuclear weapons and energy, the world should have it including India, Iran, and any other nation. So yea, even though you state it to be a joint civil nuclear deal albeit not with the nicest country in the world i.e. America, India has my full support.
Then again, the fat cats at Washington and their companies will become richer and richer. Maybe use their wealth for another attack somewhere else in the world. Perhaps better stated, India has my support if it was with any other country except America.
^Fat cats trying to get rich? I doubt that is the cause as much as this one: The USA is trying to make friends with India for three reasons; 1) India is shaping up to be a major power in the area. 2) The USA depends a lot on Indian manufacturing and outsourced labor and 3) India shares a border with Pakistan, and could help as a staging point to the middle east.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Fat cats trying to get rich? I doubt that is the cause as much as this one: The USA is trying to make friends with India for three reasons; 1) India is shaping up to be a major power in the area. 2) The USA depends a lot on Indian manufacturing and outsourced labor and 3) India shares a border with Pakistan, and could help as a staging point to the middle east. |
American companies are utimately benefitting from this deal.
Nevertheless, I agree with points 1 and 2 of what you state.
On point 3: USA has closer ties with Pakistan than India. And USA already has used Pakistan as a staging point on the middleEast (eg Afghanistan) and will continue to do so in the forseeable future (e.g. Perhaps Iran with help also from Iraq).
Right, a very well thought out article here spelt out the authors opinion on why this thing is bad.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9687395
I'm going to quote a specific bit, which will be my main reason for saying no.
Basically, why shouldn't I get a bomb, when I see all the benefits from it?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9687395
I'm going to quote a specific bit, which will be my main reason for saying no.
| The Economist wrote: |
| Exemptions for India will convey a different message: first get your bomb. Such rule-bending puts at risk the anti-nuclear regime that everyone else's safety and security is built on. Governments at the NSG and the IAEA that are unhappy with this need to find the courage of their convictions, and block it. |
Basically, why shouldn't I get a bomb, when I see all the benefits from it?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
|
On point 3: USA has closer ties with Pakistan than India. And USA already has used Pakistan as a staging point on the middleEast (eg Afghanistan) and will continue to do so in the forseeable future |
Ah, but in that tumultuous region the part of the future that is foreseeable is not very long. From the way things are looking now, I'd say the USA needs as many friends in the region as possible.
| bogger wrote: |
|
Basically, why shouldn't I get a bomb, when I see all the benefits from it? |
Because I already have this bomb and no matter how loudly anybody says, it is not going to change the ground reality.
And remember, "If you cant beat them, join them"
When you are talking about nuclear non-proliferation, atomic bombs and India, you need to keep some very critical points about India in your mind.
India is the one and only country in the planet which never ever crossed the borders of any other country either for political gains, economical gains or any other purpose.
India never initiated a war in her history of more than 7500 years.
When India civilization reached great heights in terms of intelligence, spirituality, religion and even material benefits, most of the 'so called concerned' countries were not even born!
India keeps its military, atomic bombs and missile technology including ICBMs to protect its territories only.
Despite continuing provocation from neighbors, India never lost her temper and initiated even a conventional war.
India always kept promises. Self imposed moratorium on atomic experiments are still honored.
India is the one and only country in the planet which declared that it will never use any atomic weapon for the first time.
In my personal opinion, atomic relations with USA will be good for both countries but India should never sign an agreement that prohibits its further studies on nuclear technology. In India we believes that it is better to live the life of a begger with the mindset of a King than being a King and keep the mindset of a begger.
India is the one and only country in the planet which never ever crossed the borders of any other country either for political gains, economical gains or any other purpose.
India never initiated a war in her history of more than 7500 years.
When India civilization reached great heights in terms of intelligence, spirituality, religion and even material benefits, most of the 'so called concerned' countries were not even born!
India keeps its military, atomic bombs and missile technology including ICBMs to protect its territories only.
Despite continuing provocation from neighbors, India never lost her temper and initiated even a conventional war.
India always kept promises. Self imposed moratorium on atomic experiments are still honored.
India is the one and only country in the planet which declared that it will never use any atomic weapon for the first time.
In my personal opinion, atomic relations with USA will be good for both countries but India should never sign an agreement that prohibits its further studies on nuclear technology. In India we believes that it is better to live the life of a begger with the mindset of a King than being a King and keep the mindset of a begger.
| vineeth wrote: |
| When you are talking about nuclear non-proliferation, atomic bombs and India, you need to keep some very critical points about India in your mind.
India is the one and only country in the planet which never ever crossed the borders of any other country either for political gains, economical gains or any other purpose. |
| Quote: |
| India never initiated a war in her history of more than 7500 years. |
| Quote: |
| When India civilization reached great heights in terms of intelligence, spirituality, religion and even material benefits, most of the 'so called concerned' countries were not even born! |
| Quote: |
| India keeps its military, atomic bombs and missile technology including ICBMs to protect its territories only. |
| Quote: |
| Despite continuing provocation from neighbors, India never lost her temper and initiated even a conventional war. |
You are correct to say that India has a publicly stated 'no first strike' nuclear policy, but I question how much importance should be attached to that - history teaches us that politicians often say one thing in peacetime and do quite another in times of conflict.
The fact remains that Jammu/Kashmir still represents a potential flash-point between Pakistan and India, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
I was going to say that!
| Quote: | ||
|
Not debatable. Infact at that time, India & China had some sort of 'Panchsheel Principle' in place, non-aggression was one of those principle. Only reason India was defeated so badly was because China broke this principle & attacked India suddenly. No country is fool enough to go to war itself just a decade or so after independence.
| Quote: | ||
|
True.
| Quote: | ||
|
Err.. played full part of what? Of defending its own territories? I suppose thats what every country will do!
In 1947, why would India initiate a war? It was Pakistan which invaded Indian territory in Kashmir.
As I said in 1965 it was kind of back-stabbing by China.
| Quote: |
|
You are correct to say that India has a publicly stated 'no first strike' nuclear policy, but I question how much importance should be attached to that - history teaches us that politicians often say one thing in peacetime and do quite another in times of conflict. The fact remains that Jammu/Kashmir still represents a potential flash-point between Pakistan and India, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict. |
[/quote]
True. You cant bank on politicians. But at the same time, consider how many countries have even done that. On the contrary, some countries have even openly stated there 'First use' policy.
One thing to consider about the deal is also that, signing NPT is not guarantee against non-proliferation. Look what China, North Korea & Iran have done. So, insisting that India sign NPT befoe getting fuel is stupidity at its best.
Well, we could have a long debate about the Sino-Indian and India-Pakistan wars but that would effectively derail the thread and probably belongs in the history forum rather than here.
Suffice it to say that I don't agree with you entirely about either. India was certainly unprepared for the Chinese attack but that was largely down to arrogance, not agreed principles. As Maj. General J.S. Dhillon said at the time
Well, he was badly wrong.
As for the Pakistan India wars, they are rather like many other such disputes - there are at least two sides to the story. What is indisputable is that on August 15, 1965, Indian forces crossed the ceasefire line which had been internationally agreed.
India says that this was a response to Pakistani armed infiltration of Kashmir. Pakistan says the attack on Azad Kashmir was unprovoked.
Suffice it to say that I don't agree with you entirely about either. India was certainly unprepared for the Chinese attack but that was largely down to arrogance, not agreed principles. As Maj. General J.S. Dhillon said at the time
| Quote: |
| experience in Ladakh had shown that a few rounds fired at the Chinese would cause them to run away. |
As for the Pakistan India wars, they are rather like many other such disputes - there are at least two sides to the story. What is indisputable is that on August 15, 1965, Indian forces crossed the ceasefire line which had been internationally agreed.
India says that this was a response to Pakistani armed infiltration of Kashmir. Pakistan says the attack on Azad Kashmir was unprovoked.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Fat cats trying to get rich? I doubt that is the cause as much as this one: The USA is trying to make friends with India for three reasons; 1) India is shaping up to be a major power in the area. 2) The USA depends a lot on Indian manufacturing and outsourced labor and 3) India shares a border with Pakistan, and could help as a staging point to the middle east. |
4) It also is next to china don't forget that.
India is a country hungry for energy,
all sectors need energy, from factories to farm lands, power is a must..
Nuclear energy is a BIG alter native for all this....
I say, we should give the us a "Yes" to the deal...
all sectors need energy, from factories to farm lands, power is a must..
Nuclear energy is a BIG alter native for all this....
I say, we should give the us a "Yes" to the deal...
Lets not forget... Pakistan and Bangladesh were apart of India and some say they still should be India. So its declaring war on itself some say? Civil war no?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||||||||
You are correct to say that India has a publicly stated 'no first strike' nuclear policy, but I question how much importance should be attached to that - history teaches us that politicians often say one thing in peacetime and do quite another in times of conflict. The fact remains that Jammu/Kashmir still represents a potential flash-point between Pakistan and India, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict. |
First, let me say thank you for your valuable comments on this topic. I will try to explain my views on this. Please not that I am agreeing you fully about your comments on politicians and their interests. But please note that I am not a politician and I don't have much interest in this topic.
My first point is, India, as this country is now known, is not my matter of discussion. I am talking about a country which was known in history as Hindustan, the name given to the land where the Sindh (Indus) civilization flourished.
India, after its separation into India and Pakistan after freedom struggle and a painful separation, is now in the hands of politicians who literally "manages to survive" their next chance in elections.
The history of Hindu civilization is much older. The philosophy of this civilization is based on the age old Vedas and I am mainly discussing form this point of view.
Let me explain the points of debate.
1. Mukti Bahini and Indian assistance to them
Mukti Bahini is the term used to refer to freedom movements in Bangladesh (East Pakistan at that time) that fought against Pakistani Armed Forces. The Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 caused the liberation of East Pakistan to form a new independent country Bangladesh. We should not forget that some Muslims in India demanded for a new country of their own during the climax of freedom movement and Pakistan is the child born. All are aware of the pains that this religious separation brought to people of both countries. During the conflicts and internal issues against the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan caused a massive inflow of refugees to the eastern states of India which even shocked the economic, political and social balance of these areas. On the humanitarian grounds, India was at no choice other than supporting the freedom fighters of that country. On the 3rd of December 1971, the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) struck a number of Indian airfields in northern India. By midnight, India was officially at war with Pakistan. Two weeks later, the war was over and Indian army had to provide adequate support and security for the people of this country.
It is not India that caused or started the war but the actions of thoughtless Pakistani leaders that caused this war. By the time Indian Army crossed the borders, East Pakistan was freed from Pakistan by the people of that country itself.
How can we say that India crossed borders of an independent, sovereign country in this scenario?
Whether this was a good political move or not, it is, of course, a matter of debate.
2. The Sino-Indian war of 1962 was caused by a border conflict between India and Pakistan but the conflict tool shape of a war only when Chinese attacked on an Indian patrol north of the McMahon Line. This proves my claim that it never initiated a war. I am not talking about political issues like border conflicts, religious issues etc that may lead to a war but what I am bothered about is the real war between two countries which starts when the first bullet is shot. If we are talking the "always there" issues like above, we need to say that all countries are always at war!
3. Hope you know that Vedas are the first literature known to humans and it is originated in ancient India. Till date, the exact time period of introduction of Vedas are not discovered. Vedas contains literature that are from a long time of human civilization which is clear from its tone and arrangement of ideas. To create such a literature, there must be an intelligent civilization. Many people believes that Vedas came from the God but I don't.
4. I agree. We are buying a cake only to eat it. But please keep in mind, not everyone eats all the cakes they have. You can still have a cake and eat bread.
5. Keeping its territories in not a war or a crime. In India, we are aware that we must do our duty of protecting the humanity from evil thoughts and brave people must give life for this goal. We can't see our people being killed by intruders form outside of our territories as we had enough of such in our history. What I was trying to say was that, even we know that where is the gun, we are still trying to escape from the bullets or catching some of them. We, till date, never tried to finish off the gun instead.
6. Kashmir is a mask for some other interests. There are demands for an opinion poll in Kashmir to decide where it should stay with India or go to Pakistan from certain parties which never had a history of democracy, freedom of speech or political fair play. They just understand the language of weapons and muscle power. If Kashmir today, the next would be Punjab and the next can be Delhi. I request people to take a statistics of news articles alone published in international media. It is Muslims that are being killed by extremists in this state and being a responsible democratic republic, India can't keep silent. It must protect peoples of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. But please note what I said earlier, we know where the gun is.
7. World is now realizing black and white. Behind each and every terrorist attach, if it is not related to any internal issue, there will be at least one from our neighboring country. At least one phone call will be trace to this country. The international investigative agency of that country (wonderful, it is not controlled by the elected Govt.) will deny its participation even before someone points to them!
And finally, I am not against any country. I strongly believe that countries are created by people and borders are drawn by people. Its the people who can vanish these and dream of a better one world.
Common people of India and Pakistan are not bothered about the internal conflicts much but they bother about the people being killed, resources being utilized for military purpose that otherwise could be used for development of basic infrastructure and better living standards, unwanted and senseless rivalry is created among the people of worlds greatest religions that speaks the same philosophy, love.
About the atomic agreement
I will go for self-sufficient, renewable and eco-safe energy sources. Atomic energy would be a better option but I am yet to study in detail about the technical aspects of this. And, why can't we think that if India is able to produce enough energy, lets give the excess to Pakistan and Bangladesh? (Hmm, this deal would cater for only 10% of India's requirements).
123 agreement for Pakistan
Yes, do it and face the consequences. Pakistan is not ruled by the people... don't forget that while talking about this.
Well, just a quick couple of points:
1) Your original point was that India had never crossed borders into another country. This is incorrect. When India crossed the border in 1971 the border was still internationally recognised as with East Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm
2) The Vedic sanscrit texts are certainly not the first literature known. It (and I'm presuming you mean the Rigveda) dates from around 1100BCE-1500BCE. Egyptian and Sumerian texts pre-date this by a millennium or even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature
As I said previously, the rest (Sino-Indian and Indian-Pakistan wars) depend on interpretation and who you believe. You have given your version and I am sure people will find it interesting and informative. Others have different interpretations. I am not sufficiently expert to be able to pull-together an impartial history, so I will leave people to decide for themselves.
I agree that Pakistan is not a democracy. The recent election of Zardari is a step in that direction but whether it is a good step or not remains to be seen.
1) Your original point was that India had never crossed borders into another country. This is incorrect. When India crossed the border in 1971 the border was still internationally recognised as with East Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm
2) The Vedic sanscrit texts are certainly not the first literature known. It (and I'm presuming you mean the Rigveda) dates from around 1100BCE-1500BCE. Egyptian and Sumerian texts pre-date this by a millennium or even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature
As I said previously, the rest (Sino-Indian and Indian-Pakistan wars) depend on interpretation and who you believe. You have given your version and I am sure people will find it interesting and informative. Others have different interpretations. I am not sufficiently expert to be able to pull-together an impartial history, so I will leave people to decide for themselves.
I agree that Pakistan is not a democracy. The recent election of Zardari is a step in that direction but whether it is a good step or not remains to be seen.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, just a quick couple of points:
1) Your original point was that India had never crossed borders into another country. This is incorrect. When India crossed the border in 1971 the border was still internationally recognised as with East Pakistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm 2) The Vedic sanscrit texts are certainly not the first literature known. It (and I'm presuming you mean the Rigveda) dates from around 1100BCE-1500BCE. Egyptian and Sumerian texts pre-date this by a millennium or even more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature As I said previously, the rest (Sino-Indian and Indian-Pakistan wars) depend on interpretation and who you believe. You have given your version and I am sure people will find it interesting and informative. Others have different interpretations. I am not sufficiently expert to be able to pull-together an impartial history, so I will leave people to decide for themselves. I agree that Pakistan is not a democracy. The recent election of Zardari is a step in that direction but whether it is a good step or not remains to be seen. |
Well, now we need to debate over two points.
Let me explain your second point first. I don't have any problem in accepting the mistake that Vedas are the first known human literature, if the wiki you provided is true. You must understand that there is no such a book called Rig Veda. A saint called Vyasa (according to available history) classified the religious, ethical, philosophical and transcendental wisdom of a civilization, which they obtained over a long periods of time, in to four Vedas known as Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda. These are just like cutting of a cake in to four pieces but the size of cake is not known even now. Because Vedas states that it contains experiences of Saints and Yogis of ancient times, there must have civilization and literature prior to Vedic period.
But I used this point to bring the worlds attention to a religion or philosophy which is followed from the Vedic age. India still maintains the fundamental ideals mentioned in the Vedas and considers them to be valid. It is also, of course, open for criticism and we have numerous literature interpreting Vedas differently and numerous schools of thought. The other civilizations you mentioned are now existing only in history or on the web as "pieces of information" but the Vedic philosophy which declares that everything is one, is still being practices and realized by many people of India. This basic culture prevents her from causing harm to others.
About the Indo-Pak war, the data I am having shows that the war was not initiated by India but it was forced to declare a full scale ware after repeating provocations from the Pak military. When a war is officially declared, you have no other way other than fighting it. But, according to Indian way of thought, you don't need to keep hatred or fear in your mind while defeating your enemy. If you don't kill him, he will kill you!
I don't think crossing the borders for protection of its own people from repeated and never ending attacks from the enemies after an official war is declared is not an offense, either ethically or politically.
What I wanted to point out is that this was just an act of self-defense. It was never an act of greed or hatred. Indian military don't wanted to take over that country or impose our rule on them.
Hope you got my points.
| vineeth wrote: |
| Well, now we need to debate over two points. |
| vineeth wrote: |
| Let me explain your second point first. I don't have any problem in accepting the mistake that Vedas are the first known human literature, if the wiki you provided is true. You must understand that there is no such a book called Rig Veda. A saint called Vyasa (according to available history) classified the religious, ethical, philosophical and transcendental wisdom of a civilization, which they obtained over a long periods of time, in to four Vedas known as Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda. These are just like cutting of a cake in to four pieces but the size of cake is not known even now. Because Vedas states that it contains experiences of Saints and Yogis of ancient times, there must have civilization and literature prior to Vedic period. |
(You can be sure that the wiki dates are reasonable accurate - I confirmed the dates using several sources, wiki was simply the easiest to reference).
| vineeth wrote: |
| But I used this point to bring the worlds attention to a religion or philosophy which is followed from the Vedic age. India still maintains the fundamental ideals mentioned in the Vedas and considers them to be valid. It is also, of course, open for criticism and we have numerous literature interpreting Vedas differently and numerous schools of thought. The other civilizations you mentioned are now existing only in history or on the web as "pieces of information" but the Vedic philosophy which declares that everything is one, is still being practices and realized by many people of India. This basic culture prevents her from causing harm to others. |
(Also, if you want to proselytise the Vedas then you should do so in the Religion and Philosophy forum).
Let me remind you what you said
| vineeth wrote: |
| Hope you know that Vedas are the first literature known to humans and it is originated in ancient India. |
The point is that the oldest literature we know about pre-dates the Vedas by over 1000 years. We know quite a lot about the history of writing. It evolved in the Near-East in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Only much later did writing appear in the Indus Valley civilisation.
| vineeth wrote: |
| I don't think crossing the borders for protection of its own people from repeated and never ending attacks from the enemies after an official war is declared is not an offense, either ethically or politically. |
| vineeth wrote: |
| India is the one and only country in the planet which never ever crossed the borders of any other country either for political gains, economical gains or any other purpose. |
In summary, my concern was not to debate whether India is a good or bad place, it was simply to keep the debate on the straight and narrow by pointing out statements that were simply not true.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Chill guys. I think debate is over.
India-US Nuclear Deal has passed NSG stage and have obtained clean and (un)conditional waiver.
India-US Nuclear Deal has passed NSG stage and have obtained clean and (un)conditional waiver.
We moved far from the original subject. Anyway, that was a good one.
It is interesting to know that Vedas are being discussed in other parts of the world also.
| Quote: |
|
I know what the RigVeda is and I didn't say it was a book. No offence, but I really don't need a lesson in the Vedic texts from you - if I feel like learning more about the Vedas I will talk to a colleague of mine who is somewhat of an expert. (You can be sure that the wiki dates are reasonable accurate - I confirmed the dates using several sources, wiki was simply the easiest to reference). |
I am sorry if I was in a hurry explaining this to you as you are already aware of it. I am accepting that there are literate prior to Vedic period as it is mentioned in many source. I am not in a hurry to put Vedas in the list of first literature as it gives no additional benefit to my original points about Indo-US nuclear deal. I'm sorry if I made a factual mistake in this point.
As you know about Vedas, you must be aware that they are often refered to as "Anadi" in Sanskrit which means "Timeless". This means that the ideas explained in them are timeless and are applicable to all times, before or after its characterization. This, of course, never means that you can't date them to a particular time period in history. Even Rig Veda is characterized in a particular date, it is hard to believe that this massive literature is made by a single person or group of persons in a short time span as the ideas are so elaborate and often conflicting. So, what I wanted to mention is that there was a civilization that were capable of keeping such ideas in their minds even before its introduction in written form.
I think this will be sufficient to prove that such an old culture which is existing even today, withstanding all the tests of the time, keeping its sublime philosophies intact, refreshing the Vedic knowledge with the introduction of personal realizations of that knowledge in the form of books called "Smritis" (something seen or experienced), share whatever knowledge they have with the world; such a country should be mature enough for doing experiments with atomic energy with responsibility.
| Quote: |
| You should not 'bring attention' to things by telling untruths. It doesn't work - it simply brings the rest of your opinions and 'facts' into disrepute.
(Also, if you want to proselytise the Vedas then you should do so in the Religion and Philosophy forum). Let me remind you what you said |
| Quote: |
| If you had said that the Vedic texts were 'very old', or 'some of the oldest literature', instead of telling me, in what I regard as a patronising manner, that they are THE FIRST literature, then I might have let it go.
The point is that the oldest literature we know about pre-dates the Vedas by over 1000 years. We know quite a lot about the history of writing. It evolved in the Near-East in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Only much later did writing appear in the Indus Valley civilization. |
Well, if we are taking the dates of introduction of Vedas in text form or evolution of a civilization around the Vedas, my point is debatable. I am accepting that there can be other literature prior to the Vedas or even the Vedic period and accepting the factual mistake, if I made one.
Yes, I agree that talking about the timeless philosophy of Vedas here is inappropriate.
| Quote: |
|
But you didn't say that, did you? Let me remind you of the statement I took objection to. That statement is untrue. I did not say that India was not justified, or that Pakistan was the innocent party. I simply corrected an untruth. |
Well, you got my point.
| Quote: |
| In summary, my concern was not to debate whether India is a good or bad place, it was simply to keep the debate on the straight and narrow by pointing out statements that were simply not true. |
Fine, but my point was to state that India is such a country that is capable of doing pretty business with atomic power. All other points were aimed to explain the historical worth of this nation for such a serious business. Any factual mistakes I made will be corrected in these explanations.
So, as per the last post, India got IAEA clearance and NSG approval for nuclear deal. Yesterday US made it clear that such a deal will not be made with Pakistan as it is having a poor non-proliferation track record. China also endorsed the deal, even though there were reports that China objected it in NSG, claiming that it is a false news and China always voiced for India in the NSG.
So, let's watch how it comes out!
I was against this nuclear deal, but then when i went deep into it, i found we require it, because india is facing major electricity scarcity problem,and this will be very powerful in coming years.So its better to make arrangement for it in early days.
 |