Talk:India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement

I added the criticism section to this entry. I'm currently taking a class at the University of Washington wherein Thomas Graham Jr. is a part time instructor. I wasn't quite sure how to cite his argument from 11/16/06.

This does not contain how the nuclear fuel would be tranferred to India

Background

The first section in the background seems to repeat itself.

India[...] have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. India eventually refused to sign the NPT [...]instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them.

Seems a bit redundant to have basically the same information twice. AndySnow (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please re-read to see its good now. should be though. Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Operationalization difficulties

I added a section on the opposition from Left parties and their threat to withdraw support to the government unless operationalisation of the deal is halted. Will add sources soon. Amit@Talk 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

reference check

can someone please check the following claim:

Finally, in a detailed column dated July 31st in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens detailed how the Indian government has been helping Iran's military and energy sector and how former Indian officials had been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State for assisting Iran's nuclear and rocket programs. He also noted that increasing base-load generation with Coal or nuclear would only increase India's appetite for peak-load generation systems that are generally fired with gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and Iran.

thanks --Jeroje 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed unless sourced. 125.21.164.251 08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (Amit)

I'm going to remove it for now until a reference is obtained Amit@Talk 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Indo-US nuclear deal

Someone had suggested a merge from the "Indo-US nuclear deal" article. I have done that (it was just a single line) and added a redirect there to this article. Amit@Talk 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me. Thanks. SDas 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Campaign Against the Agreement

A campaign has been started by the "Campaign for Sovereignty and Democracy". They have set up a websitewww.strugglesonline.org[24] for this purpose which is claimed to be a place for critical examination of the deal. The articles contained in it by and large expose the dangers with in the Agreement.

this looks trivial, there are many blogs which are doing the same, should there be a section for this ? Isnt it automatic that an issue of national importance will be picked up by many bloggers and open forums ? I already reverted an attempt to advertise the same website once. Jeroje 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this shouldn't be there int the article. Amit@Talk 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed it Amit@Talk 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

15th March

There is a crucial meeting coming up on 15th march, where I guess the stance of the left parties will be officially clear on 123 deal. Jeroje (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No major break throughs were achieved in the meeting,(unfortunately) == Hotsshot (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ==

Link added

Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded allegations against CPI(M)

The CPI(M) is described as far-left. Indian Maoists better deserve this as they are engaged in an armed struggle. CPI(M) is also described as west-phobic too. Any references please?? The claim that CPI(M) is Trotskyist is also unfounded. And finally attributing CIA documents to claim that CPI(M) supports China is really lopsided. It should be noted that the Chinese Communist Party was bitterly opposed to CPI(M) policies and even supported the armed Naxalite movement.

Overall, the paragraph seems to be really biased and based on no valid references. I'm doing a cleanup.

Please add some worthy references if you want to put back these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm retaining most of the links though so that anyone can judge the worthiness of the material provided. Also I'd like to remove the word Anti-American, as Indian Left has never shown hostility towards the American people or a society, but rather to policies of American government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposition in the US

This section seems very awkward and out of place. I'm sure there are more criticisms from the United States that deserve more coverage than this one thing listed there. The 'easy' dismissal that rests soley on one person's book seems to have too much weight there too

64.8.68.116 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The text in this section is presenting the views of Ashley Tellis, a leading proponent of the nuclear deal. It reads as a rebuttal of criticism, but the criticism itself is missing. The recent statement by the head of the Arms Control Association and the former UN Under Secretary General for Disarmament labeling the deal "A Nonproliferation Disaster" [1] should be featured, as should an earlier statement by many leading nonproliferation experts [2]. The section heading should be changed to reflect that the criticism is not limited to the United States [3].

The rebuttal by Tellis should be removed an perhaps put into a section on support for the agreement. But allowing Tellis to rebut a strawman violates Wikipedia standards for neutrality. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When you see completely unformatted unencyclopedic text like this, it's usually a hint that it could be a copyvio. In this case, the text was copied from this page. I removed it. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

language?

de-hyphenization? what the hell does that mean? what the hell is hyphenization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.201.234 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say "de-hyphenation." The reference is to previous U.S. regional security and nonproliferation policy that treated India and Pakistan as inseparable policy issues. One could not address an issue related to India without also addressing the same issue as it related to Pakistan. This constant balancing of India-Pakistan policy was sometimes called a "hyphenated" policy. NPguy (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Title should be Indo-US nuclear deal

This article hardly talks about the Hyde Act, a US legislation, and is mainly centered on the details of the Indo-US agreement, its rational etc. Shouldn't the article title be the Indo-US nuclear deal or words to that effect. Hyde Act can redirect here.--Shahab (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I saw that a few days ago and thought the same thing. It might also be better to change the article title to treaty rather then act. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name after waiting an appropriate amount of time for a negative comment.--Shahab (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but i think it should be treaty rather then deal. What do you think? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "deal" is better. It captures the fact that that it is a package of inter-related elements, some of which are legally binding international instruments - "treaties" (the 123 agreement and the safeguards agreement) and some of which are non-binding political commitments (e.g., changes to NSG policy). NPguy (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just feel that deal is too casual a word to be used for this. How about agreement? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreement is OK too. However the word deal is being extensively used by the Indian media.--Shahab (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search on nexis using India and nuclear as my based words and adding in either agreement or deal and the results are basically the same. Deal has about 20 more articles over the last month. Another word I noticed used today in an article is pact. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for sometime before making the move to agreement for any other opinion.--Shahab (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, i see no reason why not. --Patrick (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

I had a chance to go through this editorial by a Science advisor to Indira Gandhi. I dont know much of the person's credentials, but I had a feeling that he raises some important concerns. Any one of you think that any of his analysis is credible to be included here? Docku (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Respect Developmental economic advising firm of Dalberg?

Could not find any reference to this firm or study :-( what is the source for this piece of information? Tellkarthik (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. A P J Abdulkalam - a nuclear scientist?

He is NOT a nuclear scientist by profession --203.199.213.67 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayanthi Natarajan Article

Congress MP Jayanthi Natarajan's article from Gulfnews.com is quoted in the lead section. As I understand, she has written an editorial column in a news website (Is it just website?). It is wrong to take her opinion out from the editorial and make it sound like that is the Government policy. Dock^Hi 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you put it in a kind of warning like we did in the text it's okay. Because she's a congress MP, especially when her words are published its not going against party order (unless there is disciplinary action, which in this case has not followed). It seems to be okay the way its phrased as in "congress's MP ... said."

ps- saw your commentary in the edit history. Didn't quite understand, we were both saying + supporting the same thing. Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, mentioning that she is Congress MP is sufficient. It is presumptuous to misstate her opinion as Government's position(because she is Congress MP). It may very well be the case, but the reference doesnt support it. So, let us leave it the way it is. Dock^Hi 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

India's aspiration to be NPT Nuclear Weapon State

The article asserts that India aspires to be recognized as a NWS under the NPT. To supporrt this claim, it cites an article by Selig Harrison, but that article doesn't support the stated claim. I'm not questioning the claim, but it needs a citation that is (1) reliable and (2) supports the claim. That's why I've put in the notation [citation needed.] NPguy (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to maintain some grammatical/POV equality between the original and the new edit. If you think its best to remove it or to get a new edit go ahead. Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article split proposal

This article is becoming longer with numerous details that I am starting to believe that it is deviating far from the crux of the issue which is the agreement itself. I propose to split the article into two.

Article 1: Dealing with the agreement itself including the background, explanation of agreement details and passage in various international bodies including Indian parliament, IAEA, NSG and US Congress.

Article 2: Political passage which involves the support and opposition in India, US and other countries. Dock^Hi 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)