India US Relations

[Jackd]

I admire your tenacity to make up conspiracy theories. I only engage with someone who respects my viewpoint and in turn present his/her own with something to back it up. You have been called out by several people on this forum for being a bit loose in the head and this is also reflected in your unflinching trust in your bullshit. I will brand something as bullshit if I see it, it is as simple as that.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I admire your tenacity to make up conspiracy theories. I only engage with someone who respects my viewpoint and in turn present his/her own with something to back it up. You have been called out by several people on this forum for being a bit loose in the head and this is also reflected in your unflinching trust in your bullshit. I will brand something as bullshit if I see it, it is as simple as that.

Which point is bullshit and why must also be presented. The only problem with many here is that they are low IQ people who only understand what they are told and can't think properly even when nudged to.

 

[Jackd]

You just managed to describe yourself, congratulations.

 

[binayak95]

@Dovah could you please clean up this thread. Loads of BS conspiracy theories that should have been taken to Chit chat.

 

[Immanuel]

PoK is a very important location geo-politically. It is the only area of India which borders Afghanistan and in turn gives us access to vast natural resources of Central Asia as well easy connectivity to the whole of Europe and Russia. Stating that PoK is not needed is being ignorant of the advantage it offers. It is like saying you don't need one of your body parts and such kind of thinking should not be allowed to foster as such kind of mindset will only strengthen the position of Pakistan, because they can just show to the world that Indians don't really care much about Pok.
Also, there is a huge potential for tourism and hydroelectric power.

No it's not, it's a beautiful shithole. Why do you want to border Afghan? Don't you see the shit that spills over? What vast resources do we need to find in other countries. How about focusing on what we can find within our borders and continental shelfs. We have the entire Indian ocean and many friendly countries we could easily partner with.

As for Afghan, best is to arm and supply them, help them get some sort of a grip over their terrain. Also getting POK back while might be easy in the short run but it could end up being a long insurgency. If and when an opportunity presents itself during a conflict, we should keep and hold it. I only say, let's not be the ones to put such intentions into motion.

 

[Jackd]

No it's not, it's a beautiful shithole. Why do you want to border Afghan? Don't you see the shit that spills over? What vast resources do we need to find in other countries. How about focusing on what we can find within our borders and continental shelfs. We have the entire Indian ocean and many friendly countries we could easily partner with.

As for Afghan, best is to arm and supply them, help them get some sort of a grip over their terrain. Also getting POK back while might be easy in the short run but it could end up being a long insurgency. If and when an opportunity presents itself during a conflict, we should keep and hold it. I only say, let's not be the ones to put such intentions into motion.

See this is what happens when you skip your geography class, you don't have enough knowledge to comment on things. If Indian ocean was so bountiful then why are we importing 80% of our oil supply, why is there a trade deficit, as well as why is India aggressively pursuing Chabbar port (which will be linked to Afghanistan and through it access to Central Asia) and in the process courting Central Asian countries?
The whole problem about the insurgency and other shit is b'coz of the existence of LOC and if India was firmly in control of the State of J&K, then this problem wouldn't have even started. If there was no Kashmir issue, then there would have been no insurgency as well as Pakistan wouldn't have any sort of stake in the region.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

See this is what happens when you skip your geography class, you don't have enough knowledge to comment on things. If Indian ocean was so bountiful then why are we importing 80% of our oil supply, why is there a trade deficit, as well as why is India aggressively pursuing Chabbar port (which will be linked to Afghanistan and through it access to Central Asia) and in the process courting Central Asian countries?
The whole problem about the insurgency and other shit is b'coz of the existence of LOC and if India was firmly in control of the State of J&K, then this problem wouldn't have even started. If there was no Kashmir issue, then there would have been no insurgency as well as Pakistan wouldn't have any sort of stake in the region.

What resource is there in PoK? It is a wasteland with only crazy people who will come to India if India occupies it. India must get land only without the crazy people inhabiting there.

Also, why do you think that getting PoK will make Afghaistan give pipelines to India? The Taliban in Afghanistan will block all pipelines and destroy them regularly making the transport impossible. Unless you have a way to destroy Taliban hold, getting PoK is counter productive.

The LoC for Kashmir is not responsible for insurgency but the demography of Kashmir and the porous boundary. Even after PoK is obtained, the demography of people will be hostile to India and the boundary will still be porous due to mountains. Do you have a way of changing geography from mountain to land just because India acquired PoK? Who needs geography lessons?

 

[Jackd]

Read my previous posts carefully and you will get to know what I am talking about. I mentioned Central Asia as being resource rich.
It seem you are unaware about the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, that is why you are perplexed. Although, no agreement has been reached, there have been deliberations regarding the pipeline and it will certainly be beneficial for India only if Pakistan's double standards are kept in check (unlikely). Perhaps, you are also unaware that Taliban in not operating in the area which borders PoK. Here is a 2018 map which shows Taliban presence, feel free to learn something:

That is why I mentioned that unless people thoroughly read what the other person is stating, you will have people who have an uninformed opinion. I have said that if Kashmir would have been in firm control of India since partition, then we would not have experienced insurgency and killings that we are currently and in the past have experienced. The demographics changed because of Lashkar being sent across the international border by Pakistan during 1947-48 and who later on settled down in PoK itself. There are no pre-1947 and even pre-Instrument of Accession incidents or records which suggest that the people of PoK and Kashmir held a grudge against India.

As I mentioned before, If there was no Kashmir issue then Pakistan's attempts at insurgency would have been condemned and they would have been shut down. If you say that mountains cannot be fenced and stuff, then why the hell do we have a BSF, Army at LOC, smart fence, floodlights at the border and several other measures? Are they just for show and should the government not do anything because a pea-brained person said since borders are porous, you should just give up guarding it? We have, we are and we will continue to defend our borders, regardless of the topography, just drill that into your thick skull.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Read my previous posts carefully and you will get to know what I am talking about. I mentioned Central Asia as being resource rich.
It seem you are unaware about the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, that is why you are perplexed. Although, no agreement has been reached, there have been deliberations regarding the pipeline and it will certainly be beneficial for India only if Pakistan's double standards are kept in check (unlikely). Perhaps, you are also unaware that Taliban in not operating in the area which borders PoK. Here is a 2018 map which shows Taliban presence, feel free to learn something:

That is why I mentioned that unless people thoroughly read what the other person is stating, you will have people who have an uninformed opinion. I have said that if Kashmir would have been in firm control of India since partition, then we would not have experienced insurgency and killings that we are currently and in the past have experienced. The demographics changed because of Lashkar being sent across the international border by Pakistan during 1947-48 and who later on settled down in PoK itself. There are no pre-1947 and even pre-Instrument of Accession incidents or records which suggest that the people of PoK and Kashmir held a grudge against India.

As I mentioned before, If there was no Kashmir issue then Pakistan's attempts at insurgency would have been condemned and they would have been shut down. If you say that mountains cannot be fenced and stuff, then why the hell do we have a BSF, Army at LOC, smart fence, floodlights at the border and several other measures? Are they just for show and should the government not do anything because a pea-brained person said since borders are porous, you should just give up guarding it? We have, we are and we will continue to defend our borders, regardless of the topography, just drill that into your thick skull.

What are you trying to say here?

I said that Taliban is in Afghanistan and it has nothing to do with kashmir. Regardless of Kashmir issue, Taliban will not allow the pipeline. I am well aware of TAPI pipeline but I am also aware of the nuisance of security.

Now, speaking of Kashmir issue, the issue is of demography. There is no point speaking of what should have been done earlier. For that matter, in 650 itself when Persia was invaded, Indian rulers must have intervened and liberated Persia. Then none of the other problem would have existed at all. We are speaking of what should be done now. The Kashmiris were muslims even before independence. It was not that they were friendly to India. You don't read any Kashmiri history and yet speak nonsense. Read history of Kashmir since 1700 and then speak. Also, look at Khilafat movement and other events

 

[Immanuel]

See this is what happens when you skip your geography class, you don't have enough knowledge to comment on things. If Indian ocean was so bountiful then why are we importing 80% of our oil supply, why is there a trade deficit, as well as why is India aggressively pursuing Chabbar port (which will be linked to Afghanistan and through it access to Central Asia) and in the process courting Central Asian countries?
The whole problem about the insurgency and other shit is b'coz of the existence of LOC and if India was firmly in control of the State of J&K, then this problem wouldn't have even started. If there was no Kashmir issue, then there would have been no insurgency as well as Pakistan wouldn't have any sort of stake in the region.

See this is what happens when a fool with an 'illusion' of knowledge can't put 2 and 2 together, knowledge is fine but using it matters more. Reality of getting POK back today is virtually 0 without a heavy war. War is expensive regardless of who wins. Is it in our interest to get back POK while shedding precious blood and treasure? If war is thrust upon us, will Govt. of India really choose to hold on to all captured territory? They have had the option in the past, they still skipped. I admit giving back Haji Pir Pass was a mistake. In any future skirmish or limited war, I am always FOR keeping certain key points of advantage we capture. I would rather we don't bother with areas of heavy civilian presence. Again, all the efforts to keep POK safe would automatically drive the cost and risk up for any investment. Check CPEC and OBR implementation in Pak which has a massive cost escalation due to security issues.

India is NOT in firm control of J&K, let's first get that in order and build J&K into a proper peaceful place with great tourist potential. First let's invest in J&K itself and get a lot of under-educated youth off the streets for jobs. Let's make J&K great again before thinking about a dysfunctional region like POK with another set of dysfunctional people. We are nation of 1.3 billion people, many of them severely poor, undereducated and lack the basics. Let's Make India Great Again, this itself is a massive challenge. Rhetoric about POK can come if and when a war comes, for now our plate is more than full.

Regardless of what anyone says, we can take over POK with a fight but an insurgency will crop up quickly and the Taliban (which works exclusively with Pak support) will pop up at the POK border, not to mention the fact that Taliban is very much active in Pak itself. Even if 80% (which is a very ambitious number) of the people in POK are welcoming of India, there is still a 20% element that will resist, aid and abet militancy and before you know it; you're running vicious circles in the pages of history. Pak might be a weak country militarily and would be thrashed quickly but they are quite apt in inciting insurgencies.

As you really telling me that the entire Indian ocean has been surveyed for precious resources ? Please, educate yourself. The Indian ocean remains vastly open for surveying and partnerships with countries who have some goodies, just because they didn't find oil or natural gas 50 miles from shore doesn't mean there isn't any across the ocean.

India barely competed it's extensive survey of it's coastline and filed for formalization of rights over extended shelf. This wouldn't have been done if some goodies hadn't been uncovered.

https://www.livemint.com/Politics/N...tline-survey-for-continental-shelf-claim.html

 

[Jackd]

What are you trying to say here?

I said that Taliban is in Afghanistan and it has nothing to do with kashmir. Regardless of Kashmir issue, Taliban will not allow the pipeline. I am well aware of TAPI pipeline but I am also aware of the nuisance of security.

Now, speaking of Kashmir issue, the issue is of demography. There is no point speaking of what should have been done earlier. For that matter, in 650 itself when Persia was invaded, Indian rulers must have intervened and liberated Persia. Then none of the other problem would have existed at all. We are speaking of what should be done now. The Kashmiris were muslims even before independence. It was not that they were friendly to India. You don't read any Kashmiri history and yet speak nonsense. Read history of Kashmir since 1700 and then speak. Also, look at Khilafat movement and other events

I clearly understand what you mentioned and I never stated that Taliban is in Kashmir, I just corrected you when you said Taliban won't allow the pipeline. Taliban has never openly stated that they have nefarious designs against India and please state a reason as to why they won't 'allow' a pipeline to be built, keep in mind that India managed to build the Delaram-Zaranj Highway, Herat dam, Afghan Parliament as well as several other projects and are even identifying projects to execute jointly with China. Some food for thought.

The Kashmir Issue: Don't ask me to read history when you are the one who is ignorant of it. They was no 'India' in 650, no mutual understanding existed between the ruling states and there were several kingdoms present which fought against themselves and displayed no signs of cohesion. Nobody would have been able to guess the current situation and expecting that is foolhardy.
With the regards to the random date you quoted (1700), I suggest that if you actually read the history since '1700' you will realize that India didn't exist, won't take you much time to realize it (maybe never). The Khilafat movement is not even related to Kashmir you dolt, it deals with the issue of the Ottoman ruler. The sympathizers/participants in the Khilafat movement had a clear aim and that was preserve the rule of the Ottomans. If you go even deeper you will see that it actually solidified Hindu-Muslim solidarity and the Khilafat movement was even supported by Mahatama Gandhi.
Next time, don't ask me to read and do it yourself, you will avoid humiliation that way.
Also, the people of J&K protested against the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh and they never displayed any hate towards India which is evident that even after 1947-48 war, there weren't any protests and rallies against India, in the Indian side of J&K.
Now, stop that fountain of nonsense and move on.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

If you go even deeper you will see that it actually solidified Hindu-Muslim solidarity and the Khilafat movement was even supported by Mahatama Gandhi.

This is the most retarded thing I have seen There is no point talking to you.

 

[Jackd]

See this is what happens when a fool with an 'illusion' of knowledge can't put 2 and 2 together, knowledge is fine but using it matters more. Reality of getting POK back today is virtually 0 without a heavy war. War is expensive regardless of who wins. Is it in our interest to get back POK while shedding precious blood and treasure? If war is thrust upon us, will Govt. of India really choose to hold on to all captured territory? They have had the option in the past, they still skipped. I admit giving back Haji Pir Pass was a mistake. In any future skirmish or limited war, I am always FOR keeping certain key points of advantage we capture. I would rather we don't bother with areas of heavy civilian presence. Again, all the efforts to keep POK safe would automatically drive the cost and risk up for any investment. Check CPEC and OBR implementation in Pak which has a massive cost escalation due to security issues.

India is NOT in firm control of J&K, let's first get that in order and build J&K into a proper peaceful place with great tourist potential. First let's invest in J&K itself and get a lot of under-educated youth off the streets for jobs. Let's make J&K great again before thinking about a dysfunctional region like POK with another set of dysfunctional people. We are nation of 1.3 billion people, many of them severely poor, undereducated and lack the basics. Let's Make India Great Again, this itself is a massive challenge. Rhetoric about POK can come if and when a war comes, for now our plate is more than full.

Regardless of what anyone says, we can take over POK with a fight but an insurgency will crop up quickly and the Taliban (which works exclusively with Pak support) will pop up at the POK border, not to mention the fact that Taliban is very much active in Pak itself. Even if 80% (which is a very ambitious number) of the people in POK are welcoming of India, there is still a 20% element that will resist, aid and abet militancy and before you know it; you're running vicious circles in the pages of history. Pak might be a weak country militarily and would be thrashed quickly but they are quite apt in inciting insurgencies.

As you really telling me that the entire Indian ocean has been surveyed for precious resources ? Please, educate yourself. The Indian ocean remains vastly open for surveying and partnerships with countries who have some goodies, just because they didn't find oil or natural gas 50 miles from shore doesn't mean there isn't any across the ocean.

India barely competed it's extensive survey of it's coastline and filed for formalization of rights over extended shelf. This wouldn't have been done if some goodies hadn't been uncovered.

https://www.livemint.com/Politics/N...tline-survey-for-continental-shelf-claim.html

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and not even possessing a shred of it is even suicidal. I request you to read my posts carefully and you will see that I never advocated taking back PoK, as you already know the consequences. My posts were aimed to address the viewpoint voiced by you which stated that PoK is useless. It is not useless and if you look at the map carefully you can see that PoK enables Pakistan to be connected with China and vice versa (the Karakoram Highway). This presents both the countries with huge tactical advantage over India as these areas have several dominating heights (even near the LoC). OBR and CPEC will continue no matter what and this is indisputable (China already has a railway line with Iran, https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/first-direct-train-from-china-arrives-in-iran/ , they are sending trains to Europe etc.)

Again, reread my posts. I was talking about a situation in which the 1947-48 conflict didn't happen and India had firm control over pre-conflict J&K (you picked my statements out of context, perhaps, I should have been more coherent).

The Indian Ocean is the third largest of the world's oceanic divisions, covering 70,560,000 km². Do you realize it is impossible to map all the resources of this region, in addition to the huge costs involved. It takes 100s of millions of dollars, possibly even more to map a small stretch of sea for resources,. So, let's be real and get it cheap from somewhere else (Central Asia), while at the same time relying on the data received from resource mapping satellites to undertake exploration of resources. Educate yourself on what it takes to undertake exploration of natural resources and how many have been able to do it. Well, I'd love to see how much those 'goodies' will help us in curbing our main item of import.

 

[Jackd]

This is the most retarded thing I have seen There is no point talking to you.

Cool, if it helps to get you off my back then I am more than happy.
In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement — a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle. Khilafat leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan also grew personally close to Gandhi. These leaders founded the Jamia Millia Islamia in 1920 to promote independent education and social rejuvenation for Muslims.

The non-cooperation campaign was at first successful. Massive protests, strikes and acts of civil disobedience spread across India. Hindus and Muslims collectively offered resistance, which was largely peaceful. Gandhi, the Ali brothers and others were imprisoned by the British. Under the flag of Tehrik-e-Khilafat, a Punjab Khilafat deputation comprising Moulana Manzoor Ahmed and Moulana Lutfullah Khan Dankauri took a leading role throughout India, with a particular concentration in the Punjab (Sirsa, Lahore, Haryana etc.).
Source: Wikipedia- Gail Minault, The khilafat movement.
Go buzz off 'retard'.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Cool, if it helps to get you off my back then I am more than happy.
In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement — a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle. Khilafat leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan also grew personally close to Gandhi. These leaders founded the Jamia Millia Islamia in 1920 to promote independent education and social rejuvenation for Muslims.

The non-cooperation campaign was at first successful. Massive protests, strikes and acts of civil disobedience spread across India. Hindus and Muslims collectively offered resistance, which was largely peaceful. Gandhi, the Ali brothers and others were imprisoned by the British. Under the flag of Tehrik-e-Khilafat, a Punjab Khilafat deputation comprising Moulana Manzoor Ahmed and Moulana Lutfullah Khan Dankauri took a leading role throughout India, with a particular concentration in the Punjab (Sirsa, Lahore, Haryana etc.).
Source: Wikipedia- Gail Minault, The khilafat movement.
Go buzz off 'retard'.

From when did Gandhi become a well wisher of Hindus? Tell me what good did Gandhi do to Hindus? Khilafat movement was due to cowardice of anti-hindu nature of Gandhi. This was not in Hindu-Muslim unity but emboldened muslims

 

[Kshatriya87]

Indo-US nuke deal helped fuel domestic power plants, gave India access to critical tech: Experts

NEW DELHI: A decade after the historic Indo-US nuclear deal, experts said the pact did not lead to India setting up foreign-built reactors, but it helped fuel domestic power plants and give India access to critical technologies in strategic areas.

They also felt that it gave India the recognition of being a responsible nuclear weapon state with strong non-proliferation credentials.

The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement was signed on October 10, 2008, that gave a fillip to the ties between the two nations, which since then have been on an upswing.

India conducted a nuclear test in 1974, following which a torrent of sanctions hit the country's defence, nuclear and space programmes hard.

"We knew that we had limitations on nuclear trade, so there was a need for progress within," said Anil Kakodkar, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and former secretary, Department of Atomic Energy when the deal was signed.

India developed Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which are currently the backbone of the Indian nuclear power generation. In 1998, after conducting nuclear tests, India declared itself a nuclear weapon state.

"The feeling in the West was that the rationale behind sanctions did not hurt India's nuclear military programme," Kakodkar, who is also the member of the AEC, said.

On the other hand, as the number of nuclear reactors rose, the need for uranium hit the domestic reactors, adversely affecting their performance, said R K Sinha, the former chairman of AEC and former secretary, DAE.

"At that time, the concept of global warming was also gaining ground," Kakodkar said, noting India required energy for its growing economy.

Sinha said by 2006-2007, the performance of Indian reactors had reduced 50-55 per cent due to shortage of nuclear fuel.

He also pointed out an instance of Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant (RAPS) unit 5 whose operations had to be delayed due to shortage of uranium. The plant later went on to create a record of a continuous run of 765 days on Saturday at its full capacity of 220 MWe.

A major aspect of the Indo-US nuclear deal was the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) gave a special waiver to India that enabled it to sign cooperation agreements with a dozen countries, said former diplomat Rakesh Sood and India's special envoy of the Prime Minister for Disarmament and Non-proliferation Issues from 2013 to 2014.

The pact also enabled India to separate its civilian and military programmes. The country currently has 15 of its reactors under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Post waiver, India signed nuclear cooperation agreements for peaceful means with the US, France, Russia, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Korea.

Following the pacts, there have been specific agreements for import of uranium from France, Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada and Russia.

Sood said the long-term uranium arrangements enabled India to run the existing plants at 80 per cent efficiency.

According to the responses by the government on questions in Parliament, India imported over 7841.51 metric tonnes of nuclear fuel from 2008-2009 to 2017-18.

Work is also on to create a uranium reserve by importing the element to ensure the power reactors under IAEA safeguards do not face fuel shortage.

Building of foreign nuclear reactors was a major aspect of the Indo-US deal. For this, two sites were earmarked---Mithi Virdi for General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Kovadda in Andhra Pradesh---for building 12 reactors.

M V Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Liu Institute for Global Issues School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia said in terms of building foreign reactors, despite the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, there was "absolutely no construction" at any sites identified for imported reactors.

"Even the government doesn't have much hope that they would be importing large numbers of light water reactors anytime soon," Ramana said.

Requesting anonymity, a former senior DAE scientist claimed the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is reluctant to take up the project citing the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010.

In case of Westinghouse, it is yet to submit a techno-commercial offer, including "reasonable" tariff and a working reference plant. "Unless these criteria are not fulfilled, we will not be going ahead with the deal," the scientist said.

In terms of electricity generation, nuclear power's share of the total power production in the country in 2008 was 2.03 per cent, which rose to 3.2 per cent in 2017, Ramana said.
Another aspect which Kakodkar pointed out that the deal helped "build confidence" of other countries in India and the cooperation has now been extended to other areas like defence technology.

Kakodkar said after the deal India has joined three major control regimes like the export control regimes---the Missile Technical Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, while work is on for India's entry into the elite NSG.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Indo-US nuke deal helped fuel domestic power plants, gave India access to critical tech: Experts

NEW DELHI: A decade after the historic Indo-US nuclear deal, experts said the pact did not lead to India setting up foreign-built reactors, but it helped fuel domestic power plants and give India access to critical technologies in strategic areas.

They also felt that it gave India the recognition of being a responsible nuclear weapon state with strong non-proliferation credentials.

The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement was signed on October 10, 2008, that gave a fillip to the ties between the two nations, which since then have been on an upswing.

India conducted a nuclear test in 1974, following which a torrent of sanctions hit the country's defence, nuclear and space programmes hard.

"We knew that we had limitations on nuclear trade, so there was a need for progress within," said Anil Kakodkar, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and former secretary, Department of Atomic Energy when the deal was signed.

India developed Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which are currently the backbone of the Indian nuclear power generation. In 1998, after conducting nuclear tests, India declared itself a nuclear weapon state.

"The feeling in the West was that the rationale behind sanctions did not hurt India's nuclear military programme," Kakodkar, who is also the member of the AEC, said.

On the other hand, as the number of nuclear reactors rose, the need for uranium hit the domestic reactors, adversely affecting their performance, said R K Sinha, the former chairman of AEC and former secretary, DAE.

"At that time, the concept of global warming was also gaining ground," Kakodkar said, noting India required energy for its growing economy.

Sinha said by 2006-2007, the performance of Indian reactors had reduced 50-55 per cent due to shortage of nuclear fuel.

He also pointed out an instance of Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant (RAPS) unit 5 whose operations had to be delayed due to shortage of uranium. The plant later went on to create a record of a continuous run of 765 days on Saturday at its full capacity of 220 MWe.

A major aspect of the Indo-US nuclear deal was the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) gave a special waiver to India that enabled it to sign cooperation agreements with a dozen countries, said former diplomat Rakesh Sood and India's special envoy of the Prime Minister for Disarmament and Non-proliferation Issues from 2013 to 2014.

The pact also enabled India to separate its civilian and military programmes. The country currently has 15 of its reactors under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Post waiver, India signed nuclear cooperation agreements for peaceful means with the US, France, Russia, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Korea.

Following the pacts, there have been specific agreements for import of uranium from France, Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada and Russia.

Sood said the long-term uranium arrangements enabled India to run the existing plants at 80 per cent efficiency.

According to the responses by the government on questions in Parliament, India imported over 7841.51 metric tonnes of nuclear fuel from 2008-2009 to 2017-18.

Work is also on to create a uranium reserve by importing the element to ensure the power reactors under IAEA safeguards do not face fuel shortage.

Building of foreign nuclear reactors was a major aspect of the Indo-US deal. For this, two sites were earmarked---Mithi Virdi for General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Kovadda in Andhra Pradesh---for building 12 reactors.

M V Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Liu Institute for Global Issues School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia said in terms of building foreign reactors, despite the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, there was "absolutely no construction" at any sites identified for imported reactors.

"Even the government doesn't have much hope that they would be importing large numbers of light water reactors anytime soon," Ramana said.

Requesting anonymity, a former senior DAE scientist claimed the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is reluctant to take up the project citing the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010.

In case of Westinghouse, it is yet to submit a techno-commercial offer, including "reasonable" tariff and a working reference plant. "Unless these criteria are not fulfilled, we will not be going ahead with the deal," the scientist said.

In terms of electricity generation, nuclear power's share of the total power production in the country in 2008 was 2.03 per cent, which rose to 3.2 per cent in 2017, Ramana said.
Another aspect which Kakodkar pointed out that the deal helped "build confidence" of other countries in India and the cooperation has now been extended to other areas like defence technology.

Kakodkar said after the deal India has joined three major control regimes like the export control regimes---the Missile Technical Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, while work is on for India's entry into the elite NSG.

These are useless experts. India always used to get uranium from Russia even before USA came in

 

[Kshatriya87]

These are useless experts. India always used to get uranium from Russia even before USA came in

Yes but the quantities were not enough to support all our reactors running at full capacity. Also, very less scope was left for future domestic reactor spread expansion.

 

[ezsasa]

Indo-US nuke deal helped fuel domestic power plants, gave India access to critical tech: Experts

NEW DELHI: A decade after the historic Indo-US nuclear deal, experts said the pact did not lead to India setting up foreign-built reactors, but it helped fuel domestic power plants and give India access to critical technologies in strategic areas.

They also felt that it gave India the recognition of being a responsible nuclear weapon state with strong non-proliferation credentials.

The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement was signed on October 10, 2008, that gave a fillip to the ties between the two nations, which since then have been on an upswing.

India conducted a nuclear test in 1974, following which a torrent of sanctions hit the country's defence, nuclear and space programmes hard.

"We knew that we had limitations on nuclear trade, so there was a need for progress within," said Anil Kakodkar, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and former secretary, Department of Atomic Energy when the deal was signed.

India developed Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which are currently the backbone of the Indian nuclear power generation. In 1998, after conducting nuclear tests, India declared itself a nuclear weapon state.

"The feeling in the West was that the rationale behind sanctions did not hurt India's nuclear military programme," Kakodkar, who is also the member of the AEC, said.

On the other hand, as the number of nuclear reactors rose, the need for uranium hit the domestic reactors, adversely affecting their performance, said R K Sinha, the former chairman of AEC and former secretary, DAE.

"At that time, the concept of global warming was also gaining ground," Kakodkar said, noting India required energy for its growing economy.

Sinha said by 2006-2007, the performance of Indian reactors had reduced 50-55 per cent due to shortage of nuclear fuel.

He also pointed out an instance of Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant (RAPS) unit 5 whose operations had to be delayed due to shortage of uranium. The plant later went on to create a record of a continuous run of 765 days on Saturday at its full capacity of 220 MWe.

A major aspect of the Indo-US nuclear deal was the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) gave a special waiver to India that enabled it to sign cooperation agreements with a dozen countries, said former diplomat Rakesh Sood and India's special envoy of the Prime Minister for Disarmament and Non-proliferation Issues from 2013 to 2014.

The pact also enabled India to separate its civilian and military programmes. The country currently has 15 of its reactors under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Post waiver, India signed nuclear cooperation agreements for peaceful means with the US, France, Russia, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Korea.

Following the pacts, there have been specific agreements for import of uranium from France, Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada and Russia.

Sood said the long-term uranium arrangements enabled India to run the existing plants at 80 per cent efficiency.

According to the responses by the government on questions in Parliament, India imported over 7841.51 metric tonnes of nuclear fuel from 2008-2009 to 2017-18.

Work is also on to create a uranium reserve by importing the element to ensure the power reactors under IAEA safeguards do not face fuel shortage.

Building of foreign nuclear reactors was a major aspect of the Indo-US deal. For this, two sites were earmarked---Mithi Virdi for General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Kovadda in Andhra Pradesh---for building 12 reactors.

M V Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Liu Institute for Global Issues School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia said in terms of building foreign reactors, despite the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, there was "absolutely no construction" at any sites identified for imported reactors.

"Even the government doesn't have much hope that they would be importing large numbers of light water reactors anytime soon," Ramana said.

Requesting anonymity, a former senior DAE scientist claimed the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is reluctant to take up the project citing the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010.

In case of Westinghouse, it is yet to submit a techno-commercial offer, including "reasonable" tariff and a working reference plant. "Unless these criteria are not fulfilled, we will not be going ahead with the deal," the scientist said.

In terms of electricity generation, nuclear power's share of the total power production in the country in 2008 was 2.03 per cent, which rose to 3.2 per cent in 2017, Ramana said.
Another aspect which Kakodkar pointed out that the deal helped "build confidence" of other countries in India and the cooperation has now been extended to other areas like defence technology.

Kakodkar said after the deal India has joined three major control regimes like the export control regimes---the Missile Technical Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, while work is on for India's entry into the elite NSG.

Such a big write up and not mentioning D Jai Shankar (ex foreign secretary) even once, the man who made this possible.

Such a travesty.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Yes but the quantities were not enough to support all our reactors running at full capacity. Also, very less scope was left for future domestic reactor spread expansion.

India just has 6-7GW of nuclear energy. 2.4GW is for military plutonium production. India really does not care if 1-2 GW of civilian nuclear reactor went down. We have hundreds of GW of coal power and other power with total installed capacity over 300GW. 1% change is not a big deal