India, USA, Iran: 123, CPI(M) And A Creative War

New Dehli: In fact, noone speaks it out; but there often is some kind of connection between a major massacre and a major deal. Actually it´s only not verified if this assassination of innocent civilians, regular people in Hyderabad three days ago was more about dragging India under control of the "Nuclear Suppliers Group" (NSG) and US President Bush through the "123 agreement" or into a possible war in the Middle East between the USA, France, Great Britain and Iran.SUMMARY I - THE NSG

The "Nuclear Suppliers Group" (NSG) is a multinational body founded in 1975 in response to the Indian nuclear test of the previous year. It´s officially labeled as "a multinational body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation". (1)
Initially the NSG had seven members, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, USSR, United Kingdom, and United States. The People's Republic of China joined in 2004.

What happens right now?
In December, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, whose members are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and the UAE, announced a joint project for "peaceful" nuclear energy. Jordan and Egypt have expressed a desire to go nuclear as well - with a French connection.
Purpose: boost Franco-Arab relations, a senior French Foreign Ministry official told the "Jerusalem Post" last week.(2)

At the same time it is said by the Sarkozy Government, that "we are in favor of a civilian nuclear buildup, but in a controlled framework", that - in Case of Lybia - the French Defense Ministry is "not involved with the process", "President Sarkozy is very concerned for the security of Israel and would make sure that security guarantees are provided", but Arab countries must be "trusted" with nuclear technology (Sarkozy).(2)
What does that mean?

It means that nuclear technology will be supplied by the French manufacturer Areva, which is doing good business. The rest can considered as the same stupid nonsens-blabla as ever.
Anf guess what: "French nuclear giant Areva is sniffing at big contracts in India also, having made initial forays with alliances with (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.) NPCIL" , the well-informed "Times of India" knows. (3)


On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed the so-called "Hyde Act". It was described as a huge "Nuclear Deal" between the USA and India, that now should get access to NSG support and uranium deliveries.
But India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 24% of the world's known and economically available thorium, while it just possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves. Indian opposition to the pact centers around the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel-cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel-cycle.

Also rationale behind the agreement, as described in Wikipedia, was that the Bush Administration had concluded that an Indian shift toward nuclear energy would be "in the best interest for America".
Why? To secure AMERICAS "energy needs of coal, crude oil, and natural gas", allegedly left over by a nuclear-planted India (4)
The U.S. also expects that India will spend $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the US wants a share.

After that act was signed between India and the USA in March 2006 it got changed by the Bush Government before implemented by US congress and signed by the President into law on December 18.
"Several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views OVER IRAN were incorporated with the civilian nuclear agreement", Wikipedia tells us.(4)

Slow motion...
The USA and India sign a deal but the deal is changed after signing. What do YOU call that?
And when the People of India recognized that George W. Bush, President of the United States simply declared the whole deal as "non-binding".(5)
But this "non-binding" Hyde Act is said to be the legal basis for a "123 Agreement" with India. How, if it´s "non-binding"?


Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, titled "Cooperation With Other Nations", establishes an agreement for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear deals between the US and any other nation. Such an agreement is called a 123 Agreement. (6)

The 123 agreement between India and the United States requires separate U.S. congressional approval but only Indian cabinet approval.(7)
It will define the exact terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation.

Kapil Sibal, Union minister for science and technology, said on August 27 that an 123 agreement between India and the USA would overrule the Hyde Act (7). If so - why was the Hyde Act signed by two Governments at all? Why wouldn´t they immediately sign a "123 agreement?"

Before we go further, let´s have a look on politics of 1 billion People of India:


"Lok Sabha": Lower House of Indian Parliament (8)

" UPA": United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the name of the present ruling coalition of political parties of the Government of India. UPA chief is Sonia Gandhi. The UPA is being given external support from the Left Front. (9)

"Left" or the "Left Front": consisting of the four main leftist parties:
- Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI(M) or CPM)
- Communist Party of India, (CPI)
- Revolutionary Socialist Party
- All India Forward Bloc
Total 59 MPs. These parties are not a part of the government but support it externally, by providing the government with the requisite number of seats needed for staying in power. (9)

"Congress": also called Indian National Congress, Congress Party or INC. It´s the major political party in India. The party is currently the chief member of the ruling United Progressive Alliance coalition supported by the Left Front.
Chief of the Congress Party (INC): Sonia Gandhi. (10)


On August 27 "DNA India" wrote (11):
"What precisely does India gain from the 123 Agreement? Replenishment of the country´s dwindling stock of nuclear fuel (uranium).
Without that replenishment, the government argues, India´s 15 nuclear reactors will soon have to shut down. With the 123 Agreement, satisfaction of India´s future nuclear power fuel needs through the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) are secure. This, the government says, is crucial to reducing India´s energy deficit.

That is misleading. What the government has not pointed out is that nuclear energy accounts for a miniscule 3 per cent (3,700 MW) of India’s total current power generation output (1,27,000 MW). Even by 2020, nuclear power will constitute just 6 per cent of our total energy generation. Nuclear energy is not the answer to India´s power shortage.

The (123) agreement (and the Hyde Act under which it is governed till it is ratified by the US Congress), despite being bilateral, specifically constrains India`s future policy on a third country -- Iran. This will affect our flexibility over the proposed gas pipeline from Iran and Pakistan through to India.
It will also make India a biased party in favour of the US if Washington (or its proxy, Israel) decides to attack Iran and destroy Teheran`s incipient nuclear capability.

Despite several layers of reasonable justifications that the 123 Agreement mandates in the event of India testing a nuclear device, the US President of the day has under the agreement absolute power to recall the nuclear fuel supplied to India.
In return, the US need only offer financial "compensation" and ensure other countries replace it as a supplier. In practice, of course, these safeguards are worthless.

Monetary compensation will not make up for the loss in critical nuclear fuel supplies once India becomes dependent on them. Besides, no member of the NSG will replace US nuclear supplies after Washington recalls its own fuel because the NSG works on the basis of consensus.

So why has Prime Minister Manmohan Singh staked his own reputation and the UPA government´s future on the 123 Agreement? The answer: there is a paradigm shift in Indian strategic policy thinking..
It..believes that in the event of an American-Israeli attack on Iran, it will be able to stay neutral, despite the wording of the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement.

Though the 123 Agreement has the support of only a minority in the Lok Sabha (basically the Congress and its UPA allies) it needs just Cabinet approval to pass into law. This is unprecedented in a parliamentary democracy. In the past, far less grave policy decisions of the UPA coalition government have got aborted due to majority parliamentary opposition. But the 123 Agreement will, astonishingly, not be put to parliamentary vote." (11)


Let´s have a look at the methods this agreement is promoted in India. It´s important to understand that this is all about creating a popularity of an "agreement" that has never put to parliamentary vote.
In August 21 a top story was presented by the "Times of India". Headline:"Overwhelming 93% support N-deal".
But how many people had been asked in the country?
All of 375 people. In a country of one billion citizens. (12)

An anonymous source in the atomic energy establishment wrote under alias in a blog:
"Inspections and safeguards", he wrote, "can be dangerous...(these) are not just to monitor the Indian nuclear programme, but also to constrict it ...(these) can get more intrusive, as in Iraq and Iran ... Each concession leads to further demands: sanctions, no-fly zones, false allegations about WMDs, and an invasion .... At stake is technological independence of India, true energy security and, indeed, the concept of our nation. Do we want to be a client state?" (12)

On the other hand the "Washington Post" cited a retired Indian General called "Ashok Mehta" as "strategic analyst in New Delhi". Abandoning such a deal would "be a major setback to India's international ambitions", he said.
"Long-term, India, without the help of the United States and or any other big power, will take much longer to be counted globally," the US paper cited Mehta. (13)

The handling of the Nuclear Deal, Hyde Act or 123 agreement, is in fact part of a long-term campaign by the Indian Government.
"When the UPA government was being installed in 2004, a Common Minimum Programme was drafted", CPI (M) Chief Prakash Karat wrote on August 19.
"When the Left was consulted, we had insisted on the deletion of a reference to "strategic relations with the United States". There is no mention of strategic ties with the US in the Common Minimum Programme. But soon after, the government proceeded with forging a wider strategic alliance with the United States", Karat wrote in a statement of the Left.
He also mentioned that "prior to the joint statement of July 2005, the UPA government signed a ten-year Defence Framework Agreement with the Untied States. It is evident that without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed for the nuclear cooperation. This is part of a quid pro quo." (14)


India State Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Saturday the 25th:
40 people get killed Saturday in blasts a state chief minister immediately blames on "Islamic militants based in Bangladesh or Pakistan". The corporate media is (still) full of sad victim stories, bloody details and politicians who know what to do - blame it to "islamists" and the long-time adverse neighbour countries.

Today the Pakistani Government termed a statement of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Rajashekhara Reddy that terrorists based in that country could be behind the recent Hyderabad blasts as "conjecture".
These comments come amidst suspicion among intelligence agencies in India that Pakistan-based Lashker-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad terror groups could be responsible for the blasts.(15)

In fact, there were not "twin blasts" but apparently more explosions executed and some explosiv devices were ment to be found (see our story on Sunday )
"To be precise, a total of five explosive devices were used", Balwinder Singh, Hyderabad police chief, told reporters on Saturday.
Also a senior police officer said the blasts occurred within 10 minutes of each other(!) at around 7:40, not 8.00 pm local time as some papers said.
Another bomb was allegedly found planted underneath a foot-over-bridge with a timer set for 9.30 pm, police sources said.

But today members of the executive branch told the press, that "preliminary investigations indicated that the bombs were planted minutes before they exploded" and police have "not ruled out the possibility of the bomb planters receiving injuries".
And that´s why a "Mohammed Abdullah, a native of Assam" got arrested. He is said to had "injuries on his head and hands". (17)

Well - he will have more of that, pretty soon. And surely he will confess. Everything.
That´s a farce. Indeed, this was obviously an special operation, but who benefited?

On Sunday TDP President and former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu alleged the incidents were a result of "intelligence failure". (18)
Translation: someone let it happen. Why?


On Monday, the 27th, "a leading English magazine" published its opinion in "":
snap polls - if being hold - could hit the Left Parties really hard while Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) could emerge as a big gainer.(19)

If? Could? Is it that what makes a headline? Who likes that crazy stuff?

But what´s more important: the two most important men in the CPI(M) Party, which is as described most essential for the power of the Singh Government and their 123 agreement - they blenched. They boggled. They cringed, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HYDERABAD ATTACKS.

Just read this "If-could-snap-polls" story of the "" again. Down the line it goes:
"I don't see a crisis. Where was it and where has it gone," CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury told reporters replying to a volley of questions on whether the crisis for the Manmohan Singh government on the deal issue was over."
"We don't want the nuclear issue to hijack other important issues," he said. His comments came a day after CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat's assertion that the party does not want the "current crisis" over the deal to affect the government and it was trying to allay apprehensions that it was interested in pulling down the government." (19)

Senior UPA ministers and party sources confirmed the meeting of a Congress core group on Friday 24, one day before the attacks.
Consensus was that there would be no "surrender" on the 123 agreement, succumbing to the Left and losing the "historic opportunities" that come with the nuclear deal. The Party should "keep the initiative". So reports... (23)

On Sunday then there was confusion on the Left. Why, now, were the CPI(M) and their leaders Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat softening the stand in the standoff between the Left parties and the UPA Government on the Indo-US nuclear deal?
Forward Bloc, a Left Front constituent, on Saturday said it was the opportune moment to withdraw support to the ruling alliance. Without naming CPI(M), Forward Bloc all-India General Secretary Debabrata Biswas told a rally that "they were waiting anxiously for Sonia (Gandhi) to return from South Africa to knock at her door. What a pitiable situation".

Waiting for the return of the Chief of Congress Party and the UPA government coalition?
"If only gain and loss of withdrawing support is calculated, can we fight imperialism? There should not be any tradeoff in the fight against imperialism," Biswas said. He later told reporters that there was "confusion" within the CPI(M) and other Left parties whether it was the right time to bring down the UPA Government. "There is confusion, vacillation and inner contradictions", Biswas said. (23)

On Saturday the 25th - the day of the attacks in Hyderabad - a story got posted on the website of the "Washington Post". It was labeled as story of the 26th, but just look at the link:
It goes:
"`The (nuclear) deal is frozen. It is stuck,` a senior Indian government official said on condition of anonymity. `Now only a miracle can retrieve the deal.`"

A miracle? Or some kind of creative initiative?

On August 10 the master-of-polls-paper "Times of India" not only reported about Prime Minister Singh´s special envoy on the nuclear deal, Shyam Saran, who was "undeterred by the Left parties' threat on the Indo-US nuclear deal" travelling to Russia, Germany, Brazil and Argentina the next week. Furthermore it was mentioned that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would visit New Dehli in October. (She is - right now - in China, will be in Japan tomorrow.)
The "Times of India" also wrote about a fact that "nobody likes to talk about":
"China will make India's ride a choppy one - but what is the price India will have to pay is still the question", the story said.

And then Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jiancho is cited when "asked about China's stance" in the case of NSG, 123 and the Deal of India with the rest of Nuclear Powers in the world:
"It is hoped that the international community can explore and properly handle the issue by creative thinking..." (24)

Hyderabad, India: False-Flag Assassination By Singh Government?