India betrayed! so say "No Deal"

The United States will not sell sensitive nuclear technologies to India and would immediately terminate nuclear trade if New Delhi conducted a nuclear test, the Bush administration told Congress in correspondence that has remained secret for nine months.

The correspondence, which also appears to contradict statements by Indian officials, was made public on 2 September, 2008 by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, just days before the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group meets again in Vienna to consider exempting India from restrictions on nuclear trade as part of a landmark U.S.-India civil nuclear deal.

The NSG, which governs trade in reactors and uranium, poses a key hurdle for the U.S-India pact. The group operates by consensus, allowing even small nations to block or significantly amend any agreement. The United States has pressed the NSG to impose few conditions on India, even though it has tested nuclear weapons and has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

A significant group of nations balked at the proposal when the NSG first discussed it two weeks ago. Berman's release of the correspondence could make approval even more difficult because it demonstrates that U.S. conditions for nuclear trade with India are tougher than what the United States is requesting from the NSG on India's behalf.
ad_icon

About 20 nations offered more than 50 amendments to the U.S.-proposed draft text, focusing on terminating trade if India resumes testing and bans on the transfer of sensitive technologies.

The correspondence released by Berman is "going to reinforce the views of many states," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, which opposes the U.S.-India agreement. "There is no reason why this should not be an NSG-wide policy."

The correspondence concerned 45 highly technical questions that members of Congress posed about the deal. In 2006, Congress passed a law, known as the Hyde Act, to provisionally accept the agreement. But some lawmakers raised concerns about whether a separate implementing agreement negotiated by the administration papered over critical details to assuage Indian concerns. The questions were addressed in a 26-page letter sent to Berman's predecessor, the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), on Jan. 16.

The answers were considered so sensitive, particularly because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that the State Department requested they remain secret even though they were not classified.

Lynne Weil, a spokeswoman for Berman, said he made the answers public yesterday because, if NSG approval is granted, the U.S-India deal soon would be submitted to Congress for final approval and "he wants to assure that Congress has the relevant information."

In India, Singh and his aides have insisted that the deal would not constrain the country's right to nuclear tests and would provide an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India's nuclear reactors. In August 2007, Singh told Parliament, "The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."

The State Department's letter to Lantos gives a different story. It says the United States would help India deal only with "disruptions in supply to India that may result through no fault of its own," such as a trade war or market disruptions. "The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments," the letter said.

The letter makes clear that terminating cooperation could be immediate and was within U.S. discretion, and that the supply assurances made by the United States are not legally binding but simply a commitment made by President Bush.

The letter also stated that the "U.S. government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies," even though the Hyde Act allowed transfers of such technology under certain circumstances. The U.S. government had no plans to seek to amend the deal to allow sensitive transfers, the letter said.

The administration is eager for NSG approval this week because there is a narrow window for final congressional action before lawmakers adjourn this month, although many of them say the prospects for quick action remain dim.

Reflecting the importance of the U.S.-India deal to Bush's foreign policy legacy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is dispatching two top officials -- William J. Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, and John Rood, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security -- to the NSG session.

Concerns about the deal have been raised by a group of mostly smaller states, led by Ireland and New Zealand. But this week China also publicly urged caution, saying in a foreign ministry statement that the NSG must "strike a balance between nuclear nonproliferation and peaceful use of energy."

Civil Services - Main Exam - A Smart Approach

Civil Services Mains Examination is designed to test conceptual clarity, analytical skills, balanced assessment and empirical foundation of a student. In addition, a sense of discrimination and exercise of critical judgement play a significant role in any strategy for the preparation. While most candidates have the potential in them, the mains examination provides an opportunity to hone their skills with a view to translate them into reality. What applies to the mains examination in general, applies to the public administration as a discipline.

For the aspirant who has taken a decision to join the civil services, public administration provides an excellent launching pad for being a model administrator. Given that the available time is limited and requirements are several and demanding, a well-thought out strategy makes the difference between success and failure.


Ingredients of a 'smart strategy' are:

• • Building a general overview
• • Perusal of question papers of previous years
• • Identification of 'thrust areas' for concentrated pursuit
• • Examination-bias
• • Adequate writing practice for time management and evolving right content
• • Continuous review of performance and appropriate corrections

Every candidate appearing for the mains examination should be conversant with the fundamentals of the structure, process, behaviour and environment of the administrative system. It's equally important that the student should be conversant with the contemporary and the current developments of socio-political and economic nature that have a close bearing on the functioning of the administration. For example, changing governors; direct grants to panchayats; economic reforms with a human face; globalisation and administration; second generation reforms and the social infrastructure; right to information and participative development.

Amassing information is a big 'don't'. Analytical frameworks structured with relevant and up-to-date information is the need of the hour. As mentioned earlier, candidates should be able to identify 'core areas' which cannot be avoided in the context of the mains examination and consolidate. The substance of consolidation is quest for clarity, relevance and precision.


Most importantly, study and writing practice should reinforce each other. Writing practice holds the key to success. It ensures legibility, time management and adherence to word limit. Effective introduction, logical build up and balanced conclusion send the right signals to the evaluator.

Every question needs to be studied carefully to understand the exact requirements. For instance, some years ago, in the mains examination, the office of the Prime Minister was given and some took it for Prime Minister's Office. At times, questions can be provocative but the aspirant should not lose the sense of balance in formulating the answer. Several times, the questions are general in nature and not direct. The aspirant is required to reflect and derive the answer from his familiarity with the discipline. For example, criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime; public sector enterprises are neither public nor enterprises; recruitment of recruiters needs to be streamlined and planning in India needs to be depoliticised.

For short questions, answers should be direct and precise. For example, if a question ends with 'comment', the aspirant is expected to react to the question. In a long essay, introduction should be appealing and effective. Elaboration of the theme should be properly prioritised. Sequencing should be done in such a manner that one paragraph logically follows from another. Depending upon the paper I or II, apt illustrations add value. While answering a question on welfare administration, the concept of welfare needs to be supplemented with the initiatives undertaken by the government highlighting the different types of programmes, the coverage and the resource profile. Perspective needs to be supported with details. Allusion to affirmative action is a plus.


Unlike general studies, public administration requires interpretative skills, ability to correlate theory and practice; and synchronise conventional with the current. For example, presidential activism in India; budget as an instrument of socio-economic transformation; citizen-administration interface and e-governance; regulation and development; development and delivery models.

The stage of consolidation has arrived. Extensive reading needs to be suspended. Intensive and focused approach built on analysis needs to be scrupulously adhered to. Answers need to be regularly written and evaluated by experienced teachers. Suggestions for improvement should be followed studiously. Atleast two weeks before the examination, writing exercises should be stopped and the entire attention should be on revision.