Here are some questions I have on Indo-US Nuclear Deal. I invite readers to answer these questions without partisan bickering.

 1. Any agreement means compromise, giving up something, however cautiousy we word it.
    This we all understand. For no agreement can be there  without giving up something.
    The question in this agreement is what we are giving up..?
    Is it well defined..?
 
2.  How does separation of non-weapon nuclear research and nuclear weapon research help the U.S.?
     What do they gain from it..? Why are they pressurising the government on it..?
     (Surely not what Bush said to his people that global oil prices will come down as India gets access to alternate energy).

3.  What in months/years from now, China signs a similar agreement with Pakistan and Russia signs with Iran..?
     This seems to be one way in which Nuclear arms can be spread through the world.
     Are we shortsighted in our eagerness to get into nuclear energy..?

4.  We have to depend on fuel on NSG which can block the fuel supply in future for so many reasons. 
     Like happening with Iran today, India can also be threatened and sanctioned against based on the perception
of NSG countries. (Forget actual atomic weapon testing).

     In that case what happens to the investment made in the Nuclear Trade and infrastructure..?
     Is there any guarantee in supply of fuel with quantity in the agreement..?

     What is the meaning of we being strong, when our energy is controlled by somebody else, lock, stock and barrel..? Would it be not difficult at that time to overcome pressures from vested interests representing  billions of dollars of investment to pursue an independent line, if in case it is required..?

5.  Will this nuclear trade in anyway help the third stage of our nuclear programme, the  thorium based reactors project..?  India has 225+K tonnes of thorium and is the only country where such large reserves are available. (25% of world reserves)

 Will this deal stop or delay the progress on thorium based reactors, by diverting the attention of nuclear power agencies as they are limited in their resources and capacity..?

6.  What would be the case of we opening new nuclear plants using thorium based or other technology, not supplied by fuel from U.S/NSG...?  Can we open new nuclear plants without safe-guard inspections..? Or all our future nuclear plants  need to be subjected to safegaurd inspections..?

7. In any developed economy this would have called for a referendum or would have been
    handled in bi-partisan manner, as it marks a major milestone in our Nuclear History.

    Do you think it is the right of people to see the exact text of agreement..?  or atleast debate on
   the substance of the agreement point by point..? Should not government come out with clear answers
   on every question..?

8.  Would it not help, if there is a report from our Nuclear establishment, how this deal would
     help shorten the milestones and schedules for our thorium based reactor projects or accelerate it.
     This can help understand the Cost Benefit Analysis by larger sections of people and intelligentsia.

     Instead of giving veiled threats, would it not be fair for the AEC to state clearly how it would help them..?

    The current approach seems to be that people are laymen, they won't understand anything, so no need to
    share anything with them. And opposition is colored or selfish and hence they are also not worth
     discussing with. Somehow close the deal and proclaim a milestone.

     Should not our politics be to empower and educate people and not take their incompetence for granted.?
  
These questions are not mere fears. These are not colored ideologies. These are not partisan politicking. Serious questions which we citizens need to ask and understand.

Since I don't know the answers for these, I thought I would put these questions to a wider audience and see what the answers are.

Every one is welcome to answer..

-T BT
-TBT