The government faces the 'trust-vote' today courtesy comrades who believe and vehemently argue that 'the deal' will make us a slave of the US for the next forty years.As to the economic/scientific rationale for entering into such a deal I am a bit ambivalent. Dr. Kalam seems to be all in favour of the deal whereas a group of scientists (including an ex-chief of BARC) believe that 'the deal' should be avoided. They argue the deal will enable the US to dump outmoded nuclear technology upon us which we will happily accept should this 'deal' be concluded. However, assuming this deal enables and does not cast an obligation upon us to procure the nuclear technology (described s out-dated by the group of scientists) I wonder how that can be a strong ground for opposing the deal. However, their criticisms serve to focus on a very important issue- that of upgrading our nuclear-energy generation facilities and switching over to new technology so as to make them more efficient.
The comrades on the other hand seem to be disgruntled solely with the fact that the US is at the other side of the table for negotiations- I wonder how they would've reacted if China had been the other party.
This situation has turned out to be a critical juncture for the country. For, if the government stands, it will push up the FDI limit in sectors such as telecom and insurance (badly in need of capital infusion) which I believe will help the educated masses inasmuch as many more job opportunities will be created. Like several others, I am eagerly awaiting the result of today's 'trust (or the lack of it) vote' and perhaps for the first time in my life; I hope a government led by the Congress survives.
