MEA Slams Pak's Hypocrisy Over India-Canada Nuclear Deal, Cites Islamabad's Shady Past And India's Impeccable Proliferation Credentials

India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has firmly dismissed Pakistan's criticism of the burgeoning nuclear cooperation agreement between New Delhi and Ottawa, underscoring that India's non-proliferation record remains beyond reproach.

The rebuke came during a press briefing in New Delhi on Thursday, where MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal labelled Pakistan's remarks as utterly baseless.

Jaiswal stressed that India's steadfast commitment to non-proliferation enjoys widespread global recognition, in stark contrast to Pakistan's notorious legacy of covert nuclear proliferation.

"A country with a well-documented history of clandestine nuclear proliferation can hardly preach the virtues of export controls and proliferation risks," Jaiswal declared.

He further characterised Pakistan's outburst as a "ludicrous" ploy to divert attention from its own dismal proliferation history.

Pakistan's objections stem from a recent long-term uranium supply pact between India and Canada, valued at USD 2.6 billion, alongside prospective collaboration on small modular reactors and cutting-edge nuclear technologies.

Islamabad's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Tahir Andrabi, voiced apprehensions that such civil nuclear ties should adhere to a non-discriminatory, criteria-based framework for all nations outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Andrabi contended that granting selective exemptions undermines global non-proliferation standards and risks destabilising regional and international security.

He specifically took issue with India's decision not to place all its civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

According to Andrabi, reliable external uranium supplies could liberate India's indigenous reserves for military applications, thereby hastening the expansion of its nuclear arsenal.

This, he argued, would exacerbate strategic imbalances across South Asia.

The India-Canada nuclear deal forms part of a broader revitalisation of bilateral relations, marked by high-level talks in New Delhi on 2 March.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, unveiled a strategic framework to inject "new energy, mutual trust and positivity" into the partnership.

Key outcomes include agreements on uranium and critical minerals supplies, with an ambitious goal of USD 50 billion in annual trade by 2030.

Modi hailed the uranium pact as a "landmark deal" for India's civil nuclear energy ambitions, while pledging joint efforts on small modular reactors and advanced reactor development.

This cooperation arrives at a pivotal moment for India's energy security, as the nation ramps up its nuclear capacity to meet surging electricity demands amid rapid economic growth.

India currently operates 23 pressurised heavy water reactors with a total capacity of over 7,000 megawatts, with plans to triple this by 2032 through indigenous and imported technologies.

Canada, a leading global uranium producer, emerges as a vital partner, leveraging its vast reserves in Saskatchewan and advanced nuclear expertise.

The deal not only secures fuel for India's reactors but also fosters technology transfer, potentially aiding New Delhi's pursuit of next-generation nuclear solutions.

Pakistan's critique echoes longstanding tensions, particularly its exclusion from similar nuclear pacts enjoyed by India, such as the landmark 2008 US-India civil nuclear agreement.

Islamabad has repeatedly accused Western powers of double standards, arguing that India's NPT non-signatory status should bar it from nuclear commerce. Jaiswal's retort highlights the international community's trust in India, evidenced by its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since 1998 and robust export control regimes.

India adheres to guidelines from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and Wassenaar Arrangement, bolstering its credentials.

Pakistan's proliferation record, infamously linked to disgraced scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's illicit network, continues to cast a shadow over its credibility.

Khan confessed in 2004 to supplying nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, a scandal that prompted UN sanctions.

India's MEA response thus reframes the narrative, positioning Pakistan's intervention as hypocritical interference in sovereign bilateral affairs.

The spat unfolds against a backdrop of strained India-Pakistan ties, exacerbated by recent border skirmishes and mutual accusations of terrorism sponsorship.

Canada's overtures to India also signal a thaw in relations strained by past diplomatic rows, including the 2018 arrest of Canadian diplomat Andrew Tredinnick on spying charges—later resolved. Mark Carney's visit underscores Ottawa's strategic pivot towards the Indo-Pacific, aligning with India's role in countering Chinese influence.

For India, the agreement advances its Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) initiative in nuclear technology, reducing dependence on Russian fuel supplies that dominate current imports.

Meanwhile, Pakistan persists in seeking its own nuclear deals, recently approaching Russia for power plant construction despite US reservations.

As global nuclear commerce evolves, India's deepening ties with Canada affirm its rising stature as a responsible nuclear power.

The MEA's sharp rebuttal serves as a reminder that Pakistan's rhetoric will not derail New Delhi's strategic partnerships.

ANI

Comments

Continue Reading

India, France Agree On Deeper French Involvement In 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' Efforts In Defence Sector

Both sides welcomed the ongoing intense cooperation across all defence domains

Welcoming the ongoing "intense cooperation" across all defence domains, India and France have agreed to find "creative ways" for "deeper involvement" of French companies in 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' efforts in defence technology, manufacturing and exports. A joint statement issued after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met French President Emmanuel Macron here on Wednesday underscored that the long-standing armament cooperation is testimony to the mutual trust between the two countries.

"Both sides welcomed the ongoing intense cooperation across all defence domains," it said, noting that joint exercises (Shakti, Varuna, Pegase, Desert Knight, Garuda) illustrate efforts towards better integration and interoperability wherever possible.

As seen in the timely delivery of the Rafale fighter jets despite the pandemic, the two sides enjoy synergy in the field of defence.

"Taking forward this momentum, and based on their mutual trust, both sides agreed to find creative ways for France's deeper involvement in the 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (Self-reliant India) efforts in advanced defence technology, manufacturing and exports, including through encouraging increased industry to industry partnerships," the joint statement said.

At a special media briefing, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said the context of defence partnership between India and France is defined by not just trade in different platforms, but it also extends to co-development, co-designing, co-manufacturing.

"And I think what you also need to keep in mind is that this is also very much in sync and in line with our own domestic policy of 'Atmanirbharta', which also of course extends very strongly into the field of defence," he said in response to a question.

"So, I think discussions today in the field of defence were focused more on how the two countries can partner more strongly in the field of co-designing, co-development, co-production of different defence equipment in India," Kwatra said.

In the joint statement, both sides also reaffirmed the commitment to the success of the strategic Jaitapur EPR project for access to reliable, affordable and low carbon energy, and welcomed the progress achieved over the last months. They will increase the contacts in the coming months to achieve new progress.

The statement underscored that the maritime cooperation between India and France has reached "new levels of trust" and will continue through exercises, exchanges and joint endeavours throughout the Indian Ocean.

The six Scorpene submarines built at MDL in Mumbai illustrate the level of transfer of technology from France to India, in line with the "Make in India" initiative, it noted.

India and France have strengthened cooperation between their cyber security agencies in an increasingly digitalised world.

"Based on a convergent outlook, they agree to join forces in promoting cyber norms and principles in order to counter cyber threats and agree to upgrade their bilateral cyber dialogue with a view to contributing to a peaceful, secure and open cyberspace," the statement said.

Building upon the implementation of the Indo-French roadmap on cyber security and digital technology, India and France reiterate their willingness to deepen their cooperation on exascale technology, based upon the fruitful collaboration between C-DAC and ATOS, which includes making supercomputers in India, it said.

The two sides also agree to work together for more secure and sovereign 5G/6G telecom systems.

Both sides agreed to maintain a strong coordination in the framework of the G20. France reiterated its steadfast support for India's bid for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council as well as membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Building on a great tradition of over 60 years of technical and scientific space cooperation, and in order to address the contemporary challenges that have arisen in space, in particular maintaining a secure access to space for all, India and France have also agreed on setting up a bilateral strategic dialogue on space issues.

"It will bring together experts from space and defence agencies, administration and specialised ecosystem to discuss security and economic challenges in outer space, the norms and principles applicable to space as well as unveil new areas of cooperation. The two sides agreed to hold the first dialogue this year at the earliest," the statement said.

Comments

Continue Reading

France Backs India's Bid For Permanent Membership At UN Security Council And Nuke Club NSG

India has been at the forefront of efforts at the UN to push for urgent long-pending reform of the Security Council

France reiterated its commitment to support India’s bid for permanent membership in a reformed UN Security Council and New Delhi’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, according to a joint statement issued by the two countries after Prime Minister Narendra Modi held talks with French President Emmanuel Macron. India has been at the forefront of efforts at the UN to push for urgent long-pending reform of the Security Council, emphasising that it rightly deserves a place at the UN high table as a permanent member.

At present, the UNSC comprises five permanent members and 10 non-permanent member countries which are elected for a two-year term by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The five permanent members are Russia, the UK, China, France and the United States and these countries can veto any substantive resolution. There has been growing demand to increase the number of permanent members to reflect the contemporary global reality.

In a joint statement on Wednesday, India and France agreed to maintain strong coordination in the framework of the G20 and France reiterated its steadfast support for India’s bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council as well as membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India has said that it continues to engage with members of the NSG for support for an early decision on the country’s bid for membership in the grouping.

The 48-member NSG is an elite club of countries that deals with the trade-in nuclear technology and fissile materials besides contributing to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. China, one of the five nuclear-weapon states, stridently opposes India’s NSG bid primarily on the grounds that New Delhi is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its opposition has made India’s entry into the group difficult as the NSG works on the principle of consensus.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Modi met French President Macron here and the two leaders discussed at length bilateral as well as global issues and agreed on an ambitious agenda for the next phase of the India-France Strategic Partnership. Modi, who arrived here from Denmark on the final leg of his three-nation European tour, on Wednesday night held extensive talks with Macron, who was re-elected to the top post over a week back.

Comments

Continue Reading

US Reaffirms Support For India's Bid In UN Security Council, Nuke-Club NSG

Washington: The Biden administration has reaffirmed its commitment to support India's permanent membership in a reformed UN Security Council and New Delhi's entry to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.

The US also praised India for its significant contributions as a member of the 15-membered top decision making body of the UN.

In a joint statement issued at the conclusion of the India-US 2+2 ministerial meet, the United States congratulated India for its significant contributions as a member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the term 2021-2022.

In this context, the US expressed its appreciation for India's leadership as the Chair of the three committees of the Security Council: the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee, the 1970 Libya Sanctions Committee and the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee, it said.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar led the Indian delegation for 2+2, while the US side was represented by Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Tony Blinken.

"The Ministers reiterated their commitment to work together in close coordination at the UNSC and in international organisations. The US reaffirmed its continued support for India's permanent membership in a reformed UNSC and for India's entry to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group," said the joint statement.

Considering growing national security threats from both state and non-state malicious cyber actors, the ministers recognised the importance of an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet and stable cyberspace, it said.

On December 2, India said it continues to engage with members of the NSG for support for an early decision on the country's bid for membership of the grouping.

The 48-member NSG is an elite club of countries that deals with the trade-in nuclear technology and fissile materials besides contributing to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

China, one of the five nuclear-weapon states, stridently opposes India's NSG bid primarily on the grounds that New Delhi is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its opposition has made India's entry into the group difficult as the NSG works on the principle of consensus.

According to the joint statement, both sides reaffirmed the 2021 reports of the UN Open-Ended Working Group and the UN Group of Governmental Experts, which articulate a framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and committed to working together in the future multilateral negotiations to encourage States to implement the framework.

They confirmed their intent to work closely as part of ongoing efforts to counter the use of information communications technologies for criminal purposes.

Acknowledging India's distinguished history of leading peacekeeping missions, the United States welcomed India's commitment to participate in multilateral peacekeeping training in 2022, expand joint-capacity building efforts with third-country partners, and launch a new joint National Investigation Officers Training of Trainers course in partnership with the United Nations.

The four ministers called on the Taliban to abide by UNSC Resolution 2593 (2021), which demands that Afghan territory must never again be used to threaten or attack any country or shelter or train terrorists or plan or finance terrorist attacks.

They urged the Taliban to adhere to these and all other commitments; respect the human rights of all Afghans, including women, children, and members of minority groups; and uphold freedom of travel. They also emphasised the importance of an inclusive Afghan government and unhindered access for the United Nations and its implementing partners to deliver humanitarian assistance.

They recommitted to close consultations on Afghanistan to help facilitate an inclusive and peaceful future for all Afghans.

Calling for the cessation of violence in Myanmar, the release of all those arbitrarily detained, and a swift return to the path of democracy and inclusive governance, the ministers also called for urgent implementation of the ASEAN Five Point Consensus.

Comments

Continue Reading

India Says Engaged With NSG Members For Support For Early Decision On Its Membership Bid

Muraleedharan also said the government has been according the "highest priority" to advance the UN Security Council (UNSC) reforms, including India's candidature for permanent membership in a "reformed Security Council".

India on Thursday said it continues to engage with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for support for an early decision on the country's bid for membership of the grouping. Minister of State for External Affairs V Muraleedharan said in Rajya Sabha that the US has publicly reaffirmed its support for India's entry into the NSG.

"The government continues to engage with members of the NSG, at the appropriate levels, for support for an early decision on India's membership by the group," he said, replying to a question.

The 48-member NSG is an elite club of countries that deals with the trade in nuclear technology and fissile materials besides contributing to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

China has been stridently opposing India's NSG bid primarily on the grounds that New Delhi is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its opposition has made India's entry into the group difficult as the NSG works on the principle of consensus.

Muraleedharan also said the government has been according the "highest priority" to advance the UN Security Council (UNSC) reforms, including India's candidature for permanent membership in a "reformed Security Council".

"India is actively engaged in the ongoing inter-governmental negotiations on the UNSC reform at the UN and has been working with other reform-oriented countries through its membership of the G-4 (India, Brazil, Germany and Japan) and the L.69 Group," he said.

The L.69 is a cross-regional grouping of developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

"The US has expressed public support to India's candidature for permanent membership in an expanded UNSC," the minister said.

Comments

Continue Reading

India Says 'Need To Be In Nuclear Group NSG', Links It To Climate Goals

The NSG is a 48-member group which regulates global nuclear commerce

New Delhi: India made a renewed push for its membership to the coveted Nuclear Suppliers Group or NSG ahead of the COP26 climate summit, underlining that its climate and development goals are tied with its entry into the grouping.

The NSG is a 48-member group which regulates global nuclear commerce.

"As I said this is something that needs to be determined based on the type of technologies that would be available for that climate transition. For eg, for our base load to be replaced from coal to may be nuclear, we will need large amounts of capital for setting up nuclear plants both to replace our current demand and for the future demand that our development imperative requires," said Piyush Goyal, India's Sherpa to the G20 Summit.

Admission of new members to the premier group is done through consensus. India had first applied for membership in May 2016. Even though India has the backing of the majority of the group's members, China has been blocking its entry into the bloc.

"Secondly, we will need to be members the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to ensure adequate availability of raw materials for nuclear supply and several other associated concerns around cost of power. So it's going to be a holistic solution which will emerge through dialogue, discussion and the collective effort of all the countries," Piyush Goyal added.

India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT. After India requested to be included, Pakistan too applied for the NSG membership in 2016.

India has asked developed nations that have "enjoyed the fruits of energy" to reach net zero faster so that emerging economies use some "carbon space" to drive growth. 'Net zero emissions' refers to achieving an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse gas emissions taken out of the atmosphere.

China maintains that there would be no discussion on India's entry into the NSG before reaching a specific plan on non-NPT members' participation in the elite grouping. It has declined to give a timeline to reach a consensus among member states on this issue.

India's focus at the COP26 summit will be on the country's "ambitious" Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals for the post-2020 period under the Paris Agreement.

"India is among the top countries in the world in terms of installed renewable energy, wind and solar energy capacity. At the World Leaders' Summit, I will share India's excellent track record on climate action and our achievements," PM Modi said in a statement ahead of the summit.

In August a bombshell "code red" report from the world's top climate science body warned that Earth's average temperature will hit the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold around 2030, a decade earlier than projected only three years ago.

Comments

Continue Reading

Nuclear Power: A Climate Response That Gets Short Shrift

Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu. India’s bid for NSG membership is being blocked by China which wants India to first sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty

The global energy crisis should spur a rational relook at a clean source needlessly seen as a hot potato

For the last one month, the world has been dealing with a power and energy crisis. While the factors that caused this emergency are complex and differ somewhat from country to country, the upshot has been a clamour to reduce dependence on fossil fuels—coal, petrol, natural gas—further and increase production of renewable energy—mainly solar and wind. Obviously, every sane person would support a move away from fossil fuels, but the current green energy paradigm needs some serious examination.

Solar and wind energy are, by definition, intermittent and unstable. If the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, you cannot produce the power. And since even in the very best conditions, solar and wind farms do not—can never—generate power round the clock, they require fossil-fuel back-up. This will not change till we develop very-large-scale cost-effective technology to store the power they produce.

Take Britain. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a wind energy enthusiast and says he wants the UK to become the “Saudi Arabia of wind power" with wind farms generating enough electricity to meet the needs of every UK home within a decade. Today, 24% of Britain’s power comes from wind. But the country saw an unexpected “windless summer" this year, which is one of the reasons for the UK power crisis.

Among EU nations, Germany has been the most aggressive in pursuing a renewable energy future. Under its Energiewende (energy transition) plan, begun in 2010, it has been shutting down its coal-fired and nuclear power stations. Today, 30% of its power comes from wind and sunlight. But last month, faced with a coal and natural gas crunch, it woke up to the reality that after investing half a trillion dollars on the plan, it does not have the capacity to bottle up enough weather-dependent clean power to hold out even for a few fossil-fuel-free hours.

Meanwhile, Germany’s household-sector electricity price is the highest in the EU: $0.37 per kilowatt-hour (KwH). In France, it’s $0.19. In 2019, Germany emitted 350 grams of carbon dioxide for every KwH generated. France emitted 56 grams, six times less. Power in France is much cheaper and cleaner.

The reason is simple. Nuclear power. In 2020, nuclear power made up 78% of the energy France generated, and renewables 19%. Fossil fuels accounted for only 3%.

But the trouble is, every time the word “nuclear" is uttered, it gets a negative—and often hysterical—response rather than a reasoned fact-based one. Images of mushroom clouds over Hiroshima are immediately evoked. Whereas, nuclear power may be the cheapest, greenest and safest source of energy currently known to man.

France and other countries like Sweden and Bulgaria, which have a high nuclear component in their power generation, prove the cheap part. What about green? Nuclear power is zero-emission. It has no greenhouse gases or air pollutants. And, according to US government data, a typical 1,000-megawatt wind farm requires 360 times more land than a similar-capacity nuclear facility, and solar plants 75 times more. Apart from the ecological damage that wind and solar projects can cause to the relatively pristine areas where they are set up, it is conservatively estimated that 500,000 birds are being killed every year by collision with wind turbines in the US. This number can only rise.

Today, we are fully aware of radiation exposure risks and have reliable and safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste. And, because of its extreme density, it needs little space. All the waste produced by the US nuclear industry over 60 years can theoretically fit into a seven-metre-high stack of containers on a soccer field. And it would be even less if the US recycled the waste to produce more power, as France does. Coal plants spew out that volume of waste every hour.

We must make the right choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impact. California, the most ‘progressive’ state in the US, is a fascinating case study.

California has been shutting down nuclear plants and aims to be nuclear-free by 2025. One of the consequences has been rising emissions due to more dependence on natural gas. After all, when you replace nuclear with solar and wind, you need more fossil fuel for back-up. And while the price of electricity has stayed flat for the rest of the US over the last 10 years, in California it has risen more than 60%. The state seems headed into a clean energy trap of its own making.

The boldest decision that Dr Manmohan Singh took in his 10 years as prime minister was to sign the Indo-US nuclear deal. But, perhaps due to the usual protests and short-term political thinking, not much seems to have happened since then—only 3% of the power India generates is nuclear. Last month, the government announced that India would triple its nuclear power capacity in the next 10 years. This should not be a target that is quietly forgotten as soon as it is set.

India imports much of the uranium it uses, which is both expensive and geopolitically tricky. But it has immense reserves of thorium. Clearly, we should invest ambitiously in projects that convert thorium to fissile uranium and produce power. That we have not already done so seems strange. But then, much of the politics around nuclear energy, both global and local, has been strange and illogical.

Comments

Continue Reading

India’s Changing Nuclear Status: Pak Media

India’s nuclear power is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years in part due to the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.

The international trade in nuclear material, equipment and technology is largely determined by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), an informal group of 45 countries. Members include the USA, Russia, France and the United Kingdom. India has been kept out of this informal arrangement and therefore denied access to trade in nuclear materials, equipment and various kinds of technologies. Nuclear technology provides a plentiful and non-polluting source of power to meet its energy needs. To increase the share of nuclear power in its energy mix, India needs to break out of the confines imposed by inadequate reserves of natural uranium, and by international embargoes that have constrained its nuclear program for over three decades.

In the circumstances, India made a Civil Nuclear Agreement with the USA on 18 July 2005 to overcome the growing energy deficit. The essence of what was agreed in Washington was a shared understanding of India’s growing energy needs. As a result of the understanding reached between the two countries, the USA had committed itself to a series of steps to enable bilateral and international cooperation in nuclear energy. These include adjusting domestic policies, and working with allies to adjust relevant international regimes. There was also a positive mention of possible fuel supply to the first two nuclear power reactors at Tarapur. US support was also indicated for India’s inclusion as a fuel partner in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Research Project and the Generation-IV International Forum. Surely, the nuclear understanding with the USA has created a great opportunity for international cooperation in the area.

One view within the Indian defence establishment considered that the deal “has for all practical purposes capped Indian ability to field-test and proof high-yield nuclear weapons till sometime in future when Indian three-stage nuclear fuel cycle-based on thorium fuel matures into mainstream power production, thus eliminating Indian dependence on imported nuclear fuel from NSG countries.

In favour and against there was a large amount of opinions and analyses of nuclear experts about the Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the USA. Ashley J Tellis, a US analyst argued that the Indo-US nuclear was attractive to India because it gave it access to far more options on its civil nuclear program than would otherwise be the case, primarily by ending its isolation from the international nuclear community. These options included access to latest technologies, access to higher unit output reactors which are more economical, access to global finance for building reactors, ability to export its indigenous smaller reactor size, pressurised heavy-water reactors, better information flow for its research community, and many more. Finally, the deal also gives India two options that are relatively independent from the three-stage program, at least in terms of their dependencies on success or failure. The first option is that India can opt to stay with the first-stage reactors as long as the global supply of uranium lasts.

The plus side of this is that it covers any risk from short-term delays or failures in implementing the three-stage program. On the negative side, this is an option that is antithetical to the underlying objective of energy independence through the exploitation of thorium. Also, according to one foreign analyst, the deal could over time result in India being weaned away from its three-phase nuclear program involving fast breeder reactors and advanced pressurized heavy-water reactors. This would occur if India becomes confident that it would assure supplies of relatively cheap natural uranium, including from Australia. In any case, this distant possibility cannot be ruled out.

The Indian commentators, including Anil Kakodkar, the then chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Indian government’s official position and Indian defence establishment, have consciously welcomed the nuclear deal. Most of the Indian commentators have found in it an opportunity for India that would enable the country to end its international isolation on the nuclear front and obtain a de facto acknowledgement of it as a nuclear state to some degree. In addition to it being able to obtain the uranium that would increase the success potential of its three-stage program, as well as its efforts to build a “minimum credible nuclear deterrent. Anil Kakodkar made the comment publicly in a milder and conscious way keeping the country’s indigenous fast breeder program out of the ambit of international safeguards, saying, ‘in the long run’ the energy that will come out from the nuclear fuel resources available in India should always come from the larger share of the nuclear energy program…..and, our strategy should be such that the integrity and autonomy of our being able to develop the three- stage nuclear power program, be maintained; we cannot compromise that.”

The Indian government, on various occasions, reiterated its position clearly that India’s indigenous three-stage program is unaffected by the Indo-US nuclear deal and its full autonomy has been preserved. However, one view within the Indian defence establishment considered that the deal “has for all practical purposes capped Indian ability to field-test and proof high-yield nuclear weapons till sometime in future when Indian three-stage nuclear fuel cycle-based on thorium fuel matures into mainstream power production, thus eliminating Indian dependence on imported nuclear fuel from NSG countries. Likewise, both right and left-wing political parties opposed the deal in the Parliament. The left feared the deal would make the country subservient to US interests, while the right felt it would limit further nuclear testing.

After being exempted from NSGs restrictions, India had also signed nuclear agreements with Mongolia, Namibia, Argentina, Kazakhstan and South Korea. With Mongolia. India signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15h June 2009 for the supply of uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The Memorandum of Understanding on development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries. The five agreements signed on 2 September 2009, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of uranium from the African country Namibia, which is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of uranium and setting up of reactors. India signed two agreements with Argentina and Canada, on civil nuclear cooperation, on 14 October 2009, and 28 June 2010, respectively. On 6 November 2012, India and Canada finalised their 2010 nuclear export agreement, opening the way for Canada to begin uranium exports to India. On 16 April 2011 and 25 July 2011, India signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Kazakhstan and South Korea respectively for peaceful uses of atomic energy and participation in India’s nuclear expansion program.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

The Regional Ramifications of The US-India Bonhomie: Pak Media

The constant American military and strategic support to India will further intensify an arms race in South Asia

The United States (US) Secretary of Defence, Lloyd J. Austin, recently concluded an official visit to India. During his stay, he held meetings with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. According to the joint remarks between the US and Indian defence chiefs issued by the US Department of Defence, Austin acknowledged the American commitment to a comprehensive and forward-looking defence partnership with India. Indian Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, also showed the Indian assurance to further consolidate a robust defence partnership with the US. Surprisingly, the joint statement avoided any direct reference to the Chinese threat. India issued a careful statement while distancing itself from the American strategy of containing China. So far, the US has failed to mobilise India militarily to contain China.

For the last 20 years, India and the US have increased the potency of their defence relations. But shortly after Modi took oath as prime minister of India in 2016 a fresh change in ties took place. Since 2016, New Delhi has signed three fundamental “strategic agreements” with Washington, which facilitated deeper collaboration and the exchange of classified information and equipment between the two countries. These foundational arrangements are Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Intelligence (BECA). It seems that the major aspiration of the US is to increase the liabilities of India by keeping New Delhi dependent on defence technology and resupply from Washington. In this regards, Pravin Sawhney opined that,

“By signing the BECA, India has potentially mortgaged the digitised military capability of its three services – army, air force and navy – to the United States.”

Notwithstanding the recent surge in the Indo-US strategic arrangements, certain quarters in India are sceptical about the dividends from this incomparable strategic association which will further narrow New Delhi’s policy options. India’s strategic proximity to the US has led to deteriorating ties between India and several other nations, in particular Russia and China. Its quick acceptance as a Western partner has signalled the departure of India from its conventional non-alignment position while creating some fissures in New Delhi’s relations with other significant countries in the region. India will possibly lose strategic compatibility in South Asia if it continues to serve US interests globally.

In the regional context, the US and India have an intervening strategic interest in countering China’s peaceful economic rise. India has cleverly introduced a narrative of common threat perception with the US regarding China’s economic rise. To counter this threat, both countries are building deeper and stronger strategic partnerships which will ultimately push the entire Asian region into an uncertain and volatile environment. India’s approach of appeasement towards China during the recent disengagement in Ladakh shows that the Indo-US unholy nexus is less to keep a check on China but more to harm regional peace.

The constant American military and strategic support to India, without accounting for the fragile politics of disputes, is a worrying development that will further intensify an arms race in the region. The US strategic support to India in terms of military logistic agreements, supporting the Indian bid for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and rejection to arbitrate over territorial disputes has severely dented the outlook for peaceful co-existence in South Asia. Today, India’s defence ties with the US are not directed towards countering China’s peaceful rise but this association will further exacerbate regional hostilities.

The policy orientation of India and its ambitions to become a regional force warrant stronger ties with its neighbouring states, which are to some degree become the victim of the Indo-US defence relations. The military imports from the US will enable India to follow a policy of coercion at the regional level primarily against Pakistan, which shares the history of hostility and violence due to longstanding territorial disputes such as Kashmir. In New Delhi, there is a growing perception that South Asian political affairs may be dictated by a militarily strong India.

The American politicians should sensibly evaluate India’s strength and avoid the temptation to treat India as a more capable and dedicated actor to pursue American interests in the region. American dependence on the military capacity of India will have a devastating impact on regional peace because the emerging defence relations between New Delhi and Washington will ultimately fail to balance out deterrence stability in South Asia.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

China Rides On Pak To Further Its Nuclear Power Export Ambitions

Pakistan's Karachi Nuclear Power Plant, the 1014 MW KANUPP-2

China appears to be riding its nuclear export ambitions on a cooperation, which is itself built on a blatant violation of non-proliferation rules

In March 2021, Unit 2 of the Karachi nuclear power plant, the 1014 MW Kanupp-2, was synchronised with Pakistan’s electricity grid. Under construction since 2015 as part of an agreement signed in 2013 between China National Nuclear Corporation and Pakistan Atomic Energy Agency, the reactor took the national share of nuclear electricity from 5% to 9%. This sixth nuclear reactor is also Pakistan’s largest. The other five operational reactors range from a capacity of 100 to 340 MW, together producing a mere 1,430 MWe.

While this reactor has added to Pakistan’s electricity generation, the development is of no less significance for China. It is the first fully designed Chinese reactor, Hualong One, to be built outside the country. Beijing plans to export this as HPR1000 and the extensive help rendered by China to Pakistan’s nuclear power programme over last three decades helps China to showcase its nuclear prowess.

Tell tale marks of China-Pak nefarious nuclear weapons proliferation nexus seen in this satellite

China-Pakistan agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation was first signed in 1986. This resulted in construction of a 300MW reactor at Chashma that became operational in 2000. Subsequently, three more reactors had been built at this site by 2017, and another has since been announced. Meanwhile, the 2013 agreement was for construction of two Hualong One reactors at the Karachi site, where a 137 MW reactor, built under the US Atoms for Peace programme, is operational.

A majority of the reactors offered by China to Pakistan are in violation of China’s commitments under the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). NSG allows civilian nuclear cooperation with only those countries that accept full-scope safeguards over their nuclear programme. Pakistan does not. Nevertheless, China has “grandfathered” new reactors under the 1986 agreement, though it had not announced any such commitments while joining the NSG in 2004. Additional reactors are obviously an afterthought, borne out of an understanding that nuclear cooperation suits both sides.

For Pakistan, expansion of nuclear power helps to better balance its energy mix that is presently heavily skewed in favour of imported natural gas. 40% of its electricity comes from this one source. Hydropower is at second place at 25%, with little scope for further growth. Interestingly, despite substantial coal reserves, though of poor quality, Pakistan has traditionally not invested much in coal-fired power plants. This has allowed it to remain amongst the lowest carbon emitters. But this could change once the 21 energy projects that China has contracted under China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), three-quarters of which are coal-based, become operational. To reduce GHG emissions and meet Paris agreement targets, Pakistan will have to turn to renewables and nuclear energy. The latter is currently available to it only from China. Besides, China’s support helps Pakistan in its constant efforts to “equalize” itself with India on all matters nuclear. So, to match the NSG waiver granted to India in 2008, Pakistan has sought the same benefits through its relationship with China.

For China, the benefits of civilian nuclear cooperation play out at several levels. Firstly, Beijing earns the goodwill and gratitude of Islamabad for cooperation in an area otherwise denied to it. Secondly, the “specialness” of the relationship enables China to encash on other lucrative energy deals in Pakistan. And, given the Chinese model of infrastructure build-up, benefits are likely to flow more to its own private sector than the recipient nation.

Thirdly, the cooperation lets China set its equation with the US. Just as Washington facilitated India’s accommodation into the non-proliferation regime, Beijing believes it can and must assert its right to do the same for its “iron brother”, even at the cost of flouting NSG guidelines. In fact, that is supposed to demonstrate its global standing at par with the US.

Lastly, but most importantly, the successful construction and operation of its nuclear reactors in Pakistan gives China the opportunity to validate its designs for exports and showcase itself as a credible supplier for the 28 countries with whom it has signed nuclear cooperation agreements. Ironically though, China appears to be riding its nuclear export ambitions on a cooperation, which is itself built on a blatant violation of non-proliferation rules. The fact that China could violate NSG guidelines and that the global nuclear order could not check it calls for some serious thinking about the nuclear order.

This could be a matter of greater concern since many of the countries with whom China has signed nuclear deals are newcomers, such as Cambodia, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan, Thailand, Uganda, etc. Given the nature of nuclear technology, it is important for a nuclear supplier to help first-timer recipients to suitably prepare through activities such as conduct of environmental impact assessments, drafting legislation, setting up independent regulatory mechanisms, establishing safety and security processes, building trained workforce, etc. It may be recalled that when the US started the Atoms for Peace programme in 1953, it also helped to build governance structures like the IAEA. Will China, with its habitual disdain for global rules of governance, insist on time-consuming procedural requirements or set its own standards of safety, security and non-proliferation?

Needless to say, laxity in any aspect of nuclear governance that results in an adverse incident would globally affect public perception about nuclear energy and impact the nuclear industry. It would also strike a blow to the utilisation of nuclear energy as a carbon-neutral source at a time when it is being considered for a role in transition to a carbon-free world. Therefore, while China may be in a hurry to go global, it must be asked to behave more responsibly and show greater compliance with the global nuclear governance framework than it has done till now.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

UNSC Must Reflect Realities of 21st Century; Talks On Reform Process To Resume On January 25: PGA Volkan Bozkir

Bozkir said Security Council reform is very important not only for member states but also to the United Nations as a whole

UNITED NATIONS: The Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on UN Security Council reform process will resume later this month, President of the General Assembly (PGA) Volkan Bozkir has said, asserting that UNSC membership as well as its working methods must reflect realities of the 21st century.

India joined UNSC this month as a non-permanent member for a two-year term and the country has been at the forefront of the years-long efforts to reform the powerful 15-nation UN organ, saying it rightly deserves a place as a permanent member of the Council, which in its current form does not represent the geo-political realities of the 21st century.

“There's no doubt that the membership of the Security Council, as well as its working methods, must reflect the realities of the 21st century. This process is an intergovernmental one, and thereby member states-driven," Bozkir told a press briefing at the UN headquarters on Friday.

Responding to a question on whether he sees any signs of progress on the long-delayed Security Council reforms, Bozkir said the two co-chairs for the IGN process-Permanent Representative of Qatar and Permanent Representative of Poland - appointed by him will start the Inter-Governmental Negotiations for the 75th session on January 25 and 26.

“Then, the first meeting will take place,” he said adding that he is looking forward to the first IGN meeting on January 25 and 26 which will “give some lights on what we will be able to do in the following months".

The IGN meeting to discuss the long-stalled UNSC reforms was postponed on May last until further notice as in-person meetings at the UN headquarters remained suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador TS Tirumurti has said that a handful of countries are using the IGN as a “smoke-screen” and stopping progress on reforming the Security Council, which has “impaired”.

He has lamented that nothing has moved for more than a decade in the IGN except hearing passionate statements on the need for reform. Criticising the absence of even a single negotiating text, Tirumurti has said that the IGN has become like a “platform for debate in a university rather than a serious result-oriented process in the United Nations consisting of sovereign member states”.

India has also asserted that there is a need for a decisive movement this year in the UNSC reform process.

“Without decisive movement, I feel that those who support real reform and who wish to deliver on the commitment made by our leaders, will be forced to look beyond the IGN, maybe to this very Assembly, for results. If that happens, we must not hesitate in taking a relook at the IGN process itself,” Tirumurti told the General Assembly last November.

Bozkir said Security Council reform is very important not only for member states but also to the United Nations as a whole.

“And of course it's a very complex challenge that is closely linked to one of the main pillars of our organisation, which is peace and security,” he said.

The reform process is building on the meetings held during previous sessions, Bozkir said, adding that during his tenure so far as president of the General Assembly, he has had consultations with almost every group in the IGN process and has listened to their views.

“I believe that dialogue among member states is the most effective way to bring the reform process forward. But we're planning to have more meetings of the IGN,” he said.

Bozkir said he first wants to see what happens on January 25-26 “so that we can decide on further steps”.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

China Tacitly Accepts India's Supremacy In Indian Ocean

In the last few years, India has expanded its role in the Indian Ocean region (IOR), from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) to supplying food and medical aid amidst the COVID pandemic to 5 countries of the Indian Ocean namely: Maldives, Mauritius, Madagascar, Comoros, and Seychelles

In what is a clear indication of grudging acceptance, the ruling Chinese Communist Party via its mouthpiece Global Times has accepted that India has "unique geographical advantages" in the Indian ocean.

In an article on 17 December titled “India changes attitude toward multilateral mechanisms for global ambition”, Hu Shisheng who is a director of the Institute for South Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations pointed out, "India has also taken the lead in planning small-scale multilateral cooperation mechanisms in the Indian Ocean”

Increasingly, under the groupings of IORA or Indian ocean Rim Association to the Indo-Pacific construct, New Delhi has been able to leverage the advantage with more and more countries joining Indian led initiatives. In fact, with Indo-Pacific construct, India is connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of the Americas, and as External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar said, "Indo-Pacific is not tomorrow’s forecast but yesterday’s reality."

And clearly, in the last few years, India has expanded its role in the Indian Ocean region (IOR), from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) to supplying food and medical aid amidst the COVID pandemic to 5 countries of the Indian Ocean namely: Maldives, Mauritius, Madagascar, Comoros, and Seychelles. 

In 2019, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had proposed the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), under which countries like Australia, Japan, and those in ASEAN grouping has expressed willingness to work with India on issues like maritime security to transport.

In fact, in what looks like a taunt, but is more a reminder for itself, the write-up says, "India wants to be the net security provider of the Indian Ocean". While New Delhi hasn't said so, it is seen as a "Preferred Security Partner".

India's Information Fusion Centre at Gurugram, which keeps an eye on the movement of ships in the Indian ocean is emerging as the nodal centre for real-time information in the region. 

US and France have sent their liaison officers already, with more countries joining. Under its defence training programmes, India has provided Mobile training teams to 11 countries from Vietnam to South Africa, as well as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Myanmar.

And in a Deja Vu, the Chinese communist party's indignation via its mouth-piece about India’s ‘Sinophobic, pro-West’ diplomacy comes as no surprise. While Beijing sees India drifting away, it forgets how it opposed New Delhi's bid for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or the UN Security Council. 2020 saw an increasingly aggressive China, which not only violated agreements on build-ups at the Line of Actual control but also indulged in actions such as those in Galwan which saw 20 Indian soldiers attaining martyrdom.

Beijing is already perturbed by Quad meetings and Australia being invited to Malabar exercises and the country perhaps failed to understand or recall the outreach by New Delhi in form of informal summits--in Wuhan and then the Chennai connect. But past is past, as the world woke up to a new China, an aggressive one amidst the COVID pandemic.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

India Scoffs At China’s New Excuse For Ladakh Stand-Off, Cites 3 Reasons

India China border: The PLA’s concerns around the Indian infrastructure upgrade in Ladakh stem from the fear that it could pose a military threat to the multi-billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor

India has rejected Chinese contention that its border infrastructure upgrade along the 3,488 km Line of Actual Control (LAC) is the crux of on-going military tensions, saying the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has already built and continues to construct roads and communication network on its side of the border.

“First, the bridges inaugurated by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Monday are away from the LAC and would facilitate civilian movement and access apart from military logistics. Second, China has never raised the issue of India’s infra upgrade at the on-going military-diplomatic talks. Third, what about the road, bridges, optical fibres, solar-heated huts and missile deployments of the PLA close to the LAC. India is only building infra on its side of the LAC and for that we do not need Chinese permission,” said a senior official.

According to military commanders, the PLA has drawn optical fibre for secure communication at contested Gogra-Hot Springs, used heavy-lift cranes to drop solar heated containers as accommodation for forward troops on north bank of Pangong Tso and have built a hospital in the depth area to cater to high-altitude sickness and medical problems associated with rarefied atmosphere.

However, according to China watchers, the reason why PLA is concerned about Indian infrastructure upgrade in Ladakh is that it could pose a military threat to the multi-billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, to Pakistan that passes via Khunjerab Pass and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. It is understood that the Chinese have conveyed their concerns over CPEC to its all-weather ally Pakistan as India has very strongly objected to Beijing exploiting the ecologically sensitive Gilgit-Baltistan area and PoK.

The increased Indian military capacity and capability on the LAC also prevents the PLA from nibbling into East Ladakh in pursuance of its maximalist 1959 cartographical claim line.

The fact is that in 1976, the China Study Group headed by the then Cabinet Secretary had defined 65 patrolling points as limits for Indian Army on the Ladakh LAC. As these patrolling points were well within Indian perception of LAC, the PLA through tremendous border upgrades tried to turn these limits as Indian border. This was pointed out to the UPA regime by former foreign secretary Shyam Saran when, as the National Security Advisory Board chairman, he advocated that Indian troops must patrol up to at least the limits defined by CSG.

Over the years, China has pressurised India not only on the border but has also been condescending enough to ask New Delhi to maintain its non-aligned position and not get close to the United States. Beijing, on its part, believes that it belongs to a different league and has blocked India from becoming a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), UN Security Council and even helped Pakistan to unsuccessfully try to get Indian engineers involved in Afghan reconstruction as global terrorists under 1267 UNSC resolution.

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

If The Donald Trump Resumes U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing, India Will Follow: Pak Media

And that would be bad news. Here's why

by Hasan Ehtisham

On May 15, according to media reports, the Trump administration conducted serious discussions on whether or not to break the informal ban to carry out a nuclear test explosion. Washington's intent to resume nuclear testing threatens to elevate already grown strategic tensions with China, Russia, and others. Some analysts comprehended that this is a proper course to influence Russia and China to support Washington's plan for trilateral talks related to nuclear arms controls and disarmament issues.

Throughout the Cold War, hundreds of nuclear tests were carried out by the United States and the Soviet Union. But when the Soviet Union in 1991 announced a unilateral moratorium, the United States under H.W. Bush administration reciprocated with a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. The suspension of nuclear tests provided the diplomatic room for the world to begin negotiations regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to impose a blanket ban on test explosions of nuclear weapons. Russia and all NATO members except the United States have already ratified the CTBT. This latest move by the U.S. to resume nuclear testing can also contribute to the wider attempt to sabotage the agenda of CTBT.

The head of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), Lassina Zerbo, has presaged that any attempt by the United States to recommence nuclear testing would have serious ramifications for global peace and security. While mentioning CTBTO’s close relationship with the U.S. National Laboratories, Zerbo categorically precluded the notion of any requirement for nuclear testing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian has also shown “grave concerns about the report.” He urged the Trump administration to meet its “due obligations and honour its commitment by upholding the purpose and objective of the CTBT.” During the contemporary strategic competition of major powers, an uncertain situation has emerged about any sort of political gains for Washington against Moscow or Shanghai with a nuclear test. The most plausible consequence of a nuclear explosion by the United States at this point will facilitate other countries to resume nuclear testing. Washington will be criticized by other nuclear weapons states for violating the nuclear test moratorium practiced since 1998 by all countries, except North Korea.

Robert Rosner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, has evaluated that after the United States others will also resume nuclear testing and “the crucial question is: Who are the others?” In the South Asian strategic scenario, India will be that other country. India, one of the world's fastest developing nuclear weapons states, has long been waiting for such a mistake, particularly from the United States, so that it could revoke the pledge of nuclear non-testing. It has been unable to do so just because it aspires to become part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and other global regimes. Once the United States resumes nuclear testing, India will find it easier to further demonstrate its nuclear weapon capability.

This latest paradigm shift by the United States allows India to conduct more nuclear testing to assess the design of its thermonuclear weapon which it claimed to have detonated on May 11, 1998, in the Operation Shakti-1. Numerous international experts believe that the results of the thermonuclear test were highly inflated and doubt that the device successfully ignited the second fusion stage of the explosion. The scientist community who coordinated the Operation Shakti-1 in 1998 has concluded that the test was a failure, as the yield of the fusion device never produced the desired results.

Nuclear pundits in India have already materialized a comprehensive and robust nuclear facility to meet any kind of eventuality that could provide India with an opportunity to carry out further nuclear tests. For instance, in 2012, India’s secret nuclear city at Challakere, Karnataka was revealed by independent researchers. Experts have shown apprehensions that the facility will be a major complex of nuclear centrifuges under military control, along with atomic research laboratories, weapons and aircraft testing sites. Once it starts functioning, the facility would enable India to modernize its existing nuclear warheads and the nuclear fuel from domestic reserves will be used for a thermonuclear weapon. India is also working on a uranium enrichment plant from which it will be able to produce about twice as much weapons-grade uranium as New Delhi will need for its operational nuclear weapon programme. That significant excess of the enriched uranium would be used for the development of thermonuclear weapons.

India has already done the necessary homework to manipulate any step the United States may take in the near future. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has signalled the capacity to conduct more nuke tests at short notice. If India alters the status of its moratorium on nuclear testing, then it would not only upset the deterrence balance but most significantly it would start a fresh nuclear arms race in South Asia. Under the pretext of growing Indo-US strategic relations in the region, the U.S. is offering a free ride to India to enhance the nuclear capability by resuming nuclear testing. It is strategically prudent for the U.S. national interest to uphold its commitments regarding the unilateral pledge of nuclear non-testing while ratifying the CTBT. The United States should also press India to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing which was the primary prerequisite for the U.S.-India nuclear deal of 2008. It will reinforce the global standards against nuclear testing and encourage regional stability.

Hasan Ehtisham is the M. Phil Scholar of Defence and Strategic Studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading

Privatisation of Atomic Energy Sector: A Step In Right Direction

Centre allowed private public partnerships in the atomic energy sector on May 16

The Union government's move to allow privatisation in the atomic energy sector is a move whose time has come. With an increasing consumer demand for products from the atomic energy sector, state-run corporations, namely the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, cannot alone cater.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the decision to allow private public partnerships in the atomic energy sector during her address yesterday. At first, the announcement seemed shocking. Atomic energy is one of the strategic sectors of the country, and is kept cloaked in secrecy.

However, the sectors being opened up—nuclear isotopes for therapeutic purposes, and irradiation for food security and sterilisation—are already out in the private sector, although these are small units with limited capacity and scope. BARC had, in 2002, set up the Krushi Utpadan Sanrakshan Kendra (KRUSHAK) at Lasalgaon in Maharashtra, known for its onion and garlic production. KRUSHAK focuses on low-dose irradiation of crops to prevent them from pest attacks. Taking off from this venture, there are a few private enterprises who are focusing on food irradiation technology in the area, such as Agrosurg Irradiators.

Similarly, BARC set up a technology demonstration unit for high-dose irradiation in Vashi, Maharashtra, in 2000. The Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology has been operating this plant. One of the largest radiation processes done here is for export of food, especially mangoes. The US had stopped importing mangoes from India around 15 years ago because of food safety issues. Since the last four or five years, with the irradiation process available, India is again exporting mangoes to the US, especially the prized Alphonso.

Similarly, there are some small units in Gujarat that are working on sterilisation of medical equipment. For instance, one small unit focuses only on irradiating the rubber caps used as stoppers in bottles. Irradiating medical equipment like gauze, gloves and syringes gives them an additional level of sterilisation. Since gamma rays can penetrate the plastic packaging of these equipment, they further remove any contamination.

Radio isotopes are required for nuclear medicine, both as diagnostic aid and as therapeutics. Isotopes are used to study blockages in the circulatory system and metastases of cancers, for instance. In new-age targeted therapy, drug formulations are attached to these isotopes, so that they reach the desired site in the body with precision. Nuclear medicine, however, by one estimate, needs at least a ten-fold increase from its present capacity to reach every patient who needs these therapies in the country. The Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT), which produces the isotopes required for nuclear medicine, will not be alone capable of meeting the rising demands, says former chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission of India, Anil Kakodkar. “We need the private sector, here,'' he emphasises. Indeed, with limited supply, nuclear medicine gets unaffordable. Costs can come down when the supply end gets a boost, which private sector participation will ensure.

Kakodkar says that India already has a good pool of talent and expertise in nuclear capabilities, and they can be tapped to help the private sector play a bigger role in this area. The demand for radioactive products for safety and therapeutics is only going to increase. For instance, now that Personal Protection Equipment is in much demand, there could be the option of reusing the gear, once properly sterilised. A small irradiation kit could work as a laundry for cleaning out the gear. There will be many other, similar requirements in the near future. “The market already exists, it only needs to be configured properly by the authorities,'' Kakodkar says.

In fact, though the government has only announced privatisation of the atomic energy sector in a limited way at present, Kakodkar already has a vision of how the private sector can help bring about energy security in the country with nuclear energy. “A lot of profit-making public sector undertakings like the Nuclear Power Corporation of India can mobilise funds together and set up joint ventures with the private sector to set up nuclear power plants,'' he says, pointing out that this can be done within existing laws itself. “We must accelerate generation of nuclear power in the country,'' he says.

Of course, such units will be small capacity ones, he says. “A time will come when we will need larger units with capacities of 1,00,000 to 2,00,000 megawatts, and for that, the government will have to enact new laws for entry of the private sector.”

Source>>

Comments

Continue Reading