Hiding behind Hyde

What is so wrong with the Hyde Act? Is it enough reason to delay or reject the Indo-US nuclear deal?

For better or for worse, the Hyde Act is now US law, and US actions must be conducted within its parameters. At the same time, the US cannot legislate for India, for whom only the 123 Agreement remains binding. There are certain sections where the two documents contradict one another. In such cases, it would likely prove easier to amend US law to accommodate the two countries’ intentions, than to renegotiate the entire 123 Agreement. Consequently, rejecting the deal on the basis of the Hyde Act alone makes little sense
The final exemption made for India at the NSG remains to be seen. But the latest uproar begs the question of what exactly is so wrong with Hyde Act. There are, in fact, a total of 18 clauses in the legislation that are not absolutely ideal from India’s standpoint. Many of these are simply redundant while others contain seemingly demeaning (but relatively innocuous) language.
Of the objectionable passages, three fall under Section 102 or the Sense of Congress, and are therefore not legally binding — on the US or India. These include a statement that the US will only agree to nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT state if “such cooperation induces the country to... refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons programme”; a passage that says the US will cooperate with countries if they have a congruent foreign policy, which includes working with the US on non-proliferation efforts; and a declaration that countries outside the NPT pose a non-proliferation challenge
Most importantly, Section 103 also contains two clauses that have been focused upon by opponents of the deal in India: an article to restrict the transfer of equipment and technology related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, and a clause to prevent the transfer of nuclear equipment, materials or technology from other NSG countries should nuclear transfers to India be suspended. Furthermore, the first clause is largely offset by another which allows for the transfer of technology related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water in “a multinational facility”. A careful reading of the Hyde Act indicates that India should not be too concerned regarding fuel supply assurances and ‘full’ nuclear cooperation as some analyses have suggested.
This leaves only 10 objectionable clauses that can legally constrain the executive branch of the US government. Of these, one — a clause to ensure that appropriate safeguards will be put in place — can be dismissed as unnecessary, but not necessarily damaging. Another four sections detail presidential determinations to Congress on India’s nuclear activities, while two others detail presidential reporting to the appropriate Congressional committees. It is in these sections — 104(c) and 104(g) — that two mentions of securing India’s cooperation in efforts to isolate and contain Iran are included. These six clauses are by no means desirable from an Indian vantage point, yet they place significant decision-making power in the hands of the presidency. Given Congress’s many reservations concerning the deal, this may not be so bad.
Three clauses remain which could provide serious legal constraints to the future of US-India nuclear cooperation, two of which fall under Section 104(d), which outlines restrictions on nuclear transfers to India. Section 104(d)1 states that civil nuclear cooperation between the US and a non-NPT weapons state cannot “in any way assist, encourage, or induce that country to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.” This should not be cause for offence as the separation of civilian and military facilities was an inherent aspect of the deal. Section 104(d)3 puts termination of the nuclear transfers in the hands of the president. This too should not be surprising as it is impossible to envision bilateral civilian nuclear commerce taking place under a president who is opposed to it.
That leaves Section 106, which will ensure that the nuclear exemption for India will cease to be effective if “the president determines that India has detonated an explosive device.” India faced severe sanctions when it tested in 1998, and even in the absence of the deal, it will not likely go unpunished for testing, particularly if it did so unilaterally. But is this clause — or, for that matter, the entire combination of less-than-perfect passages in the Hyde Act — enough of a reason to postpone or reject the nuclear deal?

Impact of rise in fuel price

The Govt of india has raised the fuel price by 10% which was aired in the news channels as marginal (quaoted by Murli Deora). This has serious repercussions on the congress govt as the elections close in. Even Montek singh Ahluwaliah is not fully convinced by the rationale of government on this rise, neverthless he confessed that it was imperative for the government to put the anguish on common man .
Well, The economics of the fuel suggests that the oil prices are soaring and this burden has to be transferred to either common man or the oil companies. The Oil companies cannot take the burden as they have already taken in the recent past and now it's common man's turn. The govt is helpless. The opposition is extremely happy to see the plight of congress and they have an election issue in the right time. They would jus fiddle with the emotions of the people to get the support of the people and I am sure this will be a sore issue for the congress to deal with.
States have supported the government amicably by cutting the sales tax by about 5 percent which comes as a breather to the central and I hope this would better our lives.
Let's not look at the issue with political lens, rather give a thought to what can be done in these scenarios and let's prepare ourselves for the tough times ahead. I am sure this issue is gonna hound us for the reason that we have not anticipated such a grave situation. Only the Fuelonomics would help us and I just hope that this does not affect the common man, after all we're the wonder wall!!

Cheers