India is not a great power yet, but it has the potential to emerge as one. That is why, United States pays closer attention to India's role in the regional balance. The strategic significance of the nuclear deal, signed between India and the US, can be appreciated only in the context of the changing US geopolitical strategy and the evolving US-India relationship. This book addresses the wide-ranging issues concerning the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Making a critical assessment of India's energy policy, it describes in detail the agreement with IAEA, NSG waiver, the political fallouts of the deal, its implications for South Asia, and the China factor. The texts of the agreement, the Hyde Act, and India-IAEA Safeguards Agreements have also been appended.

The controversial civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States fueled controversial civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States fueled controversy and opposition to in a way that no foreign policy issue has done in recent memory. This happened for the good reason that the country`s ``Janes-faced`` or dual-purpose nuclear energy programme is the jewel in the crown of the Indian state and spearheads the longstanding policy of government to make Indian an advanced scientific and technological power. The nuclear deal has come to be seen as undermining this national intent and ambition by substituting self-reliance with risky dependence on foreign Countries and Companies. The deal promised facilitation of trade and commerce in frontline nuclear technologies. But the only technology readily on offer is seen to be the light water reactor that are finding it difficult to be peddled elsewhere, including in their own countries, to their own people, because of the widespread concerns about nuclear accidents, radiation hazards, and environmental damage, a `la Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The fact that India was unlikely easily to access other technologies after the enabling US law the so-called ``Hyde Act``, was legislated in December 2006 by the US Congress. This Act expressly forbids sale or transfer of any technology related to uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, and heavy water production. Worse, even for this limited nuclear deal, Washington extracted some very onerous terms requiring, among other things, that India separate its hitherto integrated nuclear energy programme into its military and civilian components and erect ``firewalls`` between them thereby, at a stroke, destroying its cohension and the scheme of the best and most economical use of scarce human, financial, and material resources; agree to put the bulk of hte civilian-use reactors under international safeguards; and, to accept the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty strictures even though India is not a signatory and not bound by it terms. Most worryingly, however, is the Indian government`s acceptance of the no-testing condition as the basis for the deal. It amounts to India signing, de facto, the Comprohensive Test Ban Treaty strategically the worst thing the country can do at a time when further testing, particularly of the thermonuclear warheads and weapons is an urgent imperative, considering that the test of the fusion device in 1998 had fizzled out. Without more tests, India`s deterrent will lack credibility and its thermonuclear armaments will neither be reliable nor safe. This is intolerable from the point of view of national security. The four authors three of them stalwarts of the nuclear programme and the fourth, a highly regarded strategic expert-wrote extensively about these and other negatives of the nuclear deal. This is a compilation of their writings in newspapers and journals critical of the deal ands why it will turn out to be aliability.P.K. Iyenger, a theoretical physicist of international repute, was successively head of the Physics Group that designed the 1974 implosion device, director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay, and Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission. A.N. Prasad is an expert in plutonium reprocessing and retired as Director, BARC, and Member of the Atomic Energy Commission. For many years, he was also Adviser to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. A. Gopalakrishnan, a Berkeley-trained engineer, was involved in various prestigious nuclear energy projects, retiring as Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board responsible for the safety of nuclear installations in the country. He has been a Fellow at Harvard University. Bharat Karnad is Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, and author of India`s Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security. He was member of the Nuclear Doctrine Drafting Group and Formely, Adviser, Defence Expenditure, Finance Commission.

This volume consists of research that the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) commissioned and vetted throughout 2006. For at least half of the chapters, authors presented versions of their work as testimony before Congressional oversight committees. No matter what one's point of view, these chapters deserve close attention since all are focused on what is needed to assure U.S.-Indian strategic cooperation succeeds. The volume offers U.S. and Indian policy and law makers a detailed checklist of things to watch, avoid, and try to achieve.

India, which has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and does not have International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all of its nuclear material, exploded a "peaceful" nuclear device in 1974, convincing the world of the need for greater restrictions on nuclear trade. The United States created the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a direct response to India's test, halted nuclear exports to India a few years later, and worked to convince other states to do the same. India tested nuclear weapons again in 1998. However, President Bush announced July 18, 2005, he would "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India" and would "also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies," in the context of a broader partnership with India. U.S. nuclear cooperation with other countries is governed by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (P.L. 95-242). However, P.L. 109-401, which President Bush signed into law on December 18, 2006, allows the President to waive several provisions of the AEA. On September 10, 2008, President Bush submitted to Congress, in addition to other required documents, a written determination that P.L. 109-401's requirements for U.S. nuclear cooperation with India to proceed had been met. President Bush signed P.L. 110-369, which approved the agreement, into law October 8, 2008. Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and India's then-External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee signed the agreement two days later, and it entered into force December 6, 2008. Additionally, the United States and India signed a subsequent arrangement in July 2010 which governs "arrangements and procedures under which" India may reprocess U.S.-origin nuclear fuel in two new national reprocessing facilities, which New Delhi has not yet constructed. The NSG, at the behest of the Bush Administration, agreed in September 2008 to exempt India from some of its export guidelines. That decision has effectively left decisions regarding nuclear commerce with India almost entirely up to individual governments. Since the NSG decision, India has concluded numerous nuclear cooperation agreements with foreign suppliers. However, U.S. companies have not yet started nuclear trade with India and may be reluctant to do so if New Delhi does not resolve concerns regarding its policies on liability for nuclear reactor operators and suppliers. Taking a step to resolve such concerns, India signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which has not yet entered into force, October 27, 2010. However, many observers have argued that Indian nuclear liability legislation adopted in August 2010 is inconsistent with the Convention. The Obama Administration has continued with the Bush Administration's policy regarding civil nuclear cooperation with India. According to a November 8, 2010, White House fact sheet, the United States "intends to support India's full membership" in the NSG, as well as other multilateral export control regimes.

The Indo-U.S. Civil Nuclear Deal July 2005 Is An Epochal Event Setting The Stage For India S Tacit Admission Into The Elite Nuclear Club Of Five . While Opening The Doors For India To The Global Nuclear Energy Market, The Deal Will Have Far-Reaching Impact On Regional As Well As International Relations. Some As China And Pakistan Could See It Detrimental To Their Security Interests. Others As France And Germany, Acknowledging India S Rising Power, Have Preferred To Engage It. Within The Two Nations, India And The U.S., The Opinions Have Been Sharply Divided. The U.S. Non-Proliferation Community Has Attacked President Bush For Opening A Pandora S Box By Cooperating With A State Which Possesses Nuclear Weapons But Is Non-Signatory Of The Npt. In India, Concerns Of Sovereignty Have Overshadowed The Sizeable Gains Accruing To The Country In Its Quest For Energy Sufficiency.The Articles In The Present Book Place The Entire Debate On Indo-U.S. Civil Nuclear Deal In Perspective By Examining The Background Which Led The Bush Administration To Propose A Change In The Nuclear Rules In Favor Of India, The Range Of Deliberations That Have Followed And The Final Stages Awaiting Formal Recognition. An Attempt Has Been Made To Cover Both The Objective And Subjective Factors Which Have Driven This Nuclear Debate. In Addition To Articles By Erudite Experts In The Field Of International Affairs, The Book Also Includes Important Documents Relating To The Nuclear Deal Speeches Of The U.S. President, Indian Prime Minister, Senators, Congressmen, Senior Officials, The Viewpoints Of Different Countries, The Nsg, And The Iaea Chief.The Book Is A Seminal Contribution To Indo-U.S. Relations And Will Prove Invaluable To Students And Scholars Of International Affairs, Strategic Analysts, Policy Planners, Diplomats, Parliamentarians As Well As Common Readers Interested In Contemporary World Affairs.

The United States–India nuclear cooperation agreement to resume civilian nuclear technology trade with India—a non-signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and a defacto nuclear weapon state—is regarded as an impetuous shift in the US nuclear nonproliferation policy. The 2008 nuclear agreement aroused sharp reactions and unleashed a storm of controversies regarding the reversal of the US nonproliferation policy and its implications for the NPT regime. This book attempts to overcome the significant empirical and theoretical deficits in understanding the rationale for the change in the US nuclear nonproliferation policy toward India. This nuclear deal has been largely related to the US foreign policy objectives, especially establishing India as a regional counter-balance to China. The author examines the US–India nuclear cooperation agreement in a bilateral context, with regard to the nuclear regime. In past discourse India has been mainly viewed as a challenger to the nuclear regime, but this reflects the paucity in understanding India’s approach to the issue of nuclear weapons. The author relates the nuclear estrangement to the disjuncture between the US and India’s respective approach to nuclear weapons, evident during the negotiations that led to the framing of the NPT. The change in the US approach towards India, the nuclear outlier, has been exclusively linked to the Bush administration, which faced considerable criticism for sidelining the nonproliferation policy. This book instead traces the shifting of nuclear goalposts to the Clinton administration following the Pokhran II nuclear tests conducted by India. Contrary to the widespread perception that the decision to offer the nuclear technology to India was an impromptu decision by the Bush administration, the author contends that it was the result of a diligent process of bilateral dialogue and interaction. This book provides a detailed overview of the rationale and the developments that led to the agreement. Employing the regime theory, the author argues that the US–India nuclear agreement was neither an overturn of the US nuclear nonproliferation policy nor an unravelling of the NPT-centric regime. Rather, it was a strategic move to accommodate India, the anomaly within the regime.