Caps implicit in N-deal: BJP

'Putting two-thirds nuclear plants under IAEA safeguards may lead to fuel shortage'

Charging the government with "surrendering" on several counts while signing the nuclear pact with the US, leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and former Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh said a cap on India's nuclear weapons programme was implicit in the deal and wondered why did the government discuss the details with the State Department and the US Congress before taking Parliament into confidence.

The two counts on which the "BJP-NDA finds itself most concerned", Singh said, was that as a result of the separation plan, two thirds of India's nuclear plants would be placed under IAEA safeguards. This, he said, would create a significant gap between India's requirement of fissile material and how much it would be permitted to produce.

"A cap is inbuilt into the numbers. Volume control (of fissile material) will be in the hands of the US," Singh said.

In his February 27 statement in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that there would be "no cap." This was also the position of the BJP government after the 1998 nuclear tests.

Singh said the deal was not clear about the supply of uranium. If India had been recognised as a nuclear weapons state, why had the government agreed to put civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards "in perpetuity?, he asked.

Broadly supporting the deal, the BJP, however, cautioned the government against strategic dependence on the US. The party said India's fast breeder reactor technology was on a par with some of the most advanced countries. "This lead should not be lost or compromised," Singh said.

Asking the government what "safeguards in perpetuity" meant, Singh said why should these apply to India if had been recognised as a nuclear weapons state. He wanted details of the Additional Protocol that India proposed to negotiate with the IAEA and how many more facilities might be added to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) list for IAEA inspection. He also wanted to know the status of spent nuclear fuel.

Had the government considered any exit clauses if the agreement did not find favour with the US Congress?, Singh asked, adding why was India not referred to as a "country with advanced nuclear technology" but as a "recipient state" in the newly announced global nuclear energy partnership?

Singh said the US negotiators had stated that the separation plan had been "jointly" worked out between the US and Indian officials and wanted to know if this was correct. He added while the deal was a welcome development, it could become "a nightmare through shoddy and inept implementation".

In another reaction to the deal, the CPI said the government needed to put details of the deal before Parliament and not "succumb to US pressure". The CPI took exception US President George Bush's criticism of the countries, which are friends of India, on Indian soil.