Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Varadarajan's Questionable Nuclear Liability Claims about South Korea and Hungary

With the report of the Parliamentary standing committee recommending a change to the controversial clause 17(b) of the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill (my thoughts on the committee report can be read here), Siddharth Varadarajan has already fired his opening salvo against it today in this so-called news item. I say so-called because the author's sentiment comes across plainly in the text.

I have explained the issues with this provision in earlier posts (see here, here and here) and will not repeat them here. In support of his view that India ought to have retained that provision, he claims that "Globally, South Korea and Hungary provide the operators with a right of recourse against the suppliers in the event of gross negligence, regardless of whether or not the contract provides for it or not." As far as I know, this is simply not true - in my previous post, I had explained the position taken by the South Korean law which allows the contractual arrangement between the parties to prevail over the default position laid down by the enactment. Hungary is a signatory to the Vienna convention which explicitly limits the operator's right to recourse (under article X) if expressly provided by contract or the incident resulted from the act or omission done with intent to cause damage, i.e. in other words, provisions equivalent to cl.17(a) and cl.17(c) in the Indian bill.


kuttychathan said...

Nuclear Liability Bill is the subject of the lead story of Malayalam News Paper Mathrubhumi also. But Mathrubhumi says that the proposed NLB is going to contain strong provisions to deal with all eventualities. The Hindu's story conveys the opposite view.

Now, Mathrubhuumi is a far more credible news paper when compared to the Hindu.

cbcnn_Pilid said...


Newspapers have been sharply divided over the bill with some saying only good things and others only bad things. Even the same facts are spun very differently by different papers. This has been clearly evident in the English press. It does appear to me to have a lot to do with their political affiliations; so I have been wary of believing too much of what anyone says without going into the details myself.

Thyagarajan said...

And what is this about chindu Huffing and Puffing, as though BJP has become more wiser only after reading its newstory and insisting on the deletion of the word "AND" in clause 17. any truth to it or is mere bragging.

Anonymous said...

E-in-C Ram seems to be adding a new Twist to the old Oliver tale. It is not that Oliver is asking for more. Oliver does not even want the (supposedly) paltry $ 5 million that "Hindu communal" India is offering.

Then why is E-in-C Ram so put off by India's offer of aid to the flood-hit Pakistan?

According to him: As the region's biggest economy, India should have been first off the blocks in offering help to its beleaguered neighbour. Its belated offer of $5 million in relief assistance is measly compared to what it has done for other neighbours.....For its part, New Delhi must unreservedly raise the assistance amount, and give it to Pakistan.

How naive can a secular-Chinese marxist be? Pakistan is not just another South Asian Neighbour. It has waged several wars on our country.

Besides, what's the guarantee that the "aid" given by India ($ 5 million or billion) would not get into the wrong hands (jihadis routed through ISI) to fund the next attack on an Indian city by "non-state" Paki actors?
Mitigating Pakistan's miseries

cbcnn_Pilid said...


cHindu suspects that the BJP did know about the clause 17 change and went along with it until the exposure which forced it to change course and come out against it. Since it is politically incorrect to say they were okay with the change, I suppose we will never really know what happened.

cbcnn_Pilid said...


Whether giving aid is a good or a bad thing is an ongoing debate. I think Nitin Pai over at Acorn has a post on it.

Anonymous said...

There can't be any "pro" in this matter and only "cons". When it comes to be a do-gooder in Indo-Paki issues somehow all the media maniacs join together (even if individually they hate each other).

In today's New Indian Express, Aditya Sinha is so upset that India is not doing anythihg for the flood-ravaged Pakistan and typically of the liberal Desi media he blames it all on the "middle class".

What prevents the Rams and Sinhas to hand over some, if not all, of their money to ISI (that is where all the money will go anyway) and get a good name for themselves? Perhaps Chindu can donate a month's profit and ask Malini P to carry it in person to the Pakis.

These newspaper wallahs are so generous with the public money in order to get a good conduct certificate (and an award or two on the side) from the Pakis and their NGO agents.

Anonymous said...

Why not call it Maandoo, instead of Chindu?

Maandoo, will be fitting one in Tamil

Anonymous said...

"Even as the world is preparing itself for the celebration of Mother Teresa's birth centenary on August 26,....."

Folks here is one more chance to become secular (if you are not already certified as such).

So, hurry up and join the secualr bandwagon. After all the whole world is getting prepared and you wouldn't want to be left behind and Chindu has been so kind to remind us.

Xinhua Ram said...

Beijing removed Indian maps from Expo, back in July

Meanwhile, Chindu taking great pains to project's their handler's view:
.... “China takes seriously developing the military ties with India, and we are confident that both sides ....blah blah blah"