Mr. Solomon. You have to understand something about Indian political leadership in the aftermath of independence. It was living in utopian dreams of equality justice and social/international harmony. I dont know if you are a native American or naturalised however unlike the US war of independence Indian freedom struggle was largely led by passive resistance by Gandhi (whom you have been deriding for the past few posts) in a way in direct contrast to lets say George Washington. The weakening of the Brits as the pre-eminent power in the aftermath of WWII and the near bankruptcy of it's economy with more and more reliance on US (inclusive of the pegging of the currency to US dollar instead of the Sterling) was a writing on the wall for all to see.
The US positioned itself as the leader of the democratic free world (a role it affected in order to check the spread of Communism). Hence with the leverage the US had and the state of affairs of UK at the time (which was further underscored by the US positioning opposing the joint UK-French-Israeli occupation of Suez in 1956) left UK in doubt about what it had to do when US conveyed that colonies were no more an option.
Additionally the cost of occupying India (with the mass civil disobedience already in 3rd decade of its actions) was proportionally high for a cash strapped and almost bankrupt UK. You think UK would have ever left India otherwise?
And as you so rightly pointed out the political class of India at the time was mainly UK trained and very well versed with international laws and every action of theirs was in consonance with UN (a fact underscored by Nehru's taking up the J&K matter wth UN inspite of extensive military gains by India in early 1948 and the then Army staff & Home Minister professing continuation of military offensives till clearing all of J&K and also breaking Pakistan to reintegrate the territories: a fact which had been advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in recently declassified letters).
So it was very well within the ambit of existing international laws and treaties that it was carried out.
However Op Vijay (Liberation of Goa) neither had support nor opposition of either the US or Soviets unlike what you have said. The fact that India was a recognised NAM leader member a bloc which both the US and USSR were wooing served to ensure that. Infact in 1965 it was threat of action by UN (read both US and Soviets) which forced India to agree to ceasefire talks. Blaming Gen JN Chaudhary the then COAS of India for suggesting lack of war stocks is all bull made up for saving the govt from political ramifications of the actions taken.
There are lot of things which are not on public domain for particular reasons. That being a fact I hope you were able to read the 2002 appreciation of Indian Nuclear Programme presented to US Senate. In addition if you go through the salient aspects of Indo-US Nuclear Deal you shall get a fair bit of idea that India has only allowed 30% of its nuclear installations to come under IAEA and nuclear safeguards. The bulk are outside the ambit of the same.
In addition our Fast Breeder Reactors (incidentally a home grown tech) are the main components for production of Weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium as applicable.
As for backing up the claims. Its for others to prove India diverted the fuel from Tarapur to conduct the tests. I again repeat we have Uranium mining here and processing facilities of the same for military use are separate.
However what you have said about CIRUS is all heresay I repeat and I quote
The CIRUS reactor has been the subject of controversy between the United
States and India for much of its life. The United States supplied heavy water, which
was not subject to a safeguards agreement, under a 1956 contract in which India
pledged to use the material for peaceful purposes only. Yet this reactor reportedly
produced the plutonium used in India’s 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion. Many
nonproliferation experts maintain that India violated its 1956 contract with Canada
as well as its contract with the United States. Most recently, according to answers
to questions for the record submitted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
November 2, 2005, the State Department notes that:
At the time, the debate on whether India had violated the contract was
inconclusive owing to the uncertainty as to whether U.S.-supplied heavy water
contributed to the production of the plutonium used for the 1974 device and the
lack of a mutual understanding of scope of the 1956 contract language on
“peaceful purposes.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...ajiFKb&sig=AHIEtbQjU4lDDCDjMdIaT5Cz7KwbhE-U6g
Consistency in your ravings. Must hand it to you. Be thankful that people of India have that kind of thoughts otherwise your forefathers would not have been accepted to come to India and their successors and your immediate ancestors would never have got the chance to divide a perfectly harmonious nation on lines of religion and get the lands that never belonged to you as a nation. Be thankful and for gods sake get treated!!!
