Captain J Rama Rao, who heads the Hyderabad-based Forum for Sustainable Development, said, “I believe that India should not sign the NPT or CTBT.” Then why did he sign the petition which argued just the opposite? “I don’t remember that bit in the petition,” he said. Incidentally, Rao is also convenor of another group, Movement against Uranium Projects, which is also a signatory to the petition.

Santanu Chacraverti, secretary of the Kolkata-based Society for Direct Initiative for Social and Health Action, was candid, “One has to sign these petitions under peer pressure...we were told that if we put our organisation’s name on it, it will carry some weight...this petition was circulated by e-mail.”

But he defended his position and argued for India signing the NPT and CTBT saying that, “there is an element of discrimination” in everything but we should follow certain rules or else, the world will become chaotic.

Anil K. Chaudhary of the Delhi-based Popular Education and Action Centre, was frank: “We don’t have any office nor do we have any full-time staff.” When asked about his position to the nuclear deal, he said, “We are against the use of nuclear energy.”

Saraswati Kavula of the Hyderabad-based Movement Against Uranium Projects said: “This talk of NPT and CTBT being discriminatory in nature is double-talk...then why did we sign the WTO, which is also discriminatory?” glossing over the fact that India’s firm position made the recent Doha Round talks to collapse.

Sukla Sen of Mumbai’s EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), who piloted the petition against Afzal Guru’s death penalty as well, admitted that “there is no guarantee that America will give up its nuclear weapons,” but contradicted himself as he tried to justify his position that India should still sign the NPT and CTBT, “There is an element of discrimination...but the impact is diluted by the bargain that these nuclear weapon states would reduce their stockpile (of weapons).”

... contd.