India rebuffed Libyan leader's request for nuke help in 1978

[StormShadow]

MUMBAI: Slain Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had unsuccessfully sought India's help to develop nuclear weapons in the late 1970s and New Delhi had even sent a three-member team to Tripoli to negotiate a deal, a former nuclear scientist has revealed.

"Gaddafi had sent his deputy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, to New Delhi in 1978 to negotiate the deal to obtain plutonium reprocessing technology and a research reactor similar to Cirus at Barc in Mumbai," the scientist, who had played a key role in the first nuclear test in 1974, said. He said Jalil proposed an India-Libya collaboration for the purpose and held discussions in this regard with then defence minister George Fernandes. "Fernandes conveyed the request to the PM Morarji Desai, who turned it down immediately." He said Desai's response angered Jalil who threatened "to walk out."

He said New Delhi did not want to completely disappoint Libya. "It sent three scientists - P K Iyengar, V Meckoni and K T Thomas - to Tripoli to explore the possibility of negotiating an India-Libyan nuclear deal in the months ahead. Then Indian ambassador to Libya Homi J H Taleyarkhan was enthusiastic about this plan and hoped it would materialize."

The Libyans insisted that they wanted reprocessing know-how during the talks. "We advised them that they should improve their manpower position before getting this technology. The Libyans were very upset and said they will seek Canada's help if India does not offer them this technology. But nothing happened." He said Pokhran-1's success had convinced Gaddafi that India had developed the technology for making nukes.

Libya had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it seven years later. It concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 1980. The erstwhile Soviet Union supplied it a 10MW research reactor located in Tajoura a year later. Gaddafi had also unsuccessfully attempted to obtain nuclear weapons from China in 1970. Years later, Pakistan PM Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto invited Libya to participate in his country's nuclear weapons programme in 1974. But Bhutto was executed by the time Libyan scientists joined the project.

India rebuffed Libyan leader's request for nuke help in 1978 - The Times of India

 

[nForce]

Things would have been significantly different now if Libya had acquired nukes.
I must say,the unfair clauses of NPT/CTBT has in fact prompted many countries to pursue their own nuclear programs either covertly or openly.

For the leaders of those countries,its like,"You will impose some unfair rules upon us??? F U !!! we will make some on our own!!!"

 

[Tshering22]

Interesting. Now that the dictator is dead, many facts hidden under him would come out. I mean if NATO/US can ignore Pakistan's nuke programs, I think this one that too during cold war, is neglectable.

 

[harpoon]

I also heard of it. Gaddafi was ready to supply us free oil in return for n-Bomb knowhow.

 

[tallboy123]

Good decision by morarji desai..

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

India must have been approached secretly by many wannabe Nuke powers .....an independently developed nuke program is no joke . Good thing we had the sense to resist the short term gains so that years later ...our de facto status as a nuke power was endorsed as the U.S itself labored to remove IAEA restrictions which makes us able to carry on nuke trade with the international community despite being a non NPT signatory .

 

[nForce]

India must have been approached secretly by many wannabe Nuke powers .....an independently developed nuke program is no joke . Good thing we had the sense to resist the short term gains so that years later ...our de facto status as a nuke power was endorsed as the U.S itself labored to remove IAEA restrictions which makes us able to carry on nuke trade with the international community despite being a non NPT signatory .

Its not because India is like the good-boy in the class thats why we are able to trade with other countries in spite of being a non-signatory to NPT.Its simply because India is a big country with a huge market that provides ample opportunities for many companies,many of which are based in US.Had India been small and comparatively insignificant a market like Iraq or North Korea then there would have been no difference between us and them.

Its as simple as that.

Just look at the hypocrisy of it.Iran,Iraq and N.Korea make it to the so called 'Axis of Evil' for pursuing their nuclear ambitions.Libya,gets bombed ,with its leadership turned upside-down,for Libya also had this nuclear ambitions once,among many other things.
But,at the same time countries like India,Pakistan,Israel don't get branded to be a a part of that Axis simply because there are interests involved.It has been a rough ride so far,but all these countries fair quite well.The reason is simple again.We actually have the nukes.

This World is no Utopian state.One country befriends another country only when there are interests involved.And beware of those who pretend to be a friend of everybody,for a friend to everyone is a friend to none.

This is something that the Pakistanis have never learnt.They were befriended by the Americans and believed them blindly.
The Americans used them for their own purpose starting from 1960,to counter the Soviets,be it the U2 event or Afghanistan.

Now they do the same mistake with China,while the Americans are slowly turning into enemies.They still do the same mistake,relying blindly upon others instead of themselves.

 

[indianspetsnaz]

its a good thing that we didn't because Israel could have been nuked by the terrorist Gadhaffi's gov't nuclear weapons do not belong to rogue pariah states like Iran Nkorea Syria etc and Libya too still because of the wmd stature during Gadhaffis time it would mean the end of the free world

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

its a good thing that we didn't because Israel could have been nuked by the terrorist Gadhaffi's gov't nuclear weapons do not belong to rogue pariah states like Iran Nkorea Syria etc and Libya too still because of the wmd stature during Gadhaffis time it would mean the end of the free world

End of free world ..wow guess its coming soon if its tied to Israel being bombed

 

[indianspetsnaz]

End of free world ..wow guess its coming soon if its tied to Israel being bombed

it doesn't matter if Israel gets bombed or not when a group of rogue pariah states like North Korea Iran and Syria who are trying to gain or already have WMD's it is bad for the free world as these 3 rogue pariah states have problems with democracies and free countries of there e.g North Korea, South Korea, Iran-USA/Israel/western states that support Israel/ Syria/Israel

besides those rogue Arab dictatorships that claim Israel to be occupiers of Palestine have no say on such things being free is better than being tortured if you speak against the fascist gov't in anyway look at whats going on now the Arab spring the oppressed are now revolting and standing up Egypt Syria have already done so Syria is in chaos as is Yemen etc its similar to the revolutions of 1989 in which eastern bloc states which were communist had a internal revolt for democracy and now former eastern block warsaw pact states are democracies albeit some corrupt but democracies nonetheless e.g Poland

 

[nForce]

its a good thing that we didn't because Israel could have been nuked by the terrorist Gadhaffi's gov't nuclear weapons do not belong to rogue pariah states like Iran Nkorea Syria etc and Libya too still because of the wmd stature during Gadhaffis time it would mean the end of the free world

How do you define free World?

A World,where what you can do and what you cannot do are dictated by an all-powerful state?A condition,in which you have to surrender your own security to others?These rouge states you are talking about did nothing but trying to strengthen their own internal security.

 

[indianspetsnaz]

How do you define free World?

A World,where what you can do and what you cannot do are dictated by an all-powerful state?A condition,in which you have to surrender your own security to others?These rouge states you are talking about did nothing but trying to strengthen their own internal security.

democracy is the free world it can be corrupt but at least you choose who leads you rather than adhering to a dictators personal political/social ideology so Iran shooting its own people who are defending there basic rights to democracy is improving internal security? is torturing people even 13 year old kids like what Syria is doing right now improving internal security? these people are protesting for democracy which is a basic human right to be free and don't even get me started on North Korea just reading what the political prisoners who defected and escaped from North Korea have to say is enough they run political concentration camps where in other words hard labor work camps (gulags) anyone who is considered a "threat" is sent there or perhaps maybe even executed people who try to escape from North Korea get punished severely

i am just saying that the free world must be supreme imagine if India was under a dictatorship in fact we were during the emergency when Indira was in power she imprisoned and had protesters tortured/murdered for protesting against her rule

if you want to live under these conditions thats up to you i quite frankly like having a voice on what goes on in my country

 

[nForce]

democracy is the free world it can be corrupt but at least you choose who leads you rather than adhering to a dictators personal political/social ideology so Iran shooting its own people who are defending there basic rights to democracy is improving internal security? is torturing people even 13 year old kids like what Syria is doing right now improving internal security? these people are protesting for democracy which is a basic human right to be free and don't even get me started on North Korea just reading what the political prisoners who defected and escaped from North Korea have to say is enough they run political concentration camps where in other words hard labor work camps (gulags) anyone who is considered a "threat" is sent there or perhaps maybe even executed people who try to escape from North Korea get punished severely

i am just saying that the free world must be supreme imagine if India was under a dictatorship in fact we were during the emergency when Indira was in power she imprisoned and had protesters tortured/murdered for protesting against her rule

if you want to live under these conditions thats up to you i quite frankly like having a voice on what goes on in my country

You are right.
But this is not I am talking about.
There are different form of ruling systems across the World.In some or most of the cases the voice of the common people dont get heard.We stick to democracy because it is supposed to be idealistic,although may not be in actuality.But that is not the point.The point is,who is going to decide,which state is a pariah state.US?UN?
Not so long ago,India was under decade-long sanctions for conducting nuclear tests.Are we the same as N.Korea?Is this what we call free World.It does not sting us any more because we are no longer under sanctions,but it indeed does to the common people of Iraq under Saddam of N.Korea.
See,at the end of the day,the common people are getting punished.If some super power wants to play the role of the big brother,then it should try to do it in a way so that people accept it willingly and not by mere coercion.

 

[raavan]

This has proved to be such a master stroke in the long run....

 

[Operation trident]

I guess libya sent few aircraft to pakistan in 1965 war.