Forign Rule doing permanent damage as British did to India

As British made long lasting Damage to Bharat ( Intellectually  ,
economically , strategically made with a permanent Brown Britishers
mind set as costodian's of a rule Book called Indian Constitution

http://www.bharatjagran.com/
 An Open Letter to Hon'ble Members of Parliament, New Delhi

Hon'ble Members of Parliament

Subject:  For India's Sake - Please standup and reject the Indo-US
Nuclear Deal which threatens country's sovereignty and security. The
Deal in its present form opens the way for the rebirth of the
notorious "East India Company".

The one sided "Indo-US Nuclear Deal", with the 'breadth of
facilities', including top research institutions, that India has
agreed to surrender for the so-called international safeguards, and
her commitment to abandon nuclear tests altogether, has not only
dashed the hope of the nation for not being treated equitably and
fairly, but also exposed the intentions of the safeguard enforcers to
dominate India's defense, foreign policy and economic spheres while
recognizing and enhancing the domineering role of the "Nuclear
Cartel". Without your purposeful and prompt action India may risk
losing not only her nuclear, but also political and economic
sovereignty. In view of the utmost urgency of the matter hereby we
resubmit our representation requesting your urgent action.

Summary: It is generally believed that because of the US exploitation
of NPT and her obsession of world supremacy, it is difficult to have
an agreement with Washington that will allow India a fair deal on the
basis of equality.  Only the "divya astra" (divine weapons) with
devastating deterrence capability could be India's peace keeper
against her two unfriendly nuclear and hostile neighbors. But with the
bait of nuclear energy, the Indian government has been persuaded to
surrender the most important aspects of country's sovereignty and
security. It may also be noted that unlike the agreement with New
Delhi, the Sino-US nuclear deal is free of conditions or strings.
"Furthermore, it is deeply disturbing that without any regard to the
nation's integrity and national interest the Govt. has tacitly
accepted  the classification of India as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State
(NNWS) at the precise moment when the (NPT) that discriminated against
India is collapsing."

"No- Nuclear- deal" with the US would be better than the one that is
strategically crippling or the one that renders it subservient. The
permanent goals of national freedom and prosperity demand that India
keep all its nuclear options open, just like the other nuclear powers
do. It would be suicidal to accept a virtual moratorium envisaged by
the Indo-US Nuclear Deal on country's otherwise unrestricted future
nuclear research; nuclear defense capabilities and its civilian
nuclear energy independence. The loss of the reliable defense muscle
and its impenetrability would have the potential of pushing India back
in to a state of subservience and external domination. The staggering
costs of separating the civilian and defense nuclear facilities and
the impracticality of finding high caliber personnel for duplicate
institutions would render the entire nuclear program dysfunctional and
economically prohibitive.

The enforcers of the NPT safeguards regime consist of two former
colonial systems, one a communist dictatorship and the other an
imperial Super Power � both competing to dominate the world and its
resources. Under the provisions of the proposed deal the US can add or
withdraw facilities at will without affording the same right to India.
India's legal commitments pertaining to this deal are unilateral and
unrelated to assured fuel supply.  This empowers the US to leave India
in the lurch if it at any point were to have a nuclear test or violate
IAEA safeguards. After this deal, India may be the only country in the
world that is disallowed indigenous re-processing although she is
currently at the fore-front of such technology.

We strongly believe that the Indian Parliament exercising its supreme
authority must reopen the issue, have an open discussion and even
amend the Constitution if necessary for the approval, disapproval or
modification of the deal, preferably before the US Congress
deliberates upon it. Further, there is a need to assign substantial
resources for building conventional coal powered electric stations
using practices followed worldwide, and as far as possible with clean
air technology that could be developed or bought . This will be a
Swadeshi (indigenous) and an economically affordable solution with no
risk of radiation damage and without strings by foreign entities,
enabling power needs to be met while the indigenous Thorium based
reactors are in place or the "Nuclear Club" offers equitable terms to
India.

The Condensed Version of Representation

Hon'ble National Leaders and Parliamentarians,

The current Indo -US nuclear deal is shocking because it would
seriously compromise India's independence and foreign and defense
policies.

"Divya Astra" (divine weapon), the guarantor of India's permanent
peace, independence and prosperity, acquired by "tapasya", laboriously
and under severe sanctions must not be sacrificed. India has two
ruthless, inimical and unpredictable dictatorships as neighbors; one
gobbled up Tibet and now encourages Maoists and Naxalites in India to
disrupt peace and democracy; and the other provides a base and
training to Jihadists who have killed over 60,000 in J&K and
continuously attack Hindus and their temples and Parliament deep
inside the country with an aim to disintegrate and Islamize India. To
effectively neutralize them and their keepers India needs a credible
deterrence.

Hence, it will be in the long term interest of India to respectfully
disagree and disengage from this unequal deal. A powerful and bold
declaration of "devastating deterrence" is warranted (like the US had
for the former USSR) instead of a defeatist and geriatric statement of
"minimum credible deterrence". Having suffered for centuries at the
hands of colonizers, tyrannical invaders and unfriendly nuclear
neighbors, India has every right to build an impenetrable national
defense in order to maintain her hard earned independence.

It is time that the Indian Parliament, in its capacity as the supreme
sovereign, steps up to the plate, and prevent undermining of India's
Security and Sovereignty by any desperate branch of the government.

Ms. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secy of State has made it amply clear on
April 5, that India's legal commitments are unilateral, unrelated to
assured fuel supply, and per se "without condition."  This leaves the
US absolutely free to leave India in the lurch if it at any point were
to have a nuclear test or violate IAEA safeguards. Her remarks confirm
India's backdoor accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
hitherto unacceptable to New Delhi. There are some eight conditions
under which the US could unilaterally terminate the deal.

According to Joseph R. Biden, the ranking Democrat on the US Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, the deal's qualitative and quantitative
ceilings succeed in "limiting the size and sophistication of India's
nuclear-weapons program".  Isn't it a shame that Indians learn more
about the inner details of the deal through the US sources than
through the illusive transparency of their own government?

Here are some salient points to seriously consider:

A) People are shocked and horrified at the 'breadth of facilities'
that India has surrendered to the so-called international safeguards
as it included 'fundamental physics and other research institutions'.
Research institutions, like the Bhaba Institute of Fundamental
Research, should be permanent national institutions and to surrender
them permanently to a safeguards regime without the ability to
withdraw is highly infuriating. Once the research institutions are put
under a permanent inspections regime, one does not know exactly what
the status of that research would be (attachment A).

What the US-inspired technology controls against India could not
achieve over the past three decades, the PM, in order to chase some
wild dreams and illusions, has done it with a stroke of his pen and in
the process crippled the country's nuclear independence. Sacrificing
this independence for whatever reason is the direct and cruel
violation of Nehru's vision: "India had missed out on the gunpowder
revolution leading eventually to its enslavement but the country would
not miss out on the nuclear revolution"

B) Opening up some 37 facilities for int'l inspections, including many
top scientific institutions could irreparably harm future research.

It would be suicidal to accept a virtual moratorium on nuclear
research envisaged by the Indo-US deal  The loss of the dependable
defense muscle would have the potential of pushing India back in to a
state of subservience and external domination.

C) While the deal allows the US to add or withdraw facilities at will,
India on the other hand is bound by the conditions stated in the
Indo-US deal without being allowed to bring about or suggest any
changes. Once it puts research institutions under a permanent
inspections umbrella, one does not know exactly what the status of
that research would be.  Such unequal and discriminatory provisions
confirm the imbalanced nature of the Indo-US partnership in this
endeavor.

D)  In the future if there are 10, 20 or 30 reactors that are
dependent upon the imported goods and materials for being functional,
the whole Indian industrial and the electricity sectors could be
jeopardized by the possible sanctions that may be slapped on India due
to any real or imaginary disagreements, leading to total disruption of
the nation's economy. Today, it may seem acceptable as there are only
two reactors dependent on import of fuel.

E) The available evidence and supportive materials clearly establish
the fact that the fundamental US goal in this deal is to deter the
rise of India as a full-fledged nuclear state that may threaten U.S.
global or regional interests. Under the US pressure India has
gradually expanded the number of facilities to be placed under the
safeguards regime from the initial "one or two", to 37 (attachment B).
With nuclear energy just the bait, the deal has allowed to sharply
restrict and cap India's nuclear weapons program, its fundamental
research and consequently its potential rise as an economic power.

F) From basic research to weapons-grade plutonium production
capability, India's nascent nuclear deterrent is being delivered a
body blow. Added to that is the unseemly rush to complete the proposed
actions on most of the 37 facilities within the next four years. The
PM's new, expanded list of Indian facilities � tabled in Parliament on
May 11 � shows how in the name of gaining a pretentious right to
import uneconomical power reactors, 37 establishments across the gamut
of India's nuclear capability are being put under permanent
international inspections or being dismembered.

G) No nation has ever done what India has set out to do. No FBR or
military programme will be possible after the deal becomes operative.
India will not be allowed even to build its own centrifuges.  NPT
signatories China and Libya, ex-NPT countries like North Korea, Iran
and Brazil, states such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and
perhaps even Saudi Arabia continue to re-process and enrich to
increase traditional weaponry under the nose of the US and the NSG.
After this deal, India may be the only country barred from indigenous
re-processing although currently she is at the fore-front of such
technology. (M.D. Nalapat, Organiser, June 11, 2006).

H) "No Nuclear deal" with the US is better than a strategically
crippling one. It is only natural that the Parliament should review
and over- ride the present deal and ask Washington for recognizing
India as a bona fide nuclear state with sovereign freedom over its
nuclear domain before any deal is formalized.  In the absence of such
a review India may be mortgaging her economic and political freedom,
in a hasty deal pushed by business lobbies and politicians with a
narrow vision. While considering such important issues the primary
priority must always be the national sovereignty and security.

I) Public deserves to know why the conventional coal powered electric
stations that many countries use cannot be built or bought with clean
air technology. This will be a Swadeshi (indigenous) solution with no
strings by foreign entities and will enable India to fulfill her power
needs from the indigenous Thorium based reactors.

The emergence of an OPEC like Uranium and Nuclear Suppliers Group in
the form of a Cartel must not be ruled out. Such an entity could
manipulate both in pricing as well as imposing other unacceptable
conditions upon India in the future. The clear indicators to that
effect are already observable.

J) The staggering costs of mandated separation of civilian and defense
nuclear facilities :  estimated at $40 billion for separation and
another $60 billion for establishing the proposed civilian nuclear
sector (attachment C), along with the impracticality of finding high
caliber personnel for both will shut down the entire nuclear program.
Additionally, the opening up of top research institutions to foreign
inspections, meddling and potential espionage would dampen advanced
research. This leads to a suspicion that the real intent of the "deal"
is to strangulate India's technological and industrial emergence. Even
in the US, Los Alamos and other strategic labs conduct research on
both civilian and military projects. Then why should India be barred
to follow that standard?

The Government must come clean and explain to the nation as to why
these staggering additional financial  costs (unrelated to power
generation - in addition to the loss of sovereignty and security)
cannot make the conventional coal based electric power generation a
very attractive and feasible alternative. In this case India will also
be free from the strings of all of the foreign entities.

The guarantee of national freedom and prosperity requires that India
keep all its nuclear options open, just like the other nuclear powers
do. This issue must be judged against India's national needs, goals
for its future, including the national security and military
invincibility, and not just for minimal deterrence or meeting
fractional electric power needs.

K)  "Divya Astra" (divine weapon) acquired by "tapasya", laboriously
and under severe sanctions must not be sacrificed: Only 8% of India's
power needs, that too after two decades, are likely to be harnessed
from the Indo-US nuclear deal.  This small fraction of energy could
easily be generated with conventional and domestic nuclear power.

A virtual moratorium envisaged by the US generated deal on country's
otherwise unrestricted future nuclear research; nuclear defense
capabilities and its civilian nuclear energy independence would be
suicidal because, the loss of the dependable defense muscle would have
the potential of pushing India back in to a state of dependence,
subservience and external domination.

L) Hon'ble National Leaders and Parliamentarians, the Indian
Parliament being the supreme sovereign body must intervene and reopen
the issue, have an open discussion and amend the Constitution if
necessary for its approval or disapproval and avoid India being led
into a political blackmail and economic subservience for ever. There
is a nagging suspicion that through this hurriedly formulated deal
India is being led by the descendants of the East India Company into
yet another era of subservience and slavery. Therefore, the Hon'ble
guardians of India's national interest must do everything in their
power, including launching public awareness campaigns, to persuade the
Govt. for rejecting the intense foreign pressure in defense of India's
national interests. In any case the partners in this deal must have
equal rights and obligations as an unequal partnership could be a
source of great trouble and lingering friction between the two sides
in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We shall look forward to
your response.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jagan Kaul
Krishan Bhatnagar

Forum for Secularism and Development
June 11,  2006

Attachment A

Nuclear deal will make India vulnerable: Expert

Aziz Haniffa in Washington DC | May 24, 2006 01:20 IST

rediff.com

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/may/24ndeal.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research president and leading
technical expert on nuclear programs Dr Arjun Makhijani has said that
he was aghast at the 'breadth of facilities' that India had put on the
table for safeguards as it included 'fundamental physics and other
research institutions.'

Discussing with rediff.com the full text of India's nuclear separation
plan that was tabled in Parliament last week, Makhijani said, "I
really did not expect that institutions like the Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research and other physics institutions will be put under
permanent safeguards."

"This is very different from putting reactors under safeguards or even
a reprocessing plant, because the reactor comes to the end of its life
and then it is done. So permanent safeguards is only up to the end of
its life," he explained.

"But research institutions truly should be a national permanent
institution and to place that under permanent safeguards without the
ability to withdraw it, is to subject the research institutions to
political pressures in ways that may not be advisable," Makhijani said.

"The second point that is related to this is that if you look at the
US agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is very
different," he noted, adding, "The US can add or withdraw facilities
at will, and so, because the Indo-US deal does not allow India to do
that, once it puts research institutions under a permanent inspections
umbrella, one does not know exactly what the status of that research
would be."

"Also, who could use the research, what all material India would have
to make available freely to international institutions, what might
happen to ideas that originate in India and their status, and who
could take advantage of them," he queried.

"I am not for nuclear weapons, but I think that countries should be
dealing with the IAEA on an equal basis. I mean this is not an
agreement that will allow India to be on an equal basis with the other
nuclear weapons states," Makhijani said.

"I am still not in favor of this (Indo-US) agreement, essentially
because it will make India vulnerable," he said, noting that the text
of the separation plan tabled in Parliament validated the argument
that he had been making against the deal.

"If there is any IAEA judgment that India has not complied fully with,
then India would be subject to a lot of political pressures for cut
off of nuclear fuel supplies. In such a scenario, since India has
almost no uranium resources and is expanding its nuclear power, this
would make India very vulnerable to US political pressure. The whole
foreign policy of the country would be subject to essentially what
happens in Washington, much more than it is today, and I do not think
that is a desirable thing," Makhijani said.

He said in such a situation, it could come to the kind of political
and diplomatic pressure that is currently being applied on Iran led by
the US, which wants the international community to coalesce with it in
isolating Tehran.

"It could come to that because the US and India are both democracies
and their primary constituencies have to be internal, and so if a day
comes when India does not agree with the United States on some big
issue, as for instance, where it gets its natural gas supplies or how
it gets its natural gas supplies, then there could be serious
repercussions," he said.

Makhijani said: "Today, it is alright because there are only two
reactors involved in import of fuel. But in the future if there are
10,20 or 30 reactors, the whole Indian industrial sector and the
electricity sector could be jeopardized because of disagreements."

"So this is confirmation somewhat of the unequal partnership that
India is entering into with the United States," he said.

Attachment B

Asian Age, May 20, 2006

India Capped

Stagecraft & Statecraft / Brahma Chellaney

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has claimed from the outset that his
vaunted nuclear deal with the US is about nuclear energy and not about
India's strategic programme. Yet his own actions epitomize the
intentional manner the deal has been allowed to ossify into a cap on
India's nuclear military programme, with nuclear energy just the bait.
With Dr. Singh's deferential commitment "to work with the US for the
conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty," the
Americans have now introduced a draft FMCT whose principal target is
India.

The PM's new, expanded list of Indian facilities � tabled in
Parliament on May 11 � shows how in the name of gaining a meretricious
right to import uneconomical power reactors, 37 establishments across
the gamut of India's nuclear capability are being put under permanent
international inspections or, in the case of two, being dismembered.
From basic research to weapons-grade plutonium production capability,
India's nascent nuclear deterrent is being delivered a body blow.
Added to that is the unseemly rush to complete the proposed actions on
most of the 37 facilities within the next four years.

No nation has ever done what India has set out to do. While the five
established nuclear-weapons states together have only 11 installations
under voluntary, revocable International Atomic Energy Agency
"safeguards" at present, India singly is subjecting almost
three-and-a-half times that number of facilities to perpetual,
immutable inspections without even the escape hatch available to a
non-nuclear nation in a state of national contingency � the right of
withdrawal from a commitment. As Condoleezza Rice made clear on April
5, India's legal commitments are unilateral, unrelated to assured fuel
supply, and per se "without condition," with the US reserving the
right to leave India in the lurch if it at any point were to test or
violate IAEA safeguards. Her remarks confirm India's backdoor
accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty through the pending
congressional legislation.

Also, India has gradually expanded the number of facilities it is
sacrificing � from the "one or two" that the Vajpayee government
offered to Dr. Singh's furtive, incremental increases now totalling
37. To deflect attention from the gravity of what Dr. Singh was
preparing to do, the government earlier this year actually
orchestrated a public charade on the fast-breeder programme to take
credit for "saving" the tiny experimental breeder and the
under-construction prototype breeder (which together, according to US
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, have "very limited capability").

The deal's qualitative and quantitative ceilings succeed in "limiting
the size and sophistication of India's nuclear-weapons programme,"
according to Joseph R. Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. The deal has been designed to underpin a
fundamental US goal � to deter the rise of India as a full-fledged
nuclear power that could threaten U.S. global or regional interests.
Not only will the deal widen India's nuclear asymmetry with China, its
US goal jibes well with Pakistan's strategic objectives.

It was M.J. Akbar who had the foresight to explain on these pages why
Pakistan was lucky to escape President George W. Bush's nuclear
embrace. Mr. Akbar stated what nuclear boffins had missed out � that
while a dreamy India had enmeshed itself in a web of onerous,
US-fashioned obligations, Islamabad could be "held down to nothing."
The more the deal has unfolded, the clearer India's disadvantage has
become. And the bigger the US demands have grown.

Indeed, Pakistan's opposition to the deal has been misconstrued in
India. Its opposition is less on substance (it welcomes the capability
limits and one-sided obligations on India) and more on symbolism
(rather than a special exception being carved out for India, it wants
a common standard applicable to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty's non-signatories). Islamabad's strong reaction also sprang
from a foreboding that the deal could open the way for enlargement of
the foothold the US gained in its nuclear programme following the
proliferation scandal in which A.Q. Khan became the scapegoat. But
given its obsessive fixation on parity with New Delhi and clear-eyed
resolve to thwart India's regional pre-eminence, Pakistan has at least
10 reasons to celebrate.

(article abridged)

India's action to import power reactors dependent on imported fuel by
compromising on its vital strategic interests is the 21st-century
equivalent of Sultan Muhammad bin Tuglak's move in 1326 to shift his
capital from Delhi to Devagiri, which he renamed "Daulatabad," or
Abode of Prosperity. India today is being led up the path to a new
Daulatabad where it can entrust its crown jewels for safekeeping.

Attachment C

Nuclear separation to cost India billions
- By Seema Mustafa
Asian Age:

http://www.asianage.com/?sam=2:1:235:230051&headline=Nuclear~separation~to~cost~India~billions

New Delhi, June 10: India will have to spend "tens of billions" of
dollars on separating its military and civilian nuclear facilities,
setting up a new nuclear infrastructure and on dismantling the Cirus
and Apsara reactors.

Nuclear scientists have anonymously floated the figure of $40 billion
for separation and another $60 billion for establishing the proposed
civilian nuclear sector. Significantly, these figures were neither
confirmed nor denied by Department of Atomic Energy chief Anil
Kakodkar when he was questioned about the costs at a press conference.

Informed sources told this correspondent that at this stage even the
government could not cite figures for implementing the finer details
of the US-India civilian nuclear energy agreement, but that it was
safe on the basis of a cursory break-up to predict that the costs
involved would be "staggering" and close to the above figures worked
out by nuclear scientists. For instance, any effort to determine the
cost to the nation of this ambitious exercise of separating the
facilities would have to take into account the billions of dollars
spent in setting up a new facility, refurbishing an old one apart from
what will be spent now on dismantling Cirus, relocating Apsara and
creating additional nuclear facilities in the civilian sector.

The sources said dismantling a radioactive facility was as, if not
more, expensive than setting it up. British newspapers recently
carried a report pointing out that Britain's chancellor of the
exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown, had told ministers that the cost of
cleaning up Britain's nuclear facilities stands at �90 billion,
considerably higher than the earlier figure of �70 billion quoted by
the British government agency overseeing the task. India, for
instance, spent $17 million (with over $9 million coming in from
Canada) on setting up the 40-megawatt Cirus reactor in the 1950s. It
spent more than this in refurbishing it from 1997, and when the task
was completed in 2004 the government announced that this would be good
now for another 20 years. A decision has now been taken under the
nuclear agreement to dismantle it with the cost expected to be far
more than what was spent on construction, taking a conservative total
expenditure on Cirus alone to over $50 million.

In an area where costs are shrouded in secrecy, this is an indication
of what New Delhi will spend in virtually shutting down Cirus and
relocating Apsara. The US has offered eight nuclear reactors for sale
to India with the cost estimated at $20 billion. For this alone the
government will have to spend between two and three billion dollars a
year although the total budget of the Department of Atomic Energy, if
this fiscal year is an indication, is just $2.01 billion.

The government has failed to respond to questions about the costs
involved for India. Nuclear scientists point out that the costs will
be incurred largely through the effort to duplicate the two critical
areas and ensure that the civilian facility does not get used for
military purposes. The government will incur the cost of two nuclear
reactors for every one under construction if it is committed to
keeping the Indian strategic programme intact. India, which has
developed its nuclear programme under sanctions, had cut costs by
using one facility for both civilian and nuclear purposes. Under the
new agreement the military facility might lie idle for long periods,
but the government will not be allowed to use it for civilian
purposes, unlike the P-5, who can move between civilian and military
use at will. This will add to the nation's costs.

The government has not yet spelt out, not even to its strategic
community, whether the agreement will allow it to construct
reprocessing units required for fuelling the fast breeder reactor, for
instance. It is also not clear whether the existing stockpiles will be
kept clear of inventories and signatories, for if these are not so
exempted, then India will not be able to commercialise the fast
breeder reactor or achieve the minimum deterrent level. Sources said
this has not been realised as yet although the government has claimed
that there is no problem on this particular issue.

The question of feasibility has not been addressed by the government
as yet, with scientists still openly worried about how the Department
of Atomic Energy "intends to achieve and maintain such an alien and
artificial situation". Sources pointed out that the strict division of
manpower between civilian and military facilities would be impossible
to maintain, and that faltering on any one of the enforceable promises
made by the government could invite crippling sanctions. The sources
said the figures being cited as possible costs for the separation
should also include the "billions of dollars" incurred by the nation
over the past 50 years in developing a three-stage fast breeder
reactor programme that has virtually been shelved under the Manmohan
Singh government.

Figures in circulation give an idea of the costs involved in setting
up indigenous facilities. These are less than what the nation will
incur after importing the nuclear reactors. The current expenditure
runs at about Rs 6.5 crores per MW with 540 MW TAPS 3 and 4 being set
up at a cost of Rs 6,525 crores, 220 MW RAPS 5 and 6 at Rs 3,072
crores and the 2x1000 MW Kundankulam reactors at Rs 13,171 crores.

The sources pointed out that the purpose of the DAE was to replace
uranium with thorium and that costs should include the loss of revenue
incurred in replacing the world's first thorium reactor with
commercial reactors at three times the cost. The scientific community
is of the view that the US' intention is to cap India's nuclear
weapons capability and "then roll it back to zero". The current US
administration would like to hike costs to a point where India would
have to cap its military capacity automatically, the sources said.