Desicritics Author: Atlantean

Ram Sethu: Should Religion be left out of the Domain of Science?

Atlantean — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:16:19 EDT

There's no evidence to prove that Ram Sethu is a man-made structure. There's no historical evidence to prove that Rama existed and the events portrayed in Ramayana actually occurred - that's what the ASI said in its affidavit to the Supreme Court.

They were actually supposed to tell the court if the Ram Sethu, in their opinion, is a manmade structure or not. They went too far in questioning the existence of Rama itself. The ASI affidavit was later withdrawn.

Strong reactions followed. The pseudo-secular nexus was horrified that the govt. retracted the affidavit. Earlier, in a show of mass anger, sangh parivar groups went berserk stopping traffic and burning vehicles.

Saner minds rightly said the ASI affidavit went a touch too far because the existence of Ram may be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Besides, the absence of evidence should not be confused with the absence of the occurence of an event or a person.

Anyway, others went too far in stating that the existence/nonexistence of Ram (or any other religious figure for that matter) shouldn't be put to the test of science and "matters of faith should be left alone."

Should religion be left out of the domain of science? Should science be used to invalidate the existence of Gods? For all the muck that this issue has thrown up, one good outcome is that it got society debating these two questions.

Hindus (maybe not all Hindus) believe that Rama did exist. Which means that they believe Ram is a mortal - a human being - and not necessarily a God. Ramayana itself portrays Rama as a mortal.

In his classic Ramayana, C. Rajagopalachari states that

The story of Bharata in the Ramayana portraying a character of unrivalled purity and sublime selflessness is something, more than an episode, and stands out by itself even in that noble epic, as holy shrines do on the banks of the Ganga. It uplifts the heart, and gives one a glimpse of the heights to which human nature can rise when cleansed by love and devotion. Whether Rama and Bharata were incarnations of the Deity or merely supreme creations of a nation's imagination this episode is among the masterpieces of the world's literature.

So whether Ram existed or whether Ram is a myth shouldn't be such a cause for worry - both for the pseudo-secular nexus and for the Hindu right.

Ram is an eminently reverential character. He was an ordinary human being who rose to great heights by cultivating qualities that were - after all - human. He was prone to mistakes/errors/sins (whatever you choose to call) and he's even more likeable for that. Here's a man who was an exceptional human being but who was also prone to shortcomings and errors because of his human nature.

This model of a purshottam is much more acceptable to an ordinary human being than some extraordinarily powerful superman who could do anything at any day at any time, vanquish all enemies at will and never fail. Simply because such men don't exist and will never exist and also because such a character is more identifiable to an ordinary human being.

Try as they might, the pseudo-secular nexus will never be able to reduce/diminish the greatness of Ramayana. Its beyond them because Ram will continue to remain in popular consciousness. Outside their scotch-soda parties, where they pontificate on poverty while sipping on expensive scotch, their ideological rants will have no takers. Mass murderers like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot will never make ideal role models.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the view that matters of religion shouldn't be put to the test of science. Though portions of the ASI affidavit were unnecessary, the ASI was certainly within its rights to challenge the historicity of Ram and Ramayana on the nonexistence of evidence.

One may find it's confusion of absence of evidence with the absence of the event/person a fallacy but scientists do make such fallacies.

It is only when religious beliefs evolve with time and new developments in knowledge about the natural world that religions get enriched. Blind beliefs revealed to be as such by findings of science should be discouraged by society.

When they dont evolve and choose to remain "pure" or "authentic", religions become systems of dogma and superstition and not of truth and enlightenment.

Hinduism is lucky to have a tradition of critical analysis but this tradition has gone through tough times as the existence of superstition and caste prejudices in Hindu society shows.

Buddhism is an excellent example of an evolving religion. Beliefs/theories/hypotheses are constantly put to the test against new developments and are changed accordingly. Its an example of "rational religion," if there can be one.

The tradition of critical analysis so integral to Indic religions is precious and should be preserved. Science and religion should be married and not divorced. Science should be the head of the family while religion should dutifully obey the findings of science. Religion should be the homemaker while science should be the guide.

Usually, it is religion which tends to be the more problematic partner refusing to obey the findings of science. Religion should make amends for if the two are locked eternally in conflict, they'd make a bad marriage! Science, on the other hand, should be more patient in trying to make religion understand its new findings instead of adopting a contentious posture.

Should they file a divorce instead? Albert Einstein once said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He was stating a fact. The two may fall out temporarily and sometimes for long durations (for ex., the Dark Age) but cannot avoid marriage and their marriage is important to society and human progress.

The Ram Sethu Issue: Some Racist and Xenophobic Tamils Do Not Represent all of South India

Atlantean — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:02:55 EDT

CNN-IBN asks, in a highly irresponsible interview, " Is Ram Sethu an irrelevant issue down south?" Irresponsible for out of all people, they gave credence to the views of the so-called "Dravidian rationalists" who have such rational claims to Tamil heritage as an ancient continent called Kumari Kandam that was present in the Indian Ocean region and got submerged long time ago.

It is believed that the people in today's South India are the descendants of this ancient mythical continent. This belief is expressed by the same rationalists who claim Lord Ram is a myth and sought to know which engineering college he graduated from.

The Dravidian movement, purportedly based on rationality and opposed to superstition, relies on a mixture of linguistic fanaticism, myths like Kumari Kandam, racism and xenophobia of people with white skin (read "destructive Aryan North Indians") to perpetuate its purely political propaganda. It seeks to paint a supremacist picture of Tamil language, culture and history for its Tamil-nonTamil exclusivist agenda.

The theory on which their movement relies - broadly speaking, invading Aryans from North India imposing their destructive Gods over south Indian Dravidians - has been discredited long time ago by numerous scholars and is today considered pseudo-science.

The rallying points of this political propaganda - a deadly mixture of ethnicity, myths, prejudices against specific groups based on skin colour, origin, caste and language; racism and xenophobia, supremacism and exclusivism is strikingly similar to the rallying points of the Nazis in their destructive genocidal campaign against the Jews.

One can already see the results of this genocidal propaganda - many Tamil Brahmins have left Tamil Nadu and are living in other states and abroad.

Another reason why this interview was irresponsible was the fact that it tried to portray as if all of south India is a monolithic entity and that the Dravidian parties are the main articulators of the issues of south Indians.

The only thing that Tamil Nadu and the other south Indian states have in common is the common roots of their language - proto-Dravidian. Even food habits, though largely similar in nature, show wide variations.

There's a Tamil cuisine and there's a Telugu cuisine, a Kannada cuisine and a Malayali cuisine. Dressing styles are different. Festivals are different. Traditions are different. Societal structure is different.

The outlook of the people is also different. While Dravidian nationalists base their movements on hatred of other groups - attributing the presence of social evils to specific groups, caste or religious (washing their own hands off in the process) - the rest of the people in south India practice a healthy and open outlook towards life without practicing any sort of prejudice or hatred towards specific groups.

They go about solving problems instead of incessantly ranting about them or their supposed creators.

The people of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka do not share the racist, exclusivist, supremacist and xenophobic outlook that some people from Tamil Nadu feel proud about, especially those from the Dravidian rationalist camp. Most people in Tamil Nadu itself don't share this outlook and are quite friendly and hospitable towards others.

This camp is hardly rationalist. All you have to do is read the following claims about Kumari Kandam (from the Wikipedia article):

In modern Dravidian ethnic nationalist literature, Kumari Kandam or "Lemuria" was the "cradle of civilization", the origin of human languages in general and the Tamil language in particular. These ideas gained notability in Tamil academic literature over the first decades of the 20th century, and were popularized by the Tanittamil Iyakkam, notably by self-taught Dravidologist Devaneya Pavanar, who held that all languages on earth were merely corrupted Tamil dialects.

R. Mathivanan, then Chief Editor of the Tamil Etymological Dictionary Project of the Government of Tamilnadu, in 1991 claimed to have deciphered the Indus script as Tamil, following the methodology recommended by his teacher Devaneya Pavanar, presenting the following timeline (cited after Mahadevan 2002):

ca. 200,000 to 50,000 BC: evolution of "the Tamilian or Homo Dravida",
ca. 200,000 to 100,000 BC: beginnings of the Tamil language
50,000 BC: Kumari Kandam civilisation
20,000 BC: A lost Tamil culture of the Easter Island which had an advanced civilisation
16,000 BC: Lemuria submerged
6087 BC: Second Tamil Sangam established by a Pandya king
3031 BC: A Chera prince in his wanderings in the Solomon Island saw wild sugarcane and started cultivation in Tamilnadu.
1780 BC: The Third Tamil Sangam established by a Pandya king
7th century BC: Tolkappiyam (the earliest extant Tamil grammar)

Mathivanan uses "Aryan Invasion" rhetoric to account for the fall of this civilization:

"After imbibing the mania of the Aryan culture of destroying the enemy and their habitats, the Dravidians developed a new avenging and destructive war approach. This induced them to ruin the forts and cities of their own brethren out of enmity".

That, folks, is the rationality that the Dravidian movement actually espouses. An advanced civilization at 20,000 BC, a claim which has no scientific basis whatseover. That sort of thing is usually called pseudo-science.

The entire so-called Dravidian rationalist self respect movement is based on this myth that there was a highly advanced Tamil civilization before humans in other parts of the world even began farming.

This is quite similar to the pseudo-scientific claims that the Ramayana occurred 1.7 million years ago, when human beings haven't yet begun to live in large cities like Ayodhya!

This mixture of myth, pseudoscience, linguistic fanaticism, supremacism and exclusivism under the garb of rationalism results in such rational, peaceful, highly cultured movements like that of the LTTE. There's a striking similarity with the Nazis who also claimed be to rational but went about killing people.

That is why this genocidal political campaign must be exposed for what it is. All right thinking persons should ask themselves why this movement - which claims to fight social evils and superstition on a rational basis - has not been able to root out the same over all these years of having its proponents in power.

Why do these social evils persist? Why is there a need - if this movement had indeed fought to root out caste discrimination- to increase reservations for OBCs, Muslims and Christians in Tamil Nadu taking it to a mind boggling 72%?

Left Begins March to Protest Against "US Imperialism"

Atlantean — Fri, 7 Sep 2007 06:20:11 EDT

Former chief minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu, flagged off a long march to protest against what the Left parties call "US imperialism" and many other issues including India's growing strategic partnership with the US.

The Indian Express reported that as many as 81 comrades from various parties have left Kolkata to Vishakapatnam, headquarters of the Eastern Naval Command.

The immediate target of their protest is the five nation naval exercise going on 500 nm east of Vishakapatnam in the Bay of Bengal. The 6-day exercise involves the navies of India, United States, Australia, Singapore and Japan.

The massive exercise involves atleast 30 warships and includes manoeuvres by three aircraft carriers - USS Kitty Hawk, USS Nimitz and India's own INS Viraat - and an American nuclear submarine USS Chicago.

Two airconditioned Volvo buses have been rented at Rs. 125 per KM. for the pro-poor comrades to ensure their luxury even as they shout pro-poor and anti-imperialist slogans. At the end of the trip, the Left parties have to pay atleast Rs. 2.36 lakh for both the buses. It may be noted that Volvo is a capitalist company.

The senior comrades however would avoid all the clutter and chatter in the buses for more suave SUVs. They would chant pro-poor and anti-imperialist from the SUVs. Most SUVs are manufactured by capitalist companies.

The pro-poor comrades would quench their thirst not from offerings of water from people on the way but from expensive Rs. 12 a bottle Kinley water bottles. Kinley water bottles are manufactured by the Coca-cola company, based in the "imperialist" United States.

It may also be remembered that this particular company has been an object of hate for the Left which had protested against Coca-cola innumerable times in the past. The Coca-cola company is a sign of corporate globalisation and imperialism to the Left.

The most astonishing feature of the protest is that some dont even know what they are protesting against! The Indian Express reports:

Piyali Ghosh, who is part of the five-member contingent from the West Bengal Socialist Party, was one of them. "I don't know which five countries are participating, dada. I know nothing about the Hyde Act. We will come to know these things when we reach Vizag," said Ghosh, a resident of Manicktala.

Echoed Arup Chowdhury of the Progressive Students' Union, the student wing of RSP: "This much I know that we are fighting a grim battle against the US which is trying to snatch our freedom."

Expensive airconditioned Volvo buses, expensive SUVs, expensive water bottles - all products of capitalist "imperialist" economies - would carry and accompany the pro-poor Left parties in their protest march against US imperialism and its capitalistic hegemony.

500 nm east of Vishakapatnam in the Bay of Bengal, the five nation war games exercise continues smoothly.

Latest Hyderabad Blasts And Mecca Masjid Blasts - A Possible Connection?

Atlantean — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:47:31 EDT

A friend of mine pointed to a very interesting fact he found in the Eenadu newspaper - that the Hyderabad blasts have occurred exactly on the 100th day after the 18th May Mecca Masjid Blasts.

I don't know what the importance of this fact is but it does seem to have some symbolic relation to the latest blasts.

It is really unfortunate that the national media hasn't made an effort to bring up "links" like this. Are they sleeping? It is always better to get hold of regional newspapers to get more close-to-the-ground information for incidents like this.

For those of you who can read Telugu, here's the link to the Eenadu article that pointed out this fact:

The link seems to be a Daily Pioneer type link. The article at this link may be replaced by another one by tomorrow. For reference, an English translation is provided below of the pertinent section. A copy of the entire article is on my blog.

Heading: What are the answers to these questions?

1. Of what significance is the fact that the blasts occurred on the same day Rs. 2. 36 crores of fake currency, suspected to have been brought to Hyderabad by Dawood Ibrahim's gang, was confiscated in the old city?

2. What is indicated by the fact that these blasts have occurred exactly on the 100th day of the Mecca Masjid Blasts?

3. Was the Mecca Masjid attack actually a failed serial blast attempt? Is this blast intended to make up for the "failure" of the Mecca Masjid blasts?

4. What is indicated by the fact that these blasts occurred exactly 20 days before the Ganesh Navratri celebrations begin in the city?

5. These blasts have occurred in the same month in which the perpetrators of the 1993 Mumbai blasts were awarded punishments. Is there any link?

Most of these links are actually silly. 1, 4 and 5 are remote links. 2 and 3, however, are interesting.

Thoughts on the Hyderabad Blasts

Atlantean — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:16:13 EDT

I did not experience any sort of reaction for an hour after hearing of the Hyderabad blasts on television. Maybe I was stunned at seeing the images. Maybe I was used to terror attacks in India. This is just another act in the string of terrorist attacks that began with 1993 isnt it?

Was I getting immunized to it all? Politicians keep reminding us that we are a peaceful people who should exercise restraint and not react. What's the big deal? What terrorism, why the hell don't you shut up and go about your silly life, eh?

Maybe it was because I did not want to believe it actually happened. That too in a city where I was born and spent seven important years of my life with my grandparents who still live there. Hyderabad is a place I call home apart from the nearby town of Nalgonda where I went to school. To realize that this same city was hit by a major terrorist attack was very difficult. It took time to sink in, a lot of time.

The Mecca Masjid blasts were terrifying enough. Imagine the terror after a bomb goes off at place where people come to pray! It generated enough disturbance. Hyderabad could've done without another one.

But no, say the perpetrators of the latest blasts. "We'll keep coming at you, we'll kill you, injure you, you, your friends and family members. We'll make life a living hell for you. Every time you step out of the house for a movie or the planetarium, you'll be reminded of what can happen." That seems to be the motive behind the attacks.

The location and timing of the attacks point to a shift in the kind of targets chosen. For the past decade, most attacks have occurred in either places or worship, trains and railways stations or market places. In places of worship, the obvious objective is to generate communal passions and engender a post-Godhra kind of incident.

Trains, railway stations and market places are heavily crowded and the objective of attacks in these places is to kill and injure as many people as possible. In London and Madrid, the targets were either airports, trains or busy roads. On 9/11/2001, a business center was targeted. In Hyderabad, however, bomb attacks have taken place not in places of worship or crowded trains or market places but in amusement centers.

Lumbini Park, Gokul Chat and Venkatadri Theatre are all places where people go to have a good time. These places experience the heaviest rush in the week on Saturday evening, which is also the time when the bombs went off.

The foot overbridge in Dilsukhnagar, where an unexploded bomb was found, was the only target whose nature is different from the other three.

Whoever planned the attacks knew the city extremely well. This points to the involvement of locals. Lumbini Park, Gokul Chat and Venkatadri Theater are places that are hardly known to people outside Andhra Pradesh.

Those who know Lumbini Park outside AP must be knowing it only from tourism information about Hyderabad. Gokul Chat is one of the most popular eating joints in Hyderabad. Outside AP, however, the only people who would be knowing about this place would be those who heard about it from friends or family members.

Venkatadri Theater is not known to many people in Hyderabad itself, leave alone people outside the state. This theater is just one among at least a 100 movie theaters that are spread throughout the city. People usually watch movies at theatres close to their residence instead of going to the other end of the city for the same. It is unlikely that a person staying in Kukatpally would ever go to Dilsukhnagar to watch a movie.

Whoever chose the targets knew the city's life very well. Most Hyderabadis remain busy from Monday to Friday. Saturday evening is when they come out and go for movies, parks and other entertainment centres. Sunday is when they go shopping.

The planners also knew about the fan following that both Lumbini Park and Gokul Chat have. They are aware that on Saturday evening, these two places would be filled to their capacity and a bomb explosion at this time would achieve maximum damage. (Fortunately, it was raining and Lumbini Park which can accommodate 2000 people saw only 500 people at the time of the blasts; rain and heavy traffic also prevented many, including a friend of mine, from entering the Gokul Chat area.)

A person who lives outside the city and Andhra Pradesh would hardly be knowing all this. Unless locals offered help, it is highly unlikely that an outsider could have planned the attacks to such perfection.

But it is too early to say who. We may only speculate. Everybody has an impression that Hyderabad is new to terrorism but whoever thinks so ignores the presence that jihadi elements have enjoyed in the city and surrounding sleepy towns like Nalgonda. This blast, of course, is going to change this impression.

The police, reassured by the absence of any major terror attack in Hyderabad so far, have received a rude shock with the Mecca Masjid blasts and now this blast. Who knows? This might be a blessing in disguise.

A friend of mine wryly noted that the only solution for terrorism in Hyderabad is for Osama bin Laden to set up base here. If that happens, the CIA would be behind him and will cleanse Hyderabad of terror elements!

India has the one of the poorest records in fighting terrorism. Terrorist attacks occur in this country with an unfailing regularity and yet, nothing changes.

Both central and state govts in India (especially the Congress headed ones as this article notes) have been absolutely inept at countering terrorism. As my friend joked, maybe we should outsource the job to the CIA or Scotland Yard if we cant do it ourselves!

Addressing Criticism On The Indo-US Nuclear Deal

Atlantean — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:09:44 EDT

The Indo-US nuclear deal has generated some debate at Desicritics. I have argued in favour of nuclear energy and that the 7% contribution that nuclear energy would be making towards India's energy mix in 2031-32 is in no way an insignificant contribution. There has been some criticism in response, some of it poorly informed and weakly argued.

The points of criticism are the following:

1. Nuclear is costlier than thermal energy. So its better to abandon nuclear energy in favour of more thermal, hydro, solar and wind power plants.

Is nuclear energy expensive? Yes, it is expensive. The per unit cost of nuclear power is greater than that of thermal power. Some gentlemen have argued that this is reason enough to abandon nuclear power. This is an absurd argument.

The prime concern of India's energy policy is to pursue all options to satisfy existing and future demands so as to achieve energy independance by 2050. The "reasonable cost" provision in the energy policy seems to have been misinterpreted.

Whether one form of energy is costlier than the other is irrelevant. If we go by the convoluted logic that we should abandon nuclear power because it is costlier than thermal and hydel power, then India should stop generating all other forms of power whose per unit costs are greater than thermal and reduce its options to only thermal and hydel. Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal should be abandoned because all these forms of power are costlier than thermal power.

Solar power has a lot of promise for it is renewable, nonpolluting and reliable. However, solar power is expensive to generate especially in large quantities. The per unit cost of solar power is higher than thermal power. Yet, India is looking to rapidly accelerate its solar power capacity. Why? Because the benefits of going for solar power far outweigh the costs incurred.

A similar argument can be offered in favour of nuclear power too. Nuclear power has its own disadvantages but they are far outweighed by the benefits as experience in countries which used nuclear power successfully, like France, has shown. Basing opposition to nuclear power solely on cost per unit is narrow and myopic to say the least.

Some also peddle the untruth that imported nuclear fuel will be expensive than what we are using now. Indian domestic uranium, which is being used to fuel almost all our plants, is almost four times as costly as imported uranium because of the mining and production costs. If the Indo-US deal is operationalised and the NSG's uranium reserves are freed for export to India, India would be getting (ready to use) uranium at very cheap rates compared to domestic uranium.

By using expensive domestic uranium, we have spent too much in generating nuclear power so far. Besides, Indian uranium is also notoriously low grade. We have been using a very dirty kind of Uranium for the past few decades.

The Indo-US deal would ensure that we get cheaper and also better quality uranium. To stop the deal would be harakiri for India's nuclear energy goals. Not only that, it would condemn India to using low quality and expensive Uranium for all time to come.

2. Nuclear energy is anyway not going to make up more than 6.4% of our energy mix. So why go for it?

I have already explained before in another article why this is an incorrect way of thinking for 6.4% when converted into absolute numbers gives us quite a large amount - enough to power up several metropolitan areas.

Those who have used this line of thinking also need to know about India's power shortage. India experiences chronic power shortage. In 2004-05, the peak shortage varied from 0 to 25.4% with an all-India average of 11.7%. At the same time, India's nuclear power capacity was 3% of the total. If this wasnt present, the average power shortage could've gone up by several notches.

3. Nuclear energy is unsafe. Because nuclear plants are going to cause lots of damage if there's an accident, we should not build them.

This is silly. After the Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984 (which mind you was far more damaging than the Three Mile Island accident in which not a single casualty could be identified), did we shut down all chemical factories? Our response was not a knee jerk close-all-pesticide-manufacturing-units response but to make our environmental and safety regulations stricter.

If nuclear plants (or any other industrial unit for that matter) are prone to risks, the solution lies in improving safety standards to minimise risks, not in abandoning nuclear power itself.

People dont stop sailing just because ships can sink. They make sure ships are designed and operated safely. The RMS Titanic disaster killed 1500 people. People didnt stop building ships and today we build ships which are a lot bigger and safer.

4. Some say India is self sufficient in nuclear technology. Technology imports under the Indo-US deal would be too less and too late. They say we are well advanced in Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PWHR) and Fast Breeder (FBR) technology. What is the deal going to get us?

Yes we are selfsufficient and advanced in Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) and Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) technology. There's no doubt about that.

But here's the point - we are not actually looking to import Heavy Water Reactors and Fast Breeders!

The sole issue here is to improve our nuclear generation capacity (using uranium) without disturbing the indigenous three stage nuclear program. That's where we lack. We first lack the uranium and then lack the technology to make use of it cheaply and safely. This is where Light Water Reactor (LWR) technology comes in.

Light Water Reactors, unlike Heavy Water Reactors, use water as a moderator in place of heavy water. Water acts as the coolant too. Due to their design and functioning, LWRs are much cheaper, simpler and safer to operate than Heavy Water Reactors.

The most important advantage is that they are far less susceptible to Chernobyl type accidents because of the nature of the cooling and moderator system - if the core temperature increases, the reactor automatically shuts down. This safety feature is an inherent part of the design and functioning of the reactor. A Chernobyl type explosion due to runaway reactor core heating is impossible.

India, which has sufficiently advanced technology in HWRs and FBRs, lacks LWR technology. This is the reason the Department of Atomic Energy is looking to import LWR tecnology from foreign countries. In 1998, India signed a technology agreement with Russia to help build a 2 GW capacity Advanced Light Water Reactor plant at Koodankulam.

Here's a telling argument for nuclear technology and fuel imports from the Integrated Energy Policy 2006 report of the Planning Commission (Chapter 3 - Supply Options):

India is poorly endowed with Uranium. Available Uranium supply can fuel only 10,000MW of the Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR). Further, India is extracting Uranium from extremely low grade ores (as low as 0.1% Uranium) compared to ores with up to 12-14% Uranium in certain resources abroad. This makes Indian nuclear fuel 2-3 times costlier than international supplies. The substantial Thorium reserves can be used but that requires that the fertile Thorium be converted to fissile material. In this context, a three-stage nuclear power programme is envisaged. This programme consists of setting up of Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) in the first stage, Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) in the second stage and reactors based on the Uranium 233-Thorium 232 cycle in the third stage. It is also envisaged that in the first stage of the programme, capacity addition will be supplemented by electricity generation through Light Water Reactors (LWRs), initially through imports of technology but with the long-term objective of indigenisation. PHWR technology was selected for the first stage as these reactors are efficient users of natural Uranium for yielding the plutonium fuel required for the second stage FBR programme. The FBRs will be fuelled by plutonium and will also recycle spent Uranium from the PHWR to breed more plutonium fuel for electricity generation. Thorium as blanket material in FBRs will produce Uranium 233 to fire the third stage.

So far from being an option without which India can continue its nuclear power programme without problems, the Indo-US deal would actually accelerate the same programme.

The report further notes that "the pace of development of nuclear power is constrained by the rate at which plutonium can be bred... If India is able to import nuclear fuel, the process can be accelerated. The Indo-US deal would help us do that.

5. Another belief is that solar and wind energy can fill the requirements that would otherwise be filled by nuclear power.

There's no doubt we should increase our solar and wind power generation capacity. Unfortunately, in India's present and future scenario, solar, wind and nuclear power are not replacements for each other.

For a country of 1.5 billion population, the contribution of solar and wind energy would be minute. Solar and wind can work for small countries like Denmark or large countries with meagre population like Australia but in India - with its population and projected demand for electricity - solar and wind energy would be insufficient.

The IEP2006 Report takes note of this. It states that "... even if India somehow succeeds in raising the contribution of renewable energy by over 40 times by 2031-32 inclusive of a renewable power capacity of 1,00,000 MW (compared to 6,161 MW as on March 2005), the contribution of renewables to our energy mix will not go beyond 5.6% of total energy required in 2031-32."

6. Some have stated that my assessment that India would can produce 56,000 MW through nuclear power by 2031-32 if everything goes well is way too optimistic.

It needs to be borne in mind before calling the estimates optimistic or pessimistic that all such numbers are projected rises. These projections are made to be used as yardsticks using which the energy policy can be planned. What actually transpires nobody knows. The IEP2006 Report notes:

The projections in Table 2.7 assume exploitation of full hydro potential of 1,50,000 MW in the country, a capacity addition of 63,000 MW from nuclear power sources and a 14,000 MW capacity from wind farms by 2031-32. These scenario assumptions in respect of hydro and nuclear may not be fully realised and are made here in order to characterise the boundaries of alternative choices.

The IEP 2006 Report states that by 2031-32, India's installed generating capacity should increase to 800,000 MW. In this, 63,000MW will be made up by nuclear power in an "optimistic scenario" and 48,000 MW in a "pessimistic scenario." The "optimistic scenario" assumes that India can import a total of 8,000 MW of LWRs with fuel over the next ten years. If the nuclear deal is sabotaged, this will not be possible.

Both the scenarios "assume that the FBR technology is successfully demonstrated by the 500 MW PFBR currently under construction, new Uranium mines are opened for providing fuel for setting up additional PHWRs, India succeeds in assimilating the LWR technology through import and develops the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor for utilising Thorium by 2020."

The Department of Atomic Energy is actually working towards attaining 20,000 MWe of generating capacity by 2020. If the monopolisation of uranium by the NSG continues and India's nuclear fuel supplly scenario remains as it is, India would be forced to import and burn more coal for the contribution of renewables would be meagre and insufficient. That's not desirable.

Conclusion

I hope I have addressed some of the concerns expressed by critics. I maintain that nuclear energy is necessary for India's long term energy security and that concerns of cost and safety that were expressed are not strong enough to abandon nuclear energy itself as an option. Solar and wind energy will be pursued but their contribution would be insufficient to replace nuclear energy as an option.

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal would help break the unfair supply monopoly enjoyed by the NSG with respect to India and ensure freeing of the NSG's fuel reserves to provide India with a cheaper as well as better quality uranium fuel for India's nuclear reactors. For India to abandon the Indo-US Nuclear Deal would be to deny itself the legitimate right to import the same.

Communist Opposition To The Nuclear Deal - The 7% Solution

Atlantean — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:47:16 EDT

Any fool would have realized by now that the Left's opposition to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal has more to do with its Third World infantilism, rabid xenophobia of the United States and brotherly love for China than with India's national interest.

All the nonsense that they've been babbling for the past few days is just a cover - that this deal will take away India's sovereignty (like sovereignty is something that can be put in a plastic bag and carried away), that this deal will "suck" India into the "imperialist designs" of the United States, that India will be "used as a counterweight" to China etc.

The Left say that their opposition to the deal is in India's national interest. But the following statement by Mr. Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), had me stunned:

The major pitch being made for the nuclear cooperation agreement is that it will help India meet its energy needs. This ignores the very limited contribution that nuclear power makes to our overall energy generation which is just 3 per cent and which cannot exceed 7 per cent even if the ambitious plans for expansion are implemented in the next 25 years.

Note the rashness with which Mr. Karat dismisses nuclear energy's contribution to India's future energy mix as a "very limited contribution" and makes it a matter of mere numbers. I dont see any Indian national interest oozing out of that sentence. Mr. Karat's I-care-a-damn attitude towards India's longterm energy security is clearer than his white hair.

Yes, 7% is a very small number in absolute numbers. But when you look at it from an energy security point of view, especially if you are a planner, that's a number that should make your mouth water. 7% is not exactly a "very limited contribution" if we consider India's population and India's mammoth future energy needs. Why?

The 7% that Mr. Karat talks about comes from the Planning Commissions's Integrated Energy Policy report of the Expert Committee (August 2006.) These are the relevant lines:

... even if a 20-fold increase takes place in India's nuclear power capacity by 2031-32, the contribution of nuclear energy to India's energy mix is also, at best, expected to be 4.0-6.4%. If the recent agreement with the US translates into a removal of sanctions by the nuclear suppliers' group, possibilities of imports of nuclear fuels as well as power plants should be actively considered so that nuclear development takes place at a faster pace.
Nuclear energy theoretically offers India the most potent means to longterm energy security. India has to succeed in realising the three-stage development process described in the main report and thereby tap its vast thorium resource to become truly energy independent beyond 2050. Continuing support to the three-stage development of India's nuclear potential is essential. (page 23, link [PDF])

So, rather than ditching the deal because nuclear energy would form only 6.4% of India's energy mix in 2031-32, the Planning Commission advises India to go for the Indo-US Nuclear Deal so that nuclear energy development is accelerated.

Contrast this Mr. Karat's convoluted logic that India should ditch the deal because nuclear energy would meet only 7% of our needs after 25 years. Instead of going for the deal because it would help us in getting us our 6.4%, Mr. Karat wants to ditch it for the same reason!

If we fall for Mr. Karat's sophistry, then we should stop improving our solar energy and wind energy base as they would make only a "very limited contribution" to India's energy mix after 25 years. We should also stop the Multirole Combat Aircraft acquisition in its tracks as it would add just 126 new fighters to our Air Force, which already operates 1430 combat aircraft - a "very limited contribution" of 9%. See!

By 2031-32, India's population will be roughly 1.5 billion. If we divide 100% among 1.5 billion, 7% comes to 105 million people. By no stretch of imagination is 105 million an insignificant number. Australia's current population is 20 million!

By 2031-32, India would be generating nearly 800,000 MW of electrical power. 7% of that is 56,000 MW. To give you an idea of how much power that is, Delhi's power demand in June 2005 was 3600 MW (link[PDF].) This means that with the "very limited contribution" of 7% i.e., 56000 MW, India can power up 15 Delhis - 15 major economic centers!

How many villages can 56000 MW power up? Imagine a village with 100 families with an average power demand of 2KW per family. The total demand of the village will be 2000 KW, which is 2 MW. 56,000 MW of power from nuclear plants can power up 28,000 such villages, which in turn comes to 2.8 million families.

No idiot would ever call that a "very limited contribution" except, of course, Mr. Karat and his friends from the Left.

This is what our nation has come to. A bunch of white haired old farts who dont have more than 5% of the popular vote are deciding what is good or bad for India and dictating its foreign policy. By dismissing nuclear energy's contribution to India's future energy mix as a "very limited contribution", Mr. Karat is behaving as if this country and its people are his baap ka jaagir.

Sitaram Yechury, D. Raja, Jyoti Basu, Mr. and Mrs. Karat will be better off resigning from politics and spending the rest of their lives singing rhymes to their children instead. Or confine their goondagiri to their pet states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura and spare the rest of India.

India is going to need energy. Mr. Karat and his fellows will always be assured of their uninterrupted power for their tubelights and ceiling fans in their office rooms today or tomorrow but the people will be assured of energy only when India grabs all opportunities that come its way. Judging by India's future needs, even a source which can contribute 0.1% should be pursued hard. 0.1% in 2031-32 would be 800MW, enough to power up 400 villages with 100 families each.

To maintain even 1% economic growth, India will need enormous amounts of energy. India shouldnt fall for the Left's convoluted logic and endanger its future.

Mohammad Haneef - Terror Suspect Turned Celebrity

Atlantean — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:26:57 EDT

Alright! Enough euphoria. Mohammad Haneef was not a superstar. He was a terror suspect. The Australian police goofed up. They found a remote link (SIM card) to terrorism but could not find any solid evidence.

However, it is to be noted that just because the Aussies couldn't find any evidence against Haneef, it doesn't mean Haneef is not at all linked to terrorism. To think otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

There should be further investigation to establish that this guy is as clean as the media, the Indian govt. and civil liberties groups want him to be.

The question:

What is the Indian govt. going to do when Mohammad Haneef returns to India?

Will Indian police do their own investigation (for they are in a better position to investigate than the Aussies) or will the govt., the media and civil liberties groups just roll out a red carpet and arrange superstar treatment for the terror suspect-turned-celebrity when he returns?

Haneef couldn't be charged by the Aussies because of lack of solid supporting evidence. He was kept in solitary confinement for a few days. Civil liberties groups cried human rights violations. They accused Australian law of being draconian.

Most of them however forget that it is the same apparently draconian Australian law that saved the day for Haneef. The unspoken rule of police anywhere in the universe - if you're guilty, you'll be proved guilty; if you're innocent, you'll be set free - has been forgotten.

Before Haneef was set free, everybody got into judgment. If he was arrested in India or USA, he'd have spent much much longer in a cell.

We are in some obscure building in a dirty and smoky Indian city infested with free roaming criminals and fearless goondas thousands of miles away from Australia where Haneef is being held but we KNOW Haneef is an innocent man!

We know everything that even the police in Australia don't know. How? Don't ask. We're the media, we're the civil liberties groups, we're the Indian govt. We just know. Don't ask. Just fuckin' release Haneef now! Or you're violating human rights.

Some newspapers in India even accused Australia of racism but couldn't care to attach a minor note for those of us who are less gifted explaining why arresting and taking Haneef into detention was racist.

The threshold of racism has been so lowered by the world media, especially the India media, that if a white man does something bad to a black man, it is racism. Full stop!

We need not care to see if the black man has been arrested because of his skin colour or the fact that he'd been found in possession of a SIM card which linked him to terrorists.

The utter perversion of the public discourse in India has reached a dangerous level. Hundreds of poorly paid and poorly equipped police officers, men with families, are killed every year in the jungles and cities of India.

They're never noticed by the media. A terror suspect, however, gets celebrity status just because he'd been arrested and questioned by a nation which believes in itself, its values, its laws, cares for its citizens and, unlike India, doesn't routinely fail in delivering justice to victims of terrorism, rape, child molestation, murder, rioting and robbery.

The perversion discomforts. It worries. It deludes. It takes us farther away from reason - for example, it makes us commit the logical fallacy of believing that Haneef is innocent just because no evidence had yet been found against him.

However, the evidence may be found tomorrow, it may be found in Bangalore or it may be found in London. But we've been made to feel that it'll never be found. That Haneef is innocent no matter what.

Now that we are extremely relieved and even jubilant that Haneef had been cleared of all charges, I'd love to see the same enthusiasm being displayed when we talk of punishing the perpetrators of Varanasi Sankat Mochan, Delhi Oct 2005, IISc Bangalore, Mumbai 7/11 etc.

In case you don't know or forgot, not a single person has been tried in relation to the Mumbai 7/11 blasts. The victims of this atrocity also need some of your high funda, modern, secular, forward looking, civil libertarian attention so that they too get a little share of what you want Haneef to get - justice.

Even if you cant spare as much time for them as you do in fighting for terrorists' human rights, a little attention, a shoulder to weep on, an employment opportunity for the widowed women, financial support for the orphaned children and medical support for the injured and amputated would more than satisfy them.

All these are actually innocent. No SIM cards were found to link them with any terrorist nor do they have any cousins who drove flaming jeeps full of explosives into airports with hundreds of innocent people. Let's fight for their justice too. Let's fight for their human rights too.

Shall we?

Ten Defining Moments of Independent India

Atlantean — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:12:23 EDT

Which ten years do you think define 60 yeas of independent India? Vote and make history.

That is the question being put by the CNN-IBN special "60 Defining Moments." The options are available on this page.

These are my votes. Options are in italics followed by my own comments:

1. India becomes a Republic, January 26, 1950

This is, by far, the most defining moment of the Republic of India. After centuries of foreign rule, economic exploitation, hunger and starvation, humiliation, corruption, superstition and dogma, the people of India now pledged to give to themselves what was long denied to them:

*Equality
*Liberty of thought, belief and expression
*Justice
*Rule of law
*Sovereignty

2. Green Revolution, 1967

During the time period, 1851 to 1901, 28.8 million Indians died in famine alone. Even as late as 1943, a famine in Bengal killed 3 million people, called a Holocaust by some writers.

Just 25 years after the Great Bengal Famine, India embarked on the most successful Green Revolution project in the world. At the end of the decade 1967-1978, India became one of the largest farm producers in the world.

3. India-Pakistan War, creation of Bangladesh. December 1971

This victory is very important for it proved wrong a theory that made India's independence in 1947 a bitter experience. It was Allama Iqbal, who began articulating the flawed Two Nations "Theory", in a speech in 1930. In 1947, the demand for a separate Islamic state of Pakistan was conceded and Pakistan was born in 1947.

By 1971, the belief that Muslims living within an Islamic state would be safer than in a secular state was proved wrong for Muslims turned against Muslims in the "land of the pure" and committed unspeakable atrocities on each other in East Pakistan.

Muslim men raped thousands of Muslim women and Muslim men killed thousands of Muslim men as the Pakistan Army went mad over the Bangladeshi freedom movement.

India, faced with the prospect of millions of refugees from East Pakistan swamping West Bengal, launched one of the finest military campaigns after World War II. India won a decisive victory and took 90,000 Pakistanis as POW, one of the largest surrenders ever effected.

This is the second reason why 1971 is important for it established that India is now a regional power that is capable of using its military to influence peoples' lives in its neighbourhood. The 1971 victory also showed that a kuffar nation can come to the aid of Muslims elsewhere in times of need.

4. First Nuclear Explosion, Pokhran 1 - 1974

No more messing with India, we can strike back with the deadliest of weapons - that was the message India gave to the world in 1974. This event also helped India's civilian nuclear energy program in a huge way.

5. Emergency's hard lessons. June 26, 1975

This showed that:

1. Democracy by itself is no protection against totalitarianism.

2. Indira Gandhi's election defeat in 1977 showed that India's people could really put their vote to good use.

3. If Indira's defeat in 1977 showed what Indians armed with votes can do, her return to power in 1980 also showed that the Indian voter's memory is short. It also showed that yesterday's villains can return to be today's heroes - a political reality of India and a shame.

6. SLV-3 satellite launcher succeeds. July 18, 1980

India, the land of elephants, snake charmers, bullock carts, funny accents, smelly people, now launched its own satellite. This event began India's journey to the elite club of space powers to which it belongs today.

India now has satellite/spacecraft recovery capabilities, geosynchronous launch capabilities, cryogenic propulsion (coming soon), 1 metre resolution imagery and is also planning a mission to the moon - all in a gap of about three decades. ISRO's commercial arm, Antrix, is involved in launching foreign satellites.

This achievement is particularly dear to my heart. One of Jawaharlal Nehru's wishes was to see all Indians develop a spirit of scientific inquiry. We have a very long way to go on this but space and satellite programs contribute a lot.

As a kid, I used to feel proud (and still do) every time India launched a satellite successfully. I'm waiting for the day when an Indian spacecraft would land on the moon.

7. India wins the World Cup. June 25, 1983

This is one of the most memorable events in independent India's history. I wasn't yet born in 1983 but I can imagine the scale of celebrations in India after India won the final. For once, it made Indians, underachievers for centuries, feel on top of the world.

8. Economic liberalisation. June 1991

Before the British consolidated their hold on India, India controlled a quarter of the world's trade under Akbar The Great. For many times before, India was at the top of the list of countries by GDP. This had declined to a minuscule percentage by the time the British left India.

According to a study done by Angus Madison, an economic historian, "India had the world's largest economy in the 1st century and 11th century, with a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century and 28.9% in 1000 CE."

After the British marauders left India, it was the turn of another set of marauders to loot India - India's political and bureaucratic class. The nation's founding fathers, in their belief in socialism (good in intentions mind you), laid down the infrastructure to facilitate the continuation of the Great Loot of India.

By 1991, it was apparent that this infrastructure wasnt delivering what it intended to and was partially dismantled.

The "end of the license raj" (it by no means ended) came in 1991 as India liberalised its economy and made the consumer, not the politician-bureaucrat-JNU economist-businessman nexus, the ultimate king of the Indian economy.

The loot still continues but its ability to suppress economic activity is now greatly reduced.

If all the predictions are true, India's enterprising and intelligent enterpreneurs may slowly climb to the position of being leading players in world trade.

9. Telecom revolution. 1995

I remember the black telephone, in my childhood, with a dial on it and the funny sound the dial used to make as you turned it with your finger. The telephone was a special object. Not everybody got to touch it. Calls should be made only when absolutely necessary. STD calls were few and quick.

The telephone was out of reach of much of the middle class, leave alone the poor.

All that has changed dramatically. You can now make a landline call on AirTel from Delhi to Hyderabad at Rs. 1 per minute. Local calls and SMS also comes very cheap. All you need is Rs. 700 to get a sleek colour screen Reliance mobile.

The telecom revolution in India is a spectacular success. It has succeeded in bringing basic communication within the reach of the common man.

Not just that but telecom also acts as a "force multiplier" for all kinds of businesses, big and small. The telecom revolution has accelerated economic activity.

10. RTI Act. June 15, 2005

When you pay taxes and charges, wouldn't you like to know how they are being used and for what? The Right to Information should have been a part of Art. 19(1) in 1950 itself.

With the RTI Act, at least now every Indian has a right to demand information from ministries and bureaucrats though there are many obstacles to its implementation from vested interests.

We have made a lot of achievements in the past 60 years but I'm sure these will be dwarfed by what we are going to achieve in the future. Long way to go. No complacency, only action.

India Joins Distinguished Club of Terror-Exporting Countries

Atlantean — Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:52:45 EDT

Our distinguished Prime Minister, whose distinguished record as the head of the Indian government is marked by such distinguished achievements like the abolishment of POTA and failure to crack a single terrorism case from Varanasi Sankat Mochan to Mumbai 7/11 among other things, has had sleepless nights over what he calls "labeling of people as Muslim or non-Muslim."

We don't know whether he lost sleep over the hundreds of innocents who were killed, hundreds who were injured in recent terror attacks and many more who were maimed but in the absence of any statement to express if he did, we can assume that he did not.

In fact, we know that when he visited Mumbai after 7/11, bystanders said that he might as well have been taking a walk in the park! The robotic expression on his face did not convey any symptoms of insomnia.

More words of wisdom followed. He stated emphatically, with conviction based on God-knows-what, that "terrorists are terrorists, terrorists have no religion or nationality!" He didn't tell us why.

He called up the British PM and warned against labeling any community as responsible for the attempts to commit mass murder in Glasgow and London. He also made a passing offer to help in the investigations, just in case the British PM doubted his intentions in making the call.

The Indian media, civil society and Muslim groups jumped on the bandwagon and made the statement front page news. The myth "terrorists are terrorists, terrorists have no religion or nationality" is being spread again, this time with Prime Ministerial sanction. Many want us to fall for this myth.

Those of us who don't agree are immediately branded Hindutva fascist, right wingers, anti-Muslim bigots etc.

Whenever an Indian wins a business deal overseas or whenever an Indian businessman goes big in the West, we celebrate. We celebrate the fact that Indian students are among the best performing in Western schools and colleges.

Even if it is someone who is merely of Indian origin (and not an Indian citizen), like Sunita Williams, we pray for them and celebrate their successes. We celebrate the fact that we are among the most law abiding minorities in the West.

But when an Indian does something bad abroad, we disown him. We are law abiding but when someone amongst us breaks law, we take away his Indian identity. So there you have it - we are the most law abiding because those who break the law are not Indians. Simple!

This is sheer hypocrisy. We want to claim the good things as ours and disown the bad things with politically correct nonsense like "terrorists have no religion or nationality." When a PIO does a space walk, her nationality becomes Indian but when an Indian citizen attempts mass murder on foreign soil he becomes a mythical "terrorist who has no religion or nationality."

The fact is an Indian who is also a Muslim has attempted to commit mass murder on foreign soil. If you think these guys have no religion, you can go and ask their parents and the local mullahs if they are Muslims are not.

Let's be bold enough and accept this hard fact instead of denying it and satisfying and deluding ourselves with politically correct bullshit like "terrorists have no religion or nationality."

How long will this self denial continue? Even Islamo-fascism apologist and pseudo-liberal, Barkha Dutt, has confessed, though she had to apportion the blame to the Indian Right, in case her secular credentials be questioned:

[...]This week, an emotional Prime Minister met some of us at his house and argued that terrorism had no nationality or religion. He warned against the labelling and stereotyping of communities and said that after he had heard the mother of the arrested doctors break down on national television, he lay awake all night.

The Prime Minister’s empathy and liberalism is laudable. But the fact is that if three Indian citizens are actually found guilty in this terror plot, we cannot afford to disown their nationality. For too long now, our instinctive need to protect India’s minorities from the onslaught of the Right has prevented us from looking at this issue honestly. We hesitate to use the word Islam and Terrorism in the same sentence. But we can no longer allow political correctness to obfuscate the debate. It may help to know that even the conservative clerics of the Jama Masjid in Delhi recently took the initiative to debate why radicalism had permeated their religion.

The need of the hour is a frank examination of what led these three to commit mass murder, not flawed political correctness and denial. Such frank examination is long overdue.

I conclude that:

1. Indian society is also an exporter of terrorism now. Maybe there's still no Al Qaeda but it doesn't matter.

2. These terrorists are Indian and Muslim. We cannot delude ourselves and think otherwise and take away their religion and nationality.

3. A frank examination of what led these three Indian Muslims to murder people thousands of miles away and an open debate on radical Islam in India is needed.

4. Lastly, let us not sacrifice truth at the altar of a flawed political correctness.