More on the Indo-US Deal

I had earlier promised not to post further on this issue. But, it does not seem to leave us at all. The Americans want it, the PM is willing to sacrifice the government at one time and only his chair at other time for it (nothing is clear and neither seems to be happening, poor Deva Gowda). The Congress wants it, now, BJP too seems to want it (so if there is a chance of them coming back, it would come up again) and the US Ambassdor is talking to them too. Only the Communists are between the deal and the Nation, bless them for that. Here is one more news item that calculates the economics of the deal -

American Interest in Nuclear Deal by B.S.Raghavan in Business Line

...India’s plans of installing 40,000 MWs of nuclear power in the next 20-30 years, it is clear that the nuclear deal will mean a business of $80 billion for the lucky ones who win the contract. Allowing for the price escalation in later years, the figure may even exceed $100 billion, enough to inject adrenalin into the economy of the countries in which the supplier firms are located.

Remember, this does not take account of the requirements of components and spares, financing of service and maintenance and royalties on technologies — all of which may assure a steady flow of $10-20 billion more for the supplier firms during the life-time of the reactors. Certainly not a prospect to be sneezed at. As regards the intangible benefits to the US, an article “America’s Strategic Opportunity with India” by Mr R. Nicholas Burns, US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the point man for all that concerns the nuclear deal, published in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, gives an authentic exposition.

First and foremost, the deal is calculated to serve the national security interests of the US by bringing India into the international nuclear non-proliferation mainstream; second, it “will not assist the country’s nuclear weapons program in any way”; third, it gives the US control over the newly-to-be-built facility to reprocess spent fuel as it can operate only as per the specific arrangements and procedures laid down by the US; fourth, “should India decide to conduct a nuclear test in the future, then the US would have the right under US law to seek the return of all nuclear fuel and technology shipped by US firms”; and, finally, “an increasingly powerful India represents a singularly positive opportunity to advance (the US) global interests”.

Why would the US not pitch for it?

Gujarat 2002: The Tehelka Sting Story

The Tehelka sting on Gujarat: Violence in us.

Gujarat 2002 has been written about and exaggerated on both sides, those who want to scandalize it as well as those who want to justify it. With another election in Gujarat round the corner and in the light of the recent much publicized interview with Narendra Modi by Karan Thapar where Modi prefers to walk out of an interview rather than express any remorse for what happened even if it is just a press interview, the Tehelka sting full of first person accounts of those who were part of the carnage and who have lived to tell the tale, deserves to be read and understood. The questions that are posed by Taruj Tejpal in the expose are worth repeating. I was prompted by a friend hence had a first look on-line where it was released last night. A special issue will hit the stands later today.

Gujarat has been repeatedly celebrated for its supposed 'development', what is the role of this 'development' in building an environment where such violence can be perpetuated among people who have no precedence of this intensity of violence or of such scale. If despite such violence having been committed, the corporate sector continue to favour this state and the FDI place it highest in their destination is there something with the agenda of the corporate sector and the FDI agents?

Please take time to read through this chilling accounts, as they reflect the spreading of violence and intolerance among people that could be kindled at short notice and given an opportunity and an opponent can result in the worst form of violence possible as humans or otherwise. Many stories here have been reported already by the press, some with great amount of detailing. But, to watch these ordinary looking men, kind of people you will pass by in the day to day life without having to give a second look, talk of violence of this nature as a normal conversation where there were others losing lives, is ghastly.

I don't think this violence in the people's minds is limited to Gujarat, it could be Maharashtra, in Tamilnadu (couple of days back I was meeting with a group of farmers where one of the farmer leaders reported that there is always the looming threat of violence let loose on them as they have to often take position against the ruling political elements) and other places too. I remember reading many years back an economist who wrote that 'when the levels of inequality raises beyond a point, violence is the natural outcome'. To me Gujarat looks like such a case. Recently on a visit to the state, I came face to face with the kind of poverty not seen anywhere else.

We as a civilization have the saying, 'ahimsa paramo dharma', that non-violence is the fundamental dharma / duty / function. The violence on humans in Gujarat is an expression that defeats the spirit of this saying, it is but differently being vent upon the forests, the rivers the farmers, the villages every where,... it is important to realize that the largest perpetuator of such violence is a form of governance that has long since become alien to its people and the people themselves can become victims as well as tools in perpetuating such violence. How could a Modi be re-elected in Gujarat again is a question many have asked, he may be elected again after 5 years is the reality. Something is wrong with the Indian democracy and economy and the way we understand 'development'. Something about it breeds violence that seems to be against the spirit of the people. The Tehelka sting is a time to reflect.

Gujarat begs many questions. How do a non-militant people suddenly acquire a bloodthirsty instinct? Does affluence not diminish the impulse to savagery? Does education not diminish the impulse to bigotry? Do the much-vaunted tenets of classical Hinduism not diminish the impulse to cruelty? If tolerance and wisdom will not flourish in a garden of well-being and learning, in the very land of Mahatma Gandhi, then is there any hope for these things at all?

Are we all, finally, only making a reckoning of differences and numbers? Would we all, given the advantage of numbers, and protection from the law, gleefully brutalise anyone who is different, or in disagreement? Today it is the overwhelming question in the mirror. Each of us needs to see it and to answer it. For the violence that bloomed so bloodily amid the Gujarati is also all around us. Every day brings news of a fresh mob attack, a fresh case of vigilante justice. The strong will tame the weak — if only law and order will look the other way for a moment.

Is it possible that contrary to all the hoopla we may have already lived out the high tide of our democracy? Many Indians may get richer and richer but as a people — a deep civilisation — we will now only get poorer and poorer? Is it possible that a country sprung from the vision of giants can now only sustain small men with small concerns? Once a few good men shaped a modern egalitarian nation out of a devastated colony; are there none now to staunch the rot?

Moving beyond Nuclear Power

Prayas is a Pune based group that has been talking about energy in India seriously. Wanted to bring to notice their write-up on the Nuclear Power issue.

...If there’s real concern about energy security, then far more important areas need urgent attention. Coal provides more than 70% of India’s electricity. Yet, only 45% of the potential coal bearing area has been systematically explored, and knowledge of our coal reserves is abysmal. Productivity in our coal mines is only 7-10% of that in American and Australian mines. Yet, we are slow in adopting new technologies, resulting in poor coal quality and yield, and higher costs and emissions. More efficient use of coal, particularly in power generation, would pay handsome dividends towards energy security. But there is no strategic programme to assess, develop and deploy emerging technologies even as privatization is being promoted as a panacea....

...The most painful is the callous disregard for the energy needs of the poor. Nearly 65% people still use conventional, non-commercial fuels such as wood and dung for cooking. With a severe shortage of these fuels, the rural poor —especially women—spend hours every day collecting cooking fuel. A World Health Organization study indicates that nearly 500,000 people die every year in India due to indoor air pollution, largely a result of inappropriate burning of wood and dung for cooking. Thus, cooking fuel poses the real energy crisis for a majority. It is ironic that the focus is on India acting responsibly to protect the global environment and address the problems caused by developed nations, not on the environmental crisis at home.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/10/23221235/Moving-beyond-nuclear-power.html

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: A Time in History where things could have gone the other way...

Maybe my last post on this issue. Just to summarize and also share some of the things I have been reading. I had thought that the conclusion on this deal was foregone (My posting in late August which has since then come true). But, there are disturbing trends that need to be understood by all of us in India.

1. The 'we don't care' attitude of the Congress Party on this issue needs to be noted. There is little that has changed since August when the Left first came up with objections to the deal, which means, the new found arrogance in the congress leadership must stem from something else. Could it be that they have found out that in the case of an election, they stand a chance to win without much ado? I am sure intelligence agencies and back room technical boys in the Congress are capable of doing a month long job to come up with such conclusion, the time gap for the change in the Congress posture seems to be just right.

But, perhaps there are other reasons too. The recent issue of Tehelka carries an interesting news item, 'Young Brigade Goes Nuclear' which talks about the new bunch of young Congress leaders owning up the Nuclear Deal . Though the article carries interview with only one of the leaders named, if this is to be taken at face value, it is bad news. The Nuclear Deal somehow seems to have become associated with the 'paradigm shift' in the Congress. Nothing is more stupid than a young bunch of new comers talking of paradigm shift owning up to a deal that provides many opportunities for jingoism and showmanship. More importantly in this article, the Chairperson of Congress Future Challenge Committee is talking about 'creating a new USP' for the party! Nuclear Deal is the new USP for the old Congress! (USP for the uninitiated is a marketing term that means Unique Selling Proposition, used to promote the one feature in any product that needs to be communicated to the customer as being unique and ahead of the competitor, it is often a publicity gimmick as the fundamental product can only change itself in so many ways). Corporations provide for such flexibilities, a national government that is already fractured in its inheritance cannot. Certainly not a party that is responsible for much of the fracturing.

2. I am still to come across anyone of our nuclear deal promoters who thinks of this as a complete, cost-effective or clean solution. The entire debate has been dominated by scientists-technocrats who have an undying fascination for trying out latest technical possibilities and bureaucrats who are chest thumping about how this is a great deal that they have brokered, leave alone the fact that USofA does not get pushed by a piddly platoon of IAS officer from India. Obviously, the safety of the technology and the nitty-gritties of the deal have covered more print space than the priority and ethics of the deal.

I have been trying to understand the larger issues related to nuclear energy, if indeed energy is our problem for which we think this is the only solution as some of our eminent scientists want us to believe. (My earlier post on the on-line references) It was good to note that the Communist leaders too seem to be doing their homework on this issue to some extent (my posting on Sitaram Yechuri's article). Personally for me, an eye opener was reading the book, 'The Nuclear Barons' by Peter Pringle & James Spigelman. This book is a must read for anyone wanting to understand as the authors put in the sub-title, 'how (the nuclear barons) created our nuclear nightmare'. How the entire nuclear research, bomb and technology has been developed through scientific ambition, often mis-placed political ideas by technologists, political jingoism and commercial greed. Though this publication is two and half decades old, its gripping narration style and factual presentation makes it invaluable in understanding the evolution of the nuclear technology. I would like to quote a small portion from the Epilogue of the book that is worth reading:

' the core of the proliferation problem is the expansion of nuclear-generated electricity: more nuclear power plants mean more fissile material available for diversion into bomb projects. There is no way of preventing this at present: the nuclear materials market is too large and too diverse to be controlled through export sanctions and the current early-warning system of a diversion of nuclear material, known as safeguards, is inherently ineffective.

Even withouth the link to nuclear profileration, nuclear power carries dangers of a magnitude that we ought not to accept. There is something profoundly stupid about continuing to multiply a series of engineering marvels that fifteen billion curies of radiation. We do not know enough about radiation and cannot be sure enough of our technical prowess to allow this system to dominate our energy supply. Morever, the instinctive human fear of radioactivity is not irrational, as the nuclear advocates assert; it is also so universal and so enduring that it is a political fact of life.

...The problem as the entire nuclear history illustrates only too forcefully, is that we have never been able to devise human institutions dedicated to minimizing their own activities. We must continue, therefore, to treat the claims of those in charge of the nuclear complex with suspicion; by their past actions they have not earned our trust or our confidence. Their almost compulsive sense of self-importance has been given a serious blow by the strength of the citizen reaction...but it has not been defeated. Those who want to expand nuclear power continue to repeat the old refrain that we have no choice, yet, that has always been wrong and it is wrong today.

The nuclear story so far has been about a scientific and technological revolution that transformed a yarning to understand and control the powers of nature from fiction to fact. It was a stunning achievement of many clever men. What is in question now is not their cleverness but their wisdom.'

3. US of A must be the biggest arms supplier to the world. It has been investing in arms in different parts of the world where it reaps a rich harvest of war in subsequent decades. I see the entire facilitation of the nuclear technological growth in the Sub-Continent as a way of investing in this region, so that in a couple of decades a successor of G.W.Bush may launch another armed search for WMD in India and a war would be justified. Indian government will buy the technology now, buy delivery mechanisms through back door deals later and will be held accountable for the same much later, perhaps politically isolated (not unlike Iraq after Desert Storm), and later invaded and destroyed. This would ensure that the commercial interest of the arms manufacturers in the US is taken care of for the next few decades, not to talk of the Haliburtons to re-build the country after its destruction. This may sound far fetched right now for us in India, but, history with other regional powers since the WWII cannot be denied. If further proof is necessary, then it is provided by Prof. Chomsky in his article on Indo-US Nuclear Deal:

The Indo-US deal mixes military and commercial motives. Nuclear weapons specialist Gary Milhollin noted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's testimony to Congress that the agreement was "crafted with the private sector firmly in mind," particularly aircraft and reactors and, Milhollin stresses, military aircraft.
(Source: US/Indo Nuclear Agreement: Derailing A Deal, By Noam Chomsky, 08 August, 2007, The Khaleej Times)

4. The mix of young leadership wanting to make a 'paradigm shift' in the ruling party utilizing terms and models of the market, the eagerness of our technocrats and bureaucrats to move the country into another 'club' where there doesn't seem to be a non-destructive precedence and where the partner / promoter nation has clearly stated that they are looking at their own strategic and commercial gains from the entire deal, sounds like being in the middle of a political environment where an expression of the concerns is a statement of helplessness.

We as a nation have placed capacity to produce WMD at such a high level, that a government doesn't mind being pulled down in the process, this has never been done by any government before for any other cause including production of food grains. This moment in the political history can be seen as a point of departure towards accepting the role of a nuclear bully, capable of producing WMD at a speed if it so desires. The role and the script is not ours, nor the raw materials and technologies, but, our political eagerness to perform this role of a nuclear bully will bring in a major shift in our dealing with the world from now on. Time to recall what an old man said 6 decades back:

(Non-Violence) is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy. I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts non-violence, it will spell certain suicide for mankind.’ - M. K. Gandhi, talk with a British Journalist, Sept 1946

Blue Lady judgement: line between judiciary and polity

I learnt about the Supreme Court ruling on the Blue Lady ship breaking last month. Since then I have been interested in this ruling, particularly because it seems to me as stepping into an area between judiciary and dictating policy. I have always wondered, particularly since the infamous ruling on inter-linking of rivers as to what are the limits of the judiciary in our country. Thanks to Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, often we get to hear that the Parliament is higher than the Court. But, at times the court seems to dictate to the government.

On controversial issues where they are at loggerheads, it occupies the media attention living as it does on a daily does of sensationalism. Where the court and government are on the same side, everyone else could be at a disadvantage, the media, unless it finds itself on the other side in such cases plays it safe and doesn't bother to report. With no celebrities involved in the litigation of the Blue Lady, the ruling by the apex court has not been taken note of by most part of the press.

An excerpt from the ruling of the court:

...while applying the concept of "sustainable development" one has to keep in mind the "principle of proportionality" based on the concept of balance. It is an exercise in which we have to balance the priorities of development on one hand and environmental protection on the other hand.

11. India after globalization is an emergent economy along with Brazil, Russia and China. India has economic growth of above 9%. However, that growth is lop-sided. A large section of the population lives below poverty line. India has largest number of youth in the world. Unemployment is endemic. Article 21/14 is the heart of the Chapter of fundamental rights. Equality of opportunity is the basic theme of Article 14. In an emergent economy, the principle of proportionality based on the concept of balance is important. It provides level playing field to different stakeholders. Ship breaking is an industry. When we apply the principle of sustainable development, we need to keep in mind the concept of development on one hand and the concepts like generation of revenue, employment and public interest on the other hand. This is where the principle of proportionality comes in. Even in the case of Blue Lady, the figures indicate that 700 workers would be employed in ship breaking. Further, 41000 MT of steel would be made available. To that extent, there will be less pressure on mining activity elsewhere. ...(in an earlier ruling) this Court is not in favour of discontinuance of ship-breaking activity. However, this Court has held that the said activity needs to be strictly and properly regulated. This concept of balancing is given importance by Dr. Amartya Sen in his book "Development as Freedom". Today ship-breaking provides resources not only in terms of steel but also in terms of employment, skill and capability. Competition exists in the said business of ship-breaking amongst Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. In our view, if "capability" is a resource with our skilled workers it needs to be protected by strict implementation of Health Hazard Preventive Measures suggested in the report of TEC and implementation of Recycling Plans, generation of pollutants like asbestos to the extent of 20% can be almost eliminated. As stated, 85% of asbestos is in form of ACM in panels which is reusable. Therefore, the report provides State-of-the-Art mechanism which is the key element of "sustainable development". (all emphasis mine)

Now, this is only an excerpt, there is a preamble and further to this portion an analysis of the technical regulations prescribed to be adhered to while breaking of a ship by a re-cycler at Alang in Gujarat, described by many as one of the most polluted places on planet earth due to the large scale breaking down of pollutants laden ships from across the world.

Some thoughts:
1. The statement about 'Principle of Proportionality' (PoP) in relation to 'Sustainable Development' is rather interesting. Not being a legal expert, I can only infer that this means any section of the government cannot stop another section of the government in the name of 'Sustainable Development' or 'Environment Protection' (that shoots down all environmentalist arguments on Rama Sethu if the destroying of the bridge according to the court is 'development') if it is found to upset the balance on the PoP. The balancing of 'development' on the one hand and 'environmental protection' on the other seems to imply that there is no 'development' possible without 'environmental damage' (indeed the Judges cite one such ruling as part of this judgment), to me this seems to be a strange view. Do we take it that the Supreme Court of this country has taken a stand on the issue of development that any development will necessarily be at the cost of the environment and whatever evidence that may talk of eco-friendly growth may not be considered development at all!? Where does this stand vis-a-vis the view on the same issue by the Government of India which unlike the Supreme Court is a signatory for many international conventions and regulations on environment.

2. In building a case for their eventual judgment the judges make some statements that look rather strange to me, as I don't get to read many judgments. The judges claim that our growth of 9% is lop-sided, nothing new, but, my question does this reflect in everyone of the judgments given by the Supreme Court? And again they state that a large section of people live BPL, this needs to be qualified as we all know. BPL varies based on what are the indices you use to measure it, which state are you talking about, etc. The court goes on to state that we have 'endemic' unemployment! Again a statement that needs to be prefixed with a few qualifiers.

3. About 'level playing field' for stake holders, this I find the most confusing, here is a prescription for all 'emerging economies', that is PoP is important and that is what ensures that the level playing field is set. And how does this PoP exhibit itself, 'we need to keep the concepts of development in one hand and concepts of generation of revenue, employment and public interest in the other'!! I thought they were both the same!

4. Ship building may be an industry, just like manufacturing WMD is an industry too. But, I always assumed that it was the polity and enterprise and not the judiciary that decided the priority and protection of any industry. It seems to take a different turn here.

5. The number of people who will get employed and the MT of steel generated from this activity seems to step out of a promotional material. Employment of 700 people is not an issue in India (on paper atleast after the REGS), certainly this is not a solution to 'endemic unemployment', they will not be breaking this ship all their lives nor is there any idea (atleast in the judgement) about what sort of employees these will be, what are their rights, is there adequate financial compensation (apart from the health protection regulations mentioned in handling hazardous waste), would the employer find another job (or ship) for them to sustain their employment and livelihood...what is the 'capability' in taking apart a ship? what is its value today in the job market? what is the living standard and dignity of labour attached to this job? what are the 'resources' as 'capabilities' did these 700 people have before they started to break ships? maybe they were farmers in Vidarbha? can this resource be considered significant in the national interest? how? is it important for the country to decide and embark on building this capability? is it part of the national political agenda in developing certain 'resources'? to me this sounds a retrograde on 'knowledge economy' or 'knowledge society' whatever be its understanding and usage.

And the part about, somewhere, somehow this will ease the pressure on mining sounds muddled up. How would you re-cycling some steel ease pressure on mining? are the mining steel and recycled steel used for same applications? can someone verify this statement in any way at all? infact, the 'elsewhere' sounds rather casual.

6. And finally the part about Amartya Sen and competition, it seems a bit stretched for me. Why quote Sen? does it legitimise the judegement or something? and what is the part about competition between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, how is it relevant in a case where the primary concern is about the damage to environment and health hazard to labourers?