A month after Mumbai, 4 years after Tsunami...differences in response

The news paper reports are today replete with people paying homage to Mumbai terror attack victims as well as  recollection and homage of those who died in the tsunami 2004.


One natural disaster that saw, in response, a resurgence of human compassion and voluntarism while the other disaster wrought by humans led astray is responded to with anger and animosity. As the year comes to an end, war on Pakistan is increasingly being spoken to as 'when' and not as 'if'. Pakistan itself seems to be under greater  belief that India will go on a war with them. 


The war is being already fought by the media.  The media in Pakistan seems to be working overtime now.  I am sure that makes better business sense, imagine Indians had terror attack and could get good TRP for a television for a week maybe, Pakistan is selling the response to terror and getting probably better TRP (or whatever is the equivalent there) for a month. 


Modern technology and economic organization that provided Kasav and his people with easy access to guns, grenades, global phones and positioning systems has also provided the media in both countries with information on weapon capabilities, about the N processes, about the preparedness for attack, minutes for response, about weapons and their uses...the amount of knowledge we possess on instruments of violence seems endless. 


Many Indians feel that we should show that we too, 'know' how to use these tools of violence, Pakistanis feel that they should show their superior 'knowledge' on the tools of violence, while fanatics on both sides tease each other about each others' ability to use such 'knowledge'.


If the sense of security of a nation comes out of its knowledge of violent tools and methods, it must be a extremely violent society to begin with. I don't think our knowledge (and possession)  of tools of violence provides us with the sense of security.  If the response to the Mumbai attack results in us getting increasingly aggressive in acquiring, possessing and exhibiting (using) tools of mass violence, then we only perpetuate the violence, not work against it. Response to human pain cannot be in causing more human pain, response to the sense of hurt in a nation's pride cannot be solved by hurting another nation's pride. We did not win our Independence by hurting the pride of the colonials. They did not become our 'enemies' despite causing greater damage to us and killing more people for longer duration. 


I don't think India is a violent nation, it does not come to us naturally to be violent. Violent people are not majority in this country, violence does not stay in power too long either. Our tendency is to gravitate towards peaceful existence, and what we tend to, is our true stable nature, our own character.  This is defined by the traditions we have built and the leaders we have come to revere. However, we don't seem to have created either pride in this character or suitable methods of applying it in all situations. Gandhi successfully applied it against the Colonials, and since then it has surfaced once in awhile in different policies almost inadvertently.



As the year draws to the end, the image of the Mumbai attack will overshadow all other images and moments for most of us. The response to this attack on the nation's pride could unite us as a nation. We could be united  as a mob, faceless, identity-less, lynching an unequal but protesting and fighting 'enemy' or we could be united with an understanding of our true character that bring in spontaneous bonding and could make us stronger. Such understanding was seen after the tsunami, in the way many Indians bonded and worked together with complete strangers, in an understanding of compassion and peaceful co-existence. Our responses then were highly innovative, they were spontaneous and made us stronger. Our response now? 

Eternal consequences of Depleted Uranium

Since this post was published, I have received from an anonymous comment that is produced below.

Rhotel1 has left a new comment on your post "Eternal consequences of Depleted Uranium":

I tried to post this elsewhere where someone picked up your article. You have major factual errors in this piece and obviously know next to nothing about depleted uranium.

The following is untrue --

More than 35 percent (251000) of US Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict…[read on] Depleted Uranium Contaminates the Body for Twenty Years …
...

(About 15,000 Gulf War Veterans have died from all causes, including auto accidents, old age, etc in the 18 years since Desert Shield began -- this is far less than the number that is being bandied about in this article and none of them died from exposure to DU - DU has not killed anyone unless they were in an armored vehicle that was attacked deliberately or by mistake (friendly fire) with a DU kinetic energy penetrator munition.

The above statement, while made by an OpEdNews contributor (and even that implies some degree of journalistic accumen), is not true and not supported by the VA report that is cited in the article. They just expect that no one will actually read the citation, especially when it is not even current and the web page that is cited has been moved.

To learn about DU, what it really is, what it really does and more importantly what it does not do, go to www.depletedcranium.com and watch the dinner video - or come to DUStory in Yahoo Groups, Message 76 has a number of links to factual sites all over the world -

DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

Realize that the battle for promotion and opposition of technology has others  issues related to it. In America, particularly it is important how people were killed and how, etc. For us  what matters is that such a technology regardless of whether it has 'armoured vehicle' borne people getting killed or people in the open getting killed only means that people are getting killed. Violence does not have a measuring scale for me. But, for  some people I realize, death is different for different people,  death of an American is not the same as death of let's say some in India or Iraq or Afghanistan.  Though the comment does not carry any person attached nor really produces any evidence for whatever it claims beyond rhetoric and may probably originate from PR agencies working incognito, I am re-producing it.  It is of no consequence for my argument in India. We have a long history of not knowing how to handle our waste. I am also reproducing a response from Nyla sent to me independently on our civil waste management issues.  
 These statistics of death, illness and impending doom are of least consequence.

Given that India's sensibilities are so blunt that we have no aversion to municipal waste and carry on with life taking "it" "literally", in our stride.

We also do not value life, there is no attention to safety component that I can see in any public space or facility: be it road/ rail/air travel, public buildings,construction sites,schools, market place .........

So, also with nuclear waste, as and when it happens we will carry on with our routine all important chores of insignificance like TV watching, SMS, idling around ... albeit our near and dear ones, neighbours, friends and countrymen will be dropping down dead like poisoned flies around us. The lucky ones going fast, the unlucky following a slow, treacherous, hair drooping in clumps, retching in public, skin wrinkled, eye popping and what not path !

If we cannot handle our civil waste, how can we manage to handle our nuclear energy waste any better? How will we ensure that radioactive DU (immaterial of the number of Americans it may or maynot have killed) is safe guarded from militants and terrorists, when very frequently Maoists invade and take away the government arms from police stations? do we have adequate knowledge of such consequences? these are our questions as we are in transit of being a major nuclear power state.  I had originally received it from a source that is reliable to begin with and had reproduced as yet another of aspects that we need to be aware of. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
While India awaits the NSG and supply of the much awaited raw material that would eternally solve its energy crisis, here are certain other consequences of the nuclear raw material albeit in the form of residual uranium used against the 'enemy'.

"... "More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991," said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. "The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive." Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever. ..."

The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II.

DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British militaries in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, as well as by NATO forces in Kosovo and the Israeli military in Lebanon and Palestine.

Inhaled or ingested DU particles are highly toxic, and DU has been classified as an illegal weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East.

In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991," said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. "The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive."

Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever.

The two U.S. wars in Iraq "have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease essentially for eternity," said anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott.

Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict...[read on]

Depleted Uranium Contaminates the Body for Twenty Years

Depleted Uranium Shells Used by US Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons

the single killer vote!!

As we inch closer in perhaps the most publicly debated power struggle in the centre, new standards seem to be set in politics. There are reports of 100Cr being offered per M.P. to either vote for government or abstain, there was reports of someone being offered a berth in the Central cabinet and someone else a Chief Ministership, someone else has been offered a divided state. The opposition not to be out done by the government has also proposed someone as the future Prime Minister! and is trying its own tactics.

Individual MPs are suddenly so caught up in their importance of their single vote, they seem to feel more valuable (some MPs may be wondering why the hell they have only one vote, why not do what is done in municipality elections and let the powerful one cast more votes!?) and in their excited state almost forget what they are talking about. 'In the national interest' has been most heard in the last one week in our media than ever before, 'I believe the Nuclear Deal is in the national interest', 'we need the energy for our future', 'this is strategically important for us', etc. all being mouthed by people who suddenly want to mix emotions, national pride, loyalty, blind faith, meaningless morality and any other kind of sentiment to justify a policy decision that has its roots in science and technology. Even the normally sane looking Dayanidhi Maran was on television declaring his loyalty and reiterating his faith in the 'wisdom of Manmohan Singh' as the reasons for supporting the Nuclear 'Deal' (to the utter irritation of Ms. Gandhi that is what the nation calls it despite her insistence that it be called a agreement and not a deal).  I wouldn't be surprised if there will be prayers to Gods and Godesses across the country that we sign the Nuclear deal and that the government survive. The other day there were reports of Sonia Gandhi being offered laddus from Tirupathi temple for precisely this reason!!! 

Electrical energy is a function of technology, technologies for producing energy are many and some of them are clean and some cheap, some are destructive to the environment and others not too destructive. Nuclear energy (after this deal) will make us depend external players for raw material, technology, regulation, usage and maybe even trading and charges. It is high technology dependent, requires extreme precaution in terms of safety and security, needs enormous amount of resources as initial investment and maintenance, is certainly not clean or green as the government advertisements claim and could leave residues that takes many thousands of years to dissipate.

But, that is of least concern to the MPs, they are currently consumed by the single killer vote that they possess in their person. Never has every insignificant MP felt so important and so sought after. 

The visual media is loving it too, post-IPL, they have been fighting among themselves for re-re-re-re-run of Ramayana and Mahabaratha for bolstering their TRPs and here is an opportunity to squeeze a live coverage to its maximum. All kinds of meaningless debates and even more meaningless surveys seem to be conducted by the media. One of them, which I briefly watched, had a survey of Muslims across metropolitan cities as to what they feel about the deal. That is the most stupid development in the media. Why are Muslims being asked an opinion based on their religion on an issue that is about energy and technology? Will we next ask Christians about their opinion on the Iran-Pakistan pipeline, because Iran has snubbed the Christian nations? Similarly will we seek the opinion of Buddhists before we protest against Sri Lanka for killing fishermen in the Tamilnadu coast? What kind of the insensitive media can come up with divisions such as energy for Indians and energy for Muslim Indians.

This sure is the most macabre political theatre we are witnessing and the killer votes are shooting at our foundations of democracy and political life.  We all may suffer this process as long as its eventual policy outcome.

two articles on the nuclear issue from a previous debate...

The 80s was the in-between decade. we had already had one nuclear test, we were not going to conduct any more immediately, at least the political climate was not to conduct any more tests; nuclear energy would be discussed as a possibility. 

The scientific establishment had not started to be so visible with its opinion that has happened post-IT era, it was still the bunch of scientists doing their work in pune, bangalore and other small towns, they were not the popular, powerful opinion builders that they have become since Kalam. 

The alternative to congress had failed in the late 70s, and BJP was yet to arrive in the political scene. A group of Science and Technology students and young professionals were re-discovering indigenous sciences and technologies as they re-looked at their roots with the newly acquired proficiency. There were many such groups across the country doing it in their own way with whatever resources they had. One of the most promising and intellectually powerful was the Patriotic People for Science and Technology (PPST), a group consisting of students and youth with technology degrees, primarily from the premium institution of that time, IIT. As they rediscovered the world of ordinary people, they produced a series of articles through the PPST Bulletins that were both presenting the people's knowledge in the emerging new idiom as well as challenging the dominant and mainstream thought patters. They posted some serious questions on development, technology and our understanding of society. 

Though the group neither survived in its shape beyond the decade of 80s nor could it sustain its tempo to challenge the dominant paradigm, the knowledge it produced and the arguments it made were significant and set the tone for many later day initiatives and certainly inspire people even after a couple of decades. 

Recently, we rediscovered two articles on the nuclear issue that were prevalent at that time. The arguments look significant even today and are worth a read for anyone taking a serious interest beyond the immediate political significance on the nuclear issue in particular and energy overall.

1. Is there a case for Nuclear Energy, March 1982 by Rathin Roy

2. The Indian Nuclear Energy Programme - Net Energy Analysis, March 1989 by Ashok Kumar

‘expert’ and ‘expert consultation’ on policy issues

Yesterday’s news headlines read how the Samajwadi leader Mulayam Singh had decided to support the struggling UPA government on the nuclear deal after he sought and received ‘expert’ advice from the man credited with the second nuclear bomb testing and the former President Dr. Abdul Kalam on the issue. Interestingly Amar Singh the secretary of the Samajwadi party mentioned in the press meet that Mulayam singh will decided the experts who will be consulted on this issue. Based on the news reports Kalam is the only ‘expert’ consulted.

Perhaps the role of expert in this case was notional as the SP had already decided to side with the congress on this deal and Kalam filled the convenient gap (as he did during his Presidency). But, the larger question that it throws light is on the definition of the word ‘expert’ in our public discourse and the larger perception and understanding of the need of and the purpose behind an expert consultation.

In a recent interview with Tehelka, noted thinker Ashish Nandy talks about how our political system is undermined with alien categories. Not just our political categories, but, our policies making processes too are guided by such principles.  Specifically in the areas of technology there seems to be no bigger ‘authority’ than that of an ‘expert’ in the said technology, leave aside the fact that the impact of the policy on technology is on everyone not merely on the experts alone.

So, all through the nuclear deal debate we have had anyone with a vague involvement with the scientific establishment, repeatedly consulted over media and public sphere. We assume that the will be able to give an impartial and unbiased opinion on an issue of national significance that has not as much to do with the technology as much as the national demand on the technology and what it claims to achieve.

Surely the needs of the nation and the achievements are functions beyond technology, which is only a means and not an end in itself. If the question was posed as to what are the electrical energy demands of the nation, what are its applications, how significant are these applications in the national priority, how important is it to sustain these applications, what are the levels of efficiencies in our current electrical energy utilization, are these optimized, have we managed to make the best use of them, how much do we need to pay for these electrical energy needs, etc., we may find that the questions automatically broaden the scope of engagement and the role of ‘experts’ on this issue. Much of our questions on technology policy are rather limited and often the solutions are para-phrased as questions and the questions didn’t arise in our minds till the solutions were presented to us.

A few years back, S.M. Krishna as the then Chief Minister of Karnataka had opined that anyone who did not possess a formal qualification in the field of biotechnology was not eligible to discuss the Genetic Modification issue. Time and again we see such statements being made on the role of experts by politicians willing to pursue a certain policy.

With the political structure becoming increasingly weak and the leaders having neither the courage nor the knowledge to make any decisions on their own, they seem to rely upon the bureaucrats, judiciary and technocrats to make the decisions for them. Whether such a policy would ruin their political status being their only concern, everything else seems to be of no consequence all together. Inability to tackle the increasingly vocal media and knowledgeable civil society also seems to corner them to adopt such respite. The media is just overwhelmed and civil society challenged polemically through such ‘expert’ involvement. The media is dictated by its time constraints and the civil society by their resource constraints.  

What are our definitions of expert or expertise in the sphere of public good or national importance? What are the competencies we expect from such experts? Is position of power such as judiciary or bureaucracy or association with a scientific establishment adequate for such experts? Who among these represent the ‘aam admi’ interests and the betterment of the nation?

India preparing for a war in the next 10 years: Business for US Corporates from Indo-US Nuclear Deal

In my last post on this issue several months back, I had reproduced how much the American Nuclear supply companies stood to gain from this deal. Well, among others, our security analyst Raghavan (whom I had quoted in my last post) too got it wrong. The Nuclear Deal and the arms supply to India is seemingly poised for a major jump. Indeed the kind of investment seem to imply that we want to go for a war in the next decade or so.

Here are excerpts from a blog post from someone who maybe thinks all this is great news - Indians in the USA who stand to benefit from the deal through their careers/ companies. India is to become a major centre of weapons in the coming decade is the clear message. Much of the so called FDI that is being invested in India is to be utilized by the revenue being generated more efficiently by Chidambaram & Co., for buying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from a country that has been obsessed with that idea for a long time now.

Business and Indo-US deal

Power Plays: Business Implications of the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal

From: India Knowledge@Wharton Article , Aug 09, 2007 http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/india/article.cfm?articleid=4217

Two big U.S. delegations -- representing 180 companies and 38 companies respectively -- visited India in the past year, looking to sell items such as Westinghouse nuclear reactors, uranium from South Dakota and Lockheed Martin fighter jets.
...Still, political groups in both countries threaten to block the deal, even as the emerging geopolitical realities and the economic benefits appear to outweigh the concerns. India Knowledge@Wharton spoke to corporate executives, analysts and Wharton faculty members to understand the business ramifications of the deal.

Staying Below the Radar
Initially, it appeared that most of the debates about the U.S.-India nuclear agreement were largely political. A deafening silence marked the business implications -- and with good reason: Many senior executives were waiting for the political clouds to clear and for the final terms of the agreement to be revealed. As GE India's CEO T.P. Chopra told India Knowledge@Wharton in an interview, the final form of the agreement would affect GE's nuclear power strategy in the country. Some business leaders point to other challenges. "First, some hurdles still remain," says the CEO of an Indian company that has been negotiating with U.S. firms for defense joint ventures. "The last thing we want is to give ammunition to the Left-wing parties. They would love to project the U.S. as greedy capitalists selling the country for a few dollars more. Business will keep silent until it's all signed, sealed and delivered." (The Congress Party-led Indian government depends on support from the Left, which has rejected the deal.)
...
According to an ...News report, "Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, and General Electric, are among four companies poised to share $14 billion of orders from India as nations led by the U.S. prepare to lift a 33-year ban. Toshiba's Westinghouse Electric and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom will probably also win contracts to each build two 1,000 megawatt reactors, according to Nuclear Power Corp. of India chairman S.K. Jain." The report noted India can begin purchasing equipment following NSG approval of the agreement.

....(the report) added that "the orders will form the first phase of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's plan to build 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of current generation. India needs to add to the 3% of electricity that comes from Russian-designed reactors to meet soaring energy needs and reduce its reliance on coal-fired power plants." The report also quoted one source who said India would "try to diversify its suppliers and it's highly likely all four [Areva, GE, Westinghouse and Rosatom] will win the contracts."
...
For U.S. companies, multi-billion dollar opportunities are opening up. "It is not just in the nuclear area," says Shivanand Kanavi, a commentator on technology issues who is currently writing a book on India's nuclear program and is the author of Sand to Silicon, a book on the digital revolution. "There are opportunities at several levels and in several sectors."

One obvious opportunity is that U.S. companies will be allowed to sell both nuclear reactors and technology to India. This is big business -- roughly $150 billion worth, according to estimates from the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC). The numbers are extrapolated from the Indian nuclear industry's plans to increase nuclear power output from around 3,500 MW now to 60,000 MW over the next three decades. The Atomic Energy Commission has doubled its target for 2024 from 20,000 MW to 40,000 MW. Nuclear energy today accounts for barely 3% of India's total generation of 120,000 MW.

A clear beneficiary of the new regime is the public-sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) -- the entity negotiating the deals with Areva, GE, Westinghouse and Rosatom cited in the Bloomberg report.
...
Regulatory Bottlenecks
At the recent annual general meeting of Tata Power, the group's chairman, Ratan Tata, told shareholders: "If the government opens the sector for private investment, Tata Power would be certainly interested in operating a nuclear power plant." A critical challenge for businesses, however, will be securing the government's green light. Today, only companies with a 51% government stake are allowed to generate nuclear energy. In practice, this has boiled down to only NPCIL. Two years ago, the 89.5% government-owned National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) had approached NPCIL with a proposal that it enter the nuclear generation arena. But the talks have not made much headway. (Incidentally, NTPC shares rose on the release of the text of the 123 Agreement; NPCIL is not listed.)

For the private sector to enter the fray, the regulatory environment will need to change. In May, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar told a meeting in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) that the Atomic Energy Act would be amended as soon as possible to allow private-sector participation. Draft legislation has already been circulated.

...Over the years that the Indian nuclear industry was shunned by the Western world, many of these companies have built up a good deal of expertise. HCC, for instance, was the first Indian construction company to undertake civil engineering works for pressurized heavy water reactor power projects in India. "HCC has constructed four out of the seven nuclear power plants in India," says chairman and managing director Ajit Gulabchand. Four new plants are under construction, with HCC building two of them.

"It is fast becoming accepted that nuclear energy is 'green' compared to conventional energy sources, and it is also quicker to implement," says Gulabchand. "There is a renewed global focus on building new capacities."

M.V. Kotwal, who heads the heavy engineering division of engineering giant L&T, now sees openings to set up "light water nuclear reactors of the boiling water type or the pressurized water type." He says the technology for such reactors, which need enriched uranium as fuel, is available with the U.S., France, Japan and Russia. Whereas L&T is equipped to manufacture the main reactor vessels as well as steam generators, pressurizers and other critical equipment for such nuclear power plants, "it is a problem at times to source some of the raw material which is manufactured by European, Japanese and Russian companies," says Kotwal. "After the clearance of the agreement, it will be easier to source such material and hence to speed up the Indian program."

...Meanwhile, the perestroika in the nuclear arena will extend to exploration. The public-sector Uranium Corporation of India will be bidding for mines abroad. Meanwhile, at home, the private sector is being allowed into uranium exploration. For starters, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) will outsource areas like data collection and analysis.

All of this is, however, small change compared to defense deals, which have U.S. companies waiting anxiously. A conservative estimate says that India will spend $70 billion in defense procurement over the next five years. (The $150 billion estimated for nuclear power projects is spread over 28 years.)

Take just one component: fighter jets. India is in the market for 126 multi-role combat aircraft. At $10 billion, this is one of the world's biggest single-supplier contracts.

... Boeing's recent win of a $11 billion order for 68 aircraft from Air India, and its announcement that it would invest $1.7 billion to buy goods and services from Indian companies. Lockheed Martin has approached Hindustan Aeronautics, Bharat Electronics, BHEL, and the Tatas for joint defense projects, he adds.

Today, Russia is India's biggest defense supplier. Israel stands at No. 2, having overtaken France, the U.K. and the U.S., who had been hamstrung by various restrictions but now want part of the action. India this year expects to spend $10.5 billion on military equipment, including $4 billion for the air force, $2.8 billion for the army and $2.5 billion for the navy. Some 70% of those capital needs are met though imports....

"Ultimately, economics determines everything," says Chaudhuri, who feels those compulsions will override political opposition to the deal. To support that point, he says that despite widespread criticism of China's political system and its human rights issues, the U.S. business community is "very close to China."
source:http://reflections-shivanand.blogspot.com/2008/04/business-and-indo-us-deal.html

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