The difference between a civilized man and a “less civilized” man, an analogy: A civilized man opens a chips packet with his hands while a “less civilized” man tears it open with his teeth.

However, the end result is the same. Both succeed in opening the pack. Is it necessary to make an issue out of it?

PS: I usually use my hands. Always used to have silly arguments with friends over this.

There’s no evidence to prove that Ram Sethu is a manmade structure. There’s no historical evidence to prove that Rama existed and the events portrayed in Ramayana actually occured – 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 The ASI affidavit was later withdrawn.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 pseudosecular 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 maybe 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) shouldnt 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 shouldnt be such a cause for worry – both for the pseudosecular nexus and for the Hindu right.

Ram is an eminently reverable 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 dont exist and will never exist and also because such a character is more identifiable to an ordinary human being.

Try as they might, the pseudosecular 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. Massmurderes 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 shouldnt be put to the test of science. 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 avoided.

When they dont evolve and choose to remain “pure” or “authentic”, religions become systems of dogma and superstition. 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 Einsten 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 because:

1. Both exist.

2. More importantly, their marriage is important to society and human progress.

(This article was first published at Desicritics.org)

For the first one hour after I saw the news on TV, I did not experience any sort of reaction. 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 immune 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 dont 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 occured 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, a business center was targetted. 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 theater 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-over-bridge 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’d 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 atleast 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 accomodate 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 AP 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. The “antiterror mechanism” that the PM signed with Musharraf is obviously not showing any results. Shivraj Patil’s repeated “assurances” that all is well about internal security are a bunch of lies.

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!

Update: My assessment that this time only amusement centers were targetted seems to be incorrect. TOI reports that 19 bombs were defused and

<i>Police discovered the unexploded bombs — most fitted with timers and placed in plastic bags — at bus stops, by cinema halls, road junctions and pedestrian bridges and near a public water tap across the capital of Andhra Pradesh state. (link)

So they targetted a wide range of locations not just amusement centers.

The Indo-US nuclear deal has generated some debate at Desicritics. I have argued in favour of nuclear energy for the primary concern of India’s energy policy is to satisfy existing and future energy demands. The Integrated Energy Policy Expert Committee 2006 report of the Planning Commission states that:

To deliver a sustained growth rate of 8% through 2031-32 and to meet the lifeline energy needs of all citizens, India needs, at the very least, to increase its primary energy supply by 3 to 4 times and, its electricity generation capacity/supply by 5 to 6 times of their 2003-04 levels.

[...]

By 2031-32 power generation capacity must increase to nearly 8,00,000 MW from the current capacity of around 1,60,000 MW inclusive of all captive plants. Similarly requirement of coal, the dominant fuel in India’s energy mix will need to expand to over 2 billion tonnes/annum based on domestic quality of coal. Meeting the energy challenge is of fundamental importance to India’s economic growth imperatives and its efforts to raise its level of human development.

The introduction makes it clear that the primary goal is to meet the energy challenge. This demand, the report notes, must be met at competitive prices. It further goes on to state that to meet this challenge, India should explore all options possible:

Considering the shocks and disruptions that can be reasonably expected, assured supply of such energy and technologies at all times is essential to providing energy security for all. Meeting this vision requires that India pursues all available fuel options and forms of energy, both conventional and non-conventional. Further, India must seek to expand its energy resource base and seek new and emerging energy sources.

Nuclear energy would play a crucial role in achieving India’s energy policy objectives. I have argued that a contribution of 7% of India’s electricity mix by 2031-32 is in no way an insignificant contribution in a previous article.

However, my arguments in favour of nuclear power have brought criticism. Some of it has been poorly informed and the arguments have been weak. The points on which the criticism is made 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 and Thorium converted to fissile material. 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:

A disturbing fact that emerges from the study of various scenarios is 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 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 Integrated Energy Policy Expert Committee 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.

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.

V. Ramanathan, a student at IIM Bangalore, has started a new blog dedicated for the discussion of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal named Your Voice on India-US Nuclear Deal.

The blog is described as follows:

The time is ripe for all of us to raise our voices and make ourselves heard! What’s the (Nuclear!) Deal between India and US? Will our country benefit from this? What is the fine print on this deal? Why are some people so against this deal? Who are these people? Are they conveying the voice of some enemies from across the border? Lets talk. Lets talk openly. Do not sit inert. (At least press some keys!) Lets save our country from any betrayals. Its my voice. Its your voice.

The best thing about this blog is that it has a lot of links to articles in India and around the world. Ramanathan also offers his own analyses about the latest developments.

Any fool would’ve 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 band of fellow idiots 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.

To all those brave souls who laid down their lives, took blows to their heads from British lathis to win us our independance, to all those soldiers who lay down their lives so that we could enjoy that freedom, let us stand for a minute to pay our gratitude.

Jana gaṇa mana adhināyaka jaya hē
Bhārata bhāgya bidhātā
Pañjāba Sindhu Gujarāṭa Marāṭhā
Drābiḍa Utkala Baṅga
Bindhya Himācala ẏamunā Gaṅgā
Ucchala jaladhi taraṅga
Taba śubha nāmē jāgē
Taba śubha āśisa māgē
Gāhē taba jaya gāthā
Jana gaṇa maṅgala dāyaka jaya hē
Bhārata bhāgya bidhātā
Jaya hē jaya hē jaya hē
Jaya jaya jaya jaya hē

JAI HIND!

Ladies and gentlemen or to sound a little cool, babes and dudes… I usually dont boast about myself and my achievements.

But today, I proudly state that I have cleared the Civil Services (Preliminary) Exam one more time.

This is not much actually. This is just a damn screening test – except that it screens out 8000 odd people from 400,000 applicants! About 2%. That itself is an overwhelming feeling. It hasnt sunk in yet.

But its hardly enough. The bigger battle is ahead and that’s where the decisive battles will be fought! Jihaaad! To arms!

—

PS: For those who are inclined to take CS or have already taken CS but dont know what the cutoffs are, here’s a little info:

Geography: I attempted 108 questions out of 120. I checked my answers with the help of the key from Mr. Manocha (Delhi). I got 84 correct and the remaining 24 wrong. With negative marking, that comes to 84 – 1/3(24) = 76. (Correction for negative marking.)

General Studies: I attempted 90 out of 150. I didnt check my answers but by gut feeling I can say I did around 72 correct. That comes to 72 – 1/3(18) = 66.

Hope this helps the many souls who spend hours on the Net looking to find cutoff scores.

Disclaimer: These scores are purely speculative. Nobody knows what the real marks are unless UPSC changes its definition of public interest.

Some delicious lines from TOI:

Just 10 short days before the hoopla begins (60 years of Independence), I’m playing wet blanket and saying: Wake up. Yes, wake-up and smell the coffee\rasam\ maacher jhol… whatever it is that does it for you. It’s time for the slumbering giant (India) to stop snoring and get going. Really. Sometimes it feels like India consumed a massive dose of barbiturates six decades ago and is still fast asleep.

That last line captures the scene excellently. Newspapers and magazines around the world have a common theme – the slumbering giant, the sleeping giant has at last woken up. But this giant is still sleeping. It hasnt woken up fully. When this giant wakes up… well I leave that to your wild imaginations

Here’s a gem from Mr. Guha:

Prafulla: Have you ever seen the better side of RSS? I mean their social services, their discipline, their network, the selfless working of their pracharaks? Or you simply think they do not exist just because they talk of a Hindu nationalism?

Ramachandra Guha: Hezboollah and Hamas also run schools and hospitals —they are merely the RSS in an Islamic guise, bigots pretending to have a human face!

RSS in an Islamic guise. Hmmm, so for Mr. Guha, RSS itself is terrorism. So instead of saying Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists in an Islamic guise, we shall now say they are “merely the RSS in an Islamic guise.” What a gem! A new addition to the dictionary.

Another gem:

HRV: Nitin Pai, in the magazine Pragati, called for a free-market Mahatma. The premise being the freedom movement started as an idea of intellectuals before people like Gandhi made it a mass movement. Is the time ripe for a Gandhi-like leader to champion a new movement, a free-market Mahatma in other words?

Ramachandra Guha: Free-marketers can be as dogmatic as the state socialists, alas!

Contrast that gem with this gem, which came earlier than the previous gem:

Prithu: I liked the chapters on Emergency and 1984 Operation Bluestar. Do you think Indian economy would have been better served had Nehru not been such a socialist? Or do you think it was the need of the hour?

Ramachandra Guha: Nehru’s socialism was merely the spirit of the age. Fortunately, he was a democrat, and his nurturing of a democratic polity must be his greatest contribution. I think the time to liberalise would have been the early 1970s, by which time our industries needed no protection.

That should bare for us his utter confusion regarding India’s economic policy. He dislikes Marxism (says he’s a liberal), he thinks free marketers are dogmatic, he whitewashes Nehru’s failures by saying that Nehru was merely following the “spirit of the age” (socialism… as if Nehru was an ignorant idiot who didnt know what he did) and thinks India should have liberalised in the 1970s itself.

Better not buy his book on Gandhi. You might have to tear your hair out trying to figure out what exactly he’s saying. About Gandhi, he’s more interested in defending Gandhi against his critics rather than giving us “objective history.”

Ramachandra Guha is one of those nostalgic halfsocialist-halfliberal crossbreeds who have survived into the modern ages where sound economic policy is based on market economics and not the liberal-socialist mix of the 70s. I know many of these guys. They want freedom – absolute freedom. They like to paint Hanuman and Sita copulating with each other, or Jesus Christ on the cross pissing into a commode for reasons of art (they’ll oppose similar depiction of Muhammad though.)

When it comes to economic freedom however, they’re like “Err.. maybe some other time… I’ve to go” or like “No dude, its not like that! I am for free markets but growth needs to be inclusive, so there must be a cap on CEO pay packages” or like “I actually like free markets dude but they will make the rich richer and the poor poorer and create inequalities, so Naxalites’ struggle should be understood in context.” These guys favour reservations, communal quotas and targetted govt. funding for minorities for personal pilgrimages like Hajj, separate legal systems for certain communities etc. And they do all this while calling themselves liberals!