Hez Here

Now that George.W.Bush is on his way to India, i felt its time to write something about the Nuclear Deal that has been discussed by every major media outlet and strategic think tank. Though I don't have much of an idea about this topic, often i found myself coming up with the knee-jerk reaction (very typical of us, desis) of opposing this idea just because it involves the US. I am not sure if my reaction would be the same if it had been with Russia or any other European state. But, I also understand that i was not being paranoid. After all, the US does not have such a great record in dealing with countries around the world. It had such a close relationship with Saddam Hussein until he became expendable in the larger scheme of things. No one can forget the support it gave to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan until the Soviets were thrown out. It didn't care to bring back the country into the international mainstream; the rest as they say is history and we know what Afghanistan stands for today. All the so called allies in Asia are either its client state or its vassal with a form of quasi-sovereignity. Let me get back to the topic instead of digressing. Is the Nuclear deal really good or bad for India? I read through some articles to find what's the fuss is all about. I will give the essence of what those articles say (at times just parroting what they say) and also give the links at the end (for those who are interested).

What's the deal to begin with? To say in simple terms (the following has been repeated in so many newpapers and website, it may sound like cliche for those who follow the news), the deal is that India will follow the procedures and take the responsibilities of other Nuclear powers (which in essence means, all its civilian reactors would follow IAEA safeguards and are subject to inspection by IAEA) and in turn India will get civilian reactors from the US. The problem as all of you know is that Indian reactors are not separated as civilian and military. So, Indians and Americans are locked horns in the list of reactors that should be classified as civilian and military. The bone of contention is the Fast Breeder Reactor (the ProtoType Fast Breeder Reactor) in Kalpakkam ( the CIRUS reactor near Bombay is another case where the US and India have a disagreement). For the uninitiated, the Fast Breeder Reactor produces more fuel (a very simplistic explanation) than it consumes. Also, the Fast Breeder Reactor uses Thorium , of which India has one of the largest reserves in the world. Apparently, the process leaves a large residue of weapon grade Plutonium (or is it Uranium ?) with which India can have as many weapons as it wants. It is this reactor that the US wants to bring under inspection. But, Scientists are dead against it (PM has also issued a statement today that fast breeder cannot be included in the civilian list). Another important reason why the scientists are against this is that India has probably one of the most advanced Breeder Technologies. Opening it up for inspection would be like opening up this technology to others without getting our due. From the perspective of the military strategists, putting too many reactors in the civilian list would curtail the amount of fissile material India could have for its strategic uses. If there are so many reasons for opposing the nuclear deal, why did India even go in for a deal with the US?

1) It would come out of the Nuclear Pariah status (a tacit acceptance of it as a nuclear power).

2) It would get to buy URANIUM (India has a very little reserves of Uranium) from the NSG.

3) It needs Uranium immediately in the short term for the Tarapur Reactor.

4) Once it is accepted as a Nuclear Power, obtaining of the Permanent Seat in the Security Council would be easier (or so some people in the Govt think).

Are these considerations enough to go in for a deal with a country like US which is so well known for breaking a lot of interational treaties (remember how India would always be told why it should sign CTBT until the US Congress failed to ratify it)? I don't want to say an absolute No to the deal, but given the secrecy with which the Govt is handling the issue, every bit of news typically comes out US media, I am very apprehensive about the deal. Why so much secrecy? Also, the number of reactors to be classified should also be nominal; right now the numbers floating around 12 to 17 of the 22 reactors India would have. My apprehension arises not merely because of what the deal gives India, but also from the noise that is emanating from Washington. Bush only a few days back changed his stand and said India was a nation with developing nuclear technology from a nation with advanced nuclear technology. Robert Blackwill said that if the deal does not go through then it will paint a very bad picture of the ruling elite and the people of India. Mulford says what is credible and what is not in selecting the reactors. While Americans are well known for arm-twisting, i don't find any reason why we as nation of a billion would have to bend over backwards to sign this deal.

Note : US last built a reactor in 1979. So, they are lagging behind in this area. This is all the more reason for thinking twice. Also, the western nations (except i guess France) had given up on Fast Breeder Technology long back. So, if US is asking us to open up the PBFR, you can understand that something is not right.

C Karthikeyan

P.S. Anyone with more foresight and knowledge please leave your suggestions. I request all to leave a statement on where they stand on this issue.

References:

1) http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVGJRQP&CFID=76061273&CFTOKEN=41c98b1-ac27c735-5c40-45b4-ab00-4052fff6ee74

2) http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=86424

3)http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2006/01/make-indo-us-nuclear-deal-more.html

4)http://www.manoramaonline.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=manorama/MmArticle/CommonFullStory&cid=1141071473673&c=MmArticle&p=1002194839100&count=10&colid=1054406791048&channel=News

5)http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/955/safeguarding-breeder-reactors

6)http://news.ft.com/cms/s/eaab3590-a883-11da-aeeb-0000779e2340.html

Whomsoever thought the infrastructure back in India is still in the stone age must be joking. An official trip recently to the Noida-Delhi-Gurgoan belt was an eye-opener. The region is developing extremely fast. They say that Noida and gurgoan were forests in the early 90s. Just one look at it now gives the impression of a silicon valley in the making. The entire region is being divided into sectors. Some sectors are allocated to industries, some to schools, many to residential and the like. One who lives there must have the feeling that he must be in california. Cars are everywhere, well connected metros (in the making), and huge huge malls (even a haldirams has a builing like walmart with vast car parkings and wide area). No wonder the region is the home of such biggies like IBM, Alcatel, freescale, conexant (and a countless others) . With the central government backing up well , the region might very well turn out to be the silicon valley after Bangalore (If one is adament about it). Also the region is very close to best tourist destinations in the country. One has to apreciate the previous BJP government for initiating the golden quadrilateral project. The quadrilateral not only connects the four metros byepassing all the state capitals but also is state-of-the-art. Contructed with 3 main lanes and 2 service lanes on either side, with plants (mainly roses) in between the dividers, the interstate highways must be jealous. Strategically located, geographically well connected, abundant water and food, one can only dream of the regions future.

But nothing comes free of cost. A car has to pay a toll of 55Rs to entering the golden quadrilateral and 18Rs entering noida from Delhi. The cost of living is extremely expensive for indian standards (which is not totally unexpected) and dont even bother to check the real estate prices there !!

Raghu.

Question:
Mr. O’Connor is a 35-year-old man who has lost higher-brain functioning (the ability to think, experience emotions, or perceive sensory information). He has been in this condition for 10 years. He is able to breathe on his own, but depends on a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration to stay alive. He has left no information in writing as to what his wishes would be in such a situation. At least in theory, the basic options are: (1) prolong his life as long as possible, (2) prolong his life using tube feeding, but do not attempt to save his life in the event of cardiac arrest, life-threatening infection, etc. (3) do not prolong his life (stop the tube feeding) and (4) cause his death by an overdose of medication. Which options are permissible? Which options are permissible? Which are good or bad? Are any of them morally required or morally prohibited? (Leave legal considerations out of your discussion, for the time being.) Is there anything else you would like to know before you could make your decision?

Answer:
Before entering into the ever ongoing debate of euthanasia, we need to ponder over some concerns that have surfaced in my mind. Who decides when a life no longer has any value? Is it the doctors, patients, spouses, parents or the insurance companies? What if there are differences of opinion? Are doctors ever motivated by cost factors? Are patients sometimes in an emotional state that makes good judgment unlikely? Are parents ever motivated by unreasonable hope, spouses by an understandable need to move on? Might insurance companies possess a narrower view of what “value” means than most of us would be comfortable with? These are questions that affect not only end-of-life issues, but also quality-of-life issues for persons with disabilities in general.

In my opinion, it is about placing the lives of the weakest among us in the hands of people other than themselves who often have self-serving agendas. Once society gives a group of people the right to end life, our right to life disappears behind red tape. The value of life diminishes when it can be taken away by others.

Considering the above factors, in my opinion, the only person who has a right to decide if a life no longer has any value is the person whose life is in question. At this point, there is a fork in the thought process: A case when the person is conscious of his/her plight and has the mental ability to take a decision about his/her life and another, when the person is in a vegetative state.

The main reasons for a person who consciously wants to end his/her life are unbearable pain, a relief of emotional trauma for the loved ones and in general, the right to choose a better way to go. Lets us consider those reasons in moderate depth.

The question of unbearable pain: In my opinion, the question here is about the competency of medical technology and knowledgeable doctors to contain the pain. Does every bout of uncontrollable pain find a solution in death? Is it really that difficult to contain pain in the modern era where mankind is making giant leaps in medical technology? The solution here, might lie in exploring ways to contain the pain. The solution here is to make sure that no stone is left unturned in administering pain killers to the patient. The solution here is to make sure that doctors or insurance agencies have not tried to slant the truth in a effort to contain medical expenses.

Pondering about the mental trauma that loved ones go through, are we sure that decisions are being taken in an illogical manner without letting people decide in a fit of emotional excitement? There are a lot of cases of depression where medications and counseling are employed to make the patients life more enjoyable. Are we sure that the loved ones might not change their stance when such methods are employed for them? Are we sure the loved ones and relatives are the best judge about the patient’s life? The solution here is to explore ways of helping loved ones cope with the trauma.

Considering the right of the patient to choose a better way to die, how many of us make rational decisions when in pain or trauma? The solution here is to alleviate the pain and kindle hope for positive thinking.

When a person is in vegetative state, there is no question of pain. This is more pertinent to Mr. O’Conner’s case. The only motive for euthanasia is to end the emotional trauma for the relatives and to cut down on medical costs thus taking a laid back attitude which culminates eventually in giving up. Who gives the right to the loved ones to decide about the life of the patient? What use do the billions of dollars spent on medical research come to when doctors give up on a challenge? When billions of dollars are spent on wars, why would the cost of medications be an issue? Who knows what a patient in vegetative state might have wanted for himself? Has technology advanced to an extent where doctors can delve into the minds of the patients and see what they want? When there is even a slightest chance of hope, why should the innocent, unknowing patient not given a chance to cling onto it? In the era of rapid advancements of medical technology, how would anyone know how long it might take for a cure to the disease in question to be discovered? Who decides if the patient wants to wait for that long a time or not? A cure could be right around the corner, or it could take decades.

Options 3 and 4, I feel, should be ruled out until these questions are answered.

Option 2 suggests that special efforts should not be taken to save the patients life in the event of any complications. As put forward above, the only motive here is to facilitate nature to take its own course of action in an attempt to remove guilt from the minds of doctors and loved ones and save on medical costs. If we let nature take its own course of action, how is this society different from a prehistoric one? Almost all societies - even non-religious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. When pain control medicines and procedures are far better than they have ever been any time in history, why should our commitment towards nurturing life diminish?

Considering my points of view, Mr. O’Conner should be allowed to live and option 1 should be chosen, even if he were in immense pain and conscious of his disease. I would choose option 1 for Mr. O’ Conner, unconditionally.

This week the BSE Sensex crossed yet another landmark. While the confidence that the world (judging from the number of articles that get printed everyday on India and China - how good it feels when we are at last getting de-hypenated from Pakistan (a country which is still confused about its nationhood)) exudes on the potential of India to be an economic Superpower in the long run is great, i do have a few reservations about the way the Government is opening up some of the really important sectors at such a fast rate. Here are some of the events in the last 15 to 20 days that i find interesting.

1) ManiShankar Iyer thrown out of the cabinet ( I found this very interesting, since this is the second minister (the other is Natwar Singh) to be thrown out who was very supportive of the IRAN pipeline to India).

2) BSE Sensex crosses 10000 mark which is really a very good sign (beware that a high value need not necessarily mean a healthy economy) about the confidence people have in the performance of the economy.

3) The Govt allowed 51% FDI investment in the retail sector (though with many conditions and regulations, I still cannot stomach the fact that a big retailer like Walmart can set up shop and make a lot of local groceries and small time businesses bankrupt. I might be wrong in my assessment, but i would have been happy if atleast initially the percentage allowed was kept below 50%. I don't want to sound like the communists, but for me the livelihood of a lot of Indians (as a large percentage of indians are either self-employed with their small businesses or in the unorganized sector) is much more important than how well Walmart can do business in India). In this respect, India should learn a few lessons from China. This is one country which is able to make the Americans (who take the moral high ground when it comes to preaching others about human rights and respecting international law) to change their ways when it comes to operating in China. The GOOGLE episode (this particularly shows that when it comes to business, ethics and human rights are indeed the last things that matter - think about the noises the Americans made about the poor working conditions in India and China when both the countries were not as big as now) is one in the long list of Chinese assertion that if you are doing business in China, its according to Chinese Laws.

4. It was really heartening to see the way India promoted itself in the DAVOS Economic Forum. If you went through the Business columns during that period, it was India Everywhere (which was the title for the PR campaign).

I had a few more stuff in mind, but i forget them now. I will post them maybe in the next one.

Now for some other stuff.

I watched an Iranian movie 'Two Women'. An awesome movie, which was realistic (a welcome respite from the crap that pass of for a movie in Tamil Cinema) in its depiction of the trials women go through in a conservative society. Please don't immediately imagine a society where women are beaten and have to live within their burkas (the images we get from Afghanistan). Its about two Architecture students who fight against the social structure that does not let them chase their goals and how they give up some of their ambitions for family etc., (a scene which is typical in every conservative society including ours). In this respect, I find TamilNadu to be the worst among the better developed (the four southern states, Maharastra, Punjab, Bengal, etc.,) states in India. Atleast in Afghanistan it is the Mullah who tells women what to wear and what not to wear. You can atleast expect that from an illiterate or one with education from a madrassa at best. In TamilNadu, the Chancellor of Anna University tells people who are old enough to vote (and thereby determine the destiny of the country) what to wear and what not to wear. I could only hang my face in shame when people here bring up the Kushboo episode or the fact that a college going student cannot wear a bright colored shirt to his class. Or that a college student cannot take his cell phone to his class. If you see the way some of the Engineering colleges (i dont know about the other streams) are run with rules that are as ridiculous as they are demeaning, you wouldn't want anyone you know to even step into that college, let alone study in them. If this is the case with the supposedly educated and emancipated part of the society, you can't begin to imagine what is happening on the other side.

C Karthikeyan