CHAYAKADA

Change in location

2008-05-23T17:55:00.003+05:30

Chayakada has decided to move to www.chayakada.wordpress.com

Chayakada protests Google's double standards on Democracy, Freedom of speech, and customer privacy.

Beware of Google, Orkut and Blogger

Google's Great Betrayal

We urge all our readers and supporters to move their blogs away from Google; in fact to stop using all google products till Google apologises to the two Indian nationals who became victims of Google's unethical trade practices.

The case against Google is clearly mentioned in the previous post.

Beware of Google, Orkut and Blogger

2008-05-21T09:17:00.003+05:30

Google has done it again. Back in November last year, Google betrayed one of the many million customers it has. By calling us a user and not a customer, Google somehow tries to evade customer rights.

Google has struck again - dealing a decisive blow to "freedom of speech" and "democratic values."

Twenty-two-year old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid was arrested by the cyber crime cell of Pune police last Friday from Gurgaon in Haryana for posting vulgar content about Congress president Sonia Gandhi on social networking site Orkut.
"As far as India is concerned, one has fundamental rights but you can override them. But obscene and vulgar data is punishable under IT act,” says DCP, Pune Cyber Crime Cell, Sunil Phulari.
Vaid had posted the content an Orkut community titled 'I hate Sonia Gandhi'.
Google, the owner of Orkut was asked to divulge details about Vaid and it obliged. In a statement, Google says, "In compliance with valid Indian legal process, we provided Indian law enforcement authorities with the IP address information they requested in this case."

Google is not a charity, it is a booming business organisation. We are all customers who help Google make the mega bucks.

Google lures you with free blogger space as blogspot, youtube, orkut... If rogue government officials around the world get to define what is vulgar... then we have a serious problem.

As an Indian national forum, which takes great pride in the efforts of Subash Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi, Chayakada is saddened by the Indian government's draconian law.

The morality of the congress party is not even questionable... it is downright pathetic. Starting with the Emergency and the crime towards humanity during the Emergency 1975-'77, when Sonia' mother in law - Indira Gandhi - and her regime did everything to refuse and deny basic human rights to India's citizens.

The same congress party has no shame or moral outrage when it comes to the mass murder of Indians from the Sikh community in Delhi, 1984. The congress party has lacked 'morality in public space' than any other political party in India.

They will have to face the truth one day sooner.

That said, what Google has been doing in India must be condemned. Google's actions are so undemocratic. In the US, google takes a completely different position.

When Senator Lieberman asked Google

"By taking action to curtail the use of YouTube to disseminate the goals and methods of those who wish to kill innocent civilians, Google will make a singularly important contribution to this important national effort," Lieberman wrote.

Google's response was American in every word:

"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds."

Google management sings different tunes in different democracies. Google CEO Eric Schmidt should come clean on the Jekyll and Hyde nature of his company.

As google has its HQ in the US, wait a minute - it is in the State of California! - I urge all supporters of freedom of speech and democracy, especially our friends in the United States of America to write to their congressmen and senators to pull up Google for their irresponsible, undemocratic and above all UNAMERICAN actions in India.

I wonder what Obama, Hillary and McCain has to say about Google slandering democracy in India.

War for the Dollar

2008-05-20T15:04:00.000+05:30

Political analysts are not pondering over whether the US would hit Iran for its nuclear ambitions; WHEN are they going to hit – is the only real question that remains. Is a war imminent? You bet it is.

The popular notion that the American public is war fatigued may not mean anything when it comes to government policies. Even though the US is a democracy, Washington doesn’t go by referendums on every major issue. Sometimes the popular perception can be way too wrong – didn’t most American politicians think Iraq had WMDs?

George Bush has been very subdued by his own war standards – in recent times. Maybe there is a good reason for this uneasy lull in War politics. The Democratic Party is too busy contesting the primaries to nominate the next president; the republicans are waiting to know whether it will be Obama or Hillary.

America has a history of being pro-war; every time their economy has faced a major recession – they have relied on a war to bail them out. American politicians are more or less aligned with the ‘big money businesses in the US’. The corporate giants – banks, oil companies, auto-makers and other industry giants have all their say thanks to the ‘grip’ they have over the US polity.

McCain is a born-again pro-war believer. Hillary, in fact, has threatened to obliterate Iran. Only Obama has been pussy-footing to win the liberal votes – claiming he’ll engage in a dialogue with Iran. The American presidential election, or lets say the nomination of Obama could hasten the war.

I’ll come back to the American domestic angle a little later. But, first, let us look at what China is thinking. Chayakada finds the Chinese position on Iran very interesting. Zhang Zhaozhong, assistant director of Military Logistics and Military Equipment Department, National Defense University, China, writes:

Iran still takes a hard-line on the nuclear issue under the UN Resolution 1747. But its rejection against any inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be very dangerous and increase the possibility of 'sensitive occurrences'. As a result, the room for communication is shrinking.

The United Nations adopted the Resolution 1747 last month, urging Iran to implement previous resolutions and increasing sanctions. This resolution, together with the previous one, 1737, is a fair decision designed to secure the world peace, take Iran's demand into account and fence off the nuclear proliferation. It was not adopted under the pressure of the US. So it must be respected.

China has expressed its position. China insists that the international law be observed and the nuclear proliferation be avoided. It is also against the abuse of force on the issue. China votes for the two UN resolutions. It has also tried to persuade Iran and US to solve the issue through diplomatic ways.

Once a war breaks out, Israel will be the first to get engaged. In that case, Arabic countries will not stand by. Is the Third World War looming? Nobody knows how many countries will be involved if such things happen. The Middle East will be in a total mess.

If Iran chooses to stick to its hardliner policy till the deadline specified by the UN Resolution 1747, it will have to face the consequence. What tough measures will be taken is not sure. But the US may resort to some kind of force.

You really don’t have to read between those lines. The message is very clear – China is in favour of the UN resolutions on Iran. Oh yes! We know what that means.

The US clearly doesn’t have the troops to win a war in Iran or in any other part of the world. All they can do is rely on heavy air strikes – as Hillary said, obliterate Iran. The human casualty and the cost of such a war to humanity are going to be of epic proportions. Still, there seems to be an inertia that is building up for a major war.

The US and India were to sign a Nuclear deal – the 1-2-3 agreement. Government of India has been reluctant to sign because of the pressures from the Leftist and Communist parties in India – who support the central government. The opposition to the 1-2-3 agreement is purely based on vote-bank politics; these parties would like to consolidate the Muslim vote. The communists are not descendants of a non-violent social philosophy; their history is filled with violent actions whenever they deemed it suitable for their own gains. That small village, Nandigram, in Bengal, witnessed such brutal violence and killing – backed by state law and order machinery and the lawless Marxist party killers – is a sad example of the violent heritage of the communist and left parties in India.

The congress party, which is at the helm in New Delhi, seems absolutely clueless on how to govern the nation or its economy. India needs energy to sustain its current growth, and like it or not, Nuclear energy is one of the options India has already taken decades ago. As the communists try to portray it, India is not an Iran, contemplating on Nuclear energy for civilian use. India has nuclear reactors supplying electricity to furl its economy.

What we really don’t know much about the nuclear agreement with the US is – what does the US get in return? Is it support to its new military expeditions? India was almost ready to send troops to Iraq; they backed out in the end due to domestic political pressure. Chayakada’s overwhelming feeling is that in return for the nuclear help from the US, India will support the US with troops.

The question then is, when would India sign the deal?

There has been pressure on India with the situation in Tibet – and China looking peeping over the wall. That pressure wasn’t enough for the Prime Minister of India to sign the deal. Now, India faces another major problem – rising food and oil price – especially Oil. At 129 US dollars a barrel, oil has travelled a long way from 18$ a barrel in 2002.

The US currency has been struggling in the international market due to various reasons, poor fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve to money laundering. It is no secret that the US dollar is the most favoured currency for launderers. If the next war is going to be fought by the Americans, it will not be for OIL, it will be a war for the DOLLAR. The world economy banks on dollar; weak dollar is a catastrophe for many nations.

This week the Indian rupee hit a 13-month low; the Indian economy is in real danger of crashing. Software can’t feed people; India needs to strengthen its rural economy which takes care of agricultural production. Any growth can only be fuelled with energy. No nuclear deal, oil price shooting up, India just cannot afford to wait and watch.

Chayakada suspects the tipping point for India is 150$ a barrel of oil. At that point India will have to act. India will sign the nuclear deal and send troops (we have abundant manpower anyway!) to where the US wants us to.

Iranian administration has been playing into the hands of American spin doctors for the last few years. Given their tough stance on nuclear inspections, Iran is fast losing global support. What Iran also did recently was to move their oil trading out of the dollar basket – further hitting the struggling dollar.

The GCC countries, with the exception of Kuwait, have stayed loyal to the US Dollar over the last one year – in spite of widespread rumours that they’ll all abandon the greenback. Kuwait removed the US$ currency peg, which definitely did not make Washington too happy.

Iran is definitely a potential US target. Now that China too seems to have taken a neutral position, there is nothing that is going to stop the Americans if India commits troops for this adventure. Anything that would bring the oil price down will have widespread world support. A quick war in the region, which brings the price of oil down to 50$ a barrel will be trumpeted as a success by the Bush administration as a victory of their government’s policies. Every American will then be happy, notwithstanding it was 18$ a barrel just before the Iraq war.

The high oil price cannot be blamed on India and China. Global oil supply is already higher than demand so if OPEC pumped more it would not reduce the price, Iraq's Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said on Monday.
"There is more oil in the market than consumers want," Shahristani told Reuters. "What is driving up prices is an increase in speculative funds. An increase in production by OPEC countries would not really change the scenario -- it would not affect the price."

Speculative funds – the same funds which are driving up the food grain price. Chayakada cannot speculate whether Sovereign funds are playing in the food futures and oil futures. It might be in the interest of some sovereign funds to indulge in such dirty games for certain. There is more money to be made – and no stopping them. If a Middle Eastern sovereign fund indulges in oil futures trading… they get to fix the price of what they produce – OIL.

International Herald Tribune reports:

World Bank President Robert Zoellick cautioned that the funds will continue to raise international concern as countries question whether their investments are driven by the search for profit or by political interests that could threaten national security.

The United States and the European Union have pushed sovereign funds to provide greater disclosure about their investment strategies and are backing an initiative by the International Monetary Fund and the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop a voluntary set of best practices for the investment vehicles.

If there is an iota of truth that sovereign funds are operating in the oil market – pushing the price up – they better watch out. Uncle Sam will come down heavily on them; If America is going to fight to save the dollar – all countries which have their currency pegged to the $ will end up supporting US action. Plus, if it means cheaper oil, why wouldn’t India or China send troops to secure energy.

Oil producing nations cannot ignore the global warning – higher the oil price – higher the risk.

http://www.india-defence.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12755
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/29/eng20070429_370883.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/21/business/21oil.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/business/insider.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/19/business/ME-FIN-Mideast-Sovereign-Funds.php
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aIoSB3xCBk08&refer=india
http://politicalpakistan.blogspot.com/2007/05/rich-and-infamous.html

Black and White Democratic Party

2008-04-24T12:03:00.006+05:30

Who will be the winner in the fight between two democrats -- front-runner Obama and underdog Hillary -- in the race to be the democratic presidential nominee? One of them, most likely Obama, will emerge the winner.

The battle between the first black man and the first woman trying to be an American president is an interesting one. What is also interesting is that they don't seem to be representing the same party. The more the two candidates battle it out, the more democratic party suffers.

The democratic votes have been polarised on racial lines. In the recent critical poll in Pennsylvania, Obama took 92 per cent of the African American vote - as he is considered to be black enough. That Hillary won with a 10% margin tells us that the White votes have gone to the white woman.

Obama's claim that he is an 'unifier' is too hollow. The two candidates have gone about campaigning as if they are from two different parties, as if they are two independent candidates. And lately, their campaign has produced results to show that democrats are voting either for a black or for a white. Ladies and gentlemen - this is not a battle to strengthen democracy.

The headless democratic party has allowed two of its candidates to run an independent campaign, completely ignoring the realities of two-party politics in the US. Chayakada finds Obama not too convincing -- America can't make a U-turn from Bush-Cheney policies overnight. Even if Obama becomes the president, he can't pull out troops from Iraq the very next day.

From a strategic point of view, America needs to be in the Middle East to ensure energy/oil supplies. OIL - Iraq, Iran... America can't get out of it.

Los Angeles times reports that Obama has been taking money from Oil executives. In a campaign advertisement he said he took no money from oil companies.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Texas oil executive Robert L. Cavnar of Milagro Exploration and his wife, Gracie, have helped the Illinois Democrat raise at least another $50,000 by helping host a fundraiser earlier in the campaign.

Other oil industry donors have included Sinclair Oil President Ross Matthews of Texas and John B. Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a New York-based oil producer and retailer with operations worldwide. Hess, who has given to other presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain, gave $2,300 to Obama last year, as did his wife, Susan. Hess gave $14,000 to Obama's Senate run in 2003.

I am a big fan of Bruce Springsteen - but I cannot agree with him endorsing Obama even when the primaries aren't over. If Hillary and Obama have been going around like independent candidates, why not endorse Ralph Nader? At least the man is honest, liberal, and anti-big-money!

Hillary represents 'the firm' - the status quo, and that's her problem. Obama is the one who claims that he doesn't represent the DC politics, hence he needs to be under the microscope a great deal more than anyone else.

Everything could be possibly wrong with what happens in DC - lobbying, oil money, sex scandals, corruption, inside job, crime - you name it. But, then, America is voting for the president to be in the Middle of DC politics. Democratic party is very much there in the Congress and Senate - they are a part of the American political system - good or bad.

Obama, even being a senator, somehow is trying to claim a moral high ground - that he is above the DC politics. If he disowns the DC politics, he must first resign as a Senator and also from the democratic party - and then contest as an independent like Ralph Nader.

If Obama thinks he is not a part of the Washington DC politics, that he is not going to play the games they all play - then he is a black sheep in the democratic party.

Like it or not, Hillary is not being a hypocrite in this issue. She is part of the political game that goes on in DC - she hasn't disowned it. She is very much in the democratic party too.

America is ripe for a revolution, of course. Billions of dollars have disappeared or made a vanishing act. Most of the US dollars can now be found in China thanks to the massive imports. Billions have been exploded and lost in Iraq - defence contractors and suppliers have made billions of profit. And worse, US Dollar is the preferred currency for money launderers.

America needs to recover its dollars. America needs to be powerful - not as a military bully but as an economic powerhouse of innovation and technology. The world is suffering today - thanks to Bush/Cheney rule - there are food shortages, energy shortages and what not. This world needs a strong America.

Obama's revolution can wait. America should recover soon for the sake of the global economy. One way of doing it is not by taking oil money but by taking steps to reduce the oil price. Even if it means, putting together a coalition of nations to pump more oil out of Iraq.

On the issue of Iran too, Obama's pacifist politics won't make the cut. America needs a president who will bring the oil price down to 35 dollars a barrel, and a president who will ensure Dollar is at par with Euro. It may take another war, but it has to be done.

Suddenly McCain looks like a better option, in spite of me being an anti-republican.

I want India to sign the Nuclear deal and a defence pact with the US. I want India to support US in the war against reducing oil price. India has taken a soft position with regard to China and also towards Opec countries and Iran - when not a single country in the group gives India what we need - Cheaper Oil.

Going back to the elections in the US, Robert D. Novak, in his op-ed column, Trouble Ahead for Obama, writes: "Democratic politicians today see no viable alternative to Obama as their nominee. Their hard assessment is that Clinton clawing her way to the nomination could mean 25 percent McCain support from a radically depleted African American turnout -- a prescription for disaster."

When Pennsylvania exit polls came out late Tuesday afternoon showing a lead of 3.6 points for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, Democratic leaders who desperately wanted her to end her candidacy were not cheered. They were sure that this puny lead overstated Obama's strength, as exit polls nearly always have in diverse states with large urban populations. How is it possible, then, that Clinton, given up for dead by her party's establishment, won Pennsylvania in a 10-point landslide? The answer is the dreaded "Bradley effect."

Prominent Democrats only whisper when they compare Obama's experience, the first African American with a serious chance to be president, with what happened to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley a quarter-century ago. In 1982, exit polls showed Bradley, who was black, ahead in the race for governor of California, but he ultimately lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Pollster John Zogby (who predicted Clinton's double-digit win Tuesday) said what practicing Democrats would not: "I think voters face to face are not willing to say they would oppose an African American candidate."

If there really is a Bradley effect in 2008, Zogby sees November peril for Obama in blue states. John McCain could win not only in Pennsylvania but also in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and he can retain Ohio for the Republicans. There seems to be no way Clinton can overtake Obama in delegates and the popular vote. For unelected superdelegates to deprive Obama of the nomination would so depress African American general election voting that the nomination would be worthless for her. In a year when all normal political indicators point to Republican defeat on all fronts, the Democratic Party faces deepening difficulties whether Obama is nominated or rejected.

Obama hit a low in Pennsylvania, despite clouds over Clinton's credibility and her husband's dysfunctional campaigning. Popular freshman Sen. Bob Casey, a pro-life and pro-gun Catholic, was Obama's faithful surrogate but proved to be no help. Exit polls showed Obama losing 70 percent of Catholics, 58 percent of white Protestants and 62 percent of gun owners. Clinton carried union members, people who earn between $15,000 and $75,000 annually, and those without a college degree. Obama was saved from total disaster in Pennsylvania by winning 92 percent of the African American vote, but the reverse of the racial divide was Clinton's support from whites, especially white working women.

For the first time, Democratic loyalists not necessarily committed to Clinton are wondering whether the party's system for picking a nominee is the problem. If caucuses were eliminated and only primaries were used, Obama's 130-delegate lead would turn into an advantage of 45 delegates for Clinton. The bigger problem is proportional representation, which replaced the kind of winner-take-all system that enabled Republicans to get their nominee on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. Without the reforms enacted by Democrats during the decade after the party's 1968 fiasco, Clinton might have clinched the nomination by now.

Pennsylvania exit polls project a massive defection by Clinton voters (with 32 percent of them saying they would be "satisfied" only if she is the nominee). Many of these disaffected Democrats surely will be reconciled to Obama. Indeed, McCain privately warns key supporters to be prepared for a massive, if temporary, falloff in the polls once these unhappy Democrats return after Obama is nominated. But not all will return, and that is Pennsylvania's warning to the Democratic Party.

Livin' In The Future

2008-04-11T16:01:00.001+05:30

Even Bob Dylan would be proud of writing something like this:

My faith's been torn asunder, tell me is that rollin' thunder
Or just the sinkin' sound of somethin' righteous goin' under?

Buy Springsteen's latest Album: Magic

Democracy is just not Hope

2008-02-19T20:12:00.000+05:30

If Gore couldn't beat a dyslexic Bush in a debate, he didn't deserve to be the president of the United States of America. Now listen to this, Obama selling hope to the American voters.

How come Hillary cannot respond to this? If she cannot respond to it, she doesn't deserve to be the President either.

America's best poet, Emily Dickinson, wrote:

"Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all."

Emily thought Hope sings without the words; but Obama thinks his words of hope makes a difference. Maybe it does to some.

If I were Hillary, I would have spoken to the electorate about the Greek mythology, about hope being the last item in Pandora's box. America is not in a state of desperation to live on "hope."

Hope is an English word; it doesn't matter what some Americans have done to the English language. Oxford dictionary says, hope is: to want something to happen and think that it is possible.

There is a better word in English language, it is "BELIEF."

Hillary has failed to make Americans "believe" in her or her politics. When Obama sells hope, Hillary has been silent on belief.

I believe, I believe, I am a believer.

Every democrat in the US MUST BELIEVE - that they can make the change. Democracy is not hope, better life is not hope; Democracy is a choice, better living conditions is a choice, if your leader puts faith in you and you believe it.

From a truly Indian context; hope only appears if you are betting on something. As a farmer you don't hope it rains to save your crop, you believe the rain God will deliver the rain to you.

In an American context, you don't hope Jesus will deliver, you believe as a faithful - that he will deliver.

Obama, for all the support he is receiving, is not a finished product. He is not the real deal yet. Sadly, Hillary and her team has also failed to make her voters BELIEVE in her.

If America is faced with a Hobson's choice of only hope and no belief, Only God can save them.

America must start to believe in itself. America must regain its self-belief. America must provide the leadership, not through words, but through actions with a strong conviction that Democracy can only work, when people participate in it.

Political Will

2007-12-27T09:45:00.000+05:30

"We have everything we need, save perhaps, political will. But, you know what ... political will is a renewable resource. ... The solutions are in our hands. We just have to have the determination to make them happen. " --AL GORE, former US Vice-President

Where was your political will, Mr. Gore? Where was it when you gave up the fight for the US presidency?

Practise what you preach.

Celebrating Democracy

2007-12-24T01:01:00.000+05:30

In a democracy every vote counts or let us say gets counted (with the grand exception of United States of America).

Majority of our brothers and sisters in Gujarat, for whatever reason it is, voted for the fascist Modi's regime.

I heard Prannoy Roy on NDTV say, "Modi's victory has sent a chill down the spine..."

Are we to get scared? No. You know why? It's because India is a democracy.

Am I ashamed of Modi? Yes, I am. As a chief minister he had a responsibility to protect the lives of all people who live in that state - irrespective of their religious belief.

Am I ashamed of his victory? No, I am not.

I am sure, Modi's turn would come, when he will have to face the justice system of India.

If Hitler had stood in an election in Germany, during the genocide years, Hitler would have swept the elections. Would that make Hitler or his regime in any manner lesser criminals? No.

Indira Gandhi was voted out after the Emergency years. In the space of three years, she was voted back to power. Does that mean the police atrocities under her regime were ratified by the people of India? No.

Election results are not something we need to fear. At least we are having an election - and there are times when people make a choice based on emotions, sometimes in euphoria, or sorrow, or fear.

Modi's victory is a great victory for India's democracy. A big failure for all political parties, including Modi's own party BJP - who couldn't come up with a leader acceptable to the people of Gujarat.

There are fascist Hindus in India. There are Fascist Muslims in India. When they battle it out, innocent Muslims and Hindus get killed. Just that the idiots who follow religion so blindly are not ready to face the truth.

Religions have killed more people in the last 100 years than anything else.

Living in a secular state, where all citizens are equal, is a democratic dream. Never an utopian dream.

Blame it on education

2007-12-16T00:35:00.000+05:30

Examinations blamed for low turnout at Sharjah Book Fair

Let's get Outraged

2007-12-13T11:21:00.000+05:30

Gulf News, one of the leading newspapers in the UAE and the Middle East, makes me extremely angry.

Look at this report published in October this year:

Suspects deny gang-raping teenager at knifepoint

Dubai: Three suspects, including one with Aids, are standing trial for tricking a French teenager into their vehicle, driving off to the desert and gang-raping him at knifepoint.

The 15-year-old boy claimed that one of the suspects snatched his cell-phone away from him when he dialled 999 shortly before he was raped.

The 35-year-old Aids patient, A.K., an Emirati and his 18-year-old unemployed compatriot, I.M., denied their charges before the Dubai Court of First Instance yesterday.

On December 12, Gulf News had this to report

Two men jailed for kidnap and rape of 15-year-old French boy

Dubai: Two Emirati men will each spend 15 years in prison for kidnapping and having sex with a 15-year-old French boy against his will, ruled a court on Wednesday.

The Dubai Court of First Instance sentenced the men - a 35-year-old Aids patient and his 18-year-old compatriot - and referred the victim’s compensation claim of Dh15 million to a civil court.

What outrages me is the language used in the report. "Kidnapping and having sex with a 15-year-old French boy," cannot be blamed as something lost in translation.

RAPE outrages us all, it outrages everyone.

In the space of less than two months, Gulf News changed its language from "gang-rape" to "having sex."

HAVING SEX???!!!

West Bengal: Where is Socialism?

2007-11-18T13:33:00.000+05:30

How many leftists are there in the Communist Party in West Bengal? How many of them really believe in Socialism? How many of them really do believe that Wealth is something that has to be distributed and not something that has to be accumulated?

The 'Nandigram-gate' haunting the Communist Party in West Bengal has everything to do with sucking up to big money and ignoring the poor. It is not only a dangerous recipe to lose their democratic support; it is a very dangerous game.

First it was Jyothi Basu, who wanted to fill in the Congress boots - when Congress was losing their ground to the right-wing BJP. Even before the independence in 1947, the Congress party has held on to the position of being the socialists (Hypocrisy Unlimited), manipulating the media and using every government propaganda machinery available.

That Basu had wet dreams of being the first Communist Prime Minister of India is not a secret. He never wanted to be a socialist Prime Minister.

The problem with the West Bengal communists is simple: they don't like socialism anymore - they like their own brand of Communism, which is very close to Capitalism run by a party machinery. They want their party to become rich, powerful and whatnot and extend their control over power. Again, very dangerous.

Economif Times reports, 'Nandigram firing unconstitutional'

In A verdict that could have widespread legal implications, Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Surendra Singh Nijjar and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on Friday held the Nandigram firings on March 14 as “totally unconstitutional”.

The court has also directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for each loss of life, Rs 2 lakh for each rape victim and Rs 1 lakh for each of the injured. The state government on November eight had announced compensation of Rs two lakh for the next of kin of the 14 killed and ruled out compensation for the injured.

Brushing aside all contentions of the West Bengal government, the division bench has directed the CBI to continue with its investigation while the state government has been asked to submit a compliance report before the court within a month.

Taking suo motu cognisance of the March 14 firings in Nandigram, the court by an order passed on March 15 had asked CBI director to constitute a special team to collect all reports, including the ones on post-mortem, all evidence and other particulars, and to keep the same in safe custody.

The West Bengal government, in turn, was told to file an affidavit explaining the sequence of events that had led to the firings which claimed many lives. Soon after the incident, there was a deluge of public interest petitions which were heard simultaneously.

The main contention of the Buddhadeb government has been that the High Court cannot direct the CBI to investigate without the approval of the state government.

Based on the findings of the High Court of West Bengal, the government's actions have been "TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

Isn't that good enough reasons to sack the government? It is another matter that the central government wouldn't do anything, as they rely on the Communist support to their government - which is running on borrowed time.

If this isn't total constitutional breakdown in the Indian state - what is?

A State Government breaks the golden rule of upholding the Indian constitution. The Federal Government, which should have acted immediately, lets the constitution to be challenged and ridiculed - just to save itself from losing power.

This is a classic case of two men fondling each other's balls.

The congress and the communists have proved how incompetent and anti-people they are. BJP, which is the other option believes the poor will be well fed and happy if they were to build new temples!

None of these politicians has a vision of a new India, which is ready to work harder to earn more, and also to support the poor brothers and sisters.

We don't need new billionaires in India, and we don't need more poor people who constitute a vote-bank for these political parties.

What we need is to regain our state, protect it from being abused by these powermongers, nourish it to be a home for all Indians to live with some amount of peace and prosperity.

Kerala's Icecream shame

2007-11-18T13:23:00.000+05:30

Icecream parlour case: Kerala govt.'s appeal rejected

Kochi (PTI): The Kerala High court on Friday rejected the appeal filed by the state government against the order of acquittal of all the 16 accused in the Icecream Parlour sex case.

Dismissing the appeal, Justice K Thankappan said there is no scope for retrial.

The court also dismissed the revision petition filed by K Ajitha, President of a social organisation, Anweshi, challenging the acquittal order. The Principal Assistant sessions court, Kozhikode, had on January 12, 2006, acquitted all the accused in the case. The government in its appeal submitted that even the prosecutor for the state was aiding the accused. The case relates to luring of young girls to the icecream parlour and forcing them into sex trade.

The then left government, which was in power, when the Icecream Parlour case surfaced - did literally nothing to book the criminals.

Many in Kerala know that the rich and famous of Kozhikode were involved in this. That the case was weakened further when the Left were booted out of power and replaced with an equally corrupt Congress regime.

The High Court can only say things based on the evidence that is placed before the court. Both Communists and Congress - led factions are responsible for the failure of the state to prosecute the criminals.

Maybe, in another few years, when there is a real shift in power from the hands of these power-brokers, there will be justice served.

Till then, all Malayaless are forced to live with the Icecream shame.

Lions for Lambs

2007-11-10T23:09:00.000+05:30

A very good movie.

Google's Great Betrayal

2007-11-05T23:54:00.001+05:30

Only a couple of days back, Google was in the news with their OpenSocial - tools which allow developers to create applications to utilise personal and social data contained in the participating social networks.

Google, we thought, are the new champions of Web2.0. The truth is, Google has been accused of passing on private information to police in the Indian city of Mumbai, which led to the arrest of Lakshmana, a Software Engineer based in Bangalore. To make things even worse, after 50 days of rotting in jail, Lakshmana was found innocent and set free as the Mumbai cops found out they were misled by Google and the Internet Service Provider - Airtel.

Please refer to the previous two posts for the details of the case.

Why do we all blog? We share our ideas with the rest of the world, even if it means our ideas are half-baked or not so good. The idea is, that most of us believe, we are FREE to express ourselves on these blogs/ social networking websites. It is now obvious the case isn't so. Google has betrayed us. This case highlights a very important moment in the history of web. Google has killed web 2.0 by providing information to Mumbai police.

Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? Would google comply with every government in this world? Would they pass on information from my mail to Rogue governments?

This is a very scary prospect. Very scary indeed.

Yahoo was the first to betray the privacy of its users. According to a Reuters report, a senior executive at Yahoo Inc has apologised for failing to give U.S. lawmakers additional information about the Internet Company’s alleged role in the imprisonment of a Chinese dissident.

The apology comes days before a U.S. congressional committee hearing next week, at which Yahoo Chief Executive Jerry Yang is expected to answer questions on his company's disclosure of information to Chinese authorities. Yahoo has been accused of helping the Chinese government identify Shi Tao, a reporter who was sentenced last April to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets abroad.

Yahoo betrays its user in China, sends him to jail for 10 years. Google is guilty of putting an innocent man behind bars for 50 days.

When we sign up for all these services, especially social networking services like Orkut or Facebook, there is an innocent trust being placed by the users - that they are safe in communicating their thoughts and emotions. Freedom of expression has never been so important in the life of humans, as much as it is today in this cyber age.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook - have all become billionaires thanks to us, us idiots who sign up, to be served idiotic advertisements which we hardly click on. This perception that online adverts actually work has made these companies so rich that they have to suck up to governments to keep their money machine clicking. What a sad story.

Who said the Internet is going to liberate people? Who said the Internet is going to be the voice of the oppressed?

Thanks to the likes of Google and Orkut, genuine Human Rights workers could find themselves behind bars - labelled as Terrorists by rogue governments.

We, the internet users, outside North America and Europe are helpless anyway. It is up to the bloggers, social networkers like Orkuters and Facebookers and Emailers living in the US and Europe to help their brothers and sisters who share this wonderful space called the Internet.

Let not Google or Yahoo put fear in the minds of Internet users. These monsters must be stopped; they must be pulled up for compromising the lives of their customers.

We don't know for sure what sort of information has been passed by these Online companies to governments and other intelligence agencies. If there can be a class action suit against the likes of Yahoo for betraying their customers, they will learn a lesson.

These people have no values or morals to stop them from playing with our lives. The only way we can stop them is by hurting them where it hurts them the most - MONEY.

I urge, plead, all Internet users to make a lot of noise that Google, Yahoo and others don't hijack the cyberspace.

Who said Google is OpenSocial? They are Anti-Social.

Goodbye Google

2007-11-05T21:55:00.000+05:30

Following up on my previous post, Welcome to IT shining India, I found this article in the Times of India: We made a mistake, so what, says Police

MUMBAI: In a case of misplaced justice, 26-year-old Lakshmana was released 50 days after authorities arrested him for 'defaming' Shivaji. Google, which owns Orkut , had cooperated with Mumbai police but the vital IP address — the unique number for an internet connection — was provided by service provider Bharti Airtel. Bharti said the IP address belonged to a Lakshmana K who lived in Bangalore.

His first bail plea was rejected. Finally, on October 20, after spending 50 days with 200 undertrials at Yerawada Jail, Lakshmana was released. Sorry, said the police, the IP address given to us was wrong. We are sorry, said Airtel, and "deeply distressed by the severe inconvenience".

To add insult to injury, the police released Lakshmana nearly three weeks after they claimed to have picked up the "real culprits" on October 3 — three Bangalore boys, all now in judicial custody. Asked about the earlier arrest, assistant commissioner Netaji Shinde says, "Yes, we made a mistake. So what?"

Bharti was a little more contrite but made no mention of compensation. "We are in touch with the customer. We have robust internal processes which we review frequently to make them more stringent," the company said in a response to TOI. "We have conducted a thorough investigation and will take appropriate action."

Lakshmana's ordeal has uncanny resonances of Kafka’s The Trial , the more so because his name has the same initial K as Kafka's hapless protagonist. K is arrested one morning before breakfast on a non-charge and is left to battle the state's mindless might.

Lakshmana was charged under Section 295A of the IPC for a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings, and Section 67 of the IT Act for publishing "lascivious" material. The latter charge carries a punishment of five years.

Like Kafka's K, Lakshmana tried initially to be brave. But he cracked when he was made to pose for a photograph with a black slate carrying his father's name and his alleged crime. "It hurt me a lot that my father, a retired banker, was being associated with a crime. I just broke down," he says.

"We were given a vati (bowl) which we had to eat and drink from and even take to the toilet. The long queues for filling water in the vati was our survival routine," says Lakshmana. His kidney stones started acting up and his health deteriorated. "Because of depression and the bad food, I lost 12 kilos," he says.

He's back home now trying to put it all behind. HCL has been supportive but Lakshmana is not sure whether his job still exists.

"I have forgotten coding. I need to start all over," he says. Asked if he planned to sue for compensation, Lakshmana is philosophical. "My family is considering it. Right now, I'm just beginning to appreciate the small things in life. It's good to have a toilet to oneself. It's good to have clean drinking water. It's good to have family to quarrel with."

Two days after his return, Airtel got in touch. But it wasn't about the arrest. They sent him a SMS reminding him to pay his bill. This was followed up by a visit from a collection agent.

"I told them it's all because of you that I haven't paid," says Lakshmana. "We can't pay bills from jail."

So, can we trust Google? The answer seems to be NO. That I am posting this blog on blogger.com, owned by google makes me extremely agitated. There has to be a campaign to make Google pay millions of dollars to Lakshmana. What was the dude's mistake? That he signed up for Orkut like most of us did?

As for Airtel, their statement it is vulgar, obscene, anti-people and anti-democratic. How deeply distressed are they? Is spending 50 days in Jail, the ordeal Lakshmana had to go through an inconvenience?

Gandhiji taught us the wonderful concept of non-cooperation. I am moving out of Blogger and moving to Wordpress. This blog will be available in www.chayakada.wordpress.com

Google should have protected the privacy of its members. There is no way Google has to suck up to governments.

For what Airtel did and then tried to sanitise the whole thing by talking about the inconvenience, they must be put out of business as well.

I will never do any business with Airtel.

As for the whole idea of "Hurting religious feelings" makes me want to throw up. Hey the government, the lawmakers, or even the law doesn't get hurt when millions of Indians don't have enough to eat or for basic survival. It is quite obvious that the Indian law considers religion to be paramount than the people who live in the state.

Secular India? My foot.

Why do we all blog? We share our ideas with the rest of the world, even if it means our ideas are half-baked or not so good. The idea is most of us believe we are FREE to express ourselves on these blogs/ websites. It is now obvious the case isn't so. Google has betrayed us. This case highlights a very important moment in the history of web. Google has killed web 2.0 by providing information to Mumbai police.

Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? Would google comply with every government in this world? Would they pass on information from my mail to Rogue governments?

This is a very scary prospect. Very scary indeed.

Goodbye Google, Goodbye Airtel.

This blog will NOW be available in www.chayakada.wordpress.com

Welcome to IT shining India

2007-11-03T11:28:00.000+05:30

This is a shocking news which appeared in the Times of India: Wrong man in jail for 50 days on cyber charge

MUMBAI: In the early hours of August 31, Lakshmana Kailash K was asleep at his home in Bangalore.

He was woken up by eight policemen from Pune who came knocking on his door and waved the Information Technology Act, 2000, in his sleepy, terrified face.

Get dressed, he was told, we are taking you to Pune for having defamed Shivaji. Lakshmana protested that he didn't know anyone called Shivaji.

The policemen said that they were talking about Chhatrapati Shivaji and that an insulting picture of him had been uploaded on the Internet networking site, Orkut. The trail had led them to his computer in Bangalore.

Turning a deaf ear to his protests, the cops took him to Pune and put him behind bars. Along the way, the 26-year-old Lakshmana, who works with HCL, learned that what he was being arrested for was a case that had triggered riots in Pune in November 2006.

Political parties had forcibly closed cybercafes and gone on a rampage over the posting of the illustration which had poked fun at Shivaji.

Lakshmana was released after spending 50 days in jail, three weeks after the cops claimed to have nabbed the "real culprits".

I checked what the IT Act 2000 says.

CHAPTER XI: OFFENCES
65. Tampering with computer source documents
66. Hacking with computer system
67. Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form
68. Power of Controller to give directions
69. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilitates to decrypt
information
70. Protected system
71. Penalty for misrepresentation
72. Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy
73. Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars
74. Publication for fraudulent purpose
75. Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India
76. Confiscation
77. Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments
78. Power to investigate offences

What could be interest to the Law Enforcement Officers would have been this section:

67. Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.

If a person posts a cartoon/ caricature to make fun - his intention is not to "trigger riots." There are enough social evils in India, which is not covered under the radar of -the police department or the 'morally superior political parties.'

The stinking moral hypocrisy of the politicians and the system in general is way too apparent.

"Any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient* interest [*having or showing too much interest in things connected with sex] or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished..."

This is a Law? The Indian parliament passed this? What a crying shame!

So what are the sculptures in Kahjuraho telling us? If the law is clear on prurient interest
the temples and other historical structures of Khajuraho have to be demolished (with government sanction) like what the Taliban did to the Buddhas in Bamiyan.

No, we Indians are not from the dark age, we do believe that the Indians are civilized.

What happened to Lakshmana is a national shame. A clear breakdown of the legal structures in India. If the law is incompetent or ambiguous, it has to be amended immediately.

No Lakshmana must be behind bars without the due process of a trial. We Indians have constantly challenged the status quo, questioned myths that are paraded as history, lies masqueraded as truth.

If the Indian legal system fails even one citizen; the system has to be reformed and overhauled. No Indian should be a victim of an incompetent law; collateral damage cannot be accepted.

I wonder how come Lakshmana wasn't produced in a court. How can the cops keep a man as an undertrial for 50 days? How come he wasn't produced in front of a magistrate in Bangalore - who could have given him a bail.

How come there are two Indias? A poor man's India and a rich man's India?

More than any other reforms, we need political and legal reforms in India.

And that day is not too far away.

The Water Hypocrisy

2007-10-19T22:48:00.000+05:30

I don't know whether it was in High School or in University, I read this poem - Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

These words have been lodged in my conscience since that day.

Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

With Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace price (excuse me, Gore took government subsidies to make more money out of his tobacco farm, clearly knowing many more lives are to be lost to Cancer - but, hey! He is a peace maker!!) - even in the Middle East, the noise of environment mumbo jumbo is picking up.

Today's Gulf News has a frontpage story on how the UAE is going to cut Water Consumption by half. Such noble thoughts must be lauded.

The UAE has the highest ecological footprint in the world, an index of global area per head from which a person consumes natural resources.

Majid Al Mansouri, Secretary general of the Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, said Abu Dhabi Government will reduce water consumption rate from 550 galons per head per day to 250 gallons per head over the next five years.

Now that is S C A R Y!!! 550 galons a day per head? I mean, every person living in the UAE has a personal swimming pool?

Stop kidding guys, just stop fooling common people with such outrageous numbers. Do not cut down the water you drink by half or do not reduce the number of showers you take.

Construction needs water. Concrete guzzles water. The Burjs and other towers drink water by gazillion galons as they are built.

Why put that water consumption on every person's head? Ecological footprint per head?!

Argh!

George Carlin - The Planet Is Fine

2007-10-16T16:07:00.000+05:30

Amazing stuff from George Carlin. This is from 1992 (first ever LIVE) HBO TV special "Jammin' in New York", performed in from of 6,500 people at Madison Square Gardens.

More on Al Nobel Peace Winner

2007-10-15T12:50:00.000+05:30

Alexander Cockburn has written a cracking article in Counterpunch : It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938

Put this one up on the shelf of shame, right next to Henry Kissinger's, or the peace prize they gave to Kofi Annan and the entire UN in 2001, sandwiched between the UN's okay for the bombing of Serbia, the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis, many of them babies and children in the years of sanctions, and its greenlight for the bombing of Baghdad in 2003. In 1998 the Nobel crowd gave the prize to Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose co-founder Bernard Kouchner is now France's foreign secretary urging the bombing of Iran. Like Gore, Kouchner was a rabid advocate of the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and onslaughts on Serbia.

The UN often has an inside track on the "Peace" prize. The UN Peace-Keeping Forces got it in 1988. In 1986 another enthusiast for attacking Iraq and Iran, Elie Wiesel, carried off the trophy. Aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize was Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains led to the death of peasants by the million.

When Gore goes to get the prize he shares with the pr hucksters and falsifiers at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Gore should be forced to march through a gauntlet of widows and orphans, Serbs, Iraqis, Palestinians, Colombians, and other victims of the Clinton era.

Mr. Cockburn has detailed more Gore crimes in his article.

It will also be a good idea to buy this book: Al Gore: A User's Manual

Please read The Independent review.

This is from Democracy Now
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download

Footnote: Chayakada finds itself mentioned in Global Voices Online.

An Inconvenient Nobel Peace Prize

2007-10-12T21:30:00.000+05:30

They didn't give the award to Mahatma Gandhi, they never did. For the one man who lived and died for the sake of peace, it was inconvenient to the Nobel committee to honour a man who deserved it the most.

Climate Change and Global Warming are critical issues to the very survival of life on earth. This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to an American - former Vice President Al Gore.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of United States of America declared that there is no time to count votes. Al Gore gave up - he didn't fight the good fight. He didn't fight for the Americans and the peace loving people of the world. Al Gore gave us George Bush.

If Al Gore didn't buckle under the political and big money pressure, this world would have been saved of too many wars, too many lives that has been lost. Oil price would have been affordable for poor nations to build their economies. I can go on and on - and add to many to the list of 'what could have been'.

On the basis of a documentary he took, an inconvenient truth, (wasn't it a powerpoint presentation?)Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The price this world has paid for Gore's failure to lead a new America in the millennium is way too high.

Millions from around the world wanted Al Gore to win the 2000 election. We all knew what Bush is going to be. The world knew what choice Americans were making; it was a choice between peace and war. Bush was allowed to win, when he clearly didn't win.

No one sane would want to think that President Clinton would have accepted defeat - had he been cheated. Al Gore just didn't have the moral courage to lead the only super-power in the world. Why would he back off when he was the first guy to cross the line?

In which democracy, other than in the USA, would a court say there is no time to count votes? Democracy was mutilated, murdered and then paraded as American patriotism by the Bush regime. By not raising his voice, for even once, Gore forfeited all his rights to be a leader of any value to this world.

Let us not be fooled by the Inconvenient Truth or the Nobel Peace Prize. The USA has not signed the Kyoto agreement. You don't expect a seasoned politician like Al Gore to be taking documentaries (leave that job to real movie makers like Michael Moore and Spielberg); one expects Gore to be putting political pressure on the American government. But, then, how would a man who has no self respect do anything to save the world?

If a man cannot save his own country, his own people, how can he fight or save this world? Al Gore is a coward who ditched the weak and the poor.

Gore distanced himself from president Clinton during the impeachment process, and during the election of 2000 - he maintained that distance from the most successful president in American history. His issue was 'morality' - Bill Clinton was too immoral for the presidential candidate Gore.

How come he had no moral compulsion not to accept defeat when all the votes were yet to be counted?

Some select committees can give Gore awards or even send him to the moon. Gore has won an Oscar and an Emmy for his documentary work... so the Nobel Prize is not a shock. As far as this Chayakada is concerned, there are no chaya for Al Gore the traitor. We put so much faith in him, and he let the whole world down.

Global Warming is a serious issue; we need real leadership to make any positive influence in saving this planet. Al Gore has no right to lead us.

If America needs a hero, Gore is not the one. If the World needs a leader, Gore is not the one.

Shourie's 1-2-3 Verdict

2007-10-05T14:52:00.000+05:30

In a series of three columns, published in Indian Express, Arun Shourie explains the problems in the 1-2-3 Nuke Deal.

A word dropped, a word inserted and the assurances are fulfilled!

Arun Shourie
Friday, August 17, 2007

I had taken up with President Bush our concerns regarding provisions in the two bills,’ the prime minister’s website records Dr Manmohan Singh telling the nuclear scientists. ‘It is clear that if the final product is in its current form, India will have grave difficulties in accepting the bills. US has been left in no doubt as to our position.’

That was in August 2006, soon after his speech in the Rajya Sabha in which the prime minister had drawn the lakshman rekha below which India would not go in its negotiations on the nuclear deal.

When the US House of Representatives had passed its bill, and when the fact could no longer be denied that its provisions would jeopardise our strategic interests, we were all told, ‘But this is just the House Bill. Our concerns will be taken care of in the Senate bill.’ When the Senate passed its bill, and the fact could no longer be denied that its provisions made even deeper inroads into our strategic interests than the House version, we were all told, ‘But we have to wait for the Joint Conference of the two Houses to hammer out a final version. That will take care of our concerns.’ When the final version was passed, and the fact could no longer be denied that it had in it the harshest features of each version, we were all told, ‘But India is not bound by laws made by any other country. We have to wait for the 123 Agreement. That will take care of our concerns.’

We now have the 123 Agreement. It explicitly states in Article 2 that ‘Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.’

In the case of the US, the relevant ‘national laws’ include the original Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nonproliferation Treaty Act, and the Hyde Act of December 2006.

To take just one example, the very Section of the 1954 Act under which the ‘123 Agreement’ is entered into — Section 123 — states that, should any nuclear device be detonated for any reason whatsoever, not only shall all nuclear commerce be halted with the country, the US shall have the right to demand the return of ‘any nuclear materials and equipment transferred pursuant’ to the agreement for cooperation as well as any ‘special nuclear material produced through the use thereof if the cooperating party detonates a nuclear explosive device.’ ‘For any reason whatsoever’, the Joint Conference of the two Houses made explicit, shall also include ‘for peaceful purposes’ — the ground we had invoked for the 1974 test! This provision is re-emphasised in the Hyde Act. Section 106 of the latter states explicitly, ‘A determination and any waiver under section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of the enactment of this Act.’

As for ‘applicable treaties’ the US Act to operationalise the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty binds the US not to directly or indirectly — and we shall soon see the significance of these two words, ‘or indirectly’ — assist any Non-nuclear Weapon State to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons. That in devising its cooperation with India the US must adhere to its obligations under this Article is reiterated and emphasised in the Hyde Act. That is why Section 104 of the Hyde Act explicitly states, ‘Pursuant to the obligations of the United States under Article I of the NPT, nothing in this title constitutes authority to carry out any civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and a country that is not a nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT that would in any way assist, encourage, or induce that country to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices...’

That is just one example of what that reference to ‘national laws’ entails. As is well known by now, the US Congress completely disregarded the assurances that our prime minister had given to Parliament and incorporated a slew of provisions that were even more stringent, even more intrusive than the provisions of the original bills which the prime minister had said India would have ‘grave difficulties’ in accepting.

So, what does the prime minister do now — especially in view of the fact that the 123 Agreement explicitly mandates that, in implementing it, the US shall be bound by these laws? Simple: in the long statement that he waded through on August 13, 2007, in Parliament, the prime minister just doesn’t mention any national law at all, not the Hyde nor any other Act!

Omission actually is deployed more than once as the device of choice.

‘All’ out, ‘associated’ inserted

The central imperative in our discussions with the United States on Civil Nuclear Cooperation is to ensure the complete and irreversible removal of existing restrictions imposed on India through iniquitous restrictive trading regimes over the years. We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy — ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to re-processing spent fuel, i.e. all aspects of a complete nuclear fuel cycle.’ The ‘complete and irreversible removal’ is just as important. But for the moment I am on the ‘all’ — in giving this assurance to Parliament, the prime minister used the word not once but twice.

In fact, a little later in his speech, he assured Parliament a third, and a then fourth time, ‘We seek the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy — ranging from supply of nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, reprocessing spent fuel, i.e., all aspects of complete nuclear fuel supply. Only such cooperation would be in keeping with the July Joint Statement.’

Persons like me pointed out that the ‘full cooperation’ the US would enter into could not but be ‘less than full’. The reason was simple: US authorities — including President Bush — have stated time and again that as reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water have to do with producing nuclear weapons, and not with meeting energy requirements, the US shall not transfer technologies, materials or equipment related to these three vital aspects. Sponsors of the Hyde Act, that is the ones on whom India was relying to see the legislation through Congress, themselves emphasised this in their speeches on the floor and in the Joint Explanatory Statement that they submitted while forwarding the reconciled bill to the two Houses.

And throughout the negotiations for the 123 Agreement, the US Government stuck to this stand. But how to save the Indian Government’s face? Through what our prime minister in his statement of August 13, 2007, calls, ‘forward looking language’! Article 5(2) of the 123 Agreement, which the prime minister claims as an achievement, is the result. It provides, ‘Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies.’

Notice the two conditions: (1) ‘pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement’; and (2) ‘subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations and license policies.’ And then too, ‘may be transferred’. When the Agreement which has not even become effective will be amended, no one knows! And how it will be amended when the ‘applicable laws, regulations and license policies’ of the US explicitly prohibit such transfers, no one knows! But the ‘forward look’ zindabad!

But what about that four-times repeated assurance to Parliament? The prime minister’s new statement, the one of August 13, 2007, deploys an ‘out-of-the-box’ solution. ‘The concept of full nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement,’ the PM’s new statement reads. ‘The Agreement stipulates that such cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale.’

Please read that again. Did you spot the word that is suddenly missing? ‘All aspects’ has suddenly become ‘aspects’! And ‘all aspects of the fuel cycle’ has become ‘aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle’ — that is, aspects associated with reactors that the US will supply: a manual describing safety procedures, for instance!

‘All’ dropped. ‘Associated’ inserted. Assurances fulfilled. And Parliament can go jump out of the box!

What the PM does not refer to

This is not the first time that we have had a 123 Agreement with the US. We had one for Tarapur also. The US signed that Agreement with us in 1963. It was to be effective for 30 years, till 1993. That Agreement provided that the US would give fuel for Tarapur as needed by India. It provided that the US would have the first right to spent fuel in excess of India’s needs for peaceful nuclear energy. And even for this part, just the first right. If it did not take back the fuel, we would have the right to reprocess it. There were no conditions. In testimony to the US Congress, US officials have themselves acknowledged that the US is not to this day sure that India violated any term of the 1963 Agreement. Yet, the US terminated all fuel supplies in 1974, saying that India had violated domestic US laws. Pressed about the laws, the US maintained that India had violated the intent of US domestic laws! For decades, it has consistently refused to either take back spent fuel or let us reprocess it. All this happened, even when there was no Hyde Act — no India-specific law — to govern that Agreement.

That is why the provision in the new 123 Agreement that, in implementing it, a party — the US in this case — shall be governed by, inter alia, its national laws becomes all important. And that is why the prime minister’s decision not to let any reference to this provision slip at all into his lengthy statement is so telling of this new culture — of spin; of the half-truth. Nor do we have to wait for the laws that the US may pass in the future. The three laws that are already on their statute books — the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nonproliferation Act, and the Hyde Act — are sufficient to keep India on the shortest possible leash.

To gauge the difference, contrast the provision in the 123 Agreement that the US signed with China in 1985. Article 2(1) of that Agreement specifies: ‘Each party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’ — so far, almost the same as the Indo-US text. But then comes the vital sentence which is missing from the Indo-US agreement: ‘The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this Agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may NOT invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’

That provision shields China from the Tarapur-treatment. The text in the Indo-US 123 Agreement opens us to a repeat of that treatment — on an even longer list of ‘grounds’ than could be envisaged at the time of Tarapur, and at a time in future when, if the PM’s dreams are realised, we will be even less able to resist pressures than we were in the past — for we will be dependent on imported nuclear fuel for 35,000 megawatts of electricity and not just, as in the case of Tarapur, for just 300 megawatts.

To be continued....

Forward-looking farce
Arun Shourie
Saturday, August 18, 2007

On March 7, 2007, while introducing the Separation Plan, the prime minister told Parliament that the US had assured India that we would have access to uninterrupted supplies of fuel throughout the lifetime of the reactors that we would place under safeguards — both from the US and from other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Elaborating on this assurance — the absolutely critical assurance on the basis of which the government justified placing two-thirds of our reactors under safeguards at the very beginning — the prime minister said: “To further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies for India, the United States is prepared to take other additional steps, such as:

a) Incorporating assurances regarding fuel supply in a bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which would be negotiated; b) The United States will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA an India-specific fuel supply agreement; c) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors, and; d) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.”

Prime minister or no prime minister, our Parliament or no Parliament, the US Congress completely stamped out this string of assurances:

— It scotched the PM’s assurance about “strategic reserves” — reserves on which we could fall back in the event of not just normal disruption of market supplies, but sanctions — as happened in the case of Tarapur — by specifying in Section 103(b)(10): “Any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements”.

• As for the PM’s assurance about joining India in convening a meeting of other suppliers to restore fuel supplies in the event of a disruption, the US Congress inserted not one, but five provisions in the Hyde Act to direct the US Government to ensure that, should the US stop supplies of fuel to India — for instance, in the event of India testing a nuclear device — no other member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) shall supply fuel to India.

To give just one string of examples, the US Congress enacted in the Hyde Act:

1. Section 102 (13): “The United States should NOT seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under United States law”

2. Section 103 (4): “Strengthen the NSG guidelines and decisions concerning consultation by members regarding violations of supplier and recipient understandings by instituting the practice of a timely and coordinated response by NSG members to all such violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an involved recipient, that discourages individual NSG members from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such time as a consensus regarding a coordinated response has been achieved”

3. Section 103(6): “Seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law”.

“Not seek to facilitate or encourage...,” ... “Institute the practice of a timely and coordinated response by NSG members...,”... “Seek to prevent...”. What could be more emphatic? What could be clearer? But our Micawbers kept us hoping: “Something will turn up. We are not bound by a US law. The assurances will be in the 123 Agreement. That is all we will be bound by.”

We now have the 123 Agreement. It shows in the clearest possible terms that the US government has not moved a millimetre from its position about granting access to no more than the fuel that is required for the “operating requirements” of the reactors. For what do we read in the 123 Agreement? Here is Article 5 (6) (B) of the Agreement. Please do read it to see how smoke is fed into our eyes by this government:

To further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies, the United States is prepared to take the following additional steps:

• “The United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral US-India agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, which would be submitted to the US Congress.”

But this is the 123 Agreement! In which future 123 Agreement will the US incorporate that assurance?

The Article continues:

• “The United States will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA an India-specific fuel supply agreement.”

• “The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors”

• “If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.”

To enable the Indian government to save face, the words have just been cut and pasted. And in his new statement to Parliament, the prime minister hails this as an achievement: “The Agreement reiterates in toto the corresponding portions of the Separation Plan,” he says. Right! What was to have been assured in the 123 Agreement has been left to be assured in the 123 Agreement!

The Americans have already nailed that particular claim. The chief negotiator for the US, Nicholas Burns, was asked this very question during his interaction with the Council on Foreign Relations on 2 August, 2007. He was asked, “Some say that under the deal, if India holds a nuclear weapons test, the US would delay its own nuclear fuel supplies to India but the US would help India find other sources of fuel, which violates the spirit of the Hyde Act. What do you say to those concerns?” And he answered, “That’s absolutely false. I negotiated the agreement and we preserved intact the responsibility of the President under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that if India or any other country conducts a nuclear test, the President — he or she at that time in the future — will have the right to ask for the return of the nuclear fuel or nuclear technologies that have been transferred by American firms. That right is preserved wholly in the agreement.”

So, we remain at what the Hyde Act provides, “operating requirements”, and some assistance against “market disruptions”. And that too to be enshrined in some future 123 Agreement. But on the basis of such postponement, the prime minister claims, “Hon’ble Members will agree that these provisions will ensure that there is no repeat of our unfortunate experience with Tarapur.”

A very sad affair

There is just no end to such subterfuges — and that they should have been put out by the very person with whom the country associates honesty, makes it all a very sad affair.

“This Agreement further confirms that US cooperation with India is a permanent one,” the prime minister says in his new statement. “There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process.”

How many times will such dissimulations be repeated? There is no provision in the 123 Agreement because there is no need for any provision in this Agreement. The Agreement is the first step in operationalising the Hyde Act. It clearly states that US actions under it shall be governed by the national laws of the US — among these is the Hyde Act. That Act sets out a long, long list of reports that the US president must submit to Congress — every year, and in addition as soon as material information becomes available. On the basis of such information and in accordance with the reports, the president must certify to Congress that India is fully complying with provisions and goals of the Hyde Act and other US laws. If he is unable to do so, the “cooperation” must cease forthwith.

Nor is this an idle apprehension. To give just one example, the 123 Agreement between US and China was signed in 1985. It could not be operationalised for thirteen years because the American president could not submit the certifications that were required.

And that is when there was no, and is no China-specific law — as there is the Hyde Act in our case.

Singular objective

The items on which the US president must report to the Congress have nothing to do with energy. They have one object and one alone: to see that this deal is not directly or indirectly helping India thwart the central goal of the Hyde Act — namely, as the Act puts it, to “halt, roll back and eventually eliminate” India’s nuclear capability.

A score of examples can be given. One will suffice — to show how those reporting and certification requirements have indeed been built into the 123 Agreement.

The Hyde Act provides that the US president must furnish detailed reports to the US Congress on, among a host of other things, uranium that India has mined, obtained, used, has in stock, and so on. It does so as part of the measures that it specifies to ensure that the “civil nuclear cooperation” is not indirectly helping India enhance its weapons capability.

Section 104(5)(g) of the Act lays down that the US president furnish “fully and currently” — that is, he must not wait for the mandatory end-of-the-year reporting — detailed reports on:

• An estimate of a) the amount of uranium mined and milled in India during the previous year; b) the amount of such uranium that has likely been used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices and; c) the rate of production in India of fissile material for nuclear explosive devices and nuclear explosive devices;

• An analysis as to whether imported uranium has affected the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices.

Not only is it the case that, irrespective of the 123 Agreement, the US president has to compulsorily satisfy Congress that the Indo-US deal is not enabling India enhance its nuclear capabilities in any way. The fact is that requirements about uranium, and so on are built into the 123 text directly. They stick out through the camouflage.

Article 10.7 of the Agreement: “Upon the request of either Party, the other Party shall report or permit the IAEA to report to the requesting Party on the status of all inventories of material subject to this Agreement.”

You realise the import of that requirement when you go back to the Article on “definitions”, Article 1. That Article specifies, among other things, what materials are “subject to this Agreement”. These include:

• “Low enriched uranium”, which means uranium enriched to less than twenty per cent in the isotope 235

• “Non-nuclear material”, which means heavy water, or any other material suitable for use in a reactor to slow down high velocity neutrons and increase the likelihood of further fission, as may be jointly designated by the appropriate authorities of the Parties

• “Nuclear material”, which means source material and special fissionable material.

• “Source material”, which means uranium containing the mixture of isotopes occurring in nature; uranium depleted in the isotope 235; thorium; any of the foregoing in the form of metal, alloy, chemical compound, or concentrate; any other material containing one or more of the foregoing in such concentration as the Board of Governors of the IAEA shall from time to time determine...

Each of these is a material subject to this Agreement. In regard to each of them, India will supply a comprehensive account of inventories.

And yet, the PM makes out as if the government has ensured some sort of dilution in the requirements that the Hyde Act has specified.

But that is the minor part — an entire tale of attempted deception hangs by it, something to which I shall now turn.

To be concluded

‘Strategic partnership’ without a strategy
Arun Shourie
Sunday, August 19, 2007

The one point on which there seems to be an advance is in regard to reprocessing spent fuel—alas, that too comes with caveats. The US has given us consent to process this in a dedicated facility that we are to set up, and which is to be under IAEA safeguards. But the same Article that grants us this consent provides that “the Parties will agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing or other alteration in form or content will take place in this new facility”.

The steps that this latter bit shall entail have been spelled out by Nicholas Burns—both during his briefing to the press on 27 July 2007, and during his interaction with the Council on Foreign Relations. During his briefing of the press on 27 July, 2007, Burns said, “Both of us—the United States and India—have granted each other consent to reprocess spent fuel”—that genuflection is nothing but a gesture to enable our Government to maintain that we have fulfilled the PM’s ‘principle of reciprocity’—the US has been reprocessing spent fuel without our consent for decades! “To bring this reprocessing into effect requires that India would first establish a new national facility under IAEA safeguards dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material. Our two countries will also subsequently agree on a set of arrangements and procedures under which reprocessing will take place. And for those of you who are steeped in this, you know that that’s called for by Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.”

In his interaction with the Council on Foreign Relations, he again pointed out that “US law states that while we can promise reprocessing consent rights, we have to negotiate a subsequent agreement. We will do that and Congress will have the right to review that agreement”.

That is, we will set up a dedicated facility under IAEA safeguards. Arrangements and procedures for using it will have to be agreed upon with the US which shall be bound by its national laws, policies, licence requirements. This new agreement, when it is made, shall be submitted to the US Congress for approval. Hence, while here we have a step forward, we have to see where it lands us by the time the sequence is completed even in regard to this one step.

The rationalisation

The rationalisation for the deal that as typical as it would be consequential if only it were true was first put out in the initial stages by K. Subramaniam. He wrote, “Given India’s uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India’s advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production.”

Such rationalisations became an inconvenience for those who were lobbying for the deal in Washington: see, Senators like Senator Dorgan pointed out, Indians will use what they get from us to increase their weapons arsenal. Little was left of it after the Hyde Act was passed--the possibility was firmly scotched. And, therefore, I was doubly surprised to hear the rationalisation in a briefing from one of the highest persons: this Agreement, he emphasised more than once, gives ‘greater manoeuverability’ in regard to our weapons programme: we can use the imported uranium for electricity generation; this will leave our own uranium entirely free for our weapons programme.

What an—given the eminence of the person concerned, how should I put it?—innocent ruse! In fact, the Hyde Act specifically and emphatically directs US Executive to scotch this prospect.

It states explicitly that non-proliferation of nuclear weapons remains the vital objective, and that for this purpose, capping, rolling back, and eventually eliminating our nuclear weapons capability is the instrument. The idea of the exercise is to put heavy economic incentives in the country’s way so that, as Section 102(6)c puts it, India will “refrain from actions that would further the development of its nuclear weapons program”. The next Section begins by stating that the policy of the US is to “Oppose the development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state, within or outside of the NPT”; in South Asia to “Achieve, at the earliest possible date, a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan, and the People’s Republic of China”—China, not being part of South Asia, had surely been thrown in just for cosmetic effect; to “halt the increase of nuclear weapon arsenals in South Asia and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination”; furthermore, “Pending implementation of the multilateral moratorium, or the treaty, encourage India not to increase its production of fissile material at unsafeguarded nuclear facilities”. Towards these ends, Section 104c(2)(D) requires the President to provide “(D) A description of the steps that India is taking to work with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, including a description of the steps that the United States has taken and will take to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty”.

These requirements are reinforced in the Section by binding the President to ensure that, in accordance with obligations of the US under the NPT, the US does nothing in cooperating with “a country that is not a nuclear-weapon State Party to the NPT that would in any way assist, encourage, or induce that country to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices”.

Accordingly, the US President must provide the US Congress—(F) an analysis of whether United States civil nuclear cooperation with India is in any way assisting India’s nuclear weapons program, including through—

(i) the use of any United States equipment, technology, or nuclear material by India in an unsafeguarded nuclear facility or nuclear-weapons related complex;

(ii) the replication and subsequent use of any United States technology by India in an unsafeguarded nuclear facility or unsafeguarded nuclear weapons-related complex, or for any activity related to the research, development, testing, or manufacture of nuclear explosive devices; and

(iii) the provision of nuclear fuel in such a manner as to facilitate the increased production by India of highly enriched uranium or plutonium in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities;

(G) a detailed description of—

(i) United States efforts to promote national or regional progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing, limiting, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles, including stockpiles for military purposes, pending creation of a worldwide fissile material cut-off regime, including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty;

(ii) the responses of India and Pakistan to such efforts.

Where is the scope for that ‘greater manoeuverability’ which our educators at the highest level tried to inveigle us into believing?

Won’t let American inspectors roam around

Persons like me had drawn attention to the fact that, under what was being agreed to, we would have to accept not just IAEA safeguards and inspections, but, in addition, inspections by teams of US inspectors. American Congressmen as well as officials like the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, had been completely candid about this: we will ensure ‘fall-back’ safeguards, they declared time and again. I cited these declarations in the Rajya Sabha.

The Prime Minister was emphatic. He said, “There is no question of India signing either a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA or an Additional Protocol of a type concluded by Non Nuclear Weapon States who have signed the NPT. We will not accept any verification measures regarding our safeguarded nuclear facilities beyond those contained in an India-Specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Therefore there is no question of allowing American inspectors to roam around our nuclear facilities.”

That last bit, “Therefore there is no question of allowing American inspectors to roam around our nuclear facilities,” drew loud applause from Government benches. Encouraged, the Prime Minister repeated this determination on more than one occasion.

That was in August 2006. Come December, and in Section 104 (B)(5)(A)(III), the US Congress provided:

“(iii) In the event the IAEA is unable to implement safeguards as required by an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), appropriate assurance that arrangements will be put in place expeditiously that are consistent with the requirements of section 123 a.(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2153(a)(1)) regarding the maintenance of safeguards as set forth in the agreement regardless of whether the agreement is terminated or suspended for any reason.”

Exactly the “fall-back safeguards” that they had declared they would ensure. And what does the 123 Agreement provide? Article 10(4) states, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.” This is to be read with Article 12(3) which states, “When execution of an agreement or contract pursuant to this Agreement between Indian and United States organisations requires exchanges of experts, the Parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territories and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations and practices. When other cooperation pursuant to this Agreement requires visits of experts, the Parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territory and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations and practices.” Inspectors become ‘experts’—and the assurance is fulfilled!

Even that is not the end of the matter. Article 16(3) provides, “Notwithstanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement or withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement, Articles 5.6(c), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 15 shall continue in effect so long as any nuclear material, non-nuclear material, by-product material, equipment or components subject to these articles remains in the territory of the Party concerned or under its jurisdiction or control anywhere, or until such time as the Parties agree that such nuclear material is no longer usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards.”

Thus, if even a little bit of the equipment, material, etc. are left behind, not just IAEA safeguards but in addition the right of the US to act on the fallback safeguards shall continue. It shall continue even if the 123 Agreement itself expires. It shall continue even if India withdraws from the Agreement. Read again the words with which this Article opens: “Notwithstanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement or withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement.”

And yet the Prime Minister says in his new statement, “There is no change in our position that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities.”

And do you recall what is provided in that other 123 Agreement—between US and China? “Noting that such cooperation is between two Nuclear Weapon States”, the Agreement begins, and again in Article 8(2), “The parties recognise that this cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is between two Nuclear Weapon States and that bilateral safeguards are NOT required.”

That is why the Government was so wrong in trying to scoff away our pointing to the insistence with which US spokesmen were declaring that India was NOT being recognised as a Nuclear Weapon State: its spokesmen insinuated time and again that we seemed to be stuck on a question of prestige! The fact was, and is that American insistence on this matter was directed at achieving vital practical consequences. The consequences are now upon us. And the Government is left redoubling its untruths.

Conclusion

On every other matter—testing; the effects on our strategic programme; ‘India specific safeguards’—the PM has repeated the assertions he has advanced in the past. They remain as misleading. The deal is not the way to energy security—the way to that is to develop our own hydroelectric resources, to redouble our uranium mining, to redouble our work on fast-breeder reactors, on thorium.

To make this deal the fulcrum of closer Indo-American relations too is a blunder. And the reason the Government has blundered is manifest: it has got swept off—should that be ‘flattered off’—its feet by talk of ‘strategic partnership’ without having a strategy. By the time the consequences of its details became evident, the deal had become a matter of ego and prestige. Hence, this uncharacteristic tenacity.

(Concluded)

Sebastian Paul on Supreme Court

2007-10-03T15:42:00.000+05:30

Download pdf

Mishal Moore Magic

2007-10-02T18:20:00.000+05:30

This young lady is going to be famous, what a singer!

Springsteen's Latest Album - Magic

2007-10-02T15:04:00.000+05:30

Bruce Springsteen and the E street band have released their new album - MAGIC.

The title track, Magic, is pure magic.

Lyrics:

Magic

I got a coin in my palm
I can make it disappear
I got a card up my sleeve
Name it and I'll pull it out your ear
I got a rabbit in my hat
If you want to come and see
This is what will be, this is what will be

I got shackles on my wrist
Soon I'll slip 'em and be gone
Chain me in a box in the river
And I'll rise singin' this song
Trust none of what you hear
And less of what you see
This is what will be, this is what will be

I got a shiny saw blade
All I needs' a volunteer
I'll cut you in half
While you're smiling ear to ear
And the freedom that you sought's
Driftin' like a ghost amongst the trees
This is what will be, this is what will be

Now there's a fire down below
But it's comin' up here
So leave everything you know
And carry only what you fear
On the road the sun is sinkin' low
There's bodies hangin' in the trees
This is what will be, this is what will be

Listen to Radio Nowhere:

Download mp3 - Radio Nowhere [click here]

Radio Nowhere

I was tryin' to find my way home
But all I heard was a drone
Bouncing off a satellite
Crushin' the last lone American night
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?

I was spinnin' 'round a dead dial
Just another lost number in a file
Dancin' down a dark hole
Just searchin' for a world with some soul

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm

I want a thousand guitars
I want pounding drums
I want a million different voices speaking in tongues

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I was driving through the misty rain
Searchin' for a mystery train
Boppin' through the wild blue
Tryin' to make a connection to you

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I just want to feel some rhythm
I just want to feel some rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm

Some of the songs are already on Youtube!

Long Walk Home

Last night I stood at your doorstep
Trying to figure out what went wrong
You just slipped somethin' into my palm
Then you were gone
I could smell the same deep green of summer
Above me the same night sky was glowin'
In the distance I could see the town where I was born

It's gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
A long walk home

In town I passed Sal's grocery
The barbershop on South Street
I looked into their faces
They were all rank strangers to me
The veterans' hall high up on the hill
Stood silent and alone
The diner was shuttered and boarded
With a sign that just said "gone"

It's gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
It's gonna be a long walk home

Here everybody has a neighbor
Everybody has a friend
Everybody has a reason to begin again

My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town
It's a beautiful place to be born
It just wraps its arms around you
Nobody crowds you, nobody goes it alone.
That you know flag flying over the courthouse
Means certain things are set in stone
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't."

Its gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
It's gonna be a long walk home

Its gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
Hey pretty Darling, don't wait up for me
Gonna be a long walk home
It's gonna be a long walk home

It's gonna be a long walk home

Or Visit The Boss's Official Website http://www.brucespringsteen.net/albums/magic.html

Springsteen - The River

2007-10-02T14:07:00.000+05:30

Bruce Springsteen is a legend. Here is 'the boss' at his best.

I come from down in the valley
where mister when you're young
They bring you up to do like your daddy done
Me and Mary we met in high school
when she was just seventeen
We'd ride out of that valley down to where the fields were green

We'd go down to the river
And into the river we'd dive
Oh down to the river we'd ride

Then I got Mary pregnant
and man that was all she wrote
And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
We went down to the courthouse
and the judge put it all to rest
No wedding day smiles no walk down the aisle
No flowers no wedding dress

That night we went down to the river
And into the river we'd dive
Oh down to the river we did ride

I got a job working construction for the Johnstown Company
But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy
Now all them things that seemed so important
Well mister they vanished right into the air
Now I just act like I don't remember
Mary acts like she don't care

But I remember us riding in my brother's car
Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir
At night on them banks I'd lie awake
And pull her close just to feel each breath she'd take
Now those memories come back to haunt me
they haunt me like a curse
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true
Or is it something worse
that sends me down to the river
though I know the river is dry
That sends me down to the river tonight
Down to the river
my baby and I
Oh down to the river we ride

Supreme Court Madness

2007-10-01T18:12:00.000+05:30

After committing a perjury yesterday, today the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in India took a self-destructive step.

Please read this IANS report.

Supreme Court threatens DMK government with dismissal

By IANS
Monday October 1, 03:50 PM

New Delhi, Oct 1 (IANS) Furious with the Tamil Nadu government for not complying with its order banning a shutdown, the Supreme Court Monday threatened to have it sacked and initiate contempt of court proceedings against Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and the state chief secretary.

An apex court bench headed by Acting Chief Justice B.N. Agarwal and Justice P. Sathasivam threatened the government with dire consequences after it was informed by the opposition AIADMK that the state was not implementing its Sunday order against the shutdown - called to demand early completion of the Sethusamudram shipping canal.

Making a special mention before the bench, AIIADMK counsel Guru Krishna Kumar said public transport was off the roads despite the bench's unusual order on Sunday, a holiday, to the DMK government to desist from enforcing an illegal shutdown.

Even shops in various towns and cities were closed, Kumar said.

'This is not merely violation of our order, but a complete breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state,' thundered Justice Agrawal.

'If this is the situation, we will have to direct the central government to impose President's rule in the state,' he added firmly.

'If you make out a case for contempt to court, we will not hesitate in summoning even the chief minister and the chief secretary,' the bench said.

The court said that the DMK was an ally of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in New Delhi. But 'if this is the attitude of DMK, the central government should not feel shy of dismissing it'.

The lawyer for the ruling DMK, however, told the Supreme Court that party leaders were on fast and only trade unions could be blamed for the disruption of normal life in the state.

The state's main opposition party AIADMK had approached the court alleging that Sunday's order was not being followed and government buses were not plying across the state.

On Sunday, the bench had ruled against the shutdown called by the DMK following a three-hour hearing of an AIADMK plea.

'This is not merely violation of our order, but a complete breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state,' thundered Justice Agrawal.

Yes, the supreme court started it by making a mockery of the Indian constitution.

'If this is the situation, we will have to direct the central government to impose President's rule in the state,' he added firmly.

What happened to the recommendations of Sarkaria Commission? I urge the judges to break the constitution and sack the government. Please do it - it will provide us with a chance to make a new India. The power of ballot is far bigger than the power of your judgments.

How about the Tamil Nadu assembly passing a motion - breaking away from the Indian union, if the central government doesn't protect democratic rights in the state? Clearly the Federal Court is interfering in the democratic process of the state.

'If you make out a case for contempt to court, we will not hesitate in summoning even the chief minister and the chief secretary,' the bench said.

Summon them, put them behind bars. See how people respond to it. As a malayalee, I pledge my support to all Tamils and supporters of democracy. Go Kongus!

There has been a lot of talk about normal life... can this 'supreme court' promise a normal life to all citizens? What does it mean by normal life?

Life can only be normal, when all - ALL citizens of the country - has access to three meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to education, and a meaningful livelihood.

How can be life normal to millions of poor people? Life ain't normal to the poor in India, what the court meant was life to be normal for the Businesses and Affluent/ Middle Class.

How difficult is it to see the hypocrisy in the judgments/ remarks of the Supreme Court Jesters?

I hope someone will stop these idiots before some lunatic Military leader says, enough is enough - and takes over our beloved democracy.

Tomorrow is Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. Let's not forget where we came from. There are young and old alike, who think watching Munnabhai and his Gandhigiri is what patriotism is all about.

Gandhi fought for equality, he fought for respect for all. And here is a court which has no regard for normal life for anyone other than the rich and middle class of India. Above all Gandhi taught us Satyagraha - the power of resistance.

The time is ripe for a revolution.

Supreme Jokers

2007-10-01T17:55:00.000+05:30

I was reading this in the Times of India

Noting that political parties generally step around the 1998 judgment by calling for a 'hartal' instead of 'bandh', the bench said, "In our country, we have come to a stage where everything has to be dealt with an iron hand. Nothing moves even after our orders. We have to issue contempt and monitor. Things have come to this stage."

The bench added, "Orders of the Supreme Court are not complied with, what to talk of the high courts where 99% of the orders are not obeyed."

In a veiled warning to the DMK and its allies not to fool around with the apex court's order and go ahead with its planned bandh on Monday or any other day, the bench said, "Do not play with fire. If you do (go ahead with the bandh), it is illegal as per law laid down by the Supreme Court."

Supreme court judges can't be jokers; I have always believed they are at least people with some intelligence and integrity. How can the Judges say that 99% of the high court orders are not obeyed?

You don't "OBEY" a court order/verdict; you comply with it. What I don't like in the tone of this 'learned bench' is the Master - Slave relationship they are trying to portray. Even though the Judges are 'public servants', they demand to be treated like masters. Of course, many of the government officers of the British India tried to behave like a colonial Brit. What is most amazing is, even the British tourists who come to India find some of the Indians to be more colonial than they even imagined.

The 99% reference is a Perjury - A Big Fat Lie.

Why do I remember Orwell's Animal Farm when I hear more from the Supreme Court of India? Aren't there sensible judges in India who can ask the two judges to step down? These two are making a mockery of Law.

Judiciary's role and only role, as per the constitution, is to interpret law. They are not lawmakers, even if they wish to. It takes a fool to say something like - " If you do (go ahead with the bandh), it is illegal as per law laid down by the Supreme Court" - and get away with it.

There is an educated young generation in India who can see the truth. How can a court lay down the law - when they are not the lawmakers? Yeah, we have elected 500 odd impotent idiots - who are willing to swallow the insult.

If the judges can hold court on a holiday in a Judge's residence, what the hell is Somnath Chaterjee (The Lok Sabha Speaker) doing? He should immediately call for an urgent meeting of the Parliament and put a motion to vote - whether the judiciary be allowed to make such outrageous statements. This is a constitutional crisis.

Any MP's with balls, please make a noise.

Threats of the Iron Hand

2007-09-30T22:39:00.000+05:30

I don't know which India got freedom in 1947. Is it Gandhi's India or is it some colonial anal retentive's India?

Arundhati Roy has written with such great passion about the judiciary in India:

The Rule of Law is a precept that is distinct and can often be far removed from the principle of justice. The Rule of Law is a phrase that derives its meaning from the context in which it operates. It depends on what the laws are and who they're designed to protect.

Now Read this PTI report, published in the Indian Express:

SC stays DMK-sponsored TN bandh
Sunday September 30 2007 14:44 IST

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has stayed a ruling DMK led alliance-sponsored bandh on Monday or any other day in Tamil Nadu on the issue of Setu Samudram.

Holding a rare sitting on a Sunday, a bench of Acting Chief Justice BN Aggrawal and PP Naolekar ordered that the DMK and its allies shall not go ahead with the bandh either on 1st October or any other date, as the bandh per se was illegal and unconstitutional in view of the apex court's earlier ruling on the validity of "bandhs."

Meanwhile, DMK patriarch and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi to undertake fast on Monday demanding early completion of the Sethusamudram project.

The apex court passed the direction on an "urgent application" filed by the opposition AIADMK along with its special leave petition seeking an injunction against the bandh.

The three-hours arguments that preceded the direction was laced with scathing and stinging remarks from the bench which minced no words in expressing its strong displeasure on the very concept of bandh and the perceived defiance of law by the citizens in the country, not to mention the political parties.

"That's the problem in this country. We have to deal everything with an iron hand in this country. Otherwise things will not work.

Every organ, let it be the legislature, executive or judiciary has to deal with an iron hand," the apex court observed.

Recalling that the apex court had in 1998 clearly upheld the ruling of a full bench of the Kerala High Court that calling or enforcing a bandh was illegal and unconstitutional, the bench regretted that orders of the courts were being violated with impunity in the country.

"We have come to this stage in the country that everything has to be monitored, hammered or directed by courts. Even orders of the Supreme Court are not observed, what to talk of the High Courts. Ninety-nine per cent of the High Court orders are not complied," the apex court said.

The apex court rejected arguments of senior counsel Altaf Ahmed and A K Ganguly appearing for Tamil Nadu and the DMK that the October one protest programme was not a bandh call but rather a "hartal".

"If it is a bandh then it is a breakdown of the Constitutional machinery.Your own resolution says that the programme on October 1, is intended to ensure complete cessation of all activities, then how can you say it is not a bandh?," the bench grilled the Tamil Nadu counsel.

The bench brushed aside the claims of the State and the DMK that what was essentially intended was a public meeting.

"Where is the public meeting you show us. Your resolution say it is cessation of all activities and work. You want to show your popularity. Why do you want to close all down educational institutions and commercial activities. Where will you then find the people for your meetings," the apex court asked in a sarcastic tone.

It was Gandhi, Father of the Nation, who gave us the invaluable lesson of non-cooperation and general strikes. Today the supreme court of India, the two judges have in fact condemned Gandhi.

Acting Chief Justice BN Aggrawal and PP Naolekar's words have a lot of meaning:

"That's the problem in this country. We have to deal everything with an iron hand in this country. Otherwise things will not work.

Every organ, let it be the legislature, executive or judiciary has to deal with an iron hand."

The Iron Hand mentioned by the Supreme Court is very symbolic. Independent India saw the Iron Hand in 1975 when Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency. The Iron Hand is that of Brute Power - Unbridled Power - Absolute Power. The Iron Hand is that of a Big Bully. The Iron Hand is of Hitlerian proportions. The Iron Hand is undemocratic. The supreme court, that too the Acting Chief Justice shouldn't be using such language; it is downright FASCIST.

Gandhi, or even that matter someone like Nehru, never envisaged a senior judge of our beloved nation using such perverted language. We fought for our freedoms, how can we forget the sacrifice of so many freedom fighters - whose selfless actions gives us a chance to live in a free India? Would Netaji Subash Chandra Bose allow such fascist language from the highest judicial office in India? What would have Gandhi done? The father of our nation would have called for a national bandh to protest against such fascist remarks and he would have gone on a hunger strike.

You want to show your popularity. Why do you want to close all down educational institutions and commercial activities. Where will you then find the people for your meetings," the apex court asked in a sarcastic tone.

Popularity is not a shameful thing in a democracy. Why is the court so worried about the commercial activities?

I don't know what Lemurian dreams Karunanidhi has. McMenon is a fair dinkum malayalee - and is quite proud of what Karunanidhi has done. Search through entire Tamil Nadu and Kerala... you wouldn't find an Old RAM temple anywhere. The dark men Siva and Krishna are the most popular Gods of South India. Ram who? One who chose power over his pregnant wife, one who chose Kursi over Patni. One who unashamedly clung on to power than to protect the dignity of his wife.

We don't bow our heads to such a man. As a man, Ram's primary duty is to protect his wife and family. He failed in his manly duties - he is no hero, no God.

If Ram knew everything, why did he ask Lakshman to learn from a dying Ravana - the art of governance?

Ramayan is a collection of many parables. Kambar has written a wonderful Ramayan in Tamil, probably the most thought provoking Ramayana of all time.

Ravana was a good king; he was a big Siva devotee. I know there are many deniers of Aryan-Dravidian conflict, there are also people like my father in law, who thinks Tamil has its roots in Sanskrit. Ignorant people will always exist; such people don't need knowledge - cause they can do nothing with it.

Adi Sankara sang, "Bhaja Govindam," knowing too well that the only salvation for fools is through prayers. Fools are unable to use any form of intelligence anyway.

Who is the court to make remarks on "you want to show your popularity" living in a democracy? Mind you, the politicians, judges, and policemen are public servants. The court has thrown down the gauntlet. Karunanidhi is doing the right thing by observing a hunger strike; he is appealing to the greater constituency of India - the poor and the under-privileged. India is not all about Middle Class and Upper Class. Last time I checked, India was still a democracy where votes do get counted. Unlike Bush's America or Calderon's Mexico - In India votes do get counted.

BJP wants DMK government to be dismissed. I am waiting for that day. Guess what, dismiss the government - DMK will win the next election with 90% votes.

Tamil Nadu has 39 MPs in the parliament (Lok Sabha). They simply get to decide who rules India in this day of coalition politics. You don't like Idli Sambaar people, you need their votes though.

What happens when our basic rights are trampled upon - do we not assemble and call for a bandh? What if our democracy is under threat through a 'defamation law' (remember the draconian law Rajiv Gandhi wanted to implement in India?) or some other stuff?

DMK has achieved more publicity and political mileage than what it had asked for. The supreme court judges are no politicians; they should have stayed back and done their job of interpreting law - not creating new law.

The lawmakers in India are the legislature - the politicians.

The supreme court judges, listening to all what has happened the Chief Justice in Lawless Pakistan have flung themselves into a political war. Lesson One: If you are not a politician, never play politics - that too with a seasoned politician like Karunanidhi.

Karunanidhi is a popular man, every Tamilian knows him. How many Indians know this Acting Chief Justice?

Oh ho, I could be held in contempt of the highest court in India.

Arrest McMenon please, put me behind bars. Let me be the first victim of this anti-democratic machinery which is governing India.

The court, in its whatever wisdom, talked about how the Iron Hand is so critical in India. A People's Revolution is not too far away, if people and institutions who are to uphold the values of democracy start using Fascist language. No we won't turn the other cheek all the time; if you threaten us with the Iron Hand, we the people will strike back.

Sixty years after independence from the colonial Brits, we are ready for another freedom struggle - to have a Secular, free, truly Democratic India. By secular, I mean - no religion will have any special status in our nation. No more appeasement of minorities through minority businesses and vote banks.

It is time to fight for self-respect and people's rights. I wish to write more... and I will keep on writing.

*If you are a big fan of the consumerist-religionist-crap-philosophy, please don't bother to comment.

Scandal In The Palace

2007-09-28T02:39:00.000+05:30

By Arundhati Roy

25 September, 2007
Outlook India

Scandals can be fun. Especially those that knock preachers from their pulpits and flick halos off saintly heads. But some scandals can be corrosive and more damaging for the scandalised than the scandalee. Right now we're in the midst of one such.

At its epicentre is Y.K. Sabharwal, former Chief Justice of India, who until recently headed the most powerful institution in this country—the Supreme Court. When there's a scandal about a former chief justice and his tenure in office, it's a little difficult to surgically excise the man and spare the institution.

But then commenting adversely on the institution can lead you straight to a prison cell as some of us have learned to our cost. It's like having to take the wolf and the chicken and the sack of grain across the river, one by one. The river's high and the boat's leaking. Wish me luck.

The higher judiciary, the Supreme Court in particular, doesn't just uphold the law, it micromanages our lives. Its judgements range through matters great and small. It decides what's good for the environment and what isn't, whether dams should be built, rivers linked, mountains moved, forests felled. It decides what our cities should look like and who has the right to live in them. It decides whether slums should be cleared, streets widened, shops sealed, whether strikes should be allowed, industries should be shut down, relocated or privatised. It decides what goes into school textbooks, what sort of fuel should be used in public transport and schedules of fines for traffic offences.

It decides what colour the lights on judges' cars should be (red) and whether they should blink or not (they should). It has become the premier arbiter of public policy in this country that likes to market itself as the World's Largest Democracy.

Ironically, judicial activism first rode in on a tide of popular discontent with politicians and their venal ways. Around 1980, the courts opened their doors to ordinary citizens and people's movements seeking justice for underprivileged and marginalised people. This was the beginning of the era of Public Interest Litigation, a brief window of hope and real expectation. While Public Interest Litigation gave people access to courts, it also did the opposite. It gave courts access to people and to issues that had been outside the judiciary's sphere of influence so far. So it could be argued that it was Public Interest Litigation that made the courts as powerful as they are. Over the last 15 years or so, through a series of significant judgements, the judiciary has dramatically enhanced the scope of its own authority.

Today, as neo-liberalism sinks its teeth deeper into our lives and imagination, as millions of people are being pauperised and dispossessed in order to keep India's Tryst with Destiny (the unHindu 10% rate of growth), the State has to resort to elaborate methods to contain growing unrest. One of its techniques is to invoke what the middle and upper classes fondly call the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is a precept that is distinct and can often be far removed from the principle of justice. The Rule of Law is a phrase that derives its meaning from the context in which it operates. It depends on what the laws are and who they're designed to protect. For instance, from the early '90s, we have seen the systematic dismantling of laws that protect workers' rights and the fundamental rights of ordinary people (the right to shelter/health/education/water).

International financial institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the ADB demand these not just as a precondition, but as a condition, set down in black and white, before they agree to sanction loans. (The polite term for it is structural adjustment. ) What does the Rule of Law mean in a situation like this? Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, puts it beautifully: "The Rule of Law does not do away with unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law. It allocates wealth and poverty in such indirect and complicated ways as to leave the victim bewildered."

As it becomes more and more complicated for elected governments to be seen to be making unpopular decisions (decisions, for example, that displace millions of people from their villages, from their cities, from their jobs), it has increasingly fallen to the courts to make these decisions, to uphold the Rule of Law.

The expansion of judicial powers has not been accompanied by an increase in its accountability. Far from it. The judiciary has managed to foil every attempt to put in place any system of checks and balances that other institutions in democracies are usually bound by.

It has opposed the suggestion by the Committee for Judicial Accountability that an independent disciplinary body be created to look into matters of judicial misconduct. It has decreed that an FIR cannot be registered against a sitting judge without the consent of the chief justice (which has never ever been given). It has so far successfully insulated itself against the Right to Information Act. The most effective weapon in its arsenal is, of course, the Contempt of Court Act which makes it a criminal offence to do or say anything that "scandalises" or "lowers the authority" of the court. Though the act is framed in arcane language more suited to medieval ideas of feminine modesty, it actually arms the judiciary with formidable, arbitrary powers to silence its critics and to imprison anyone who asks uncomfortable questions.

Small wonder then that the media pulls up short when it comes to reporting issues of judicial corruption and uncovering the scandals that must rock through our courtrooms on a daily basis. There are not many journalists who are willing to risk a long criminal trial and a prison sentence.

Until recently, under the Law of Contempt, even truth was not considered a valid defence. So suppose, for instance, we had prima facie evidence that a judge has assaulted or raped someone, or accepted a bribe in return for a favourable judgement, it would be a criminal offence to make the evidence public because that would "scandalise or tend to scandalise" or "lower or tend to lower" the authority of the court.

Yes, things have changed, but only a little. Last year, Parliament amended the Contempt of Court Act so that truth becomes a valid defence in a contempt of court charge. But in most cases (such as in the case of the Sabharwal...er... shall we say "affair") in order to prove something it would have to be investigated. But obviously when you ask for an investigation you have to state your case, and when you state your case you will be imputing dishonourable motives to a judge for which you can be convicted for contempt. So: Nothing can be proved unless it is investigated and nothing can be investigated unless it has been proved.

The only practical option that's on offer is for us to think Pure Thoughts.

For example:

a. Judges in India are divine beings.

b. Decency, wholesomeness, morality, transparency and integrity are encrypted in their DNA.

c. This is proved by the fact that no judge in the history of our Republic has ever been impeached or disciplined in any way.

d. Jai Judiciary, Jai Hind.

It all becomes a bit puzzling when ex-chief justices like Justice S.P. Bharucha go about making public statements about widespread corruption in the judiciary. Perhaps we should wear ear plugs on these occasions or chant a mantra.

It may hurt our pride and curb our free spirits to admit it, but the fact is that we live in a sort of judicial dictatorship. And now there's a scandal in the Palace.

Last year (2006) was a hard year for people in Delhi. The Supreme Court passed a series of orders that changed the face of the city, a city that has over the years expanded organically, extra-legally, haphazardly. A division bench headed by Y.K. Sabharwal, chief justice at the time, ordered the sealing of thousands of shops, houses and commercial complexes that housed what the court called 'illegal' businesses that had been functioning, in some cases for decades, out of residential areas in violation of the old master plan.

It's true that, according to the designated land-use in the old master plan, these businesses were non-conforming. But the municipal authorities in charge of implementing the plan had developed only about a quarter of the commercial areas they were supposed to. So they looked away while people made their own arrangements (and put their lives' savings into them.) Then suddenly Delhi became the capital city of the new emerging Superpower. It had to be dressed up to look the part. The easiest way was to invoke the Rule of Law.

The sealing affected the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. The city burned. There were protests, there was rioting. The Rapid Action Force was called in. Dismayed by the seething rage and despair of the people, the Delhi government beseeched the court to reconsider its decision. It submitted a new 2021 Master Plan which allowed mixed land-use and commercial activity in several areas that had until now been designated 'residential'. Justice Sabharwal remained unmoved. The bench he headed ordered the sealing to continue.

Around the same time, another bench of the Supreme Court ordered the demolition of Nangla Macchi and other jhuggi colonies, which left hundreds of thousands homeless, living on top of the debris of their broken homes, in the scorching summer sun. Yet another bench ordered the removal of all "unlicensed" vendors from the city's streets. Even as Delhi was being purged of its poor, a new kind of city was springing up around us. A glittering city of air-conditioned corporate malls and multiplexes where MNCs showcased their newest products. The better-off amongst those whose shops and offices had been sealed queued up for space in these malls. Prices shot up. The mall business boomed, it was the newest game in town. Some of these malls, mini-cities in themselves, were also illegal constructions and did not have the requisite permissions.

But here the Supreme Court viewed their misdemeanours through a different lens. The Rule of Law winked and went off for a tea break. In its judgement on the writ petition against the Vasant Kunj Mall dated October 17, 2006 (in which it allowed the construction of the mall to go right ahead), Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia said:

"Had such parties inkling of an idea that such clearances were not obtained by DDA, they would not have invested such huge sums of money.

The stand that wherever constructions have been made unauthorisedly demolition is the only option cannot apply to the present cases, more particularly, when they unlike, where some private individuals or private limited companies or firms being allotted to have made contraventions, are corporate bodies and institutions and the question of their having indulged in any malpractices in getting the approval or sanction does not arise."
It's a bit complicated, I know.

This was exactly when his sons went into partnership with two mall developers. Sealing helped malls; Sons & Co raked in the bucks.

A friend and I sat down and translated it into ordinary English. Basically,

a. Even though in this present case the construction may be unauthorised and may not have the proper clearances, huge amounts of money have been invested and demolition is not the only option.

b. Unlike private individuals or private limited companies who have been allotted land and may have flouted the law, these allottees are corporate bodies and institutions and there is no question of their having indulged in any malpractice in order to get sanctions or approval.

The question of corporate bodies having indulged in malpractice in getting approval or sanction does not arise. So says the Indian Supreme Court. What should we say to those shrill hysterical people protesting out there on the streets, accusing the court of being an outpost of the New Corporate Empire? Shall we shout them down? Shall we say 'Enron zindabad'? 'Bechtel, Halliburton zindabad'? 'Tata, Birla, Mittals, Reliance, Vedanta, Alcan zindabad'? 'Coca-Cola aage badho, hum tumhaare saath hain'?

This then was the ideological climate in the Supreme Court at the time the Sabharwal "affair" took place.

It's important to make it clear that Justice Sabharwal's orders were not substantially different or ideologically at loggerheads with the orders of other judges who have not been touched by scandal and whose personal integrity is not in question. But the ideological bias of a judge is quite a different matter from the personal motivations and conflict of interest that could have informed Justice Sabharwal's orders. That is the substance of this story.

In his final statement to the media before he retired in January 2007, Justice Sabharwal said that the decision to implement the sealing in Delhi was the most difficult decision he had made during his tenure as chief justice. Perhaps it was. Tough Love can't be easy.

In May 2007, the Delhi edition of the evening paper Mid Day published detailed investigative stories (and a cartoon) alleging serious judicial misconduct on the part of Justice Sabharwal. The articles are available on the internet. The charges Mid Day made have subsequently been corroborated by the Committee for Judicial Accountability, an organisation that counts senior lawyers, retired judges, professors, journalists and activists as its patrons. The charges in brief are:

1 That Y.K. Sabharwal's sons Chetan and Nitin had three companies: Pawan Impex, Sabs Exports and Sug Exports whose registered offices were initially at their family home in 3/81, Punjabi Bagh, and were then shifted to their father's official residence at 6, Motilal Nehru Marg.

2. That while he was a judge in the Supreme Court but before he became chief justice, he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial properties case in Delhi. (This was impropriety. Only the chief justice is empowered to call for cases that are pending before a different bench.) .

3. That at exactly this time, Justice Sabharwal's sons went into partnership with two major mall and commercial complex developers, Purshottam Bagheria (of the fashionable Square 1 Mall fame) and Kabul Chawla of Business Park Town Planners (BPTP) Ltd. That as a result of Justice Sabharwal's sealing orders, people were forced to move their shops and businesses to malls and commercial complexes, which pushed up prices, thereby benefiting Justice Sabharwal's sons and their partners financially and materially.

4. That the Union Bank gave a Rs 28 crore loan to Pawan Impex on collateral security which turned out to be non-existent. (Justice Sabharwal says his sons' companies had credit facilities of up to Rs 75 crore.)

5. That because of obvious conflict of interest, he should have recused himself from hearing the sealing case (instead of doing the opposite—calling the case to himself.)

6. That a number of industrial and commercial plots of land in NOIDA were allotted to his sons' companies at throwaway prices by the Mulayam Singh/ Amar Singh government while Justice Sabharwal was the sitting judge on the case of the Amar Singh phone tapes (in which he issued an order restricting their publication.)

7. That his sons bought a house in Maharani Bagh for Rs 15.46 crore. The source of this money is unexplained. In the deeds they have put down their father's name as Yogesh Kumar (uncharacteristic coyness for boys who don't mind running their businesses out of their judge father's official residence.)

All these charges are backed by what looks like watertight, unimpeachable documentation. Registration deeds, documents from the Union ministry of company affairs, certificates of incorporation of the various companies, published lists of shareholders, notices declaring increased share capital in Nitin and Chetan's companies, notices from the Income Tax department and a CD of recorded phone conversations between the investigating journalist and the judge himself.

These documents seem to indicate that while Delhi burned, while thousands of shops and businesses were sealed and their owners and employees deprived of their livelihood, Justice Sabharwal's sons and their partners were raking in the bucks. They read like an instruction manual for how the New India works.

When the story became public, another retired chief justice, J.S. Verma, appeared on India Tonight, Karan Thapar's interview show on CNBC.

He brought all the prudence and caution of a former judge to bear on what he said: "...if it is true, this is the height of impropriety...every one who holds any public office is ultimately accountable in democracy to the people, therefore, the people have right to know how they are functioning, and higher is the office that you hold, greater is the accountability...." Justice Verma went on to say that if the facts were correct, it would constitute a clear case of conflict of interest and that Justice Sabharwal's orders on the sealing case must be set aside and the case heard all over again.

This is the heart of the matter. This is what makes this scandal such a corrosive one. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been devastated. If it is true that the judgement that caused this stands vitiated, then amends must be made.

But are the facts correct?

Scandals about powerful and well-known people can be, and often are, malicious, motivated and untrue. God knows that judges make mortal enemies—after all, in each case they adjudicate there is a winner and a loser. There's little doubt that Justice Y.K. Sabharwal would have made his fair share of enemies. If I were him, and if I really had nothing to hide, I would actually welcome an investigation. In fact, I would beg the chief justice to set up a commission of inquiry. I would make it a point to go after those who had fabricated evidence against me and made all these outrageous allegations.

What I certainly wouldn't do is to make things worse by writing an ineffective, sappy defence of myself which doesn't address the allegations and doesn't convince anyone (Times of India, September 2, 2007).

Equally, if I were the sitting chief justice or anybody else who claims to be genuinely interested in 'upholding the dignity' of the court (fortunately this is not my line of work), I would know that to shovel the dirt under the carpet at this late stage, or to try and silence or intimidate the whistle-blowers, is counter-productive. It wouldn't take me very long to work out that if I didn't order an inquiry and order it quickly, what started out as a scandal about a particular individual could quickly burgeon into a scandal about the entire judiciary.

But, of course, not everybody sees it that way.

Days after Mid Day went public with its allegations, the Delhi high court issued suo motu notice charging the editor, the resident editor, the publisher and the cartoonist of Mid Day with Contempt of Court. Three months later, on September 11, 2007, it passed an order holding them guilty of criminal Contempt of Court. They have been summoned for sentencing on September 21.

What was Mid Day's crime? An unusual display of courage? The high court order makes absolutely no comment on the factual accuracy of the allegations that Mid Day levelled against Justice Sabharwal. Instead, in an extraordinary, almost yogic manoeuvre, it makes out that the real targets of the Mid Day article were the judges sitting with Justice Sabharwal on the division bench, judges who are still in service (and therefore imputing motives to them constitutes Criminal Contempt): "We find the manner in which the entire incidence has been projected appears as if the Supreme Court permitted itself to be led into fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of its members.

The nature of the revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single out former Chief Justice of India, tarnishes the image of the Supreme Court. It tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself. The Supreme Court sits in divisions and every order is of a bench. By imputing motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other members were dummies or were party to fulfil the ulterior design."

Nowhere in the Mid Day articles has any other judge been so much as mentioned. So the journalists are in the dock for an imagined insult. What this means is that if there are several judges sitting on a bench and you have proof that one of them has given an opinion or an order based on corrupt considerations or is judging a case in which he or she has a clear conflict of interest, it's not enough. You don't have a case unless you can prove that all of them are corrupt or that all of them have a conflict of interest and all of them have left a trail of evidence in their wake. Actually, even this is not enough. You must also be able to state your case without casting any aspersions whatsoever on the court. (Purely for the sake of argument: What if two judges on a bench decide to take turns to be corrupt? What would we do then?)

So now we're saddled with a whole new school of thought on Contempt of Court: Fevered interpretations of imagined insults against unnamed judges. Phew! We're in La-la Land.

In most other countries, the definition of Criminal Contempt of Court is limited to anything that threatens to be a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. This business of "scandalising" and "lowering the authority" of the court is an absurd, dangerous form of censorship and an insult to our collective intelligence.

The journalists who broke the story in Mid Day have done an important and courageous thing. Some newspapers acting in solidarity have followed up the story. A number of people have come together and made a public statement further bolstering that support. There is an online petition asking for a criminal investigation. If either the government or the courts do not order a credible investigation into the scandal, then a group of senior lawyers and former judges will hold a public tribunal and examine the evidence that is placed before them. It's all happening. The lid is off, and about time too.

Click here to sign the 'Investigate Justice Sabharwal Petition' to the President of India

© Outlook Publishing (India) Private Limited

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Arundhati has hit the nail right on its head. Not many writers/ journalists are as courageous as her... Hey we won the Twenty20 World Cup - why do we care about the judiciary being more equal than others in a democracy?

Malayalam Rock Song!

2007-09-23T17:14:00.000+05:30

Good stuff guys, Mallu Metallica!

Oprah for Vice-President?

2007-09-10T13:33:00.000+05:30

I am going to speculate on DC politics - Oprah Winfrey wants to be the next US Vice President. A strong case can be made that Oprah has started her political journey by backing Obama .

Michael Moore has been running a campaign, Draft Oprah for President.

C'mon! Isn't it time we had a winner on our side?

America loves Oprah. She's got good politics, a great heart-and she'll have us all exercising AND reading! This can't be a bad thing.

Oprah Winfrey raises $3 million for Barack Obama

"I haven't been actively engaged before because there hasn't been anything to be actively engaged in. But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States," Winfrey told a star-studded crowd of 1,500, according to a source at the event.

The outdoor party raked in a whopping $3 million for Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois who aspires to be the nation's first African-American President.

This is from CNN - excerpts from a Michael Moore interview:

O'BRIEN: Oprah Winfrey for president.

MOORE: Yes.

O'BRIEN: Seriously, you really...

MOORE: Yes, seriously.

O'BRIEN: Democratic candidate?

MOORE: God, yes. President Oprah? The woman has good politics. She's got a good heart.

O'BRIEN: Is America ready for a black female president?

MOORE: They don't -- people don't -- Oprah, they love -- America loves Oprah. Don't you love Oprah?

O'BRIEN: You know I love Oprah.

MOORE: Well, of course. Everyone would vote for Oprah. For crying out loud, if California would vote for Schwarzenegger, America, who loves Oprah, would vote for Oprah.

Obama-Oprah could give the Clintons a good run for their money. If the Americans, in fact vote for the two big O's, it will be something special.

Republicans know it too well that they don't stand a chance in this election. Who would they vote for - O or C? Mrs Clinton is the compassionate conservative when compared to Team O2.

Is it good to migrate?

2007-09-07T09:56:00.000+05:30

Here is an article published in the New York Times. I'll be posting some of the reactions and views in the next couple of days.

September 7, 2007
Border Crossings
In India, Even Cared-For Populace Leaves for Work
By JASON DePARLE

Take a look at the SLIDESHOW

TRIVANDRUM, India — This verdant swath of southern Indian coastline is a famously good place to be poor. People in the state of Kerala live nearly as long as Americans do, on a sliver of the income. They read at nearly the same rates.

With leftist governments here in the state capital spending heavily on health and schools, a generation of scholars has celebrated the “Kerala model” as a humane alternative to market-driven development, a vision of social equality in an unequal capitalist world. But the Kerala model is under attack, one outbound worker at a time.

Plagued by chronic unemployment, more Keralites than ever work abroad, often at sun-scorched jobs in the Persian Gulf that pay about $1 an hour and keep them from their families for years. The cash flowing home now helps support nearly one Kerala resident in three. That has some local scholars rewriting the Kerala story: far from escaping capitalism, they say, this celebrated corner of the developing world is painfully dependent on it.

“Remittances from global capitalism are carrying the whole Kerala economy,” said S. Irudaya Rajan, a demographer at the Center for Development Studies, a local research group. “There would have been starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to any part of the world, including Kerala.”

Local lessons would matter less if this were a section of Mexico or Manila — places known for the hardships that make migrants flee. But Kerala’s standing as the other way — the benevolent path to development, a retort to globalization — makes the travails of its 1.8 million globalizing migrants especially resonant. The debate about Kerala is a debate about future strategies across the impoverished world.

Laly Mohan’s life offers the kind of case study common here. Having risen from a poor family to finish two years of college, her husband, Ramakrishnan, 39, saw few job prospects and left for the gulf 15 years ago. As a driver in Qatar, he now earns $375 a month, about five times the local wage, and sees his family once a year, on a three-week visit.

Mr. Mohan’s earnings have brought the family the accouterments of middle-class life: a renovated kitchen, a new motorscooter and a parochial school education for two daughters, Blessy, 10, and Elsa, 6. But despite her husband’s daily calls, Ms. Mohan said, “I feel very alone,” and the girls plead for their father’s return. “They want Papa and they also want money,” she said. “They cannot have both.”

“So many educated people are here, but we have no jobs,” Ms. Mohan added. “That is a big problem, a really big problem.”

To its admirers, the state’s struggles are those endemic to the developing world, while its achievements are unique. It is poor, even by India’s standards, with an annual per capita income of $675, compared with $730 nationwide. (The figure in the United States is about $25,000.)

But Kerala’s life expectancy is nearly 74 years — 11 years longer than the Indian average and approaching the American average of 77 years. Its literacy rate, 91 percent, compares to an Indian average of 65 percent, and an American rate the United Nations estimates at 99 percent.

Those enviable outcomes, its supporters stress, are a result of policy choices: Kerala spends 36 percent more on education than the average Indian state and 46 percent more on health.

“The fact that quality of life can be improved through government intervention, even in societies that are very poor — I think that’s important,” said Prabhat Patnaik, the vice chairman of the state planning board. Kerala’s experience, he said, shows “the quality of life is not just related to the growth rate” of the economy.

“Put it in the context of any other part of the developing world and its achievements still stand out as remarkable,” said Richard Franke, an anthropologist at Montclair State University in New Jersey. “Children don’t die in the first year of life, boys and girls have approximately equal life chances, they get educated, and they live long lives.”

He added, “The Kerala model stands as a great achievement, with or without migration.”

Kerala’s culture of human investment is at least two centuries years old and owes early debts to the missionaries and maharajahs who emphasized schools. By the early 20th century, literate Keralites were already migrating internally, to work as clerks in Delhi and Bombay, and sending money home.

Kerala was equally well known as a font of leftist politics. The Communist Party came to power in 1957, a year after statehood, and has ruled on and off since. The state transferred land from the rich to the poor, set a minimum wage and invested heavily in clinics and schools.

Though Kerala’s tax rates have been comparable to other Indian states’, its collection rates have been higher, and it has spent more on education and health.

It also gained a reputation as a place hostile to business, with heavy regulation, militant unions and frequent strikes. There are fishing jobs but little industry and weak agriculture. Government is the largest employer; many people run tenuous businesses like tea shops or tiny stores.

Talk of the Kerala model began after a 1975 United Nations report praised the state’s “impressive advances in the spheres of health and education.” Starved for success stories from the developing world, experts noticed.

Amartya Sen, a future Nobel laureate in economics, wrote widely on Kerala, arguing (in a book with Jean Dreze) that its “outstanding social achievements” were of “far-reaching significance” in other countries. In a book on three places that inspire global hope, Bill McKibben, an American, wrote that “Kerala demonstrates that a low-level economy can create a decent life” and shows that “sharing works.”

Yet even as Kerala gained fame, large numbers of its workers were leaving. The Persian Gulf needed labor, and Keralites were used to traveling for jobs. The number of overseas workers doubled in the 1980s, and then tripled in the 1990s. In a state of 32 million where unemployment approaches 20 percent, one Keralite worker in six now works overseas. The largest number work at taxing construction jobs, outdoors in the Arabian sun, though high literacy allows some Keralites to land office work.

Without migrant earnings, critics say, the state’s luster could not be sustained. The $5 billion that Keralite migrants send home augment the state’s economic output by nearly 25 percent. Migrants’ families are three times as likely as those of nonmigrants to live in superior housing, and about twice as likely to have telephones, refrigerators and cars. Men seeking wives place newspaper ads, describing themselves as “handsome, teetotaler, foreign-employed” or “God-fearing and working in Dubai.”

“The gulf is the biggest factor in sustaining a higher quality of life,” said B. A. Prakesh, an economist at the University of Kerala.

At its best, migration produces stories like that of Benjamin Fernandez, 55, who moved to the United Arab Emirates 30 years ago as a secretary and now owns a construction firm there. He built a big house in India with a teak spiral staircase and educated his daughters in private schools. One is studying to be a doctor, and the other is applying to business school. “The U.A.E. built a life for us,” he said.

Yet the suicide rate in Kerala is four times the national average, and there are also families like that of Shirley Justus, 45, who struggled to raise three daughters by herself while her husband drove trucks in Muscat and Dubai. Her oldest, Suji, graduated from high school last year and made two study plans, one aimed at England and the other at Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay. Ms. Justus, afraid to be responsible for letting her go, vetoed both ideas. Her daughter obeyed with little complaint and then hanged herself.

“If my husband was here, she wouldn’t have done this,” said Ms. Justus, who has made her living room a shrine to her daughter and her life a search for answers. “He would have solved the problem.”

With nearly a quarter of the money migrants send home being spent on education, some Keralites experience a painful cycle: migration buys education, which leads to more migration. Educated Keralites, more choosy about jobs, are more likely to be unemployed.

In the family of James John Pereira, literacy and migration have been intertwined for nearly 100 years, since his father left to work as a valet on a Sri Lankan plantation. His earnings put Mr. Pereira through private school, and Mr. Pereira’s 49 years abroad as a clerk did the same for his five children, all of whom earned master’s degrees.

But three are now working abroad themselves, as is the husband of a fourth, Jacqueline, who is raising a 10-year-old daughter by herself. “The literacy rate here is great,” she said, “and unemployment is much greater.”

Kerala’s homegrown critics say such stories underscore the problems of a strategy that severs human development and economic growth. “Keralites are developing the gulf economy,” Professor Rajan, the demographer, said. “They are not developing our economy.”

Professor Franke, the Kerala admirer, said the economic forces that lead people to migrate were beyond the state’s control. “But what’s unique about Kerala is that the benefits are likely to be shared in a more fair and just way,” he said.

“I wouldn’t say it discredits the model,” Mr. Franke said of Kerala’s migration. “It shows that it has weaknesses.”

Universal Health Care

2007-09-06T12:18:00.000+05:30

Watch the movie SICKO by Michael Moore.

Universal Health Care is a good thing. Caring for the fellow human being in distress is not an extra-ordinary human quality. To care for another person should never be an exception; it should always be a given.

OK, I might be living an Utopian dream. Hey believers in God, which God has asked you not to care for the fellow being?

Evert state has a responsibility to make sure that the citizens who live and work in that country enjoy good health and education. A healthy brain and healthy body helps keep the state in good health.

Education and Health Care should never be a business; it always has to be a service.

Some people have started to abuse the sanctity of some words and terms. I am not talking about the obvious and blatant crime in the usage of "collateral damage" in a war. I am talking about something like "REFORM." Last time I checked the dictionary, the meaning given was "To Improve."

The days "reform" has been given a perverted meaning of "privitisation."

These days, educational reforms means giving license to private entities to run educational institutions for the sake of monetary profits, whether it has any benefit to the society or to the state.

The same rule has been applied on Health Care Reforms. Give away licenses to profiteers to take care of the health of the subjects and the state itself.

Privitisation of Health Care, bringing in the Shylocks of 'Health Insurance' to play with your lives - is a direct assault on the very principle of Democracy.

More on Health Care soon.

Richard Menondé oru thamaasha

2007-09-04T17:16:00.000+05:30

Richard Menon, the founder and CEO of Ecstasyvision, is one of the biggest porn film producers in the US.

New Jersey-based Menon is the first person of Indian origin to have shot p0rn movies in Los Angeles and also to have established an Indian-owned adult entertainment company in the US.

Check out the website as well, http://www.theindianplayboy.com/

Here are some excerpts from Menon's Interview with OneIndia:

Can you tell us something about your Indian upbringing?
From the age of 0- 32 I was in India. Basically I am from Trichur in Kerala State and have lived in Delhi, Vishakapatanam, Patna, Hyderabad, Bombay etc. I belong to a conservative family that had a modern outlook too.

Menon lives up to his Malayalee credentials:

Do you think adult movies are misleading the teenagers?
Anything in extreme is not good including porn films. Teenagers are also misled by religion and politics.

Where do you visualize 5 years from now?
I plan to be running the Museum in India. Also want to teach Commerce in Tutorial College.

No doubt, he is from Thrissur! The land of Pooram and PC Thomas' Tutorial :-))

Bwahahaahahahah!

After Kuthiravattam Pappu's Cherian Nair in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi , Richard Menon is the first Christian Menon.

Moné Richardé, Ootharathu-tta!

Here is a request: Everyone who has been to PC Thomas' tution/coaching should buy this DVD and support Richard.

Carolina...

2007-09-04T15:47:00.000+05:30

Miss Teen South Carolina, Lauren Upton, went to Miss Teen USA 2007 and gave this performance:

Which prompted ABC's Jimmy Kimmel to do this:

Lauren didn't stop herself from going on air again, this time on NBC, to defend herself:

She should be drafted in to the White House to replace Karl Rove. With Lauren helping Bush, more people would start listening to Bush!

With more than 12 million Youtube views so far, one person who has really got some publicity is the young actor Aimee Teegarden.

There are some hilarious comments in "blog shrub"

Kerala bans plastic below 50 microns

2007-08-31T13:51:00.000+05:30

The Hindu reports: The Government has decided to enforce plastic ban from September 1 and intensify the follow-up action for garbage-free Kerala.

Minister for Local Self-Local Administration Paloli Mohammed Kutty said in a release here on Saturday that the ban would be enforced under the leadership of local self-government institutions (LSGIs).

What is more interesting is, apart from the plastic carry-bags, the usage of "disposable plates and cups" at weddings are banned. Furthermore, no more plastic flags and decorations during any festivity or political rallies and strikes!

The thin plastic is going to test the Political will of this government.

South Africa banned thin filmsy plastic in 2003 (bbc report)

Happy Onam

2007-08-27T16:33:00.000+05:30

Onam is to Malayalees what Pongal is to Tamilians and Vaisakhi is to Punjabis - The Harvest Festival.

I find it very sad that there are only a very few malayalees who know anything about a harvest.

"Whatever imaginary world you've grown in/Whatever industrial society you've lived in/May the radiance, the fragrance,/The compassion of your village/Always be within you — / And a handful of konna flowers." - Vylopilli.

Happy Onam.

Giant Wheel of Hatred

2007-08-20T16:39:00.000+05:30

For people who wish to discuss, here is one.

Today I was called an enemy - because I refuse to take sides in the killing. My understanding is that the state has a duty and a responsibility to protect the lives of every citizen - no matter which religion they follow. I hope, one day soon, the world will realise the danger of organised religion or an organised herd.

Why is it that they call me an enemy? It is a simple logic: "If you don't hate them (who they consider to be an enemy), you are one of them."

Whether I like a certain herd or identify myself with a herd doesn't matter to them. To them, the common factor is hatred. This is how they see it: If you refuse to hate a Muslim/Hindu/Christian, you are a Muslim/Hindu/Christian sympathiser.

According to these morons, "Reason, Intelligence, Wisdom, Compassion, Kindness, Goodwill... are not qualities or possession of a common man."

Read more on The Giant Wheel of Hatred at Real Voice

Living in my Indian skin

2007-08-19T14:04:00.000+05:30

Rajendra Aneja, an Indian based in Dubai, wrote a piece in 7Days – on the India Independence day, Reader’s birthday wishes to land of contradictions. [I am highlighting Aneja's text in blockquotes.]

It seems to me that quite a few people in Dubai have started to miss the ‘Dear reader column’. Aneja tries very hard to be as bad as the original; he wears many hats and the first one is that of an economist. Through the letter, you’ll find that he is trying hard to keep the ‘economist hat’ on. He plays with numbers trying to sound like a learned economist.

Aneja writes: We are the tenth largest economy worldwide, but 25 per cent i.e. 250 million Indians, subsist below the poverty line, and cannot afford breakfast, lunch, dinner daily. We spend 4.8 per cent of GDP on health, 4.1 per cent on education. But we spend 8 per cent of budget on defense, for not having made peace with neighbors.

Aneja (the wannabe economist) has no basic understanding of what GDP is all about. GDP includes not just government wealth but also private wealth and things like the value of a Nuclear Warhead (Atom Bomb). How 25% of the Atom Bomb can feed the poor is beyond me – unless you are a Pakistani nuke scientist selling the technology to Rogue nations and terrorists. Luckily India does not sell its nuclear technology to terrorists. Oh Aneja! The minimum you could do was to use the non-American version of Microsoft Word (neighbors!)

It is true that India is a poor country. The notion that 60 years is a long time in a nation’s history is utterly rubbish. India is a young nation; the colonial Brits destroyed India with their “Divide and Rule policy”, and after squeezing the blood out of India for more than three centuries they left the country in a shambles. A broken economy, a partitioned country… the legacy of the British Raj is not too easy to wash off. Many brown Indians still try so hard to be the White Moghuls.

I wonder whether Aneja secretly applies ‘fair and lovely’. Don’t worry about me mate, I am comfortable in my Indian skin (my bottom is raven black).

India is not perfect; we are a young developing nation. India has no grand visions of conquering the world; we have never been imperialists or never had the wish to set up colonies across the globe. India is a BIG sovereign republic trying to make progress. We are not a tiny city like Singapore which can be transformed overnight. India is a democratic country – where we all have a say in determining our future.

Some Non-Resident-Indians have the temerity to blame India… simply because they earn dollars, dirhams or euros these days. They have turned their back on the Indian-ness. Eating Chicken Tikka or Masala Dosa doesn’t make you an Indian.

“For not having made peace with the neighbors,” writes Aneja. Perhaps Aneja was in the middle of a ‘fake intellectual orgasm’ when the letter was written. India has never attacked any of its neighbours. All the wars India have fought, including the one with China in 1962 were forced on us. We were attacked first, even in the Kargil war. The audio recording of Gen Musharaf giving instructions to his deputies (the General was visiting China at that time) on how to make Kargil war succeed was intercepted by the Indian military intelligence. Yes, if you wish to – blame India for Musharaf too. Even Musharaf acknowledges that India has been good to him. India are not the trouble-makers – so why should we manufacture peace?

These sicko NRIs just won’t stop discrediting India.

Aneja writes: Transnationals select directors/chairmen, from India, but we cannot identify a Prime Minister, who is not a Nehru-Gandhi family loyalist. We swear by non-violence, but religious groups indulge in shameful rioting, every few years. We are a global economy, but pay the President and Prime Minister, pathetic salaries of $1,250 pm!

Who cannot identify a Prime Minister? Is it you, Aneja?

Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai, VP Singh, Chandrasekhar, Devegowda, PV Narasimha Rao, IK Gujaral, AB Vajpayee – none of them are from the Nehru family.

People are poor, uneducated – they are easy targets for religious loonies. These poor people are mere pawns in the bigger power struggle. The religious fanatics in India are a very small minority. How many people does it take to riot anyway? A salary of 60,000 Rs (not your dollars dude) is just fine. The president and the prime minister of India are not presiding over a big corporation. Just don’t be constipated about it – read this one: We’ll miss you, Dr Kalam

Fali S Nariman writes, “In May 2006, President Kalam's relatives from the south decided to descend on him (as relatives tend to often do). On instructions of the President, they were welcomed by his personal staff at the railway station and were looked after right up to the time they departed. But the Controller of Household was under strict instructions to keep a meticulous account of all the expenses incurred on behalf of the relatives — all 53 of them. Not once was an office vehicle used for any of them.

It was made clear by the President that he would pay — not only for the transport of all his relatives to and from Delhi, and also within Delhi, he would also pay for the various rooms occupied by them at Rashtrapati Bhavan and the food that was consumed by them — the rooms at the prescribed rate, the food on the basis of expenses actually incurred.”

Aneja writes: We foster entrepreneurship, yet New Delhi is a bizarre maze of licenses, controls. Leaders of integrity like Buddha, Mahavir and Gandhiji were born here. But a sheet of paper does not move, in the corridors of power, without financial lubrication. We had a woman Prime Minister for years, now a woman President, but we kill thousands baby girls a day, before birth!

India has been a social welfare state and remains to be one even today. According to your admission more than 25% of the population lives under the poverty line, which means they don’t live under any roof.

Licenses are part of the checks and balances required to run a big and diverse state like India. Imagine removing the driving license system in Dubai… Government intervention is a must to protect the weak, minorities and the poor. Government has to protect the economy from being looted by perverted individuals who are looking for quick profits. Why is there a powerful central bank in the USA if it is a free market?

Financial lubrication, eh? Corruption, graft – call it whatever you want. For corrupt businessmen and government officials to be exposed, arrested or put behind bars – there has to be a political will – more so Social Justice. For that to happen, the society needs to be in good economic and intellectual health. The small state of Kerala embarked on land reforms to ensure social justice, the results are known to all. Just that you need to look at the positives of Kerala, which many people refuse to.

Corruption exists in public sector and private sector of almost all countries. Corruption has become a way of life for all. I am not justifying it; only trying to explain why corruption exists. Consumerism, which is the only prevalent culture in the world today, is the root of that evil. Greed is the fuel of every consumerist society.

In America corruption in public offices is called “Lobbying”, in the Middle East it is known as “Wasta.” Even if Indians try hard, even the best criminal mind in India wouldn’t be able to pull off a Worldcom or Enron like the Americans did. No prime minister of India would have been able to convince the nation that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As for the abortion/ murder of baby girls… it is a shameful act. But, then, in a poor country with a huge herd of uneducated people – the economic realities of having a girl – makes people do the heinous crime. Take a look at Kerala; how many girls are killed there?

As I said before, India is not perfect. But there is hope in India, unlike the hopeless situation that exists in Pakistan or for that matter USA. A nation like the US has had a corrupt regime since 2000. Not to forget the situation in Saudi Arabia – with all its oil wealth.

Aneja writes: We send our troops to embattled countries, under UN umbrellas to save lives, but 100,000 farmers committed suicide in a few years, due to financial insolvency. Our President lives in a palace of 300 bedrooms, but about 40-50 million Indians sleep in the streets or fields every day.

It is the state of the economy which has driven the farmers to commit suicide. That has nothing to do with our obligation towards UN, which for all sake is the only hope this world has to find some meaningful peace. Signing the WTO & GATT agreements have affected poor farmers. Their livelihood has been threatened thanks to the “competition.” There is only a fair competition when the playing ground is fair to the players.

Vandana Shiva, who knows it better than most of us, wrote an article in 2004, titled, “The Suicide Economy Of Corporate Globalisation”

Aneja writes: We have talked of metamorphosing Bombay into a Shanghai for a decade, but the annual monsoons transform the city into a stinking pond. All the global fashion brands are speeding to India, but we cannot get rid of our ancient brand image: poverty!

Sad isn’t it?

Our brand image as a poor nation is better than a brand image of a Terrorist state. Poverty is not a choice we made; it is the sum result of too many economic factors and conditions.

That all global fashion brands are speeding to India suggests that the new open-door policy is helping them come in and sell goods to the nouveau riche in India. When there is a part of India that is shining, there is a big part which is in Dark. A lot of work has to be done to deliver social justice to all.

As explained earlier, one cannot see India as an isolated case. The trail of damage the Tsunami of Consumerism is leaving behind is scary.

Another enlightened Non Resident Indian, Mita, posted Aneja's piece in the UAE Community blog. Some of the comments goes to show how people parade their ignorance as facts.

We in India are glad that our land is not branded as a safe haven for terrorists or as a big heartless whorehouse for tourists. India is not a country for instant nirvana.

I am sad that India is poor. I am sad that most Indians who can make a difference to the lives of others in the country don't do enough. I am sad that some of my countryfolk evade tax, blame the politicians for all the problems, and shout for privitisation of everything including the government. Most of these people don't even vote or participate in the political reality of the country. Democracy and secularism are the cornerstones of the nation; we are not hypocrites like the Americans who say their form of government is secular and yet write "In God We Trust" on every dollar bill.

India is not run by religious bigots. India is not India Inc. India is a big democratic country. India never wishes to be a Singapore, Sweden or Dubai.

As any State, the Indian government finds it difficult to deliver Social Justice. The governments rely on Big Money these days; they have to follow World Bank, IMF diktats. Having said that, India as a nation has come a long way from where it was in 1947. Still there is plenty of work to be done - for which you need people participation. India is not a failed state.

Being critical and asking the difficult questions have always been an integral part of the Indian ethos. I am glad Aneja has asked the questions, even if those questions lack a certain sense of honesty and sincerity. I am glad we don't just shut up and put up with it like many nationalities.

Gandhi taught us one thing - not to be ashamed of our Indian skin -- even if we are branded as a poor nation. We have never wanted to be imperialists like the Europeans, Japanese or the Arabs. India has not invaded any neighbours or nations far away like the Americans and Europeans.

NRIs, if your poor countryfolk make you feel ugly - help them help themselves to do better in life.

Some Indians have forgotten the core value of our Indian-ness; Our Dharma is in giving without expecting anything in return. It is even better than "To give more than you take."

I am not ashamed of my Indian skin.

Footnote: Many illustrious Indians, including my leftist comrades, attacked George Fernandes (the then defence minsiter of India) for being irresponsible for saying China poses the biggest threat to India's security... Please read this one by Arun Shourie: China’s economic growth is not just ‘economic growth’

"China builds 39 transport routes from its interior to the borders with India, and upgrades 15 of them for heavy vehicular traffic, including a four-lane highway right up to the border of Sikkim, all that too is ‘economic growth’; but that ‘growth’ should awaken us to what it implies for our security."

Another interesting read is an article "The Shade of the Big Banyan," published by TIME Magazine in 1959, three years before China attacked India.

As for the pseudo-sympathetic-patriots who shed a tear for India's 'poverty brand', no one can save your soul.

*McMenon currently lives in the Middle East.

Indians Rock!

2007-08-08T15:29:00.000+05:30

Go Russell Peters!

Indian Labour Power

2007-08-08T11:26:00.000+05:30

“God forbid something happens between us and India and they say, ‘Please, we want all our Indians to go home,’ ” he said. “Our airports would shut down, our streets, construction. No. I won’t do this.”

Ali bin Abdulla Al Kaabi, the United Arab Emirates’ labour minister - on allowing labour unions. [New York Times]

That's a very candid admission by the minister.

They are all praying that a Chavezian wouldn't be an Indian Prime Minister.

(download the full NYT article)

Art of Appropriation

2006-06-21T13:46:00.000+05:30

It is way too common these days and in the days gone by... to appropriate any information, bend it, stuff it, give it new shape - colour - whatever -- to justify or ratify 'any irrational belief.'

For instance, it is a very common practice to invoke awe by framing questions, many of them, which gives the same - fixed answer.

It cannot be an intellectual exercise to frame questions to strengthen ONE absolute answer. Reasoning suggests that we have to ask different questions without having an answer/solution in the mind. Question and explore - find too many answers to a single question... It is all ok.

There could be more than one truth. And so be it.

Yesterday I heard someone say that Jesus Christ was born on Makar-Sankranti. I have heard Hindus claim that it is a Shiv-ling that is buried in Mecca. That the crescent is Shiva's sign.

Some Hindus get multiple-religious-orgasms in such fetish thoughts. All pathetic efforts to appropriate; finding it too convenient to put one thought in a box. To master knowledge doesn't mean you need to make a slave out of knowledge.

If God is expansion, if life is expansion, if knowledge is expansion, if light is expansion... why this effort to make everything absolute and put them into the tiniest box? The antithesis of expansion we know about life - is the contraction of life itself -- DEATH. Which pretty much means the end.

Here is another classic case of appropriating: http://naqshlive.com/wp/?p=139