1968: India refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that it is discriminatory.
May 18, 1974: India conducts its first nuclear test. The same year, Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was formed in reaction to the Indian atomic tests to check nuclear proliferation.
March 10, 1978: US President Jimmy Carter signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, following which US ceases exporting nuclear assistance to India.
May 11-13, 1998: India tests 5 underground nuclear tests.
July 18, 2005: US President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh first announce their intention to enter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.
Mar 1/3, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time. Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategic partnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006', which stipulates that Washington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signing the Nonproliferation Treaty.
July 28, 2006: The Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue in Parliament.
Nov 16, 2006: The US Senate passes the 'United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act' to "exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India."
Dec 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law congressional legislation on Indian atomic energy.
July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and India conclude.
Aug 3, 2007: The text of the 'Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the USA and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy' (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.
Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the deal in Parliament.
Aug 17, 2007: CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the 'honeymoon (with government) may be over but the marriage can go on'.
Feb 25, 2008: Left parties say the UPA would have to choose between the deal and its government's stability.
July 8, 2008: Left parties withdraw support to government.
July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated to IAEA's Board of Governors for approval.
July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board of Governors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.
July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the country's strategic autonomy will never be compromised, says Prime Minister Singh.
July 22, 2008: UPA government wins trust vote in the Lok Sabha.
July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate an atomic arms race in the sub-continent.
July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for an exemption for nuclear commerce.
Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India-specific safeguards agreement unanimously.
Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amid reservations by some countries.
Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes up with a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.
Sept 11: President Bush sends the text of the 123 Agreement to the US Congress for final approval.
Sept 12: US remains silent over the controversy in India triggered by President Bush's assertions that nuclear fuel supply assurances to New Delhi under the deal were only political commitments and not legally binding.
Sept 13: The State Department issues a fact sheet on the nuclear deal saying the initiative will help meet India's growing energy requirements and strengthen the non-proliferation regime by welcoming New Delhi into globally accepted nonproliferation standards and practices.
Sept 18: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee kicks off a crucial hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Sept 19: America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials tells Congressional panel.
Sept 21: US financial crisis diverts attention from N-deal as both the Bush Administration and the Congress are bogged down over efforts to rescue bankrupt American banks.
Sept 26: PM Singh meets President Bush at the White House, but were not able to sign the nuclear deal as the Congress did not approve it.
Sept 27: House of Representatives approves the Indo-US nuclear deal. 298 members voted for the Bill while 117 voted against.
Oct 1: Senate rejects killer amendments. Approves the deal with 86 votes for and 13 against the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
To err is human...
Some excerpts & understanding from:
EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES: THE HUMAN FAILING OF GENIUS by Hans Ohanian.
The book does not try to diminish the man's extraordinary achievements. Physicist Ohanian shows that Einstein was human like the rest of us. Like a real scientist trying different approaches, Einstein made many errors. Part of his greatness was the willingness to make mistakes
The first derivation of m=E/c^2 is in a 2-page addendum to "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." There is an error in this hastily written proof, and more mistakes in the second, third and fourth proofs of 1906-07. Only in 1911 did Max Laue produce a full proof. Einstein's fifth proof in 1914, his sixth proof in 1934 and his seventh proof in 1946 also contained errors. By this time nuclear reactions and the atomic bomb had proved to the world that E=mc^2.
EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES finds errors in 4 of the 5 seminal papers, including the photoelectric effect and the size of molecules from Brownian motion. Einstein's PhD thesis was full of mistakes. The road to General Relativity contained many errors and dead ends. In 1916 Einstein made a mistake interpreting Mach's Principle. The last decades of Einstein's life were spent in a fruitless search for Unified Field Theory.
Attempting to unite electromagnetism with gravity, he tried many approaches which all failed. The book lists dozens of mistakes stretching across an entire career.Einstein's greatest blunder was the cosmological constant. In a 1917 paper Einstein dared to imagine the entire Universe.
According to General Relativity, mass causes Space/Time to be curved. Einstein realised that enough mass would cause the Universe to be curved into a sphere of 4 dimensions. Travel in any spatial direction would be confined to the sphere. Such a sphere would collapse under its own gravity, unless it were already expanding. To support the sphere Einstein invoked the fudge factor of a cosmological constant. If Einstein had proposed an expanding Universe it would have been one of history's great predictions. No doubt he would have been ridiculed for having no supporting evidence. That's why it is called a prediction, boys!
If Einstein had waited long enough, Edwin Hubble would eventually have proven his amazing prediction. When faced with Hubble's evidence Einstein had to admit that the cosmological constant was a blunder.
Fortunately Einstein had a great patron in Max Planck. Planck was an editor of Annalen Der Physik, otherwise Einstein's great papers may not have been published in 1905. In later years Planck was first to hail Einstein as a new Copernicus. Planck's blackbody formula was an experimental result; many years passed before someone found a mathematical derivation.
Einstein had another regret: Submitting to refereed journals. Around 1936 he submitted a paper to Physical Review, the leading American journal. Despite Einstein being by then the world's most renowned scientist, his paper was returned with anonymous comments from a referee. Einstein withdrew the paper and henceforth avoided PRL and any journal with anonymous referees. This was a blessing in disguise, for the paper contained an error.
A child could figure out that R=ct and GM=tc^3. Proposing this gets the most tangled mathematical objections: the units don't add up (they do), the metric is (1, 1, 1, 1) rather than (1, -1, -1, -1),...and so on. We can see why these people, despite their expensive education, have never come up with anything original. By their own admission, such people referee papers. If they were reviewing Copernicus, they would insist that everything be expressed in terms of a fixed Earth.
History gives us many lessons for today. Even an Einstein can make mistakes. The cosmological constant was a blunder and still is. Predicting an expanding Universe or a shrinking speed of light is worth the wait for confirmation. Don't feel bad if refereed journals reject your stuff. A great physicist is prepared to make mistakes, lots of them.
The book admires Einstein's "mystical, intuitive" approach. He used mistakes as "stepping stones and shortcuts" to success. We can still learn a lot from Einstein.
EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES: THE HUMAN FAILING OF GENIUS by Hans Ohanian.
The book does not try to diminish the man's extraordinary achievements. Physicist Ohanian shows that Einstein was human like the rest of us. Like a real scientist trying different approaches, Einstein made many errors. Part of his greatness was the willingness to make mistakes
The first derivation of m=E/c^2 is in a 2-page addendum to "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." There is an error in this hastily written proof, and more mistakes in the second, third and fourth proofs of 1906-07. Only in 1911 did Max Laue produce a full proof. Einstein's fifth proof in 1914, his sixth proof in 1934 and his seventh proof in 1946 also contained errors. By this time nuclear reactions and the atomic bomb had proved to the world that E=mc^2.
EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES finds errors in 4 of the 5 seminal papers, including the photoelectric effect and the size of molecules from Brownian motion. Einstein's PhD thesis was full of mistakes. The road to General Relativity contained many errors and dead ends. In 1916 Einstein made a mistake interpreting Mach's Principle. The last decades of Einstein's life were spent in a fruitless search for Unified Field Theory.
Attempting to unite electromagnetism with gravity, he tried many approaches which all failed. The book lists dozens of mistakes stretching across an entire career.Einstein's greatest blunder was the cosmological constant. In a 1917 paper Einstein dared to imagine the entire Universe.
According to General Relativity, mass causes Space/Time to be curved. Einstein realised that enough mass would cause the Universe to be curved into a sphere of 4 dimensions. Travel in any spatial direction would be confined to the sphere. Such a sphere would collapse under its own gravity, unless it were already expanding. To support the sphere Einstein invoked the fudge factor of a cosmological constant. If Einstein had proposed an expanding Universe it would have been one of history's great predictions. No doubt he would have been ridiculed for having no supporting evidence. That's why it is called a prediction, boys!
If Einstein had waited long enough, Edwin Hubble would eventually have proven his amazing prediction. When faced with Hubble's evidence Einstein had to admit that the cosmological constant was a blunder.
Fortunately Einstein had a great patron in Max Planck. Planck was an editor of Annalen Der Physik, otherwise Einstein's great papers may not have been published in 1905. In later years Planck was first to hail Einstein as a new Copernicus. Planck's blackbody formula was an experimental result; many years passed before someone found a mathematical derivation.
Einstein had another regret: Submitting to refereed journals. Around 1936 he submitted a paper to Physical Review, the leading American journal. Despite Einstein being by then the world's most renowned scientist, his paper was returned with anonymous comments from a referee. Einstein withdrew the paper and henceforth avoided PRL and any journal with anonymous referees. This was a blessing in disguise, for the paper contained an error.
A child could figure out that R=ct and GM=tc^3. Proposing this gets the most tangled mathematical objections: the units don't add up (they do), the metric is (1, 1, 1, 1) rather than (1, -1, -1, -1),...and so on. We can see why these people, despite their expensive education, have never come up with anything original. By their own admission, such people referee papers. If they were reviewing Copernicus, they would insist that everything be expressed in terms of a fixed Earth.
History gives us many lessons for today. Even an Einstein can make mistakes. The cosmological constant was a blunder and still is. Predicting an expanding Universe or a shrinking speed of light is worth the wait for confirmation. Don't feel bad if refereed journals reject your stuff. A great physicist is prepared to make mistakes, lots of them.
The book admires Einstein's "mystical, intuitive" approach. He used mistakes as "stepping stones and shortcuts" to success. We can still learn a lot from Einstein.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Indo-US Nuke Deal: Some more facts
Prove me wrong (ofcourse with facts and figures), I'd feel extremely happy to change my opinion. I just want to keep the facts infront of people.
Nuclear power will be critical for the country’s long-term energy security, no doubt on that. It is important to understand that the n-deal cannot be central to achieving our 3-stage nuclear power programme. Even Dr Anil Kakodkar calls import n-power to be an “additionality” to the long-term projections for our indigenous nuclear capacity.
We want Plutonium out of our first stage, PHWRs contribute that for our 2nd stage. Even LWRs are expected to do so. But do you know that LWRs will not give as much plutonium as PHWRs give..?? (I dont have much data on these proportions, if some body can subsantiate, I'd be thankful. Even I'd feel happy to be "proved" wrong..!!). So if we are very much dependant on importing LWRs, it may ultimately reduce attention towards PHWRs, hence plutonium; which will ultimately affect the 2nd stage of our 3 stage programme. So the affects will be seen in long term.
Now comes energy security. All will agree that less than 10% nuclear contribution cannot be termed "critical". It stands to reason, therefore, that n-agreement cannot meet the energy needs. If there is no import contribution, it is certainly possible to live with a 5% n-component. May be, it will be prudent to import coal and natural gas and implement new thermal and gas-based projects to meet energy needs.
I certainly dont support coal for long term needs, but instead of giving a nod to the Nuclear imports, I'd certainly like to invest all that money which is planned for nuclear imports to be invested in Solar Power R&D/installations, which has all the abilities to cater long term needs. Indeed for our short/medium term needs, coal/gas is a must.
Imports would become necessary only if 2nd stage does not succeed as envisaged and consequently the 3rd stage fails to take off. The only option then would be to expand the PHWRs and LWRs base, may be using imported uranium and LWRs. But then long term reliance on n-power would not be a correct option to think for. So from this perspective, imported nuclear power is not essential at this point of time. If some additional power can come in without any attendant constraints (policy-related compromises), it is acceptable.
The current requirement of natural uranium is about 600 tonnes a year and the current production is less than half that. However, the augmentation made will ease the crunch significantly in about 6 months, if DAE officials are to believed. UCIL is investing Rs.3,100 crore to open new mines and set up processing plants in Jharkhand, AP and Meghalaya. In Jharkhand alone, Rs.650 crore is being invested. Investment of Rs.1,800 crore is proposed for setting up two uranium mining plants in AP.
The CAG of India observed in 1999 that one of the main reasons for the DAE falling short of the original target of 10,000 MWe by 2000 was the large shortfall in government funding in 1980s & 1990s. Surprisingly Manmohan Singh was the Finance Minister and Montek Singh Ahluwalia was the Secretary for Economic Affairs and Finance Secretary during 1990s. Strangely now, in their new-found faith in nuclear power, they are championing the cause, but through imports!
Coming to the cost components. Importing would be much costlier (about 9 crore/MWe "without the interest" during construction on the borrowed amount) than the capital cost of indigenous PHWRs at about Rs.7 crore/MWe. The price of processed and fabricated uranium fuel is $1,625/kg. A 1000 MWe LWR requires nearly 1000 tonnes of uranium fuel over its lifetime, which means an additional $1,625 million over the $2,000 million capital cost, if fuel is to be stocked for a lifetime. This in the current exchange rates amounts to Rs 9310 crores for building & running 1 LWR...!!!
Let's assume that such large resources can be raised through the market; dont you think the money would be better spent in implementing a wider base of the PHWRs, in increasing production of domestic uranium resources, and in spending some part of it towards the Solar Power, which is mis-interpreted to be costly, in the scenario when we are ready to push thousands of crores of rupees importing nuclear power...????????
Nuclear power will be critical for the country’s long-term energy security, no doubt on that. It is important to understand that the n-deal cannot be central to achieving our 3-stage nuclear power programme. Even Dr Anil Kakodkar calls import n-power to be an “additionality” to the long-term projections for our indigenous nuclear capacity.
We want Plutonium out of our first stage, PHWRs contribute that for our 2nd stage. Even LWRs are expected to do so. But do you know that LWRs will not give as much plutonium as PHWRs give..?? (I dont have much data on these proportions, if some body can subsantiate, I'd be thankful. Even I'd feel happy to be "proved" wrong..!!). So if we are very much dependant on importing LWRs, it may ultimately reduce attention towards PHWRs, hence plutonium; which will ultimately affect the 2nd stage of our 3 stage programme. So the affects will be seen in long term.
Now comes energy security. All will agree that less than 10% nuclear contribution cannot be termed "critical". It stands to reason, therefore, that n-agreement cannot meet the energy needs. If there is no import contribution, it is certainly possible to live with a 5% n-component. May be, it will be prudent to import coal and natural gas and implement new thermal and gas-based projects to meet energy needs.
I certainly dont support coal for long term needs, but instead of giving a nod to the Nuclear imports, I'd certainly like to invest all that money which is planned for nuclear imports to be invested in Solar Power R&D/installations, which has all the abilities to cater long term needs. Indeed for our short/medium term needs, coal/gas is a must.
Imports would become necessary only if 2nd stage does not succeed as envisaged and consequently the 3rd stage fails to take off. The only option then would be to expand the PHWRs and LWRs base, may be using imported uranium and LWRs. But then long term reliance on n-power would not be a correct option to think for. So from this perspective, imported nuclear power is not essential at this point of time. If some additional power can come in without any attendant constraints (policy-related compromises), it is acceptable.
The current requirement of natural uranium is about 600 tonnes a year and the current production is less than half that. However, the augmentation made will ease the crunch significantly in about 6 months, if DAE officials are to believed. UCIL is investing Rs.3,100 crore to open new mines and set up processing plants in Jharkhand, AP and Meghalaya. In Jharkhand alone, Rs.650 crore is being invested. Investment of Rs.1,800 crore is proposed for setting up two uranium mining plants in AP.
The CAG of India observed in 1999 that one of the main reasons for the DAE falling short of the original target of 10,000 MWe by 2000 was the large shortfall in government funding in 1980s & 1990s. Surprisingly Manmohan Singh was the Finance Minister and Montek Singh Ahluwalia was the Secretary for Economic Affairs and Finance Secretary during 1990s. Strangely now, in their new-found faith in nuclear power, they are championing the cause, but through imports!
Coming to the cost components. Importing would be much costlier (about 9 crore/MWe "without the interest" during construction on the borrowed amount) than the capital cost of indigenous PHWRs at about Rs.7 crore/MWe. The price of processed and fabricated uranium fuel is $1,625/kg. A 1000 MWe LWR requires nearly 1000 tonnes of uranium fuel over its lifetime, which means an additional $1,625 million over the $2,000 million capital cost, if fuel is to be stocked for a lifetime. This in the current exchange rates amounts to Rs 9310 crores for building & running 1 LWR...!!!
Let's assume that such large resources can be raised through the market; dont you think the money would be better spent in implementing a wider base of the PHWRs, in increasing production of domestic uranium resources, and in spending some part of it towards the Solar Power, which is mis-interpreted to be costly, in the scenario when we are ready to push thousands of crores of rupees importing nuclear power...????????
Friday, August 29, 2008
FAQ: Indo US Nuclear Deal
Less energy, more hype...
Will the nuclear deal provide nuclear fuel and reactors to India?
Contrary to the impression being created, the India US Civilian Cooperation Agreement is only a waiver allowing the US to trade with India on nuclear items. Any import of uranium or reactors will have to be separately negotiated with the US or other countries. The reason that this waiver is required is because after India's Pokhran-I test, the US passed a law that barred the US from nuclear commerce with countries which had exploded a nuclear device and were defined as non-nuclear weapons countries in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
How does the Hyde Act impact India?
The Hyde Act gives India a one time waiver and can be withdrawn by the US in case India does not abide the conditions of the Hyde Act. This includes any further tests and also a number of other issues not related to nuclear matters such as India aligning its polices with the US on foreign policy, working with the US on Iran, joining the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that calls for illegal search and seizure operations in high seas. The US President has to report every year to the Congress on India's "good conduct" and if the US President or the US Congress is not happy, can either terminate or suspend nuclear trade with India.
The Hyde Act also makes clear that India cannot get an uninterrupted fuel supply arrangement, cannot stockpile fuel and no other country can give better terms than the US in their nuclear trade with India. The Hyde Act also demanded that while India would not get uninterrupted fuel supply guarantees, it must put its civilian reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards.
Since the Hyde Act is only a US Law, and the actual agreement with the US is the 123 Agreement, how is India is bound by the Hyde Act?
India is not bound by the Hyde Act, but the US is. For us, the 123 Agreement is a agreement with the US for supply of fuel and equipment. The key issue is how to bind the US as a supplier. The US officials are on record that the 123 Agreement ensures that all the Hyde Act conditions are met, the Government's contrary claims notwithstanding. "..we had to make sure that everything in this U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, the 123 Agreement, was completely consistent with the Hyde Act and well within the bounds of the Hyde Act itself."(Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs ?Washington, DC ?July 27, 2007). The US has built into the 123 Agreement that it can pull out whenever it wants: the termination clause makes clear that if either party feels, consultation preceding termination will serve no purpose, they can cease further co-operation. In case the US terminates the 123 Agreement, all fuel supplies will stop and all equipment has to be returned to the US. And as per the Hyde Act, the termination clause can come into effect on a broad range of issues including India's continued links with Iran. Therefore, India can be held to ransom over fuel and spare parts for its imported reactors as it was earlier for the two reactors in Tarapur. Since the issue is our ability to bind the US as a supplier to give guaranteed fuel supplies and spares, no Indian Act passed by Parliament -- as some are arguing -- will help.
Did not 123 Agreement and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement provide for uninterrupted fuel supplies?
The UPA and the PM had assured the country that though the Hyde Act made fuel supply conditional and barred stock piling of fuel except to meet immediate operational requirements, fuel supply assurances would be there in the 123 Agreement and also corrective measures in case of fuel failure would be addressed in the IAEA Agreement. The fuel supply assurances in the 123 Agreement have now been exposed as hollow. The IAEA was held out as the hope for corrective measures, in case fuel supply fails. It is now clear that though the IAEA Draft Safeguards Agreement has perpetual safeguards as per the Hyde Act, the so-called corrective measures are purely cosmetic. There are no corrective measures possible that include pulling Indian reactors out of safeguards once they are offered to IAEA.
Will the Deal not help in lifting sanctions on India for nuclear technology and dual use technology?
The Hyde Act and subsequently the 123 Agreement is clear that sanctions on only uranium fuel and reactors will be lifted. All other technology sanctions -- fuel enrichment, fuel reprocessing, heavy water production and other dual use technologies -- will remain. Dual use technologies are those that are used not only nuclear areas but also other applications such as aerospace, precision manufacturing, electronics, weather prediction, etc. Thus advanced technology for our industries, air crafts, rockets, etc., along with nuclear fuel cycle technology, will continue to be under sanctions. This is in contradiction to what the PM had assured the Indian Parliament. The Fast breeder Reactors would be regarded as fuel enrichment or fuel reprocessing facilities and would not get access to any technology. Therefore, the mainstay of our future indigenous nuclear energy program will continue under technology sanctions.
Will importing nuclear plants solve our immediate power crisis?
There is a deliberate misinformation being created that nuclear plants will be a quick fix to our huge shortages and power cuts. Nuclear plants have to have detailed studies regarding where and how to put them up and they take a long time to build. The import of reactors have to be negotiated commercially and their fuel has to be guaranteed. Typically, the entire process takes 8-10 years. So even if we finish all the steps required to complete the India US Nuclear Deal, it will take not less than 8-10 years before any electricity is produced. And this is an optimistic figure; the last plant that the US commissioned -- the Watts Bar 2 Reactor -- took 23 years to complete. So the belief that nuclear energy will provide an immediate solution to our power crisis is a deliberate fraud on the people. As against this, the coal-fired plants can be built in 3 1/2- 4 years -- we can build coal-fired plants in about half the time it would take for nuclear plants. Gas fired plants can be put up even faster and with the new strikes of gas in the Kaveri Godaveri Basin, use of gas for producing power quickly is an attractive option.
What is the reason for the power crisis in the country?
This crisis of the power sector is the result of a systematic attempt by successive Governments to starve the sector of public funds hoping to make high-cost private power more acceptable to the people. Instead of investing in the power sector, the Government has gone in for privatisation of the power sector with higher prices of electricity. In the 7th Five Year Plan, we had put in about 21,000 MW; in each of the 8th, 9th and the 10th Plans, we have added less than what we added in the 7th Plan. The net result has been the increasing bankruptcy of State Electricity Boards and converting what was a shortage of the early 90's to a full-blown crisis today. If we now have enough money for the power sector, we need then to think on the quickest and cheapest way to remove the current electricity shortages while keeping all our options open.
Will the India US Nuclear Deal provide energy security?
The India US Nuclear Deal is not about India's energy security. Energy security lies in using indigenous energy resources such as coal, gas, hydro, etc., and ensuring our future energy supplies from Iran and other countries in West and Central Asia. Obviously, augmenting indigenous coal production, building hydro plants, investing in oil exploration, securing gas supplies through Iran Gas Pipeline are much more important for India's energy security than buying imported reactors and importing uranium for such nuclear plants. If we do want to build nuclear power plants, we can also build these indigenously. The original three-phase nuclear energy program was based on indigenous fuel and indigenous technology and can give us nuclear energy without making us dependent on imported uranium and imported reactors. The Government is pushing hard for immediately importing 40,000 MW of Light Water Reactors. Such a scenario would make India completely dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a small international cartel. It because of this cartel that the price of uranium has gone up by five times in the last few years. The US, which controls the uranium cartel, would be therefore able to dictate its terms as it will have a stranglehold over these 40,000 MW of nuclear plants.
What are the relative costs of building nuclear plants and coal fired ones?
The nuclear plants -- if we take the cost of imported reactors -- are about three times (Rs. 10-12 crore per MW) the cost of coal-fired plants (Rs. 4 crore per MW). Simply put, with the same amount of money, we can install three coal-fired plants against one nuclear plant of the same size. If we want to install 40,000 MW by 2020 with imported nuclear plants as the Government wants to do, with the same amount of money it can build 100,000 MW of coal fired plants, that too in half the time. The French company Areva is building a new 1600 MW nuclear plant in Finland. When the estimates were made, Areva had given estimates of $ 2,000 per KW. By the time the plant was ordered, it had gone up about $ 2,800 per KW. Currently, the costs have already shot up to a mammoth $ 6.1 billion or almost $ 4,000 per KW. This is four times the cost of coal-fired plants and also more than twice that of indigenous nuclear plants built by Nuclear Power Corporation. At these costs, even solar energy using solar thermal plants would be competitive!
What are the comparative costs of electricity from nuclear and coal-fired plants? The cost of electricity from imported nuclear plants is high because of the high capital cost. Even without including de-commissioning costs, storage of spent fuel indefinitely, etc., the cost of electricity from imported nuclear plants will be more than Rs. 5.00 per unit as against about Rs. 2.00 to 2.50 from coal-fired plants. The cost of electricity is therefore at least twice that from coal fired plants. For those who might remember the Enron case, would know that at that time, India was pushed to accept expensive private power only to help Enron. Once Enron started to produce power, its cost of Rs.5-7 per unit sank the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. If a 2,000 MW Enron plant sank the largest State Electricity Board in the country -- the impact of pushing high cost 40,000 MW of nuclear energy using imported reactors, as the Government wants to do, may well be imagined.
How much can nuclear energy contribute to our energy needs?
Even if we decide to invest heavily in nuclear energy, its contribution to our total energy needs is of limited importance. India has installed capacity of 143,000 MW currently and is slated to raise this to 700,000 to 800,000 MW by 2032. Coal currently meets about 66% of our electricity generation. In this nuclear energy is only 3% of current capacity electricity generating capacity and will at best reach a figure of 8% by 2032. The primary energy source for India will remain coal, which we have in adequate quantities for the next 100 years.
Is there a nuclear renaissance in the world as the Government is claiming?
Nuclear power is not the energy of choice for most advanced countries. Nuclear renaissance is a hype created by the nuclear industry in the US, Western Europe and Japan. In all these countries, the total number of nuclear plants currently being built is only 3. This is against 20 new plants being commissioned every year in the heydays of nuclear energy in these countries. The US itself has commissioned its last reactor in 1996 and has not licensed a new reactor now for more than 27 years. Its interest in supplying India with reactors is in order to revive its own dying nuclear equipment industry, which has yet to secure a single order in the US despite the promise of billions of dollars in subsidies from the Bush Administration. It is in order to bail out its dying nuclear industry that the US is so keen that India sign on the Nuclear Deal. Condoleezza Rice, testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee (April 5, 2006), pointed out the importance of the Deal for the US, "The initiative may add as many as three to 5,000 new direct jobs in the United States and about 10,000 to 15,000 indirect jobs in the United States, as the United States is able to engage in nuclear commerce and trade with India."
Is there a serious uranium shortage in the country for which we need this Nuclear Deal?
The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. If we focus on our known uranium deposits and prospect for new ones, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme. It is because of a smaller availability of indigenous uranium that the 3-phase program started under Homi Bhabha, envisaged Fast Breeder Reactors. Breeder reactors can produce 50 times more energy from the same amount of uranium. This program also planned to use thorium, which we have in abundance. India is a world leader in Fast Breeder technology and is very near to commercialising it. It is not surprising that this is precisely the time that people who have put India under nuclear sanctions for the last 30 years are now talking about making India a member of the nuclear club. A simple objective is to get India to give up its quest for independence in nuclear technology and fuel.
Will nuclear energy address the issue of global warming?
The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative body on climate change has made clear that nuclear energy will have only a marginal impact on global warming. That is simply because its total contribution to the energy needs of the world would be relatively insignificant, even if we consider a very ambitious nuclear energy program. Therefore, the major thrust for reducing greenhouse gases would be greater energy efficiency, public transport, thrust for renewable energy sources and clean coal technologies. Cynically, the US has been advancing the reduction of India's greenhouse gases as an argument for the India US Nuclear Deal. Nicholas Burns writes, "This agreement will deepen the strategic partnership, create new opportunities for U.S. businesses in India, enhance global energy security, and reduce India's carbon emissions" (Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2007).
It is strange that this argument is being advanced when India's per capita emissions are one twentieth that of the US, which has yet to accept a cap on its own greenhouse emissions. The US position is that if the world is endangered by greenhouse emissions, it is countries such as India and China that need to limit their emissions. For the US, no reduction of greenhouse gases is possible; George Bush senior expressed this quite clearly, "American lifestyles are not open to negotiations".
Will investing heavily in nuclear energy reduce our dependence on imported oil and therefore reduce the burden of rising oil price?
Oil and gas, in primary energy terms, are much more important than nuclear as they are already about 45% of our primary energy demand. Oil alone is about 35% of our primary energy demand of which more than 50% is in the transport sector -- cars, buses and trucks and the rest in petrochemicals and fertilizers. Nuclear energy, in contrast is only 1.5% of our primary energy demand. Only a negligible amount of oil -- less than 3% of the total oil consumption -- is used in the power plants. Nuclear energy cannot be used as a substitute for oil except for this 3%; unless the Government experts have found a new way to burn uranium directly in cars and buses!
Though nuclear energy cannot be used in transport, natural gas can -- as we can see in the large number of buses and cars that run on CNG in Delhi. It is indeed strange that the Government, faced with a huge and ever rising oil bill, should focus on the nuclear deal while ignoring the Iran Gas Pipeline project, which will partly insulate India from oil price shocks. It only makes sense if we understand that one of the objectives of the US is to de-link India from Iran through the nuclear deal. "Diversifying India's energy sector will help it to meet its ever increasing needs and more importantly, ease its reliance on hydrocarbons and unstable sources like Iran. This is good for the United States." (Condoleezza Rice, testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 5, 2006).
About 13,000 MW of gas-fired plants are partially idling as we also have a shortage of gas in the country. If we had gone ahead with the LNG or the Iran Pipeline project, we could have removed some of the electricity shortage we have in the country today.
How is the nuclear deal related to the India US Strategic ties?
The Nuclear Deal is a part of a larger vision which seeks to subordinate India to the US's strategic vision. For the last two years, the Government has been taking a number of steps that align India to the US's strategic interests. It is known that the US strategic thinking calls for dominance in all possible theatres. In Asia, the US has been handicapped that it has only one major base -- Okinawa, Japan -- in East, South-east and South Asia. The only other base it has in this region is in the Indian Ocean in Diego Garcia. That is why the US's interest in making India as a junior partner in Asia.
One of the major steps was signing of the New Framework for India-US Defence Relationship in Washington on June 28, 2005, just prior to Bush Manmohan Singh Agreement of July 18, 2005. In the Agreement, it is stated, "U.S.-India defence relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests". Considering that the Iraq invasion was justified by the US as "bringing democracy to West Asia", a reference to a shared belief in "democracy and rule of law" cannot be acceptable to the Indian people. The Defence Framework Agreement is also sweeping in its scope; it envisages a host of strategic and military relations -- joint exercises, joint planning, joint operations, and defence procurement. India has also joined in with the US, Japan and Australia (or what is called the trilateral nations) for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal, as a part of this.
The Manmohan Singh Bush agreement was followed immediately by India's two votes against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Senator Lugar in his opening remarks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had noted, approvingly, "We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India. India's votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues." Manmohan Singh's oft-repeated claims that India's foreign policy would not change due to this Deal, is not borne out by his Governments' record, especially when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic value of India aligning with the US as a consequence of this agreement.
Currently, the Manmohan Singh Government is negotiating a Logistics and Service Agreement. It essentially allows refuelling and complete access to Indian facilities for all US ships and aircraft. The US navy can bomb Iraq and Iran and then come to India's ports for rest, recreation and refuelling, before going back for another round of hostilities. Step by step, from a vote against Iran, we are now to become hosts to the US navy in US-Israel military misadventures in West Asia.
Launching the TecSar spy satellite for Israel, which is being used to plan military attacks on Iran and Syria, show the depth of the strategic ties that India already has developed with Israel. India is not only Israel's biggest arm-buyer, it also buys more arms from the Israeli arms industry than the Israeli defence forces.
The Logistics and Service Agreement as well as the Defence Framework Agreement have also requirements of "interoperability". This calls for both sides to have the same equipment so that military personnel of both sides can use each other's equipment and operate better together. This also means spares can be shared by the two sides. That is why such agreements invariably lead to buying of US arms, particularly expensive aircraft and missiles. Billions of dollars of aircraft and missile sales is now in the offing -- F16 Aircraft, missile systems and ships.
Will the nuclear deal provide nuclear fuel and reactors to India?
Contrary to the impression being created, the India US Civilian Cooperation Agreement is only a waiver allowing the US to trade with India on nuclear items. Any import of uranium or reactors will have to be separately negotiated with the US or other countries. The reason that this waiver is required is because after India's Pokhran-I test, the US passed a law that barred the US from nuclear commerce with countries which had exploded a nuclear device and were defined as non-nuclear weapons countries in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
How does the Hyde Act impact India?
The Hyde Act gives India a one time waiver and can be withdrawn by the US in case India does not abide the conditions of the Hyde Act. This includes any further tests and also a number of other issues not related to nuclear matters such as India aligning its polices with the US on foreign policy, working with the US on Iran, joining the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that calls for illegal search and seizure operations in high seas. The US President has to report every year to the Congress on India's "good conduct" and if the US President or the US Congress is not happy, can either terminate or suspend nuclear trade with India.
The Hyde Act also makes clear that India cannot get an uninterrupted fuel supply arrangement, cannot stockpile fuel and no other country can give better terms than the US in their nuclear trade with India. The Hyde Act also demanded that while India would not get uninterrupted fuel supply guarantees, it must put its civilian reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards.
Since the Hyde Act is only a US Law, and the actual agreement with the US is the 123 Agreement, how is India is bound by the Hyde Act?
India is not bound by the Hyde Act, but the US is. For us, the 123 Agreement is a agreement with the US for supply of fuel and equipment. The key issue is how to bind the US as a supplier. The US officials are on record that the 123 Agreement ensures that all the Hyde Act conditions are met, the Government's contrary claims notwithstanding. "..we had to make sure that everything in this U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, the 123 Agreement, was completely consistent with the Hyde Act and well within the bounds of the Hyde Act itself."(Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs ?Washington, DC ?July 27, 2007). The US has built into the 123 Agreement that it can pull out whenever it wants: the termination clause makes clear that if either party feels, consultation preceding termination will serve no purpose, they can cease further co-operation. In case the US terminates the 123 Agreement, all fuel supplies will stop and all equipment has to be returned to the US. And as per the Hyde Act, the termination clause can come into effect on a broad range of issues including India's continued links with Iran. Therefore, India can be held to ransom over fuel and spare parts for its imported reactors as it was earlier for the two reactors in Tarapur. Since the issue is our ability to bind the US as a supplier to give guaranteed fuel supplies and spares, no Indian Act passed by Parliament -- as some are arguing -- will help.
Did not 123 Agreement and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement provide for uninterrupted fuel supplies?
The UPA and the PM had assured the country that though the Hyde Act made fuel supply conditional and barred stock piling of fuel except to meet immediate operational requirements, fuel supply assurances would be there in the 123 Agreement and also corrective measures in case of fuel failure would be addressed in the IAEA Agreement. The fuel supply assurances in the 123 Agreement have now been exposed as hollow. The IAEA was held out as the hope for corrective measures, in case fuel supply fails. It is now clear that though the IAEA Draft Safeguards Agreement has perpetual safeguards as per the Hyde Act, the so-called corrective measures are purely cosmetic. There are no corrective measures possible that include pulling Indian reactors out of safeguards once they are offered to IAEA.
Will the Deal not help in lifting sanctions on India for nuclear technology and dual use technology?
The Hyde Act and subsequently the 123 Agreement is clear that sanctions on only uranium fuel and reactors will be lifted. All other technology sanctions -- fuel enrichment, fuel reprocessing, heavy water production and other dual use technologies -- will remain. Dual use technologies are those that are used not only nuclear areas but also other applications such as aerospace, precision manufacturing, electronics, weather prediction, etc. Thus advanced technology for our industries, air crafts, rockets, etc., along with nuclear fuel cycle technology, will continue to be under sanctions. This is in contradiction to what the PM had assured the Indian Parliament. The Fast breeder Reactors would be regarded as fuel enrichment or fuel reprocessing facilities and would not get access to any technology. Therefore, the mainstay of our future indigenous nuclear energy program will continue under technology sanctions.
Will importing nuclear plants solve our immediate power crisis?
There is a deliberate misinformation being created that nuclear plants will be a quick fix to our huge shortages and power cuts. Nuclear plants have to have detailed studies regarding where and how to put them up and they take a long time to build. The import of reactors have to be negotiated commercially and their fuel has to be guaranteed. Typically, the entire process takes 8-10 years. So even if we finish all the steps required to complete the India US Nuclear Deal, it will take not less than 8-10 years before any electricity is produced. And this is an optimistic figure; the last plant that the US commissioned -- the Watts Bar 2 Reactor -- took 23 years to complete. So the belief that nuclear energy will provide an immediate solution to our power crisis is a deliberate fraud on the people. As against this, the coal-fired plants can be built in 3 1/2- 4 years -- we can build coal-fired plants in about half the time it would take for nuclear plants. Gas fired plants can be put up even faster and with the new strikes of gas in the Kaveri Godaveri Basin, use of gas for producing power quickly is an attractive option.
What is the reason for the power crisis in the country?
This crisis of the power sector is the result of a systematic attempt by successive Governments to starve the sector of public funds hoping to make high-cost private power more acceptable to the people. Instead of investing in the power sector, the Government has gone in for privatisation of the power sector with higher prices of electricity. In the 7th Five Year Plan, we had put in about 21,000 MW; in each of the 8th, 9th and the 10th Plans, we have added less than what we added in the 7th Plan. The net result has been the increasing bankruptcy of State Electricity Boards and converting what was a shortage of the early 90's to a full-blown crisis today. If we now have enough money for the power sector, we need then to think on the quickest and cheapest way to remove the current electricity shortages while keeping all our options open.
Will the India US Nuclear Deal provide energy security?
The India US Nuclear Deal is not about India's energy security. Energy security lies in using indigenous energy resources such as coal, gas, hydro, etc., and ensuring our future energy supplies from Iran and other countries in West and Central Asia. Obviously, augmenting indigenous coal production, building hydro plants, investing in oil exploration, securing gas supplies through Iran Gas Pipeline are much more important for India's energy security than buying imported reactors and importing uranium for such nuclear plants. If we do want to build nuclear power plants, we can also build these indigenously. The original three-phase nuclear energy program was based on indigenous fuel and indigenous technology and can give us nuclear energy without making us dependent on imported uranium and imported reactors. The Government is pushing hard for immediately importing 40,000 MW of Light Water Reactors. Such a scenario would make India completely dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a small international cartel. It because of this cartel that the price of uranium has gone up by five times in the last few years. The US, which controls the uranium cartel, would be therefore able to dictate its terms as it will have a stranglehold over these 40,000 MW of nuclear plants.
What are the relative costs of building nuclear plants and coal fired ones?
The nuclear plants -- if we take the cost of imported reactors -- are about three times (Rs. 10-12 crore per MW) the cost of coal-fired plants (Rs. 4 crore per MW). Simply put, with the same amount of money, we can install three coal-fired plants against one nuclear plant of the same size. If we want to install 40,000 MW by 2020 with imported nuclear plants as the Government wants to do, with the same amount of money it can build 100,000 MW of coal fired plants, that too in half the time. The French company Areva is building a new 1600 MW nuclear plant in Finland. When the estimates were made, Areva had given estimates of $ 2,000 per KW. By the time the plant was ordered, it had gone up about $ 2,800 per KW. Currently, the costs have already shot up to a mammoth $ 6.1 billion or almost $ 4,000 per KW. This is four times the cost of coal-fired plants and also more than twice that of indigenous nuclear plants built by Nuclear Power Corporation. At these costs, even solar energy using solar thermal plants would be competitive!
What are the comparative costs of electricity from nuclear and coal-fired plants? The cost of electricity from imported nuclear plants is high because of the high capital cost. Even without including de-commissioning costs, storage of spent fuel indefinitely, etc., the cost of electricity from imported nuclear plants will be more than Rs. 5.00 per unit as against about Rs. 2.00 to 2.50 from coal-fired plants. The cost of electricity is therefore at least twice that from coal fired plants. For those who might remember the Enron case, would know that at that time, India was pushed to accept expensive private power only to help Enron. Once Enron started to produce power, its cost of Rs.5-7 per unit sank the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. If a 2,000 MW Enron plant sank the largest State Electricity Board in the country -- the impact of pushing high cost 40,000 MW of nuclear energy using imported reactors, as the Government wants to do, may well be imagined.
How much can nuclear energy contribute to our energy needs?
Even if we decide to invest heavily in nuclear energy, its contribution to our total energy needs is of limited importance. India has installed capacity of 143,000 MW currently and is slated to raise this to 700,000 to 800,000 MW by 2032. Coal currently meets about 66% of our electricity generation. In this nuclear energy is only 3% of current capacity electricity generating capacity and will at best reach a figure of 8% by 2032. The primary energy source for India will remain coal, which we have in adequate quantities for the next 100 years.
Is there a nuclear renaissance in the world as the Government is claiming?
Nuclear power is not the energy of choice for most advanced countries. Nuclear renaissance is a hype created by the nuclear industry in the US, Western Europe and Japan. In all these countries, the total number of nuclear plants currently being built is only 3. This is against 20 new plants being commissioned every year in the heydays of nuclear energy in these countries. The US itself has commissioned its last reactor in 1996 and has not licensed a new reactor now for more than 27 years. Its interest in supplying India with reactors is in order to revive its own dying nuclear equipment industry, which has yet to secure a single order in the US despite the promise of billions of dollars in subsidies from the Bush Administration. It is in order to bail out its dying nuclear industry that the US is so keen that India sign on the Nuclear Deal. Condoleezza Rice, testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee (April 5, 2006), pointed out the importance of the Deal for the US, "The initiative may add as many as three to 5,000 new direct jobs in the United States and about 10,000 to 15,000 indirect jobs in the United States, as the United States is able to engage in nuclear commerce and trade with India."
Is there a serious uranium shortage in the country for which we need this Nuclear Deal?
The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. If we focus on our known uranium deposits and prospect for new ones, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme. It is because of a smaller availability of indigenous uranium that the 3-phase program started under Homi Bhabha, envisaged Fast Breeder Reactors. Breeder reactors can produce 50 times more energy from the same amount of uranium. This program also planned to use thorium, which we have in abundance. India is a world leader in Fast Breeder technology and is very near to commercialising it. It is not surprising that this is precisely the time that people who have put India under nuclear sanctions for the last 30 years are now talking about making India a member of the nuclear club. A simple objective is to get India to give up its quest for independence in nuclear technology and fuel.
Will nuclear energy address the issue of global warming?
The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative body on climate change has made clear that nuclear energy will have only a marginal impact on global warming. That is simply because its total contribution to the energy needs of the world would be relatively insignificant, even if we consider a very ambitious nuclear energy program. Therefore, the major thrust for reducing greenhouse gases would be greater energy efficiency, public transport, thrust for renewable energy sources and clean coal technologies. Cynically, the US has been advancing the reduction of India's greenhouse gases as an argument for the India US Nuclear Deal. Nicholas Burns writes, "This agreement will deepen the strategic partnership, create new opportunities for U.S. businesses in India, enhance global energy security, and reduce India's carbon emissions" (Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2007).
It is strange that this argument is being advanced when India's per capita emissions are one twentieth that of the US, which has yet to accept a cap on its own greenhouse emissions. The US position is that if the world is endangered by greenhouse emissions, it is countries such as India and China that need to limit their emissions. For the US, no reduction of greenhouse gases is possible; George Bush senior expressed this quite clearly, "American lifestyles are not open to negotiations".
Will investing heavily in nuclear energy reduce our dependence on imported oil and therefore reduce the burden of rising oil price?
Oil and gas, in primary energy terms, are much more important than nuclear as they are already about 45% of our primary energy demand. Oil alone is about 35% of our primary energy demand of which more than 50% is in the transport sector -- cars, buses and trucks and the rest in petrochemicals and fertilizers. Nuclear energy, in contrast is only 1.5% of our primary energy demand. Only a negligible amount of oil -- less than 3% of the total oil consumption -- is used in the power plants. Nuclear energy cannot be used as a substitute for oil except for this 3%; unless the Government experts have found a new way to burn uranium directly in cars and buses!
Though nuclear energy cannot be used in transport, natural gas can -- as we can see in the large number of buses and cars that run on CNG in Delhi. It is indeed strange that the Government, faced with a huge and ever rising oil bill, should focus on the nuclear deal while ignoring the Iran Gas Pipeline project, which will partly insulate India from oil price shocks. It only makes sense if we understand that one of the objectives of the US is to de-link India from Iran through the nuclear deal. "Diversifying India's energy sector will help it to meet its ever increasing needs and more importantly, ease its reliance on hydrocarbons and unstable sources like Iran. This is good for the United States." (Condoleezza Rice, testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 5, 2006).
About 13,000 MW of gas-fired plants are partially idling as we also have a shortage of gas in the country. If we had gone ahead with the LNG or the Iran Pipeline project, we could have removed some of the electricity shortage we have in the country today.
How is the nuclear deal related to the India US Strategic ties?
The Nuclear Deal is a part of a larger vision which seeks to subordinate India to the US's strategic vision. For the last two years, the Government has been taking a number of steps that align India to the US's strategic interests. It is known that the US strategic thinking calls for dominance in all possible theatres. In Asia, the US has been handicapped that it has only one major base -- Okinawa, Japan -- in East, South-east and South Asia. The only other base it has in this region is in the Indian Ocean in Diego Garcia. That is why the US's interest in making India as a junior partner in Asia.
One of the major steps was signing of the New Framework for India-US Defence Relationship in Washington on June 28, 2005, just prior to Bush Manmohan Singh Agreement of July 18, 2005. In the Agreement, it is stated, "U.S.-India defence relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests". Considering that the Iraq invasion was justified by the US as "bringing democracy to West Asia", a reference to a shared belief in "democracy and rule of law" cannot be acceptable to the Indian people. The Defence Framework Agreement is also sweeping in its scope; it envisages a host of strategic and military relations -- joint exercises, joint planning, joint operations, and defence procurement. India has also joined in with the US, Japan and Australia (or what is called the trilateral nations) for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal, as a part of this.
The Manmohan Singh Bush agreement was followed immediately by India's two votes against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Senator Lugar in his opening remarks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had noted, approvingly, "We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India. India's votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues." Manmohan Singh's oft-repeated claims that India's foreign policy would not change due to this Deal, is not borne out by his Governments' record, especially when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic value of India aligning with the US as a consequence of this agreement.
Currently, the Manmohan Singh Government is negotiating a Logistics and Service Agreement. It essentially allows refuelling and complete access to Indian facilities for all US ships and aircraft. The US navy can bomb Iraq and Iran and then come to India's ports for rest, recreation and refuelling, before going back for another round of hostilities. Step by step, from a vote against Iran, we are now to become hosts to the US navy in US-Israel military misadventures in West Asia.
Launching the TecSar spy satellite for Israel, which is being used to plan military attacks on Iran and Syria, show the depth of the strategic ties that India already has developed with Israel. India is not only Israel's biggest arm-buyer, it also buys more arms from the Israeli arms industry than the Israeli defence forces.
The Logistics and Service Agreement as well as the Defence Framework Agreement have also requirements of "interoperability". This calls for both sides to have the same equipment so that military personnel of both sides can use each other's equipment and operate better together. This also means spares can be shared by the two sides. That is why such agreements invariably lead to buying of US arms, particularly expensive aircraft and missiles. Billions of dollars of aircraft and missile sales is now in the offing -- F16 Aircraft, missile systems and ships.
Article available at: http://www.citizen-news.org/2008/07/faq-indo-us-nuclear-deal-less-energy.html
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Albert Einstein
Some of the interesting, but less known facts I came to know about the great Albert Einstein:
(not arranged chronologically)
(not arranged chronologically)
- Einstein showed Alferd Kleiner (Einstein's PhD thesis supervisor) his first PhD thesis dissertation in November 1901. However, Einstein withdrew his dissertation in February 1902.
- One year later he considered giving up his plan to obtain a doctorate and noted to his friend Michele Besso that "the whole comedy has become tiresome for me."
- By March 1903 Einstein had changed his mind, and decided to continue with his PhD. Indeed, a letter to his friend 'Besso' contains some of the central ideas of the 1905 dissertation.
- At the age of 26, having studied under Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich. His dissertation was entitled "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions".
- In 1901 Einstein transitioned his thesis supervison from "H.F. Weber" to "Alfred Kleiner"; and changed his dissertation topic from thermoelectricity to molecular kinetics.
- Kleiner's (his thesis supervisor) judgement of the dissertation was: "the arguments and calculations to be carried out are among the most difficult in hydrodynamics."
- The other reviewer, Heinrich Burkhardt, Professor for Mathematics at the University, said: "the mode of treatment demonstrates fundamental mastery of the relevant mathematical methods."
- Einstein later laughingly recounted that his dissertation was first returned by Kleiner with the comment that it was too short. After he had added a single sentence, it was accepted without further comment..!!
- Einstein's PhD thesis does not follow his basic statistical approach. It has been argued that Einstein avoided his own theoretical ideas to win the approval of his PhD advisor, Alfred Kleiner.
- Following graduation, Einstein could not find a teaching post. After almost two years of searching, a former classmate's father helped him get a job in Berne, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property the patent office, as an assistant examiner.
- In 1905, while he was working in the patent office, Einstein had four papers published in the "Annalen der Physik", the leading German physics journal. These are the papers that history has come to call the "Annus Mirabilis Papers". All four papers (also included among these 4 is his paper on mass–energy equivalence, E = mc2) are today recognized as tremendous achievements—and hence 1905 is known as Einstein's "Wonderful Year". At the time, however, they were not noticed by most physicists as being important, and many of those who did notice them rejected them outright. Some of this work—such as the theory of light quanta—remained controversial for years.
- In letters to Mileva Maric, Einstein noted the frequent discussions that he had with Kleiner on a wide range of topics. On 19 December 1901, Einstein writes Marić that he had: "spent the whole afternoon with Kleiner in Zurich and explained my ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies to him. ...He advised me to publish my ideas about the electromagnetic theory of light for moving bodies together with the experimental method. He found the experimental method proposed by me to be the simplest and most appropriate one conceivable. ... I shall most certainly write the paper in the coming weeks."
Now something personal about Einstein:
- Einstein was at Switzerland to finish his secondary school. While lodging with the family of Professor Jost Winteler, he fell in love with the family's daughter, Marie. Later they broke up.
- In 1896, Einstein's first wife-to-be, Mileva Marić, enrolled at ETH, as the only woman studying mathematics. During the next few years, Einstein and Marić's friendship developed into romance.
- Einstein and Mileva Marić had a daughter, Lieserl Einstein, born in early 1902. Her fate is unknown. Some claim that she was mentally challenged by birth; and died of "scarlet fever" as an infant. Another possibility is that Lieserl was adopted by Maric's close friend, Helene Savic and was raised by her and lived under the name "Zorka Savic" until 1990s.
- Einstein married Mileva on January 6, 1903, although Einstein's mother had objected to the match because she had a prejudice against Serbs and thought Marić "too old" and "physically defective."
- In a letter to her, Einstein called Marić "a creature who is my equal and who is as strong and independent as I am."
- Einstein and Marić divorced on February 14, 1919, having lived apart for five years. On June 2 of that year, Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal, who had nursed him through an illness. Elsa was Albert's first cousin maternally and his second cousin paternally. Together the Einsteins raised Margot and Ilse, Elsa's daughters from her first marriage. Their union produced no children.
- While travelling, Einstein had written daily to his wife Elsa and adopted step daughters, Margot and Ilse, and the letters were included in the papers bequeathed to The Hebrew University. Margot Einstein permitted the personal letters to be made available to the public, but requested that it not be done until twenty years after her death (she died in 1986). There are about 3,500 pages of private correspondence written between 1912 and 1955.
- In the period before World War II, Albert Einstein was so well-known in America that he would be stopped on the street by people wanting him to explain "that theory". He finally figured out a way to handle the incessant inquiries. He told his inquirers "Pardon me, sorry! Always I am mistaken for Professor Einstein."
- Time magazine's Frederic Golden wrote that Einstein was "a cartoonist's dream come true."
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Who is a Gazetted Officer in India?
This is a question which many of us are confused about. I asked a lot of people about this, but could not find a satisfactory answer. Even I found this question to be a little hard for 'Google' to answer.
So, this is what I came to learn after spending some time googling. Here is it for you...
In India, Gazette is published on regular basis, it is an official Central Government Publication. Among many other things (viz. GoI notifications, rules, orders etc.), it publishes the promotions & transfers of certain government officials (who are called Gazetted Officers). This practice is followed since British times; and that publication is called by the Government of India as the "Gazzette of India".
Any catagory of persons who are listed in "Gazette of India" are Gezetted. As simple as that..!!
Governments categorise their employees from Class 1 to 4.
Class 4: Unskilled or semiskilled.
eg. Peon, attender, driver, gardener, Lans Naik, Naik etc
Class 3: Semi skilled with no decision making authority.
eg. Clerk, Head clerk, Assistant, Typist, Stenographer, Telephone operator, Havaldar, Havaldar major and NCOs, etc
Class2: Officers with some supervisory/managerial role.
eg. Section Officer, BDO, Tahsildar, Junior doctors, Assistant Executive Engineer, Lecturers in Government colleges, Headmaster of Government high schools, Junior Doctors in Government hospitals, 2nd Lieutenant to Major, etc
Class 1: Executive power vested officers,with decision making powers.
All India services, though posted to states; promotees from states to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner and above and to the cadre of All India services ; Police officers of Circle Inspector and above; Additional District Civil surgeons, Executive Engineers and above, District Medical Officer and above, Lt.Col. and above, Principals of Government colleges and above, Readers and above of Universities, etc.
Nationalised bank officials are not gazetted officers but protocol ranks exist.
Among the powers and responsibilities of a Gazetted Officer, are the certifications and authentification of photo copies etc. That's why we go to them for attesting our copies where they actually have to see an original of that and certify that the copy is the actual copy of the original as seen by them.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Retaining the readers...
The Article by Mr K. Narayanan “The Challenges in retaining the readers” (The Hindu, Dated 26.05.2008) was a thought provoking one. I would just like to add a comment on the last 5-6 lines of the article, where preventing media to publish a politically destabilizing thing is talked about. Instead, I would try to answer his question that who will decide what will be “destabilizing”.
In a country like India where we have a uniquely diversified society, viz hundreds of different castes & sub-castes, different languages, so many political parties, largely varying socio-economic status of the citizens etc, it is extremely important that every attempt should be made to strengthen this matchless unity in diversity. Any such action by anyone (be it an individual, a group, press or who so ever) must be viewed seriously unlawful, which negatively provokes people & destabilize the peace & calmness of environment of the state by adding fuel to the fire.
A recent controversy, as an example, will make my view more clear. A Law examination question paper read about the relationships of some imaginary characters – the names of whom were that of the Hindu Gods. The known relationships between the Hindu Gods were not matching exactly to as that given in the question. This provoked some examinees during the examination, but they were well controlled by the examiners.
This news was widely publicized by some of the TV News channels & the local newspapers. Such was the extent of importance given to this trivial issue, that the media did not hesitate calling this as the “Breaking News” (some TV News channels) & the front-page top-most news in local dailies.
The result was most obvious. It aroused the orthodox Hindu groups. There were unnecessary protests & disturbances. The paper setter (who was Hindu as well) faced the derogatory situations. He was assaulted – both physically & mentally.
This was a grossly irresponsible behavior played by the media. So as an answer to Mr Narayanan’s question that who will decide what is “destabilizing”, I can pose a question that do we really need written laws, procedures & definitions to understand that such an action by media was totally un-called-for? What is the role of Editors & the Senior Management of the press if such an action can’t be checked?
In such instances, some of the news channels & news papers don’t actually think of their moral responsibility, but just about the market forces which will help the sale of their air time of the newspaper.
Any genuine citizen of this country will not at all appreciate this, but would surely cry loud on how the “Freedom of Press” is misinterpreted & misused by the news channels & news papers for their own benefit. Although I (the citizen of this country) salute the responsible journalism but I just have three words to say to the other worst part of this coin “Shame on You” !!
In a country like India where we have a uniquely diversified society, viz hundreds of different castes & sub-castes, different languages, so many political parties, largely varying socio-economic status of the citizens etc, it is extremely important that every attempt should be made to strengthen this matchless unity in diversity. Any such action by anyone (be it an individual, a group, press or who so ever) must be viewed seriously unlawful, which negatively provokes people & destabilize the peace & calmness of environment of the state by adding fuel to the fire.
A recent controversy, as an example, will make my view more clear. A Law examination question paper read about the relationships of some imaginary characters – the names of whom were that of the Hindu Gods. The known relationships between the Hindu Gods were not matching exactly to as that given in the question. This provoked some examinees during the examination, but they were well controlled by the examiners.
This news was widely publicized by some of the TV News channels & the local newspapers. Such was the extent of importance given to this trivial issue, that the media did not hesitate calling this as the “Breaking News” (some TV News channels) & the front-page top-most news in local dailies.
The result was most obvious. It aroused the orthodox Hindu groups. There were unnecessary protests & disturbances. The paper setter (who was Hindu as well) faced the derogatory situations. He was assaulted – both physically & mentally.
This was a grossly irresponsible behavior played by the media. So as an answer to Mr Narayanan’s question that who will decide what is “destabilizing”, I can pose a question that do we really need written laws, procedures & definitions to understand that such an action by media was totally un-called-for? What is the role of Editors & the Senior Management of the press if such an action can’t be checked?
In such instances, some of the news channels & news papers don’t actually think of their moral responsibility, but just about the market forces which will help the sale of their air time of the newspaper.
Any genuine citizen of this country will not at all appreciate this, but would surely cry loud on how the “Freedom of Press” is misinterpreted & misused by the news channels & news papers for their own benefit. Although I (the citizen of this country) salute the responsible journalism but I just have three words to say to the other worst part of this coin “Shame on You” !!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Tobacco, Smoking & Drinking
Excerpts from an Article (The Hindu, Dated 11.05.2008) Dr Ambumani Ramadoss, Health Minister, GoI
The figures givent in the article are really an eye opener. The way in which it was (mis) interpreted by the Media & Bollywood, its really a shame on their part. This will automatically be clear to you after going through these facts & figures once.
- 40 % of the health problems in India are due to the use of tobacco in its various forms. Tobacco and alcohol together make a perfect recipe for early death.
- Over a million deaths in India occur due to tobacco use.
- According to World Health Organization (WHO) study, 15 % of school children in India use tobacco.
- Experts say smoking scenes in movie are more effective than direct forms of tobacco advertisements.
- 52 % of youngsters start smoking after being influenced by movies.
- India produces the largest number of movies in the world (900 in 2001).
- In the 1950s, 30 % of films had smoking scenes with the percentage touching 89 in 2004.
In 1950s only villain or ‘bad guys’ smoked on screen. Now, 76 % of the smoking scenes are by heroes and lead characters. - Godfrey Philips Red and White Bravery Awards are given to 10 people for saving 10 lives but tobacco company causes the death of three million people worldwide annually.
- In the past 15 years alcohol production has increased from 900 million litres to 2.3 billion litres, making India the largest consumer of alcohol in the Southeast Asian region. India alone consumes 65 % of the region’s total production.
- The average drinking age has come down from 28 years to 19 years. Experts predict that it will further come down further to 15 years in the next 5-7 years.
- India’s strength is its 600 million people below the age of 30.
- 2/3 rd of India’s death are linked to tobacco, alcohol and junk food.
- 1/3 rd of road accidents are alcohol related.
- Rajnikant’s two latest movies are smoke free and both were the biggest hits in the history of India film industry.
- A can of Pepsi/Coco-cola contains 5-7 spoonfuls of sugar and a packet of chips contains 500 calories.
- WHO has also warned that India is moving from a pattern of communicable disease to non-communicable diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardio-vascular ailments, and mental health disorders.
- The India Cinematography Act, 1952 prohibits glamorizing smoking in movies.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
MSP-2008: A Feedback
A tale of my Experiences with ORSI, Ahmedabad Chapter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no intentions to try suing anyone, neither I am charging or complaining against anyone to anybody. This is just my experience, my feelings that I wanted to share with my friends, colleagues, seniors, professors, as well as (may be) to the organizers. If somebody tries to post-mortem my write-up, you may get some little changes here & there. I fully agree to it. This is because I haven’t written any legal document, but only my heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Research Society of India, Ahmedabad Chapter arranged a conference on Management Science & Practices (MSP) 2008. The conference was set at the mighty IIM Ahmedabad during 22-24th March, 2008.
Here I will be talking least on the posed mights & valors of the ORSI, Ahmedabad; but would surely like to highlight some really stubborn, monarchial & demoralizing experiences I had with the organizers. In short, my aim here is to just criticize the organization of conference, as if there were no positives, at least I believe that!
I am a 2nd year PhD Scholar at IME Department, IIT Kanpur. How am I linked to MSP-2008? Actually not directly; my wife got a paper selected at the conference & I just accompanied her (‘Escort’ her, as someone said !!!) to MSP-2008. So most often here, I may use ‘we’ for a ‘she’ when talking about the conference, which I leave to the readers to understand preferably. But what I am going to do here, is against her wish & hence she is only the ‘object’ I am using to describe my own personal feelings against MSP-2008.
I may also be using names of some of the persons (which remains indispensable actually), ’coz I believe that I am living in a democracy where I have been conferred upon by the Constitution of India in its Part-III, to have a “Right to Freedom of Expression”.
Even when we were submitting the paper for review, a friend warned us against this conference. Actually he attended MSP-2007 & had a similar hard feelings & upsetting experiences. MSP-2007 was arranged at IIT Madras, by the same organizers. But we took his words lightly & suffered throughout our association with this conference.
Without talking any more, I would directly come to the point of crapping MSP-2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no intentions to try suing anyone, neither I am charging or complaining against anyone to anybody. This is just my experience, my feelings that I wanted to share with my friends, colleagues, seniors, professors, as well as (may be) to the organizers. If somebody tries to post-mortem my write-up, you may get some little changes here & there. I fully agree to it. This is because I haven’t written any legal document, but only my heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Research Society of India, Ahmedabad Chapter arranged a conference on Management Science & Practices (MSP) 2008. The conference was set at the mighty IIM Ahmedabad during 22-24th March, 2008.
Here I will be talking least on the posed mights & valors of the ORSI, Ahmedabad; but would surely like to highlight some really stubborn, monarchial & demoralizing experiences I had with the organizers. In short, my aim here is to just criticize the organization of conference, as if there were no positives, at least I believe that!
I am a 2nd year PhD Scholar at IME Department, IIT Kanpur. How am I linked to MSP-2008? Actually not directly; my wife got a paper selected at the conference & I just accompanied her (‘Escort’ her, as someone said !!!) to MSP-2008. So most often here, I may use ‘we’ for a ‘she’ when talking about the conference, which I leave to the readers to understand preferably. But what I am going to do here, is against her wish & hence she is only the ‘object’ I am using to describe my own personal feelings against MSP-2008.
I may also be using names of some of the persons (which remains indispensable actually), ’coz I believe that I am living in a democracy where I have been conferred upon by the Constitution of India in its Part-III, to have a “Right to Freedom of Expression”.
Even when we were submitting the paper for review, a friend warned us against this conference. Actually he attended MSP-2007 & had a similar hard feelings & upsetting experiences. MSP-2007 was arranged at IIT Madras, by the same organizers. But we took his words lightly & suffered throughout our association with this conference.
Without talking any more, I would directly come to the point of crapping MSP-2008.
- Since long back, the dates of this conference were set to be during 28-30 March 2008. But just about a month prior to the conference schedule, it was preponed to be held during 22-24 March 2008. The reason was stated that IIM-A has its Convocation scheduled during that time. This was declared to be a National Conference, but unfortunately nothing was thought about the persons who are going to attend the conference from farthest places in the country. We are living at Kanpur & definitely faced problems in rescheduling our journey.
a. Initially we planned to & fro journey via Delhi from a Spice Jet flight (Ahmedabad-Delhi) & Delhi-Kanpur on rail. This is not because I am a rich man, but there was some good offers on the Spice Jet Airlines, due to which we got the tickets @ just Rs 2000/- per head. Rescheduling charges for Spice Jet, per head per journey, @ Rs 750/- amounts to Rs 3000/-.
b. Even when we were ready for rescheduling (“Marta kya na karta” as it is said in Hindi for “No Option” !!), there was no availability in the flight for a journey from Delhi-Ahmedabad on the new dates. So go for a rail journey between Delhi-Ahmedabad. Simple is it not??
c. No availability from Kanpur-Ahmedabad in Sleeper, neither in III-AC or II-AC. Only option was to get reservation in Tatkal, that too we could manage an availability in II-AC only. So let’s go for it !!
God knows what motivated them to keep a conference on the day of Holi; 22nd March 2008 was Holi - ‘Dhulandhi’!!! Travelling during holi time, I need not to say much about this. - Shared dormitory accomodation was arranged by the organizers for the delegates. But as I was also accompanying my wife, we requested our PhD supervisor (who is an alumni of IIM Ahmedabad & friendly associated with the organizers) to recommend us so that I can also get an accomodation at IIM-A. He did the kind favour to us by recommending. We got a positive response from the organizers as: "family accommodation can be arranged in IIM A campus as an exception. It costs Rs. 1000/- per day which has to be incurred by you. Please let me know if this is alright with you. We shall be glad to assist you."
We were indeed glad & happy to note this, and accepted the offer by sending a DD of Rs 2000/- to them, for a two nights' stay.
Just on the day we were starting for the conference from Kanpur (20th March ‘08), we got a call from the organizer at 9:00 AM in the morning, stating "we are sorry; by mistake we told you the cost to be Rs 1000/-, actually it's Rs 2500/- per day. If you still want it, I can book it for you, but I don’t recommend you to do so"...!! We obviously refused.
Do I need to write here that in what mental condition I must be going through at that moment, knowing that I have planned to travel during 'Holi' with my wife, in such a mis-managed environment..!!
I immediately started googling to search for hotels near IIM-A. After making a call to atleast 10-12 hotels, we could get a room booked at a hotel near IIM-A for Rs 1500/- per day. - As in any conference, here too, a preferred presentation schedule was asked from the delegates by the organizers. Again & again, atleast 4 times we requested them (I have all the proofs) to schedule our presentation preferably on 23rd or if that’s not possible, on 24th March ’08; with special emphasis all the time to avoid scheduling our presentation on 22nd, that being Holi. Every time we were assured that our preference would be taken care of during scheduling.
But to the utter surprise, on 19th March when schedule was released, our presentation was scheduled to be the first presentation of the conference on 22nd March ’08 (Holi) at 3:30 PM….!!
We mailed the organizer again as: "After repeatedly telling my preference to be 23rd March, most humbly I ask you to please justifiably tell me the reason why my presentation is scheduled on 22nd? I hoped that the organizers would appreciate that as I am living outside IIM campus, it would be difficult for me to reach IIM on the day of Holi, when there will possibly be no transportation facilities available in the city..!!".
To the reply of this, we got the presentation to be rescheduled on 23rd March '08, at 8:30 AM. - Here comes actually the worst part of my experience. Had this not happened, I would have been the last person to write all this here.
Wife's presentation was told to be 3rd/4th in sequence on 23rd March in the slot 08:30-10:00 AM. We planned to go for a Ahmedabad city tour after the presentation. Both of us went inside the presentation room when 2nd presentation was going on. I took the seat next to my wife.
Within just 2-3 minutes, I saw the lady (with whom we transacted all through, Ms Vasudh Tummala) came inside & talked to a boy sitting at last chair. May be, he was one of the volunteers.
The boy came to me & said: "Excuse me...You are accompanying your wife..??"
I said "Yes.."
Boy: "No, you can't sit here. You have to wait outside. You please come out". I noted that he too was not feeling nice to say that. "You can talk to Ms Vasudha Tummala outside", he said.
Myself & my wife, both were really shocked to this. She started mumbling & muttering. I relaxed her & asked to concentrate on her presentation (which was to start in 10 min or so..). I came out to talk to Ms Vasudha.
As I came out, she again uttered the same words: "No you can't sit inside. Please wait here".
I told her gently: "Ma'am, I am not at all interested in attending the conference, neither am I disturbing any one inside. I am there just to accompany & encourage my wife for her presentation."
Lady: "No. To be inside you need to register, fill & sign the forms."
Me: "Ma'am, I am not only her husband but also a PhD student at IITK. Moreover, it's just a matter of 15-20 mins."
Lady: "Sorry, I can't help. You are unnecessarily arguing."
Me: "Ok then... if it's so, please give me the form, I'll fill & sign it."
She tried to search for the 'form' in her mess of papers for another 2-3 minutes, but without success.
Lady: "See I am not getting the form presently. You can rather pay me Rs 2000/-, which is registration fees & then attend the conference."
I was highly embarrassed & heavily shocked by seeing her attitude.
I decided to take the seat outside & didn't wanted to argue with the arrogance & inclemency of the lady.
As she saw me sitting outside, she said: "This is what at most we can do for you. We can allow you to roam inside our campus, accompanying your wife & to take a seat here outside."
I said: "So kind of you, Ma'am. I am deeply obliged."
I didn't knew what expression I should have at that moment there: To laugh at the foolishness displayed by the lady, or to feel embarrassed, or to be disappointed for missing my wife's presentation...!!! I just started to pen this tale.
Please take back your draft (Rs 2000/-, which we sent for accommodation). I requested the lady to give us a cheque/cash, because it would be difficult for us to get the draft cancelled. She said: "No no, that's not possible. We are doing whatever instructions we have got..!!". To this I could not resist expressing my paining heart, of course bit “angrily”...!! She just kept a mum. - Conference Proceedings of MSP-2007 was released in MSP-2008. It’s expected that MSP-2008 proceedings would be released much earlier...in say, 6 months from now...!!! We will not take 1 year this time, as was told by Ms Vasudha.
Its a normal practice all over, that Conference Proceedings are given to the participants, right there, during the conference.
After 2 round of review, papers were selected for presentation at the conference. Again the papers presented at the conference will be peer-reviewed & only some selected papers will appear in Conference Proceedings...!!! - Certificate of Participation: She was just neglecting us, when we asked for it. Asked to wait till the running session gets over (another half-an-hour). After session got over, we asked her again, she asked to wait for half-an-hour more. About after one-and-half hour, at about 1:30 PM we got the certificate. All our plans & mood of Ahmedabad tour went in vain. We took lunch at a hotel outside & came back to our room to take some rest.
I would like to particularly mention here about one more conference, which we attended shortly before this conference, IEEE-IEEM 2007. The IEEE arranged this conference at Singapore during Nov-Dec 2007; and we were lucky to be associated with this conference, as (again) my wife got her paper selected there.
So I compared MSP-2008 keeping the benchmark of IEEE-IEEM 2007 in mind. I don’t know if this is a correct approach or not, but at least this is a human tendency to compare anything with his past experiences on a similar occasion. - The IEEE conference, IEEM 2007, which we attended at Singapore was just opposite to this.
- They declared in the beginning itself, that we will not be able to arrange accommodation for the delegates. Please do not make any request for the same.
- They mailed again & again to say that we encourage you to bring your spouse/a friend of yours to the conference. All foods during the conference will be arranged by us, for you as well as your spouse/friend, free of cost.
- Conference schedule was given much prior to the conference, and it was as per our preference given. Still they asked to convey the changes required, if any, by so & so date.
Certificate of Participation was ready to be given. We just went to the counter & received one. - Fill in a feedback form, give it at a counter. They gave some beautiful small show pieces as gifts, with a smile.
- Conference Proceedings, Full Paper in a CD etc were all there in the Conference kit given, along with some beautiful gifts like show piece, key-ring etc.
- Overall their treatment was extremely friendly & we have so many happy memories from IEEE Singapore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have absolutely no intentions to try suing anyone, neither I am charging or complaining against anyone to anybody. This is just my experience, my feelings that I wanted to share with my friends, colleagues, seniors, professors, as well as (may be) to the organizers. If somebody tries to post-mortem my write-up, you may get some little changes here & there. I fully agree to it. This is because I haven’t written any legal document, but only my heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 2, 2008
Removal of Honey Beehives at IIT K
INSTITUTE WORKS DEPARTMENT SANITATION UNIT
NOTICE
There are a large number of honey beehives in GH-I, Hall-I, Hall-II,Hall-III, Hall-IV, Hall-V, Hall-VII, Hall-VIII, FB, H.No.-386,3086 H.No.-603, 647 CE, NL-II, LHC, Central Library, Auditorium, etc. and it has become a matter of concern. The beehives in the said buildings shall be removed during the period from 03.05.08 to 17.05.08. The removal shall be undertaken in the time slot of 7.30 PM to 11.30 PM. The campus community is advised to be careful in moving around during the notifiedperiod.
To: All mailing List
**********************************************************************************
My Views on the above mail...
Any one who has been to IIT K can easily appriciate the fact that the areas mentioned in this mail covers almost 70-80% of the areas which are mostly occupied & has significant traffic during all times.
The message is that between 3rd May to 17th May, removal of beehives will take place during evening time 07:30-1130 PM.So there will definitely be unrest among the honey bees, and hence who-so-ever comes infront of them will surely get hurt. There are past incidences where people have suffered during this process.
Such a general mail is nothing but just a formality. They have just completed a custom of informing the public. But such a general mail is of no use at all.
During these 15 days, moving in a large area in busiest 4 hrs at IIT K is risky. Its not possible that people will stop moving in all these areas for 15 days, during the evening time.If there will be any accident due to this process, they will just stretch thier hands out, saying that we informed public. But is such an information of any use to anyone?
The affected person will recall about the notice only after an accident will take place with him, and will then find that I cant do any thing about this, because Authorities already informed "All" about this.
But do you really think that Authorities actually behaved responsibly by circulating such an absurd, ridiculous & meaningless notice..??
So, what should be done....??
First of all, fix up a schedule with the workers, according to their availability & other logistics. Allot them one of these areas on one specific time; in this way cover all of the affected areas. Then tell the finally fixed schedule to the general public.
In this way we will be better informed, say, today is 5th May, as per schedule beehive removal will be at Auditorium from 8:30 PM. So lets avoid moving there at that time.
The idea of informing to the public should be genuine, to avoid any mis-hap; rather than to just complete a formality which will not actually avoid any accident, but only help authorities to escape out being held responsible for the same.
You have played safe by circulating this mail, Sir; but let the people of IIT K also live safe by behaving a little more responsible.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Why should I get a Master's degree as well...
There is a recent proposal made by Students' Post Graduate Committee (SPGC) Chairman, Dr V.K. Gupta. The proposal is exploring a possibility to award ME/MTech degree to the persons who converted their MTech into PhD during their 3rd semester at IIT Kanpur.
Please let me first tell about myself. I did BE (Mech) from BIT-Durg in 2002 with 76% marks; qualified GATE-2002 as well as GATE-2005. After about 5 years of work experience with NPCIL, I quit the organization & joined PhD at IME Dept, IIT Kanpur in winter session of 2006.
So the two eligibility criterion namely:
· Bachelor's degree in engineering with a minimum of 75% marks / 7.5 CPI; & an exceptional academic record.
· GATE qualification (necessary for financial assistance)
were fulfilling, and hence I got the admission after a departmental Written Exam & an Interview.
In the current semester (2007-08, II) I would be completing my course requirement (of 10 courses) & would proceed to do my Comprehensive Exam & State of the Art in coming semester(s).
I hence consider myself sufficiently fit to give my comments this issue.
Now coming to the proposal, I would first like to mention some of the very specific issues which are although small, but needs to be appropriately addressed:
· They did mentioned about those students who actually took admission in MTech, but later after their 2nd Sem, converted their registration to PhD, as they met the defined criterion for such conversions. Let’s denote such students by the class ‘2A’.
So the two eligibility criterion namely:
· Bachelor's degree in engineering with a minimum of 75% marks / 7.5 CPI; & an exceptional academic record.
· GATE qualification (necessary for financial assistance)
were fulfilling, and hence I got the admission after a departmental Written Exam & an Interview.
In the current semester (2007-08, II) I would be completing my course requirement (of 10 courses) & would proceed to do my Comprehensive Exam & State of the Art in coming semester(s).
I hence consider myself sufficiently fit to give my comments this issue.
Now coming to the proposal, I would first like to mention some of the very specific issues which are although small, but needs to be appropriately addressed:
· They did mentioned about those students who actually took admission in MTech, but later after their 2nd Sem, converted their registration to PhD, as they met the defined criterion for such conversions. Let’s denote such students by the class ‘2A’.
There is almost a similar class of students with slight variation, who actually took admission in PhD directly after B.E / BTech (i.e. like me, who didn’t take admission in MTech but directly in PhD). Let’s denote them by class ‘2B’.
The eligibility criterion during admission for a class ‘2B’ PhD is same as that for class ‘2A’ PhD students. Also class ‘2B’ PhD students are treated in exactly the same manner as the class ‘2A’ PhD students, in terms of total credit requirements, amount of course work, scholarship etc.
The only wee difference lies in that – class ‘2A’ PhD student gets a scholarship of Rs 5000/- for his first two semesters & Rs 8000/- from his 3rd semester; while class ‘2B’ PhD student gets Rs 8000/- since inception. (The given scholarship values are pre-enhancement)
We must take care that both classes ‘2A’ as well as ‘2B’ are well covered under this scheme of award of ME/MTech to PhD students admitted with Bachelor’s degree.
· Secondly, instead of mentioning the scheme for “PhD students with BTech degree”, we can more generally call it to be “PhD students with BE / BTech degree”.
This is because under the current structure & curriculum of technical education in our country, there is absolutely no difference between these two degrees. The difference lies only as some institutes like to call their degree to be BE, while others like the same to be called BTech. There is no such line of demarcation which actually separates the two.
Now let us call the students joining PhD after Masters to be class ‘1’ & those joining PhD after Bachelors to be class ‘2’. Class ‘2’ is actually a union of sub-classes ‘2A’ & ‘2B’ discussed above, which will be treated equivalent to each other, as is treated even now.
A person who is enrolled for MTech does minimum 6 courses / 24 credits (as per the PG manual) to a maximum of 9 courses / 36 credits (in IME Dept). Also, out of these 6-9 courses (24-36 credits) they are also allowed to take one UG course, on approval of DPGC. So they do a research of minimum 28-40 credits, depending on minimum no of courses specified by their DPGC. So in short an MTech student does:
· Course work : 24-36 credits
· Research Work : 28-40 credits
Let’s see these aspects for a class ‘2’ PhD student.
He does a course work of minimum 10 courses / 40 credits in 3 semesters, by doing 4+4+2 courses in the 3 semesters. Also he is not allowed to take any UG level course, as is the case with MTech student, who can take at least 1 UG level course. In the 3rd semester he does Research work as well, for 8 credits. (During the 3 semesters, there may be other combinations of ‘no. of courses’ as well; viz. 3+3+4, 3+4+3 etc. But the point which I am emphasizing is that at the end of 3 semesters he would have done courses worth 40 credits + Research worth 8 credits.)
After the course work, he gives Comprehensive Exam in the 4th semester, gains 16 more credits. Mostly (although not necessary, but this is the normal pace for most of the students) State-of-the-Art Seminar is given in his 5th semester, he gains 16 more credits. So by the end of 5th Semester the class ‘2’ PhD student does:
· Course work : 40 credits
· Research work : 8 + 16 + 16 = 40 credits
To summerize the comparision again:
Now let us call the students joining PhD after Masters to be class ‘1’ & those joining PhD after Bachelors to be class ‘2’. Class ‘2’ is actually a union of sub-classes ‘2A’ & ‘2B’ discussed above, which will be treated equivalent to each other, as is treated even now.
A person who is enrolled for MTech does minimum 6 courses / 24 credits (as per the PG manual) to a maximum of 9 courses / 36 credits (in IME Dept). Also, out of these 6-9 courses (24-36 credits) they are also allowed to take one UG course, on approval of DPGC. So they do a research of minimum 28-40 credits, depending on minimum no of courses specified by their DPGC. So in short an MTech student does:
· Course work : 24-36 credits
· Research Work : 28-40 credits
Let’s see these aspects for a class ‘2’ PhD student.
He does a course work of minimum 10 courses / 40 credits in 3 semesters, by doing 4+4+2 courses in the 3 semesters. Also he is not allowed to take any UG level course, as is the case with MTech student, who can take at least 1 UG level course. In the 3rd semester he does Research work as well, for 8 credits. (During the 3 semesters, there may be other combinations of ‘no. of courses’ as well; viz. 3+3+4, 3+4+3 etc. But the point which I am emphasizing is that at the end of 3 semesters he would have done courses worth 40 credits + Research worth 8 credits.)
After the course work, he gives Comprehensive Exam in the 4th semester, gains 16 more credits. Mostly (although not necessary, but this is the normal pace for most of the students) State-of-the-Art Seminar is given in his 5th semester, he gains 16 more credits. So by the end of 5th Semester the class ‘2’ PhD student does:
· Course work : 40 credits
· Research work : 8 + 16 + 16 = 40 credits
To summerize the comparision again:
Seeing this comparison, it’s very much rational to award a Master’s degree on completion of State-of-the-Art Seminar of a class ‘B’ PhD student. Waiting till the completion of 6th semester, as given in the proposal doesn’t look justified in the light of above figures.
Regarding choosing between ME and MTech, I am for MTech, because there is not much difference between the two. Also class ‘B’ PhD student is doing as much (even more) research as an MTech guy. So it’s purely justified to award an MTech degree.
Regarding choosing between ME and MTech, I am for MTech, because there is not much difference between the two. Also class ‘B’ PhD student is doing as much (even more) research as an MTech guy. So it’s purely justified to award an MTech degree.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
My take on Jadugoda Incident
It is really shameful to note such a negligent behaviour on the part of UCIL. It's clearly because of absence of regular inspection / replacement of the pipeline / rubber-lining.
I would try to analyse this mis-hap with my understanding of such situations. First of all please allow me to explain how such a discharge actually take place in a nuclear facility.
As per AERB guidelines, before discharging a gaseous/liquid radioactive waste, it is first diluted sufficiently; so that waste concentration in the discharge becomes very less & is within such acceptable limits which does not affect harmfully to the environment (or pond as in this case). This function is carried out by the"Operation staff", "Ventillation Department" & "Liquid Effluent Segregation System" in a nuclear facility. After dilution, personnel from "Chemical lab" & "Bio-Assay lab" carry out radioactivity tests of the waste to be discharged. They report these reults to the Engineer Incharge (Operations), who authorizes the dischrge, if he finds the result to be within the limits specified by AERB.
So assuming that the person who authorizes such disposal is honest enough, the waste which was being discharged to the tailing pond must have been sufficiently diluted. And hence it will not be as harmful as it is made to appear in the media reporting.
But still I accept that although much less, the discharge is surely harmful; & general public living near to such a facility must not be made to suffer due to negligent behaviour of the O&M employees.
Regarding adherence to procedures approved by AERB, by & large I have mostly seen these procedures to be followed strictly. But yes, there are deviations sometimes,which I think can be easily corrected by sensitizing these employees (particularly senior Management, who sometimes pressurize their subordinates, due to various reasons). So I see a need to correct & sensitize the vision of nuclear employees, rather than to protest against new nuclear facilities.
Just by a small example I would try to elaborate my point of view. One of the world's worst industrial disaster - "Bhopal Gas Tragedy" - took place because of the operational negligence of a Chemical Pesticide Plant. But we never think of shutting down the Pesticide plants, or to make protest against their expansions. What we stress is to make their operations more stringent, so that civilians are not harmfully affected by the presence of such a plant.
Similiarly, regarding any problem related to nuclear industry - other than 'Handling of the Spent Fuel', I see the need of sensitizing employees, making stringent rules & demanding severe actions against smallest violations. This would properly take care of the common man, as well as benefit the national economy.
This is totally my take on this issue & I look forward to get your critical comments.
I would try to analyse this mis-hap with my understanding of such situations. First of all please allow me to explain how such a discharge actually take place in a nuclear facility.
As per AERB guidelines, before discharging a gaseous/liquid radioactive waste, it is first diluted sufficiently; so that waste concentration in the discharge becomes very less & is within such acceptable limits which does not affect harmfully to the environment (or pond as in this case). This function is carried out by the"Operation staff", "Ventillation Department" & "Liquid Effluent Segregation System" in a nuclear facility. After dilution, personnel from "Chemical lab" & "Bio-Assay lab" carry out radioactivity tests of the waste to be discharged. They report these reults to the Engineer Incharge (Operations), who authorizes the dischrge, if he finds the result to be within the limits specified by AERB.
So assuming that the person who authorizes such disposal is honest enough, the waste which was being discharged to the tailing pond must have been sufficiently diluted. And hence it will not be as harmful as it is made to appear in the media reporting.
But still I accept that although much less, the discharge is surely harmful; & general public living near to such a facility must not be made to suffer due to negligent behaviour of the O&M employees.
Regarding adherence to procedures approved by AERB, by & large I have mostly seen these procedures to be followed strictly. But yes, there are deviations sometimes,which I think can be easily corrected by sensitizing these employees (particularly senior Management, who sometimes pressurize their subordinates, due to various reasons). So I see a need to correct & sensitize the vision of nuclear employees, rather than to protest against new nuclear facilities.
Just by a small example I would try to elaborate my point of view. One of the world's worst industrial disaster - "Bhopal Gas Tragedy" - took place because of the operational negligence of a Chemical Pesticide Plant. But we never think of shutting down the Pesticide plants, or to make protest against their expansions. What we stress is to make their operations more stringent, so that civilians are not harmfully affected by the presence of such a plant.
Similiarly, regarding any problem related to nuclear industry - other than 'Handling of the Spent Fuel', I see the need of sensitizing employees, making stringent rules & demanding severe actions against smallest violations. This would properly take care of the common man, as well as benefit the national economy.
This is totally my take on this issue & I look forward to get your critical comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
