Nuclear Power: The Third Way
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The expectation of the nuclear establishments around the globe soon after the Fukushima disaster was that the extreme anxiety about nuclear power would die down sooner or later and that business would be as usual thereafter. The world is not there yet, but time is not far when Fukushima will be just a bad memory except for those who were affected by radiation. Not to learn its lessons from Fukushima is a grave error that humanity can make.
Globally, polarization has taken place between those who are confident that the world can rely on nuclear power for all time to come and those who want to abandon nuclear power altogether immediately even if it means a drop in economic growth. Both these alternatives are not in the long term interests of the countries concerned. By holding future generations hostage to nuclear power, we are doing them a great injustice when we know that no nuclear reactor is absolutely safe. We have every right to jeopardize our own generation, but those unborn should not be victims of our blind faith or lack of innovation or imagination. By dotting our coast with nuclear domes, we are leaving the future generations to live under the hood of a cobra.
Those who insist that nuclear power should be abandoned altogether at this instant and switch to other sources seem to be in a dream world. The investments made in the development of nuclear energy, particularly in the developing world, have paid rich dividends. As of now, the cost of nuclear power production is comparable with other sources and helps reduce greenhouse gaseemissions. More than anything else, the current shortages of power cannot be met without expanding nuclear power in the short term.
In the present situation, where public opinion is divided between pro-nuclear and ant-nuclear activists, different Governments have responded differently to the Fukushima tragedy. Germany and Switzerland were unequivocal in their decision to phase out nuclear power. Others, including Japan, the US, China and India announced investigations and innovations to reduce dangers. Those who were on the threshold of the nuclear age have quietly dropped their plans. Even some of the countries, which have pledged to stay on course, will alter their plans, slow them down and look for alternatives, particularly if the safety reviews reveal inadequacies as in the case of the US. The studies have already concluded that the US reactors cannot withstand multiple natural disasters, as it happened in Japan. China has lost some of its enthusiasm for nuclear power. In India, the mood in the establishment is cool confidence that nothing will go wrong here. Inspections and studies are pro forma as the conclusion is known. India will continue to develop nuclear power to meet its energy needs, even if there is an element of risk in it. The Prime Minister has ruled out phasing out of nuclear power, regardless of the outcome of the studies. It calls into question the purpose of the studies themselves.
There must be a third way, since committing the world to perpetual use of nuclear power is hazardous and we are in no position to switch to alternatives immediately. India should be able to visualize a world without nuclear power after 20 or 30 years. The optimum average age of a nuclear reactor is 30 years and it will not be unreasonable to phase out the reactors, including the ones being installed now in a period of 30 years. Once we establish this as an objective, the entire planning of energy in India should be revised to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to develop alternative sources of energy within that period. Scientists speculate that if India had invested its resources and time on other forms of energy, we would not have needed nuclear power at all
India was the first country to give the world the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The point that it was an impractical idea did not deter us from sketching the various steps that would lead to global zero. After the deadline that we had set for it passed, the world has woken up to the wisdom of it. Why do we not put on our thinking caps again and draw up a plan of phasing out nuclear power in 30 years? Such a timeframe will not immediately affect our nuclear programme, including acquisition of reactors from abroad. We can commission the French reactors, if the location is acceptable to the people in the area and develop an adequate safety system for a short period, rather than for an indefinite length of time. Inevitably, we need to develop alternatives like solar and wind energy, in addition to traditional sources, which have to be tamed to protect the environment. If fusion technology or any other safe method of using the atom develops in the meantime, we shall be prepared to adopt them in place of fission.
Fukushima has roused the conscience of humanity in a way Three Mile Island and Chernobyl had not done. Faster communications and deeper knowledge of what happened there has dramatically altered the way the world looks at nuclear power. To argue that nobody has died of radiation, while thousands have perished in the raging waves and the falling bricks is to underestimate the impact of Fukushima on the minds of the people.
What India says to the Ministerial Meeting of the IAEA, when it convenes in Vienna in the third week of June, 2011 will be hugely significant. If we merely say that we will undertake inspections and make our inspectors fiercely independent and our processes transparent, we will miss an opportunity to give humanity a way to break away from fear. The choice should not be between fear of radiation and lack of development. A proposal by India to strive towards a nuclear power free world by 2040, with adequate development of alternative sources will be a major contribution to the outcome of the June conference.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Obama Embraces the Arab Spring
T.P.Sreenivasan
President Barack Obama can never be faulted for his choice of words. His assessment of the Arab Spring and the US role in it was no exception. "Change cannot be denied", he said and proceeded to endorse the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Claiming to open a new chapter in American diplomacy, Obama spoke out clearly in favour of democratic change, urging the leaders of the region either to lead the transition or get out of the way. "America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia against the raw power of the dictator", he declared.
What pleased the President about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the demands for change in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa was that they meant rejection of the ways of Osama Bin Laden, who believed that violent extremism alone would take the Islamic world to the promised land. As Tom Friedman pointed out, Laden lived long enough to see the death of his philosophy in the Arab world. The people in the region had taken their future into their own hands and they had achieved more in six months than terrorists had accomplished in decades. In the circumstances, the rest of the world, particularly the US should readjust their policies to remain relevant.
President Obama admitted that the core interests the US had pursued in the region, such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation, free trade, security, Israeli friendship and Arab- Israeli peace had not helped to eliminate mistrust. Self determination of individuals would be as important as stability and , therefore, the US would oppose repression and support universal human rights.In dealing with specific cases, President Obama sought to find common elements in all of them, which deserved the US support. Seeking democratic change in the Arab world was an opportunity for the US.
But more importantly, President Obama recognized that politics alone did not put protesters into the streets. Though there were islands of prosperity in these countries, many had difficulty putting the food on the table. Talents were in plenty, but corruption and authoritarianism denied opportunity to young people. President Obama outlined a number of measures ranging from writing off Egypt's debt to multilateral and bilateral assistance to the countries that emerged from repressive regimes.
No speech on the Arab world could conclude without a road map for Israel and Palestine. In fact, it would have made no sense if the President had made no mention of this core issue on which the future of US- Arab relations would depend. A day before receiving Prime Minister Natenyahu in the White House, Barack Obama became the first US President to explicitly state that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He was categorical about the unshakable US commitment to Israel's security, but the principles he laid down for an eventual solution based on Israel and Palestine existing within recognized and secure borders were unexceptionable, The plans were opposed instantly by Israel, Hamas and the Republican Party, a sure sign that Obama plans had the potential to move towards a compromise.
Like the Cairo speech two years ago, the Arab Spring speech too was an effort to build bridges with the Islamic world. Coming as it did after the elimination of Bin Laden, the speech was particularly conciliatory except in the case of Iran and Syria, which were clubbed together for supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. A heavy dose of economic measures will be welcomed by the new regimes, which have to grapple with depleted treasuries and development challenges. The President sought to justify US intervention in Libya and hinted that the US would not hesitate to step in wherever the new spirit of democracy faced resistance.
Barack Obama mentioned virtually every country, which had shown signs of unrest, but steered clear of even mentioning Saudi Arabia, an omission, which was carefully noted by analysts. But the sweeping generalisations he made about the elements of the Arab Spring cannot but apply to Saudi Arabia also. But there is no denying the fact that each situation would require a different principle and policy.
President Obama has a greater reputation as an orator rather than as a statesman. His readiness to pursue American national interests at any cost, even by initiating new wars and other forms of intervention has detracted from his messiah image he had before the election. The US foreign policy has shown no great change since Barack Obama became President. Expectations about peace breaking out on all fronts, on the basis of which President Obama was given a Nobel Prize for Peace were belied. Against such a record, the Arab Spring speech would also be read with skepticism, cynicism and even disbelief. The world will welcome the lofty ideas that have figured in the speech, but the credibility deficit will remain till the US conduct on the ground matches the President's golden vocabulary.
--
T.P.Sreenivasan
President Barack Obama can never be faulted for his choice of words. His assessment of the Arab Spring and the US role in it was no exception. "Change cannot be denied", he said and proceeded to endorse the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Claiming to open a new chapter in American diplomacy, Obama spoke out clearly in favour of democratic change, urging the leaders of the region either to lead the transition or get out of the way. "America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia against the raw power of the dictator", he declared.
What pleased the President about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the demands for change in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa was that they meant rejection of the ways of Osama Bin Laden, who believed that violent extremism alone would take the Islamic world to the promised land. As Tom Friedman pointed out, Laden lived long enough to see the death of his philosophy in the Arab world. The people in the region had taken their future into their own hands and they had achieved more in six months than terrorists had accomplished in decades. In the circumstances, the rest of the world, particularly the US should readjust their policies to remain relevant.
President Obama admitted that the core interests the US had pursued in the region, such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation, free trade, security, Israeli friendship and Arab- Israeli peace had not helped to eliminate mistrust. Self determination of individuals would be as important as stability and , therefore, the US would oppose repression and support universal human rights.In dealing with specific cases, President Obama sought to find common elements in all of them, which deserved the US support. Seeking democratic change in the Arab world was an opportunity for the US.
But more importantly, President Obama recognized that politics alone did not put protesters into the streets. Though there were islands of prosperity in these countries, many had difficulty putting the food on the table. Talents were in plenty, but corruption and authoritarianism denied opportunity to young people. President Obama outlined a number of measures ranging from writing off Egypt's debt to multilateral and bilateral assistance to the countries that emerged from repressive regimes.
No speech on the Arab world could conclude without a road map for Israel and Palestine. In fact, it would have made no sense if the President had made no mention of this core issue on which the future of US- Arab relations would depend. A day before receiving Prime Minister Natenyahu in the White House, Barack Obama became the first US President to explicitly state that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He was categorical about the unshakable US commitment to Israel's security, but the principles he laid down for an eventual solution based on Israel and Palestine existing within recognized and secure borders were unexceptionable, The plans were opposed instantly by Israel, Hamas and the Republican Party, a sure sign that Obama plans had the potential to move towards a compromise.
Like the Cairo speech two years ago, the Arab Spring speech too was an effort to build bridges with the Islamic world. Coming as it did after the elimination of Bin Laden, the speech was particularly conciliatory except in the case of Iran and Syria, which were clubbed together for supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. A heavy dose of economic measures will be welcomed by the new regimes, which have to grapple with depleted treasuries and development challenges. The President sought to justify US intervention in Libya and hinted that the US would not hesitate to step in wherever the new spirit of democracy faced resistance.
Barack Obama mentioned virtually every country, which had shown signs of unrest, but steered clear of even mentioning Saudi Arabia, an omission, which was carefully noted by analysts. But the sweeping generalisations he made about the elements of the Arab Spring cannot but apply to Saudi Arabia also. But there is no denying the fact that each situation would require a different principle and policy.
President Obama has a greater reputation as an orator rather than as a statesman. His readiness to pursue American national interests at any cost, even by initiating new wars and other forms of intervention has detracted from his messiah image he had before the election. The US foreign policy has shown no great change since Barack Obama became President. Expectations about peace breaking out on all fronts, on the basis of which President Obama was given a Nobel Prize for Peace were belied. Against such a record, the Arab Spring speech would also be read with skepticism, cynicism and even disbelief. The world will welcome the lofty ideas that have figured in the speech, but the credibility deficit will remain till the US conduct on the ground matches the President's golden vocabulary.
--
Saturday, May 14, 2011
India-US Relations at Crossroads
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The killing of Osama Bin Laden came at a time when India-US relations were at a low point of the roller coaster ride to which these relations have often been compared. After the visit of President Obama, which kindled hopes of raising those relations to a higher level, it appeared as though India was distancing itself from Washington to assert its independence. The US too had other preoccupations, particularly the "Arab Spring"in which an Indian partnership was ruled out. The postponement of the strategic dialogue, India's vote on Libya in the United Nations Security Council, India's overtures to Iran and its role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit were seen as straws in the wind. To crown it all, India announced that it had shortlisted two European fighters, ignoring American demarches at the highest level that acquisition of US fighters would contribute to the strategic relationship between the two countries.
While India has maintained that the choice of the fighters was motivated solely by the technical specifications, many strategic thinkers in the US and India felt that India had missed an opportunity to cement the strategic relationship at a time when India faced multiple threats. But an Indian-American executive of one of the firms, which unsuccessfully bid for the Indian contract for 126 Multi- Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), was surprisingly unperturbed by the news of the Indian decision to go for one of the European fighters.He said that the US had known for some time that India was apprehensive about the US fighters because of the US involvement with Pakistan. In the event of a war with Pakistan, India would be disadvantaged by the superior capability that Pakistan might have already obtained from the US.. Moreover, there would be many linkages between the suppliers of aircraft to India and Pakistan. But he said that he was much relieved that India had not chosen the Russian aircraft. The US would gain substantial profits from the Indian deal with Europe and, therefore, he saw no reason for the new deal to have any impact on India-US relations.The joint ventures between the two countries and proposals for Indian investments would balance the loss in the aircraft deal. Even the delay in orders for nuclear reactors on account of the Nuclear Liability Bill would be of no consequence, he said.
On the contrary, the resignation of the US Ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, was clearly linked to the strenuous efforts he had put in to persuade India to purchase the planes from his country. His parting message that he was satisfied with the state of relations between the two countries did not carry conviction. His embarrassment about the revelations in Wikileaks about his assessment of the events and people in India would have also contributed to his predicament.
The full story of the postponement of Hillary Clinton's visit to India for continuing the strategic dialogue has not yet come to light. Some speculate that it was the fear of direct pressure on the MCRA deal that prompted India to seek a postponement. The visit is now scheduled to take place in July 2011.
The Nuclear Liability Bill was a big blow to the US businesses, which were poised to get a captive contract worth ten billion dollars as a direct outcome of the nuclear deal. Promises given to find a way around the liability of suppliers by elaborating rules on the bill have remained unfulfilled. The US India Business Council and other business groups must be frustrated that the heavy investments made in getting the nuclear deal through gave no returns. The Fukushima disaster has also cast its shadow on the use of nuclear power.
For the US, "the most unkindest cut of all" must be the role played by India at the BRICS summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda. India's abstention on the vote on Libya in the Security Council was a meaningless gesture against intervention, when it had nothing to gain from Gaddafi and when the Arabs and the Africans had no qualms about supporting the west. The BRICS rubbed the point in, much to the chagrin of the US and NATO. The fact that India gained little in the summit and the subsequent bilateral talks with China gave India no alibi for taking these positions. China diluted the position of the other four in BRICS on Security Council reform, making it even less supportive than the US position.
India's overtures to Iran, leading to a possible visit to Tehran by the Prime Minister must also be of concern to the US. Even in the best of times, the hoards of American think tankers, who came to Delhi had only one question to ask of India - whether India would be willing to dissuade Iran from taking the nuclear weapon route. Our standard reply that we have a civilisational link with Iran and even today, we meet a large chunk of our energy needs from Iran has never impressed them.The revival of the pipeline must be anathema to the Americans.
The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either. President Obama's remark that the Americans will not need to go to India for cheap health care was not taken kindly in India. None of these had a any substantive content, but the cumulative effect was far from favourable to the atmospherics.
In actual fact, however, the two countries are quietly working on many issues of vital concern to them. Much more needs to be done to coordinate efforts for stability in West Asia and Africa, not to speak of the traditional areas of cooperation, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, piracy and disaster management.The post -Fukushima concerns on nuclear safety is another area for joint research and effort. India has more to gain from the US than from any other country at this time. Frittering away the gains of the Bush era and the early days of Obama for the sake of appearing to be distancing ourselves from the west may hurt our interests. If the US begins to be vengeful and strike where it hurts most like technology transfer, Indian American interests, Indian education and work visas, the losses will be substantial.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is an opportunity and a challenge for India-US relations, though its importance should not be exaggerated. The elimination of the most significant symbol of international terrorism should give us reason for comfort. Though the Indian Prime Minister was not on the list of the world leaders, whom Obama called soon after his success in bringing a closure to 9/11, Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to him in a matter of days and presumably congratulated him. He must have expressed the hope that Pakistan would now be more receptive to India's demand for bringing the culprits of 26/11 to book. The US itself has been forthcoming in revealing that ISI operatives may have been behind the Mumbai attack.
The perceived deterioration in the relations between the US and Pakistan may have no impact on India-US relations, essentially because the present phase will be temporary, if not imaginary.US-Pakistan relations will return to normal in a very short time as they have a logic and resilience going back to half a century. India cannot step into the role that Pakistan had assumed in 2001both because of the nature of our polity and our national pride.
A thought has also arisen that India should rush to normalise relations with Pakistan and be supportive to Pakistan at this difficult juncture. In fact, such a suggestion was made by some at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They felt that India and Pakistan should form a united front against the Soviet Union to stop the intervention in Afghanistan. It may we ll have happened if Indira Gandhi had not returned to power before such a move gained currency. Any effort to befriend Pakistan at this point in misplaced sympathy will be dangerous. If anything, India should go slow in its ebngagement with Pakistan till Pakistan sets its house in order after the trauma of Abbottabad.
The best hope is that the present phase is the inevitable descent of the roller coaster before it gains momentum again to climb even higher. The imperatives of cooperation are much stronger than the impulse to appear distant from the Dhritarashtra's embrace that the US connection is considered to be..
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The killing of Osama Bin Laden came at a time when India-US relations were at a low point of the roller coaster ride to which these relations have often been compared. After the visit of President Obama, which kindled hopes of raising those relations to a higher level, it appeared as though India was distancing itself from Washington to assert its independence. The US too had other preoccupations, particularly the "Arab Spring"in which an Indian partnership was ruled out. The postponement of the strategic dialogue, India's vote on Libya in the United Nations Security Council, India's overtures to Iran and its role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit were seen as straws in the wind. To crown it all, India announced that it had shortlisted two European fighters, ignoring American demarches at the highest level that acquisition of US fighters would contribute to the strategic relationship between the two countries.
While India has maintained that the choice of the fighters was motivated solely by the technical specifications, many strategic thinkers in the US and India felt that India had missed an opportunity to cement the strategic relationship at a time when India faced multiple threats. But an Indian-American executive of one of the firms, which unsuccessfully bid for the Indian contract for 126 Multi- Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), was surprisingly unperturbed by the news of the Indian decision to go for one of the European fighters.He said that the US had known for some time that India was apprehensive about the US fighters because of the US involvement with Pakistan. In the event of a war with Pakistan, India would be disadvantaged by the superior capability that Pakistan might have already obtained from the US.. Moreover, there would be many linkages between the suppliers of aircraft to India and Pakistan. But he said that he was much relieved that India had not chosen the Russian aircraft. The US would gain substantial profits from the Indian deal with Europe and, therefore, he saw no reason for the new deal to have any impact on India-US relations.The joint ventures between the two countries and proposals for Indian investments would balance the loss in the aircraft deal. Even the delay in orders for nuclear reactors on account of the Nuclear Liability Bill would be of no consequence, he said.
On the contrary, the resignation of the US Ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, was clearly linked to the strenuous efforts he had put in to persuade India to purchase the planes from his country. His parting message that he was satisfied with the state of relations between the two countries did not carry conviction. His embarrassment about the revelations in Wikileaks about his assessment of the events and people in India would have also contributed to his predicament.
The full story of the postponement of Hillary Clinton's visit to India for continuing the strategic dialogue has not yet come to light. Some speculate that it was the fear of direct pressure on the MCRA deal that prompted India to seek a postponement. The visit is now scheduled to take place in July 2011.
The Nuclear Liability Bill was a big blow to the US businesses, which were poised to get a captive contract worth ten billion dollars as a direct outcome of the nuclear deal. Promises given to find a way around the liability of suppliers by elaborating rules on the bill have remained unfulfilled. The US India Business Council and other business groups must be frustrated that the heavy investments made in getting the nuclear deal through gave no returns. The Fukushima disaster has also cast its shadow on the use of nuclear power.
For the US, "the most unkindest cut of all" must be the role played by India at the BRICS summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda. India's abstention on the vote on Libya in the Security Council was a meaningless gesture against intervention, when it had nothing to gain from Gaddafi and when the Arabs and the Africans had no qualms about supporting the west. The BRICS rubbed the point in, much to the chagrin of the US and NATO. The fact that India gained little in the summit and the subsequent bilateral talks with China gave India no alibi for taking these positions. China diluted the position of the other four in BRICS on Security Council reform, making it even less supportive than the US position.
India's overtures to Iran, leading to a possible visit to Tehran by the Prime Minister must also be of concern to the US. Even in the best of times, the hoards of American think tankers, who came to Delhi had only one question to ask of India - whether India would be willing to dissuade Iran from taking the nuclear weapon route. Our standard reply that we have a civilisational link with Iran and even today, we meet a large chunk of our energy needs from Iran has never impressed them.The revival of the pipeline must be anathema to the Americans.
The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either. President Obama's remark that the Americans will not need to go to India for cheap health care was not taken kindly in India. None of these had a any substantive content, but the cumulative effect was far from favourable to the atmospherics.
In actual fact, however, the two countries are quietly working on many issues of vital concern to them. Much more needs to be done to coordinate efforts for stability in West Asia and Africa, not to speak of the traditional areas of cooperation, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, piracy and disaster management.The post -Fukushima concerns on nuclear safety is another area for joint research and effort. India has more to gain from the US than from any other country at this time. Frittering away the gains of the Bush era and the early days of Obama for the sake of appearing to be distancing ourselves from the west may hurt our interests. If the US begins to be vengeful and strike where it hurts most like technology transfer, Indian American interests, Indian education and work visas, the losses will be substantial.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is an opportunity and a challenge for India-US relations, though its importance should not be exaggerated. The elimination of the most significant symbol of international terrorism should give us reason for comfort. Though the Indian Prime Minister was not on the list of the world leaders, whom Obama called soon after his success in bringing a closure to 9/11, Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to him in a matter of days and presumably congratulated him. He must have expressed the hope that Pakistan would now be more receptive to India's demand for bringing the culprits of 26/11 to book. The US itself has been forthcoming in revealing that ISI operatives may have been behind the Mumbai attack.
The perceived deterioration in the relations between the US and Pakistan may have no impact on India-US relations, essentially because the present phase will be temporary, if not imaginary.US-Pakistan relations will return to normal in a very short time as they have a logic and resilience going back to half a century. India cannot step into the role that Pakistan had assumed in 2001both because of the nature of our polity and our national pride.
A thought has also arisen that India should rush to normalise relations with Pakistan and be supportive to Pakistan at this difficult juncture. In fact, such a suggestion was made by some at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They felt that India and Pakistan should form a united front against the Soviet Union to stop the intervention in Afghanistan. It may we ll have happened if Indira Gandhi had not returned to power before such a move gained currency. Any effort to befriend Pakistan at this point in misplaced sympathy will be dangerous. If anything, India should go slow in its ebngagement with Pakistan till Pakistan sets its house in order after the trauma of Abbottabad.
The best hope is that the present phase is the inevitable descent of the roller coaster before it gains momentum again to climb even higher. The imperatives of cooperation are much stronger than the impulse to appear distant from the Dhritarashtra's embrace that the US connection is considered to be..
Thursday, May 05, 2011
A Sting Operation
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
A Sting Operation
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
Implications of Osama's killing exaggerated.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Children say the damnedest of things. They also make the wisest of statements. A Malayalam poet wrote, "Children, who cannot put words together, you are the ones, who have the vision and the knowledge of God's will." This has been proved once again, when my granddaughter, Durga's response to the news of Osama Bin Laden's death was, "Oh! I thought he was dead long ago!" Apparently,other children reacted similarly, according to facebook entries from around the globe. Then why are the adults so excited? Why are they over analyzing the impact of a death that occurred, at least figuratively, quite some time ago? Are we not exaggerating the importance of Osama's death to the US, to President Obama, to Pakistan, to international terrorism, and most of all, to India?
I do not dispute President Obama's claim that Osama was found hiding under the nose of the Pakistanis and that, in a swift and efficient operation, US soldiers killed him in a firefight, with no losses to American lives. I do not also dispute the claim that Osama was given a decent burial, with Islamic funeral rites.in the deep sea. I am sure the DNA has been preserved before the body was disposed off. But this was clearly the whirlwind which came after the wind was sewn decades ago.The world will move on,more or less in the same wayward way as before, even after his death. Osama could well have lived on without making much of a difference to the world.
There was only one logic in the timing. President Obama's reelection campaign had begun and it was time that he justified his Nobel Prize for Peace by getting out of at least one of his wars. The timing of the killing was chosen by him to register a victory and to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan after installing a hotch-potch government which would not threaten his homeland security. He may well win his second term on account of bringing Osama to justice, though public memory may not outlast any other event that may affect the verdict. Osama had become irrelevant to Al Queda except as a symbol of Jihad. The terrorist outfit will survive and regroup itself to give cause for concern to the west and others, but this was inevitable whether Osama died in his bed or killed in battle.
As for the war on terror, this is a milestone, but the road extends beyond the horizon. There are enough individuals, organisations and states, which believe in terrorism as a justifiable way of gaining the advantages that cannot be obtained by legitimate means. No reason exists for jubilation, as was seen in the streets of the US. The US and the world cannot afford to bring their guard down. The massive investments made for security around the world will still be justified as terrorists look for new and innovative methods to beat the system. In fact, one of the legacies of Osama is the suffering undergone by ordinary people at the airports and elsewhere. As someone observed rightly, the best punishment for Osama would have been to make him go through airport security day in and day out for the rest of his life.
Pakistan will not change a bit even after Osama. Someone said that Pakistan has not yet decided whether it should take cash or credit for Osama's killing. They are inclined to claim cash from the US rather than deny the US the credit for the masterly operation. It suits them to protest about violation of sovereignty and appear disgruntled, having done nothing to protect their prized possession. The whole point of protecting him was to fatten him and to hand him over to the US at the most opportune moment as Pakistan had no use for him. No one believes that Pakistan was unaware of Osama's whereabouts or the timing of the US operations. More information will become available about Pakistan's complicity and duplicity, but that will not add anything to the information the world already has, if it wants to punish Pakistan. Pakistan's friends, particularly China, will continue to nurse it as a potential guarantee against India's unbridled rise politically and economically. Nothing will change even in the US position that Pakistan should not be allowed to fail. The US does not want Pakistan either to break up or fall into the hands of fundamentalists. the US has been saying for long that India should work with those in power in Pakistan, because those who came after them would have longer beards! Osama or no Osama, Obama or no Obama, the US-Pakistan relations will remain robust. Tensions and differences of opinion will persist between them, but, in the ultimate analysis, the big brother will prevail.
India has no reason to rejoice in Osama's exit from the scene. Laskar-e-Toiba and the other outfits are nurtured not by Al Queda, but by the Pakistani intelligence and state.They will not change their spots. The hope that the world will be convinced that Pakistan was culpable for 26/11, now that it has been caught cheating the US is far-fetched. Nobody is looking for new evidence. Whether we begin the dialogue or not, the perpetrators of 26/11, including Kasab will survive one way or another. Brave words have been spoken by our hawks that we should follow the US example and take out the criminals ourselves, but there are more who say we do not have either the will or the capability to do that. Even nuclear war is considered a possibility in the event of any dirty trick. We have no lesson to learn from the Obama killing. Our enemies are better protected than the hapless, sick (and reportedly phoneless and internetless) and fragile Osama, who found his watery grave. They do not face the wrath of a super power as Osama did. India has to muddle its way through the perfidy of Pakistan, blowing hot and cold, using the carrot and the stick. The dead Osama will not influence war or peace with Pakistan, just as the living Osama did not.
Elimination of Osama was a declared objective of the war on terror. His killing was essential for the US to declare victory before beginning its withdrawal from Afghanistan. An Afghan dispensation friendly to Pakistan will more than compensate for the present loss of face for Pakistan. Sacrificing Osama is a small price to pay for such a long term gain for Pakistan. The timing of the killing of Osama may have suited the US strategy in the Afpak region and it may have executed it on its own, but Pakistan may well stand to gain by the action, whether there is already a deal or not On previous occasions, reports on Osama's death were exaggerated, but this time the implications of his death are unduly exaggerated.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Children say the damnedest of things. They also make the wisest of statements. A Malayalam poet wrote, "Children, who cannot put words together, you are the ones, who have the vision and the knowledge of God's will." This has been proved once again, when my granddaughter, Durga's response to the news of Osama Bin Laden's death was, "Oh! I thought he was dead long ago!" Apparently,other children reacted similarly, according to facebook entries from around the globe. Then why are the adults so excited? Why are they over analyzing the impact of a death that occurred, at least figuratively, quite some time ago? Are we not exaggerating the importance of Osama's death to the US, to President Obama, to Pakistan, to international terrorism, and most of all, to India?
I do not dispute President Obama's claim that Osama was found hiding under the nose of the Pakistanis and that, in a swift and efficient operation, US soldiers killed him in a firefight, with no losses to American lives. I do not also dispute the claim that Osama was given a decent burial, with Islamic funeral rites.in the deep sea. I am sure the DNA has been preserved before the body was disposed off. But this was clearly the whirlwind which came after the wind was sewn decades ago.The world will move on,more or less in the same wayward way as before, even after his death. Osama could well have lived on without making much of a difference to the world.
There was only one logic in the timing. President Obama's reelection campaign had begun and it was time that he justified his Nobel Prize for Peace by getting out of at least one of his wars. The timing of the killing was chosen by him to register a victory and to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan after installing a hotch-potch government which would not threaten his homeland security. He may well win his second term on account of bringing Osama to justice, though public memory may not outlast any other event that may affect the verdict. Osama had become irrelevant to Al Queda except as a symbol of Jihad. The terrorist outfit will survive and regroup itself to give cause for concern to the west and others, but this was inevitable whether Osama died in his bed or killed in battle.
As for the war on terror, this is a milestone, but the road extends beyond the horizon. There are enough individuals, organisations and states, which believe in terrorism as a justifiable way of gaining the advantages that cannot be obtained by legitimate means. No reason exists for jubilation, as was seen in the streets of the US. The US and the world cannot afford to bring their guard down. The massive investments made for security around the world will still be justified as terrorists look for new and innovative methods to beat the system. In fact, one of the legacies of Osama is the suffering undergone by ordinary people at the airports and elsewhere. As someone observed rightly, the best punishment for Osama would have been to make him go through airport security day in and day out for the rest of his life.
Pakistan will not change a bit even after Osama. Someone said that Pakistan has not yet decided whether it should take cash or credit for Osama's killing. They are inclined to claim cash from the US rather than deny the US the credit for the masterly operation. It suits them to protest about violation of sovereignty and appear disgruntled, having done nothing to protect their prized possession. The whole point of protecting him was to fatten him and to hand him over to the US at the most opportune moment as Pakistan had no use for him. No one believes that Pakistan was unaware of Osama's whereabouts or the timing of the US operations. More information will become available about Pakistan's complicity and duplicity, but that will not add anything to the information the world already has, if it wants to punish Pakistan. Pakistan's friends, particularly China, will continue to nurse it as a potential guarantee against India's unbridled rise politically and economically. Nothing will change even in the US position that Pakistan should not be allowed to fail. The US does not want Pakistan either to break up or fall into the hands of fundamentalists. the US has been saying for long that India should work with those in power in Pakistan, because those who came after them would have longer beards! Osama or no Osama, Obama or no Obama, the US-Pakistan relations will remain robust. Tensions and differences of opinion will persist between them, but, in the ultimate analysis, the big brother will prevail.
India has no reason to rejoice in Osama's exit from the scene. Laskar-e-Toiba and the other outfits are nurtured not by Al Queda, but by the Pakistani intelligence and state.They will not change their spots. The hope that the world will be convinced that Pakistan was culpable for 26/11, now that it has been caught cheating the US is far-fetched. Nobody is looking for new evidence. Whether we begin the dialogue or not, the perpetrators of 26/11, including Kasab will survive one way or another. Brave words have been spoken by our hawks that we should follow the US example and take out the criminals ourselves, but there are more who say we do not have either the will or the capability to do that. Even nuclear war is considered a possibility in the event of any dirty trick. We have no lesson to learn from the Obama killing. Our enemies are better protected than the hapless, sick (and reportedly phoneless and internetless) and fragile Osama, who found his watery grave. They do not face the wrath of a super power as Osama did. India has to muddle its way through the perfidy of Pakistan, blowing hot and cold, using the carrot and the stick. The dead Osama will not influence war or peace with Pakistan, just as the living Osama did not.
Elimination of Osama was a declared objective of the war on terror. His killing was essential for the US to declare victory before beginning its withdrawal from Afghanistan. An Afghan dispensation friendly to Pakistan will more than compensate for the present loss of face for Pakistan. Sacrificing Osama is a small price to pay for such a long term gain for Pakistan. The timing of the killing of Osama may have suited the US strategy in the Afpak region and it may have executed it on its own, but Pakistan may well stand to gain by the action, whether there is already a deal or not On previous occasions, reports on Osama's death were exaggerated, but this time the implications of his death are unduly exaggerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
