The relevance of "Satyagraha" in the 21st century!

Kisan Baburao Hazare alias Anna Hazare, has demonstrated to the whole world once again the relevance of the Gandhian model of peaceful, powerful and mass struggle popularly known as "Satyagraha" even in modern India of the 21st century!

The septuagenerian ex-serviceman was born in a small village in western Maharashtra called Bhinagar, near Ralegan Siddhi in Ahmednagar district, in an agrarian family, on 15th June 1938, less than 10 years before the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi who eventually inspired Anna Hazare to adopt the path of non-violence in his struggles against the powerful Government.  Anna joined the Indian Army when he was vicenarian, responding to  the Army's call following the Indo-Chinese border conflict, and opted for voluntary retirement after he had a close encounter with death during the Indo-Pakistan war that led to his firm determination to remain a chronic bachelor and he returned to his village.  Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi greatly influenced Anna in his endeavours and struggles against alcoholism, social inequality, untouchability and corruption. His campaign for Right to Information Act from1997 resulted in the State of Maharasthra enacting the legislation, eventually adopted by the Government of India in 2005.  The veteran who was conferred Padmashri and Padmabhushan awards in 1990 and 1992 respectively by the Government of India, has now re-established the relevance of "Satyagraha" even in the modern India of 21st century, by successfully persuading a reluctant Union Government to accept the fundamental demands of the civil society in respect of the JAN LOK PAL bill in the Parliament that includes a formal notification in the official Gazette!

The resounding success of Anna Hazare is attributed to the unprecedented level of support that his powerful movement could generate within four days of beginning his fast unto death campaign at Jantar Mantar premises in New Delhi.

The demands put forth during the campaign included the following --

• Constitution of a credible committee to draft the Lok Pal bill that should have equal representation from the Government and civil society and notification thereof in the official gazette
• Such Committee to be headed by representative of the civil society rather than a Cabinet Minister
• Redrafting the Lok Pal bill to make it effective and purposeful

Though the initial response of the Government was lukewarm, with growing appeal among the people for the campaign with every passing day, the Government finally conceded without leaving anyone in doubt that it finally agreed, but very reluctantly.

Finally, the Government agreed to meet the genuine demands of the campaigners led by Anna Hazare on the fourth day of fasting.  A notification was issued in the Gazette announcing the names of the members of the drafting committee to be chaired by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and co-chaired by former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan (representing the civil society) and consisting of Home Minister P Chidambaram, Law Minister Veerappa Moili, HRD Minister Kapil Sipal and Water Resources Minister Salman Khurshid (representing the Government) apart from Anna Hazare himself, former Supreme Court Judge Santosh Hegde, Lawyer Prashanth Bhushan and RTI Activist Arvind Kejriwal.  On 9th April 2011, Anna Hazare declared the successful conclusion of the fast unto death struggle.

Not only people of India, but also all those who repose faith in mass struggles through peaceful means hail this victory and congratulate Anna Hazare and all others who effectively campaigned for these just demands and all those who supported the movement.

Is Indo-Chinese relationship at crossroads?

Over the turn of the last century, the world has changed dramatically. Recently falling into the grip of recession of an unprecedented kind, the already declining trend of American global dominance apparently has suffered a further accelerated pace of deterioration. On the other hand, emerging economies like that of India and China have already gained international recognition, no matter howsoever 'grudgingly'. Perhaps, owing to their domestic market size coupled with certain other positive factors, the serious nature of the global recession has not critically impacted these fast-growing economies though the pace has indeed slowed down. Though it may be premature at this stage to envision a depolarisation drastically reversing the equations, a visible tilt in favour of the two Asian giants is already conceivable. It is in this background that Indo-Chinese relationship has assumed greater significance than ever before.

The Background

India and China have many things in common. Whether it be on their firm-rooted, distinct and rich cultural values, heritage, classic languages, martial arts, spirituality, legacies in the realms of social sciences, health and medicine, astronomy and astrology or even the most modern nuclear and space technology, both the countries have abundant knowledge and resources to their credit. If Kenneth Waltz's prescription of ingredients contributing to the might that will change polar equations are to be believed, both the countries have the strength to dictate with the size of their population, territory, resources, economic wealth, military strength and competence. But only if they stand together. An unassailable bondage of friendship between these two countries will be a boon not only to these two, but also to those who entertain no hidden agenda among the international community. It is left to anyone's guess as to who, among the community of nations, would be worried over such a prospect emerging out of Indo-Chinese friendship. It is also an 'open secret' that the beneficiary in the event of a bitter relationship between India and China would do all that is possible to play a spoil sport!

It is unfortunate that certain recent developments appear to trigger a genuine concern even in the minds of the advocates of Indo-Chinese friendship as these developments indicate that the relationship between the two countries could be hurt even in the absence of a visible third party playing the foul game! Unless urgent steps are initiated by both the countries to stem the rot, the consequences would be a blessing in disguise for certain vested interests while proving to undo whatsoever gains that India and China could make with their positive dialogues during the recent past.

The thorn

It will not be far from truth if origin of the differences in perception between India and China is attributed to the British who have the notoriety of fishing in the troubled waters with their divide and rule policy. When the British left India, they not only had sown the seeds of animosity between sections of peoples within the vast territory of land that they once ruled, but also had paved the way for eventual disharmony between two great civilisations that overthrew imperialist dreams of perpetual exploitation. The eventual multiple wars that India fought with Pakistan and for once in 1962 with China were nothing, but the effect of the British seeds of hatred and animosity. The continued strained relationship with our neighbours is the legacy that modern India inherited. However, it will be unfair to blame the British game alone for the current state of affairs as we had ample time at our disposal to get the wounds heal. Had there been systematic, well-thought and far-sighted diplomatic endeavours put into practice, things might not have worsened to the extent to which it has now. There could be arguments for and against the foreign policies pursued by successive Indian Government following the country's independence. But the single fact that remains - the unresolved border issues with our neighbours - amply speak for themselves the inadequacies in the effectiveness of our policies. Perhaps, the only tangible gain that India made over these post-independence negotiations with our neighbours is the Chinese abandonment of claim over Sikkim. If at all, it was a diplomatic victory for India rather than a voluntary concession from China, given the areas of disagreement between the neighbours, its significance did not mean much. The often repeated assertion by diplomats on either side of the border that all-out efforts are made to resolve issues through dialogue does not catch up with the imaginations any more.

History

Historically, British India and China (recognising Tibet as the integral part of China) share a long border that stretch from today's Pakistan in the West to Myanmar (formerly Burma) in the East, running through the Himalayan region, also bordering Nepal and Bhutan. The British had not resolved all the outstanding border issues with Chinese before they left India leaving the disputed border legacy.

The prime disputed pieces of land comprise of --

(1) the Aksai Chin located in the north-western region of the Tibetan plateau with an area of about 37,250 sq.km., mostly a desert at high altitude ranging between 16,000 to 18,000 feet above sea level, now administered by China as part of its Xinjiang Autonomous region, but forming part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir that was acceded to India. Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until the 19th Century when it was annexed to the princely State of Kashmir;

(2) the Trans-Karakoram tract comprising Shaksgam and Shigar valleys of Baltistan, part of Ladakh province that formed part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, has an area of about 5,800 sq. km., and was not only occupied by Pakistan, but also was ceded to China in settlement of the Sino-Pakistan border under a 1963 bilateral agreement that was subject to final settlement of the Kashmir dispute;

(3) the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh, with about 84 sq.km. in area, that borders with Assam and Nagaland States of India towards its South and South-East respectively, and Myanmar (former Burma) towards its East, Bhutan towards its West and China towards its North. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as the southern strip of Tibet that belongs to it. During the British rule of India, there was an attempt between China and British India to negotiate their border settlement some time in 1913-14. As part of the exercise, Sir Henry McMahon drew up a line of about 900 km. (eventually called McMahon line) between British India and Tibet. It was a tripartite conference comprising representatives of China, Tibet and British India. While Tibet and British India agreed to the proposal and Tibet actually proceeded with ceding Tawang and some other pieces of its land to British India, the Chinese backed out over failure to reach accord on some issues related to inner border with Tibet. This left the McMahon line unrecognised by the Chinese while India considers it sacrosanct since 1950s after several zig-zag positions.

In 1962, a Sino-Indian war erupted that lasted just for one month between October-November. Different versions exist for the culmination of minor skirmishes on the border into a war, but though the Chinese had advanced into Indian territories within the Arunachal Pradesh (then NEFA) and Ladakh area, they unilaterally declared a ceasefire and returned to their positions - in the south, beyond the McMahon line. It is believed that the Indians granting asylum to the Dalai Lama following the unsuccessful 1959 Tibetan uprising could also be a provocation for the Chinese aggression in 1962. The events that led to the war would lead one to believe that the war was unintended. But flexing of muscles without adequate preparations by India in her attempt to force the Chinese away from the unsettled border areas, perhaps, at one stage, went out of control leaving the Chinese with no alternative than retaliating with excessively disproportionate and unanticipated force and speed. The 1962 Sino-Indian war was unique inasmuch as there was no role for the Navy and Air Force units of both the countries!

Lessons learnt

During and in the immediate aftermath of the 1962 war, a strong current of nationalism was prevailing all over India. Indians did not consider the Forward Policy pursued by Indian Army that created outposts intruding even beyond the McMahon line as a tactical folly. An impression had gained in India that the Chinese aggression ran contrary to India's efforts to make peace with neighbours, particularly in the wake of 1954 Nehru-Zhou En Lai Pancha Sheel declaration terming Indo-Chinese friendship as that of 'brotherhood'. The public outrage against China had gone to the extent of arresting several Communist leaders and detaining them without trial for months only for them having expressed their views that was against blaming China for the war.

It took almost three decades after the war for tempers to cool down. Both the countries learnt their own lessons from history. India started adopting a pragmatic line of negotiated settlement of boundary disputes. During the regime of Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India, there was a policy shift on relations with China. Perhaps, the Sino-Russian border settlement of 1987 that saw a negotiated peaceful settlement after several years of dispute was an eye-opener.

During 1990s, we could see considerable progress in relationship between India and China with the 1993 and 1996 agreements focussing on peace, tranquillity and confidence building measures (CBMs). Eventually, negotiations between the two neighbours resulted in setting up of Expert Groups to go into the intricacies of the border dispute and explore common ground, gradually narrow down areas of disagreement and leading to a final resolution of all issues. This exercise having commenced close to the turn of the millennium, has made only small gains in narrowing down the differences between the experts on either side over the alignment of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) along the 545 km. long stretch covering the Indian States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and Tibet on the Chinese side. Maps have been exchanged between the two parties making clear the understanding of each other's perceptions. Things started progressing slowly, but steadily.

Turn of events

However, 2009 does not appear to be as good a year as it had been over the past few years in respect of the Indo-Chinese relationship. The recent developments that include more frequent Chinese intrusions into Indian territory, the 'Google map' controversy, formal Chinese objection to Indian Prime Minister's visit to Arunachal Pradesh for election campaign, reports on discriminatory Visas being issued by China to Kashmiri Indians and construction of a dam on the Chinese side of Brahmaputra, do not point to improving relationship between the neighbours. Notwithstanding the media hype, the Government of India has consistently been adopting a reconciliatory position towards China, while equally and unequivocally sticking to known positions. According to India's Secretary to External Affairs Ministry, Nirupama Rao, Indo-Chinese border dispute is one of the most complex international disputes that should be handled with care and determination on both sides to gain common ground.

Let us watch how this diplomatic challenge is handled in the days to come, fingers crossed!

Photograph Courtesy:

Wikipedia (for Kashmir disputed region map)

Xinhua (for Indo-Chinese Diplomats during 2009 August talks)

"We must be the change we wish to see" - M.K.Gandhi

Born in 1869, it is 140 years since the birth of the Father of Indian nation. Today is celebrated as the 140th birth anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Gandhi, revered as the 'Mahathma' (meaning, 'the great soul'), lived a life that conveyed his own message to the whole world. The message of the 'Mahathma' is becoming more and more relevant in today's world that unfortunately, seems to be heading towards the path of intolerance among communities, groups and nations.

Despite man intellectually equipping himself better than several centuries ago, his outlook, instead of becoming broader and more inclusive, has been shrinking and becoming more self-centred. Instead of using his skills and abilities to promote the welfare of mankind, he has been misusing them leading to his own destruction.

The ideas and teachings of Gandhi are clear messages to those in positions of power to follow, if not emulate. Gandhi believed that "we must be the change we wish to see". Do our politicians seem to at least understand the underlying message?

True colours of the nuclear deal - Dr. P.K.Iyengar, Former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, India

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill (H. R. 7081) that approves the 123 Agreement, but which is contradictory to the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the nation. An identical version is before the US Senate for voting. Even as late as 26 September 2008, the Prime Minster was seeking an agreement that would ‘satisfy India’. This has not come to pass, and it will be interesting to see how the Indian government and the Indian media will ‘spin’ this into a victory for India. The Indian side is supposed to have been unhappy with the language. The fact is that one is not worried about the language, but the content and compulsions of the Bill.

Why is the House bill not satisfactory? Even the title of the Bill, ‘United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act’, makes it clear that they seek to press their non-proliferation agenda. The Bill makes a number of things explicitly clear, and reveals the true colours of the nuclear deal.

(1) The 123 Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, and does not supersede them.
This is said, in so many words, twice in the Bill. Section 101 (page 3, lines 16-21) says that: “The Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, and any other applicable United States law.” Section 102 (page 6, lines 8-12) reiterates that: “Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.” Therefore there is now no question of differences in the ‘interpretation’ of the 123 Agreement. Irrespective of what we think we are bound by, the Americans have made it abundantly clear that they are bound by the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, and the 123 Agreement does not supersede either of them. If we conduct a test it is now abundantly clear that, as per the provisions of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act, it is the end of the nuclear deal.

(2) In the event of a disruption of fuel supply from the US, the Americans will not help arrange for fuel from another country.
Article 5(b-iv) of the 123 Agreement says that in the event of fuel disruption the US will help India get fuel from ‘friendly supplier countries’. But it seems that the Congress is having none of this. Section 102 (page 5, lines 4-12) of the Bill explicitly states that in the event of fuel disruption, not only will the US not help arrange for fuel from other countries, but it will also “seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or from any other source.” Since this sentence is not in the 123 Agreement, the Indian government will probably claim that we are not bound by it. However, the simple reality is that if there is a disruption of fuel from America, for whatever reason, the Americans will work hard to ensure that we do not get it from any other source.

(3) There will be no transfer of enrichment technology, and even permission for reprocessing imported fuel may be denied.
This is the most disturbing clause in the Bill. Sec. 204 of the Bill (page 14, lines 11-19) says explicitly that before the 123 Agreement enters into force (according to Article 16), the President has to certify that the US will work with NSG countries to “agree to further restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel”. So, one of the major advantages we were expecting from the NSG waiver and the 123 Agreement will not be forthcoming. But this Bill goes even further. Section 201 makes it very clear that any future proposal for reprocessing needs explicit approval from the US Congress, and the Congress retains the right to refuse (page 13, lines 1-4). This is a new twist, and extremely dangerous, because it leaves us completely at the mercy of the Congress. The same section also says that the US will pursue efforts with other countries to ensure that reprocessing of fuel from those countries will also be governed by ‘similar arrangements and procedures’. This seems to suggest that the US would even like the existing arrangements with Russia for the Kudankulam reactors to be modified along the proposed lines. The same would also apply to any other supplier. It is surprising that in spite of our being a ‘strategic partner’, the US wants to restrain our fuel-cycle developments. This shows, again, that India is not being treated as an equal, in spite of the fact that for decades India has developed reprocessing and enrichment technology on its own, and produced plutonium for fast-breeder reactors as well as enriched uranium for the submarine reactor.

These explicit statements in the House Bill only reaffirm what many of us have been saying for a long time. The 123 Agreement does not supersede, and is constrained by, the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act. The House Bill has added new constraints. The entire Indo-US nuclear deal, which must now be taken to comprise of the Congress Bill, the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, is in contradiction to the July 2005 Joint Statement, because it doesn’t give India the status of an advanced nuclear state enjoying the same obligations and benefits as others. The nuclear deal does not allow cooperation in enrichment or reprocessing technology. The nuclear deal does not guarantee fuel supplies or a fuel reserve. In the event of a breach of the 123 Agreement, the US will not work with its allies to find alternate solutions – on the contrary it will pressure them to act against Indian interests. ‘Full cooperation’ in civil nuclear power is meaningless without assurances of fuel supply and technological cooperation in the fuel cycle.

The House Bill also makes it clear that the US continues to impose on us the existing non-proliferation regime, and is not ready to recognize India as a nation with advanced nuclear technology. President Bush may have made many promises, but he will not be around to fulfill them. The reality is that the nuclear deal will not bring us as equals to the nuclear table. It will only serve to tighten the non-proliferation regime around us, make us dependent on the nuclear cartel for fuel, and completely cripple our strategic programme.

If the government’s intention is to import nuclear reactors and fuel, a simple bilateral agreement, which guarantees application of safeguards to the reactors, the fuel, and the end products of reprocessing the fuel, would have been sufficient and meaningful. There is already a precedent for this. In the nuclear deal with Russia, the irradiated fuel from the Kudankulam reactors can be reprocessed in India, provided this is done under IAEA safeguards. The plutonium that is produced in these reactors, when separated, will also attract IAEA safeguards. This is perfectly understandable, and India has accepted this. Why this should not be applicable in a more friendly agreement with the US, is incomprehensible.

In 1974, when India was less developed and had a bleaker future, Indira Gandhi  was able to stand firm in supporting a strategic programme, in spite of ominous warnings of the retribution that would follow. It is ironic that in 2008, when India is in a much stronger position, economically and geopolitically, her own party is ready to betray her legacy and put on nuclear shackles, for a few dollars more.

Why does the Government shy away from the people of India?

Amidst rhetoric praising the recent NSG clearance of the Indo-US Nuclear deal as a landmark victory (whose victory is it, anyway?) , those at the helm of the Government of India show no signs of respect to the voice of the people of this great country as evident from their deliberate decision to shrug off their responsibility to convene the monsoon session of the Parliament! This is against the established tradition since indepdence.

Jettisoning the Parliament session has serious implications. Apart from violating the basic principle of governance, the absence of the Parliament session negates the legislature's right and the executive's obligation. The country's sovereignty rests with the people and the executive is accountable to the legislature which in turn, is accountable to the people. The act of jettisoning the monsoon session of the Parliament is a serious compromise with the concept of sovereignty itself as enshrined in the Constitution, particularly at a time when major decisions are being thrust on the country by external elements with the tacit support of those in power.

The Government of India found itself isolated when certain classified documents related to Indo-US Nuclear deal were published by the United States, because, what was publicised was diametrically against what the representatives of the people were made to believe! Parliament being the available forum for questioning this infidelity, the people of the country are denied this legitimate avenue.

The unprecedented levels of inflation, agrarian crises, the unabated fundamentalist aggression against the lives and property of the innocent people of Orissa, the inexplicable lapses that led to the breach in the embankments of River Kosi that changed its course causing unbearable loss of lives and property due to floods in Bihar and elsewhere, are all issues of national importance to be discussed threadbare in the Parliament. By depriving the people of India of their legitimate right to voice their concern in the Parliament on these important issues, the Government has been indulging in an open challenge to democratic values and norms.

Is the voice of the people of this country subdued by voices from external sources to which the Government appears to be very attentive these days? The people of India have the right to know this.

Is the Left Right on Indo-US Nuclear Deal?

For some time now, arguments and counter-arguments in favour of and against the Indo-US Nuclear deal have been appearing in the media though it never has leapt to such prominence as it has now! The reason - both the camps in India - those who argue in favour of the deal and those against it - have almost reached a point of no-return. And now, the question is whether the LEFT is RIGHT ? Let's now attempt to analyse.

Petroleum (Oil), Natural Gas, Electricity, Coal, Renewable and Alternative fuels (including Hydro-power, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass and Ethanol) are the sources of Energy apart from the Nuclear source. Statistics show that 81.7% of India's Electricity production is Fossil-fuel based and 14.5% from Hydro. India consumes 339 million short tons of Coal per year - third in the world, next only to China and the U.S.A. (Courtesy: www.nationmaster.com). Consuming just 17.8 tera-watt hours of Nuclear Energy per year, India's Nuclear Energy share is a mere 0.7%.

In India, energy is predominantly consumed by the Transportation Sector and according to International Energy Outlook released last year by Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Government, India's transportation energy use is projected to grow at 3.3% per year as against the world average of 1.7% per year. The document anticipates that India will continue to expand its public transportation networks over the projection period, allowing robust increases in both road and rail transport and resulting in a more than doubling of transportation energy use between 2004 and 2030. India launched her National Highways Development Project (NHDP) in 1998 to modernize her major highways. The first phase of the project—the “Golden Quadrilateral,” a 3,625-mile multi-lane highway system that connects Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Calcutta—was completed at the end of 2006. The second phase—the North-South and East-West national highways that will connect the outermost points of the country—will comprise more than 4,200 miles of highway.

Then comes the Industrial Sector, Commercial Sector and the Residential Sector. In India, following the Transportation Sector, energy is consumed by Petro-Chemicals and Fertilisers. Only a negligent amount of Oil is used in Power Plants in India. Even according to the U.S. Government document, "Although electricity is expected to become an increasingly important component of industrial sector delivered energy demand in the non-OECD economies, oil, coal, and natural gas were the most heavily used fuels in 2004, and they are projected to remain so in 2030. Liquids use in the non-OECD industrial sector increases at a slower rate than natural gas or coal use. The continued importance of coal in the non-OECD industrial sector is largely attributable to China, which accounts for 70 percent of industrial coal use in the non-OECD economies in 2030."

It is anybody's knowledge that Nuclear source of energy cannot be consumed directly by the Transport Sector - India's predominant consuming sector! After all, Oil cannot be substituted in this sector by any other form of energy. However, it is also common knowledge that Iran-Pakistan-India Natural Gas project, if materialises, will definitely reduce, if not eliminate, the pressure on the economy due to spiralling Oil prices. Our analysis revolves around the stand of the UPA Government at the Centre vis-a-vis the Left parties that support the Government on these two major policy decisions - one, emphasis on the Nuclear deal that is projected to be save the country from all our energy-related problems; and two, lacklustre attitude in finalising the Iran Gas Project as if it were not to benefit the country's quest for energy.

It is hard to ignore the following fact sheet put forth by the Left Parties under these circumstances.

· India's growing shortage of electricity has little to do with a lack of nuclear energy but a lot to do with starving the power sector of public investments over the last two decades. In the last three Five-year plans, capacity additions has been of around 20,000 MW per Plan, less than what we had added in the 7th Plan.

· Even if the Deal is signed today, it will take about 8 years before any electricity is produced from imported reactors under the Deal

· The cost of installing nuclear power plants using imported reactors is three times that of coal-fired plants of the same size

· The cost of electricity from such plants will be more than Rs. 5.00, twice that from coal-fired plants

· The quickest and cheapest way to remove the current electricity shortages is to build coal-fired plants which take half the time required by nuclear plants

· Nuclear plants require imported uranium, which is controlled by a small international cartel. The price of uranium has gone up by five times in the last few years because of this cartel.

· Nuclear energy has an important place in India's energy option and this route needs to be kept open for the future. However, this should be based on our indigenous technology and our indigenous resources to ensure energy security.

· Even with the most optimistic nuclear scenario that the Government has projected, Nuclear energy will at best meet only 8% of our electricity demand and about 4% of our total primary energy demand. While the nuclear option should be kept open for the future, it has little importance for meeting our immediate energy needs.

The question before the people of India should, therefore, be not about the loss of face for the architects of the Nuclear deal - the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the U.S. President George Bush, but about preserving the independence and sovereignty of the great country whose Foreign Policy has stood the test of time for its inherent non-aligned nature.

Planning travel within India

A well-planned vacation to India can get rid of several hassles. Whenever I go to India on vacation, I use to make sure the following:

Travel to a new location with family and spend a few days there. Most of the time, the new place that I travel to happens to be a hill resort, coastal town, jungle/sanctuary or heritage site.
Plan the travel dates well in advance and reserve air tickets or railway tickets, as the case may be, almost always online.

Chart out my itinerary and send it to my family in India so that they will make advanced bookings of accommodation in the places covered by itinerary.

Gather all possible information about the new places that I intend to travel from the internet and take with me the necessary kit such as blankets, etc. during the travel

It is heartening to note that Indian Railways have commissioned a portal for advance reservations. For the sake of fellow Indians, I am furnishing the link hereunder. All that you need to do is REGISTER with a local Indian address and reserve your tickets online using Credit Cards. Tickets will be delivered at your local Indian address within 2 days by courier.

http://www.irctc.co.in/