And no, they have not done all this by sitting in the opposition. They have simply blackmailed an invertebrate government, dependent on its support, to get what they want: economic stagnation so that they can conveniently blame "capitalism" for everything from rising food prices to global warming. And frankly, I have had enough. I wish to see the Left go back to where it belongs: the opposition. I would, of course like to see it being confined to the "dustbin of history," as Acorn puts it so beautifully at NationalInterest. But, I suppose that is a bit too much to hope for given that our Indian voters never actually think before voting.

But, do the politicians of the Left actually believe the crap they say? Sadly enough, they do. Nobody can doubt their personal integrity, (well…most of them…) but their ideology gets in the way of clear thinking too often. They are fully aware that globalisation is here to stay and there is no way we can become protectionist again, but they do not want to believe it. Time and again, they lean towards a Russia that is incapable of giving anything more than moral support, and a China that is getting increasingly menacing. One key point is their insistence on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline as an alternative to the deal. They criticised the Indian Government that voted against Iran on the nuclear issue, but opposed both Pokhran I and II, on the grounds that India was attracting sanctions unnecessarily. So Iran can make a bomb, but India should not? As if that is not enough, Prakash Karat actually said that he and his party wanted India to snap strategic ties with the US because such a union would mean that it would "counter-balance and encircle" China. Thanks to Nita for the link. I mean, can this get any worse? So, this actually means a "national" political party would rather ensure China’s welfare than India’s? Why are we still voting for such people? Is it not time to unceremoniously throw out such a party? I disagree with Nita there. They don’t belong in the opposition either. They belong to a "dustbin of History" as I said earlier.

I have said it once, and I say it again: it is in India’s interest to foster a reciprocal strategic relationship with the US. There is a very important reason for that. China, by pursuing an active "String of Pearls" strategy is gradually, but surely encircling India. Don’t understand what that means? Let me explain. China is establishing its bases, military or commercial, in the seas surrounding India. The first of them is the Pakistani port of Gwadar, which is strategically located between three important regions: oil-rich Middle East, highly-populated South Asia and the newly-developing Central Asia. Any gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan can and will be accessible to the Chinese. The second pearl is the port of Chittagong in Bangladesh, which they are actively funding. The third is the Coco Islands that our esteemed first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru generously gave away to Myanmar, situated about 80 nautical miles east of the Myanmarese Coast. China now has a naval base on the Coco Islands. And, these Communists are worried about China being encircled??? I am sorry, but I do not approve of this ideology. I fail to understand how your political ideology can be directly in conflict with your country’s national security.

There is no way the Communists deserve any sympathy or understanding for their handling of the Nuclear Deal issue. They only deserve to be unilaterally criticised for what they have done.

Let me start with the first argument. He argues that,

"The link between nuclear power and oil is specious. In the years ahead, the world could move toward electric vehicles and even use grid power to make hydrogen for the fuel-cell vehicles of the future… But today, greater nuclear-generated electricity is not going to really reduce any country’s oil needs, certainly not India’s. In fact, with little overlap in the oil and nuclear global-market structures, nuclear power now competes principally against coal, natural gas and renewables."

I beg to differ. Nuclear fuel does not compete with renewables. Indeed, it competes with coal and natural gas. But coal and natural gas, like oil, are non-renewable sources of energy. According to a report on the CSLF site, about 30% of India’s energy needs are met by oil, and more than 60% of that oil is imported. Also, India is the sixth largest consumer of petroleum in the world, accounting for about 2.9% of the total world consumption of oil. This may not seem like a lot, given that per capita consumption is far lower than that of developed countries. It is indeed distressing that nearly 30% of total energy required is supplied by oil. What will happen when the world runs out of oil? Too scary to imagine, right? The same report states that about 70% of electricity generated is by use of coal. What happens when there is no coal left? Chellaney’s argument that the world’s uranium reserves will last just another 85 years is difficult to believe. He cites an IAEA report, which he claims forecasts the amount of uranium available. A detailed reading of the report reveals that Chellaney, in fact, has not revealed all the details of the report. A press communiqué by the IAEA states that,

"Based on the 2006 nuclear electricity generation rate and current technology, the identified resource base will remain sufficient for 100 years. However, total world uranium resources are dynamic and related to commodity prices. The uranium industry has reacted to recent increases in the price of uranium by launching major new investments in exploration, which can be expected to lead to further additions to the uranium resource base. Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2006 totalled over USD 774 million, an increase of over 250% compared to 2004. Expenditures in 2007, for which data are not yet final, are expected to match those in 2006."

The overall tone of the communiqué is rather optimistic and is conveyed succinctly by the title,

"Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future."

A second fact that must be considered is the quantity of uranium required in reactors. We are talking about a few kilograms of uranium, whereas in the case of coal, it is closer to a few million metric tonnes. That should give us some idea about the feasibility of using uranium as primary fuel for nuclear reactors. Also, Chellaney keeps talking about why nuclear fuel will not reduce India’s oil imports. It will not. I agree. But if we, as citizens and thinking individuals, bother to look beyond the next few general elections and into the future, we will see that nuclear energy is the way to go. Of course, nuclear fuel will not make our cars run on hydrogen. But, at least we will not be paying through our nose for thermal energy, especially since coal reserves are fast declining. In a century or two, there will be no coal left to exploit.

For more information on the situation of nuclear fuel in India, see this report. One fact cannot be ignored. India has not signed the NPT, and for good reason. If it wishes to gain access to uranium reserves elsewhere, it must sign the deal. India has vast reserves of thorium. Even if we do develop indigenous technology, we need uranium to kick-start the reaction. To cut a long story short, we need uranium. And to get that uranium, we need the deal. Can it get any clearer? It is frustrating to see "experts" being so short-sighted.

The most important question would be: What does the deal really mean? The idea of a civilian nuclear agreement was first mooted by US President George W Bush on July 15, 2005. He announced that he would "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." Before any kind of cooperation of atomic energy issues, it was essential that India sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This was essentially because India had refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and had virtually no safeguards on nuclear material in the use of raw materials for peaceful purposes. India’s testing of the Nuclear Bomb, first in 1974, and then in 1998, convinced the US to further restrict supply of nuclear raw materials to India. It was after the first Pokhran tests in 1974, that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was created, which further restricted supply of Uranium (an essential nuclear raw material) to India. Changing balance of power and a gradual change in India’s attitude towards cooperation with the United States, actively aided by the rise of India’s economic power, provided the impetus to the nuclear deal. The legal framework of the bilateral nuclear pact between India and the United States is provided by the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also called the Hyde Act, which is the principal bone of contention between the Left parties and the UPA government. This act provides the legal basis for the signing of the 123 Agreement (PDF link) with India, and requires the approval of the US Congress and the Indian Cabinet and will define the exact terms of the cooperation.

So, for the Deal to bee signed, the Indian Government must take certain steps. First, it must negotiate and conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Deal ran into its first set of hurdles here itself. The Left refused to allow the government to go ahead with the IAEA negotiations, and threatened to withdraw support to the government. Without the Left’s support, the government would be reduced to a minority and would be forced to resign. After last-ditch negotiations, the Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went ahead anyway, and held talks with the IAEA. Now, the Left is "discussing the timing of withdrawal of support." The next step is the G8 Summit to be held in Japan this year. Again, the Left is blackmailing.

But, what wrong with the Deal anyway? I have said it before, and I will say it again. There is nothing wrong with the deal. The rationale behind the deal is quite clear. This paper (PDF link) by David G Victor, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University clearly states the potential benefits of the agreement. He argues, in his brilliantly written paper, that the fuller commercial exploitation of nuclear energy, if done to the exacting standards of non-proliferation, can help cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is largely because nuclear energy emits virtually no carbon-dioxide, a gas that contributes to global warming.  With India’s energy requirements on the rise, we need to urgently reduce our dependence on oil and petroleum, simply because these sources are rapidly dwindling. If the US is helping us do that, then why not? The fact remains that for India to successfully and quickly exploit its nuclear reactors, the US offer of transfer of technology would be invaluable. Of course, it is not the only option. But, it is the best possible option given the circumstances.

The second reason the deal must go through is political. Washington and New Delhi share concerns about the rather dramatic, and sometimes threatening growth of China, both militarily and in the economic sphere. Washington is seeking a strategic partnership with India is an apparent attempt to counter China’s growing influence in the region. But, let’s be clear on one thing. India is not going to act as a US representative in formulating its foreign policy with regards to China. This remains the principal fear of the Left: that India will be forced to review its foreign policy priorities due to pressure from the US. Personally, I do not see that happening. India is the biggest military power in the Indian Ocean littoral after the US, which has several bases in the region, including the one at Diego Garcia. A strategic partnership with the US would only be beneficial to India, because a strategic partnership basically means intelligence sharing, among other things. Intelligence sharing with the US, with its advanced spy satellites can be beneficial to India in the long run. A more comprehensive analysis on the deal can be found here (PDF link). This paper by Sumit Ganguly and Dinshaw Mistry makes a rather convincing case for the deal.

Finally, the Hyde Act, which has been much-maligned by the Left requires, as I said in an earlier post, that US foreign policy be directed to securing India’s cooperation to actions against Iran and in securing its participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative. However, a detailed examination of the said law reveals that the Hyde Act merely requires that the US Government "encourage" India to take the above steps and cannot, in any way, force India’s hand in the matter. India has already made it clear that it does not share the US hurry in action against Iran. There is no way the US can force the Indian government to do something that would harm the political, military or economic interests of the country. The Left parties in India seem to be stuck in the Cold War-era of America-bashing. What they don’t seem to understand is the fact that the world is increasingly unipolar, and that India cannot afford to miss the nuclear bus when it still has the chance. The nuclear deal must go through. With or without the Left’s approval.

“So, what did you do in France?”, she asked.

I explained that I did my Masters in International Affairs. She rants for some time about being away for long, touring the world with her sailor-husband, and then asks me how I managed being a vegetarian.

“I cooked”, I said.

She looked at me with stunned disbelief.

“You cooked?”

“Well, yes…I did.”

“You still do?”

“Of course I do.”

Then she launches into this tirade about how women are forced to cook for their gluttunous husbands and how they normally hate the job. She then looks at me, and in a rather patronising voice states,

“I think you should refuse to do such nonsense. You are a post-graduate after all.”

Eh? Pardon me if I am being ignorant, but just what does being a post-graduate have to do with cooking. What irked me even more was that she cloaked her general inability/unwillingness to cook in the garb of feminism and free will. I have said it before and will say it again. I am not a feminist if this is what feminism means. I believe in equality of the sexes but that’s it. And yes, surprising as it may seem, I actually like cooking. Just as I like teaching, listening to music or reading. It’s a hobby, a passionate interst and an essential survival tool.

Nita talks about the devaluation of cooking, and I see it happening everywhere. Today’s incident reminded me that cooking is not just devalued but actively scorned and criticised as useless and as a waste of time. I disagree. Cooking can be therapeutic for someone who likes to do it. There is nothing more satisfying that a well-cooked meal. To me, it is a labour of love. I don’t cook for every passer-by. I only cook for those I love. And if I have cooked for any of you at any point in life, it probably means we share a lasting friendship, at the least. Lastly, I cook. But that does not mean I am incapable of doing other things. Conversely, the fact that I am capable of doing other things does not render my ability to cook meaningless. I love to cook. Period.

But then, what outraged me more than the article was this site, that Nita pointed me to. This “finishing school” trains women in “etiquette” and “home management”. Now, wait a sec. I do understand that getting married means taking on a lot of responsibility, most of the time, of the kind we are not used to as we live with parents who do the job. But, does that not apply to men too? A lot of men have no idea about home management, budgeting, entertaining guests or organising parties either. And, just why is this kind of work considered the exclusive domain of the wife? If marriage is a partnership, both partners must learn how to manage a home. If there is a finishing school that teaches women how to cook, clean, change sheets and go grocery shopping, men must learn them all too. After all, men must contribute, at least partially, to housework right?

As Nita says, the woman (more often than not a girl in her early 20s) leaves familiar surroundings, parents, friends, her home city and even her country to go and settle down with a family that is so reluctant to accept her. What she needs, is not stupid advice telling her to “adjust”, but a reassurance from husband and in-laws that all will be well. The article, while sounding sexist and one-sided, also portrays all in-laws as cruel and insensitive. To their credit, many modern families go the extra mile to make the transition easier. It’s time we stop giving such sexist advice and understand that it takes two to tango.

The "Agraharam" as it is called, derives from the traditional meaning of the word, which was a Brahmins-only area, prevalent until the mid twentieth-century. The abolition of untouchability, Indian independence and social revolution meant that these Agraharams started disappearing in the late 1950s. Now, this Foundation is acting as if they are the saviours of Brahmins all over the world, by recreating a concept that has no place in a modern, egalitarian world. What the hell? And they wonder why nobody likes them? The site claims that,

"Since the traceable history known, Brahmin Community has led a Serene & Sacrificial life wishing welfare of entire Society irrespective of Caste, Religion and Region etc. Leading mostly spiritual life they have not given much importance to materialistic gains. Bestowed with intellect & working for Spiritual elevation of entire society, they were respected & nurtured by rest of Society in reciprocation. However, Western Culture, vote bank based democracy of India leading to Caste-based selfish motivated politicians have cornered the Brahmin community, leaving majority Brahmins in pathetic condition irrespective of their position. Added to above external threats & adverse situation, the feeling of ego and so-called intellect has not allowed the community to function as a systematic organization leaving individuals to suffer."

Serene and sacrificial life? Who are they kidding? And what the f*** do they mean, "bestowed with intellect"? It is precisely this attitude, a disgusting and unpardonable superiority complex that led to the anti-Brahmin revolutions of the 1930s, and the Dravidian movement with a total negation of caste-identity. Let’s make one thing clear. Intellect and intelligence is not the exclusive domain of the Brahmins, as they (or should I say we?) like to believe. The motives of the Foundation are certainly not as noble as they may seem. It claims to promote "mutual understanding". Tell me, just how do you promote mutual understanding when you exclude about 98% of the Indian population?

What nobody seems to get, on the Sulekha forums or elsewhere, is that the very act of building a gated community that excludes people on the basis of caste is illegal. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that,

1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
1. access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
2. the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
3. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
4. Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

What the Dhanwantri Foundation is doing is precisely this: discriminating on the grounds of caste and creed. While a private enterprise has every right to do business the way it deems fit, it cannot deny the right to buy a plot there on the grounds of caste alone. The registration form alone is enough to make me see red. Gotram indeed! Well, I refuse to acknowledge that I have one. Unless we start protesting against this kind of casteist and discriminatory bullshit, we will never really progress. Let’s face it. The society we live is definitely caste-based. But that does not mean we deliberately exclude people on the basis of something as unacceptable as caste. This attitude of the Brahmins simply sucks.

"You studied at Sciences Po, right?" she asked, in a rather patronising tone.

I looked up startled, wondering what I did wrong by studying there.

"Yes, I did," I replied.

"So, what the hell are you doing here at the Alliance?" she volleyed.

Eh? What did my working at the Alliance française have to do with my studying at Sciences Po? I asked her that and she came up with the weirdest explanation I have ever heard. As I said before, her daughter studied there and came back home, having changed her mind about the direction her life was going to take. She did finance, came back, and decided she did not want to work for any company any more. She was going to work for an NGO and do some social work.

So, what is the problem? Precisely that. Her parents could not digest the fact that she chose to come back with a Master’s degree in finance and choose not to work in a company and make loads of money. Why? Two reasons:

1. They spent 12 lakhs on her education and expected to get some of it back
2. She was a girl, and the fact that they spent so much on sending her to Sciences Po meant they could not get her married with as hefty a dowry as they could have.

So, why did P have a problem with me? Because she sees me working as a teacher at the Alliance and decides I have lost focus by virtue of having spent two years at Sciences Po. Just like her daughter did.

"But," I protested violently, "I have not lost focus.I have just decided to diversify."

"Ha! Diversify indeed. That’s just a bloody euphemism for losing focus," she retorted.

By this time, I had lost my patience and simply walked away. I don’t need to justify my life’s choices to some random stranger who thinks I am ruining my life. But, this incident set me thinking. Why exactly did P think her daughter was wasting her life? Was it really money? Or dowry? I doubt it. I think this reflects a deep-seated attitude in the Indian psyche that only education that results in monetary gain is worthwhile. It was never supposed to be this way. Education is supposed to enlighten. My heart bleeds to see well-educated people equate the value of education to the quantity of money you make. I may not make millions. I may not even make a few lakhs. But, the fact remains that I love my job. I chose to do what I am doing today. I was not forced into it. Also, I believe that no education is useless. I have learnt something every year of my life, irrespective of the effect those years have on my financial status. Why do we forget that every little piece of information adds value to our lives? Why do we forget that no education, however "useless" it might seem is really so? Education has a value that is far beyond simply monetary. I only hope parents realise this truth when there is still time. It makes me grateful to have parents who think like me. Life would have miserable otherwise.

There are several initiatives out there on the Web to counter this kind of cyber-theft. The least we can do is to support the cause, write about it, and make as much noise as possible. Bloggers like Inji Pennu deserve all the support they can get. It is not easy to handle intimidation and it is our duty, as fellow bloggers to give support, albeit moral. These two sites are dedicated to fighting copyright violations. Check them out for further information.