Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Delhi… what next? It could be any other city in the country… it could be any place in any city…Railway stations/Shopping Malls/Theatres/Markets. Can’t this be stopped? The mail sent by the militants brazens it out, “In the name of Allah, Indian Mujahideen strikes back once more. … Do whatever you can. Stop us if you can!” ‘The common man’ in the recently released Hindi film ‘A Wednesday’ (a beautiful film by the way), aptly points out- the terrorists are asking us an open question, “We are going to continue such killings; Can you stop us?” Do we have the answer? This question drives me back to the old debate of Security V/s Liberty. It reminds me of POTA, an anti-terror legislation now ‘Resting in Peace’ in some academic annals. Is it time to bring it back?

    BJP has taken vows to restore the law if it comes back to power. Most of the other parties stand in opposition and echo the view expressed by many human rights activists & organizations, labeling it a ‘draconian legislation’. Some legal luminaries, including the Verappa Moily Reforms Commission have favoured enacting a more stringent anti-terror law on the lines of POTA.

Demon of Terrorism

    Does the country need stringent Anti-Terrorist laws? Before we plunge ourselves into seemingly unfathomable waters of this debate, it would be pertinent to note the amount of damage this demon of Terrorism has inflicted. There’s hardly any State immune from mayhem caused by terrorism. No city can boast to be safe from any terrorist attack. The Number of civilians who have lost their lives out of terrorist acts in this country is ten times the number of soldiers we have lost in four major wars that we have fought. Did you know that the weight of explosives confiscated so far by our security agencies has crossed the 50,000 kg mark? The economic cost (excluding the military expenditure) has surpassed Rs 50,000 crores. It’s a serious proxy war, make no mistake.

What’s the Need of Special Legislation?

    Indian Criminal Justice System as we see it today was formulated in Victorian Era…literally. Indian Penal Code, providing punishment for criminal wrongs was enacted in the year 1860. The Criminal Procedure Code & the Evidence Act are equally ancient and clearly ill-equipped to deal with new challenge of terrorism. The Indian Evidence Act abides by the famous good-old maxim of protection of innocent persons even at the cost of letting loose few guilty ones. It’s high time we question the relevance of such maxim in current era.

    There are numerous lacunae in our procedural laws. It cannot be denied that ‘Bail is a rule & jail is a rarity’ here. The conviction rate is abysmally low. The 40% conviction rate advertised to justify the present judicial system cannot be a cause of jubilation for a mere fine of 100 rupees is also counted as a conviction. A rate of conviction in more serious & heinous matters barely manages to cross the figure of 7%. So crime scenario in India paints a gloomy picture where it’s very easy to commit a crime & get away with it.

Besides in cases where conviction is the final outcome, it takes years & decades to bring the accused to books. And with no special courts to deal with these cases, this delayed justice is equivalent to justice denied. Half a million cases are pending for more than 10 years in the High Court & more than 1 million in the lower courts.

Prevention is always better than cure. Instead of catching the terrorists in the aftermath of loss of hundreds of life, what India needs is prevention of such acts. But no law in India functions as a specialized ‘preventive law’. It is argued that we have National Securities Act, 1980. But the Act was never intended to curb terrorism. It does provide preventive detention; but that’s about it really. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, even with all its amendments, can at best be used for preventing unlawful assemblies & preserving national integration. There is stark absence of strong & all-comprehensive Act.

So the need of the hour suggests that we need a law that will overcome the procedural lacunae, will support stringent administrative actions, will provide for separate judicial machinery & thus speedier justice, will increase the conviction rate in such crimes and most importantly will help prevent them in first place. Could POTA be the answer?

POTA: What can it offer?

    Before we embark on the debate of whether we need POTA or any similar legislation, let us go through the basics of what POTA had to offer.

1. The Act, as it was enacted in 2002, provided for criminalization of ‘abetting’ a terrorist. Means the presumption of guilt was prescribed for a person ‘associated’ with an organization labeled as ‘terrorist’. And the onus of proving his innocence now rested on the accused and not the prosecution (Principle of Strict Liability). Now this provision, unfair as it might seem to few, can act as a great deterrent force and prevent the free growth of terrorist outfits. Bringing those, who are harbouring the terrorists, within the purview of criminal prosecution is the need of the hour.
2. Under S. 49(2) of POTA, police could detain a suspected person for 90 days and this period could be extended for another 90 days if State could persuade the Court about the pressing need.
3. Denial of bail (unless Court reads abuse of power or lack of prima-facie evidence) was another POTA feature.
4. Confessions before Police have no evidentiary value under normal rules of Evidence. But under POTA such statements form substantial part of evidence.
5. To deal with cases of terrorism, POTA had provisions to establish Special Courts, having discretion to hold trials in non-public places like prisons. Even the power of withholding trial records from public had been vested with these Courts.

Sciolistic view at the POTA features, thus might allow us to deduce that POTA is the panacea for all the aforementioned lacunae in regular Criminal legislation. However, this piece of legislation is not without shortcomings, some serious shortcomings!

POTA: Is it a Draconian Legislation?

    Many champions of human rights & liberty, including NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) have opposed this legislation on various grounds.

1. Under POTA, confessions before police have evidentiary value. So the fear is raised that police would use coercive force and third degree to compel the innocent accused to give confessionary statements. Though this possibility cannot be entirely disregarded, there are some safeguards in place. Magistrate may, if the accused claims that the confession was involuntary & taken under coercive force, order the medical examination of the accused. Besides, the confessionary statements unless backed by corroborative evidence cannot be relied upon solely to attract conviction. Hence the possibility of an innocent being framed is pretty less.
2. Evidentiary value of intercepted phone calls is zero under normal law; but the Acts like POTA allow such phone –tapping. Some human rights activities say that this is gross violation of individual’s privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; but the same is common under many anti-terror laws in many countries as we will see and has also been upheld by our Supreme Court under provisions of Acts like POTA & MCOCA (Maharashtra’s Organized Crime Law).
3. The discretionary powers of the Special Courts to hold trials in non-public places like prisons were also under attack. But Criminal Procedure Code already allows the Courts to hold trials in such places for security reasons. So nothing new here.
4. ‘Jail is the rule & bail is rarity’, they say under POTA. Hence the natural allegation is the possibility of abuse of such unfettered powers by the police, especially if they act as tools of reigning politicians. Police might use this power arbitrarily to settle personal scores & take personal vengeance. Again the possibility cannot be ignored and in fact POTA had notorious history of abuses. But interestingly, POTA provides for punishment (two years of punishment & fine) for the police officer found guilty of malafide action, which MCOCA does not. And still review of MCOCA in 2003 reported no abuses. In fact POTA did provide a slew of safeguards to prevent such abuse like necessity of State sanction before Court could take any cognizance, compensation to victims in cases of abuse etc. In T.T. Anthony v/s State of Kerala 2001, the Court observed that the plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is not unlimited…if no offence is disclosed or if no cognizable offence is disclosed, police would have no authority to undertake investigation.

But it cannot be denied that POTA suffered from dubious record. At times it was made a tool of retribution against political opposition; at times as a weapon to target minorities. The Peoples Tribunal in Delhi opined that misuse of the Act is inseparable from its normal use; means the Act had some inherent flows. And the UPA government, buckling under pressure from many activists & NGOs, repealed the enactment.

It would not be impertinent here to observe the stands taken by various countries to fight against terrorism and status of anti-terror laws therein.

Anti-terrorism Laws across the Globe:

    Post 9/11, the world was made to sit up & take notice of this most dangerous evil of the 21^st century. Almost all the countries now have anti-terror laws in place. 9/11 did shake US; but after that it has been extremely successful in avoiding repeat of any such attack. And for this credit must go, among other things, to the new USA Patriot Act. The Act, apart from creating new crimes, new penalties & introducing new procedural efficiencies to fight against domestic & international terrorism, gives federal officials greater authority to track & intercept communications to the extent that has raised quite a hue & cry especially from human rights activists. The definition of terrorism was alleged to be over-inclusive. Possibility of prosecution in case of ‘material support’ to terrorism was also under scanner. But US government has gone ahead with the Act & is now clearly reaping the rewards.

    Israel’s Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1948 confers broad authority to the military to detain & try suspected criminals. In case of State of Israel V/s Marwaan Baraghuti, the Court ruled that terrorists who attack civilians are not ‘lawful combatants’ & hence not entitled to the status & rights of Prisoners of War.

    Legislators in Spain have gone a step ahead in prescribing that a mere support to a terrorist organization may lead to prosecution. The anti-terror legislation in Spain also provides for preventive detention (that too for 5 days without bringing the suspect before a judge), use of incommunicado detention (i.e. detention without any right of communication), secret legal proceedings & pre-trial detention up to four years.

    The provisions of Pakistan’s Anti-Terror laws are by far the most barbaric. The Anti-terror laws exist in France, Italy, Belgium, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa & many European & Latin American countries. In Britain, they have Anti Terrorism Law, 2006 and now the Counter-Terrorism Bill (that is pending before the Parliament) seeks to increase the limit of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects to 42-days.

    Most of the nations are thus clearly going ahead with more & more stringent laws to curb terrorism and here we have our Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Mr. Priyaranjandas Munshi, repudiating in clear terms the need of Anti-terror laws like POTA.

Anti-Terror Laws in various States:

    With recent controversy of GUJCOC being denied Central nod, it would be interesting to compare anti-terror laws of different States. If anti-terror laws are in place in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh & Delhi, why can’t Centre or Gujarat have such laws?

Apparently, citing the strong support of many senior police officers at Central & State levels, our NSA (National Security Advisor), Shri M.K. Narayanan has batted for such anti-terror law. On one hand we allow MCOCA to prevail and deny possibility of POTA & GUJCOC and that too when MCOCA is even more stringent than POTA. Definition of terrorism under MCOCA is wider than that under POTA. While POTA provides for punishment for police officers found guilty of malafide actions, MCOCA has no such provisions. And has MCAOCA succeeded? It indeed has with 70% of conviction rate. (Even if we take into account the fact that this law was very rarely used against terrorists & was mainly used to crack down the underworld, the conviction rate is still quite impressive).

The Final Musing:

We clearly are missing a federal statute that would define terrorism and would provide requisite procedural framework. On one hand, with no anti-terror law in place, we deprive our security agencies from necessary administrative & legal powers and on the other hand expect them to deliver every time. Is this all not leading to anarchy?

America when was made to lose 3000 people in 9/11 incident, wedged an international war against terrorism. And after being target of repeated terrorist attacks for three decades now, after losing more than 60,000 people & 8,000 security personnel, our Home Minister advises us to show restraint & maintain calm. POTA brings the person responsible for attack on our Parliament to books and awards him death sentence only to find that subsequent political games & vote-bank politics suspends the punishment.

These terrorists know no rules. Men, women, children…their mindless & brutal killing spares no one. Do we still need to sympathize about the rights of terrorists? In this context, observations of the Apex Court in case of Devendra Pal Singh v/s State of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2002 are certainly noteworthy. It observed that such terrorists who have no respect for human life do not deserve any compassion as it would be totally misplaced & unwarranted sympathy and would frustrate the very purpose of enactment of the Act.

    For all the talk about human rights violation & deprivation of personal liberty, one thing should be kept in mind. Benjamin Franklin had once remarked that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. But does his statement hold true even in the context of current terrorism? The statement finds its roots in democratic setup. We sit here in a democratic nation and talk incessantly about personal rights & liberty with one potentially fatal incorrect assumption; that we are fighting an enemy who thinks the same way we do. But terrorism does not. It knows no values, no patterns and no minimum principles to adhere with. This is something we need to understand if we are to prevail in this battle against terrorism.

If we have on one hand the possibility of violation of few human rights of individuals and on the other, the likelihood of human slaughter of hundreds of innocents, it shouldn’t be exactly a rocket science to decide which side to prefer.

    Yes, we need a strong Central Anti-terror Law to combat terrorism. It may be POTA itself or anything on the lines of it. But that alone would not ensure the ultimate security. What we need, apart from this, is of course, augmenting & streamlining the intelligence machinery, use of advanced technology, a dedicated Research & Analysis Wing, radical reforms in police system and better communication & mutual assistance between Centre & States. Until all these steps are taken, the common man will keep marveling whether he would see for sure the sunrise the day after?

    And just when I thought I have had enough of this political drollery, Indo-US deal continues to entertain.

First there was domestic political farce amongst the government, the Left & the BJP. Left had to oppose the deal because they have to oppose America. BJP’s stand looked most confusing and instead of taking credit for the deal (which was initiated by Brajesh Mishra), it kept harping on the issue of Indian Sovereignty. The Left threatened to withdraw and finally did so only to find that the government was living safely & merrily.

The confusion continued as to its impact on India’s military nuclear programme, the exact scope of fuel reprocessing rights, the timeframe defined, the definition of ’state-of-art’ reprocessing facility & so on.

    Then at the NSG meet, China did some summersaults and at the end could hardly save its face as smaller countries did budge under strong political muscles. Austria kept repeating that there were some fundamental disputes and when they surrendered eventually, they had to take refuge in the statement of Pranab Mukharjee, which incidentally proclaimed nothing new and only endorsed India’s age-old stand of unilateral moratorium.

    Then there was that letter leaked ‘through’ the Washington Post. And just when the Indian government had managed to somehow sidetrack the issue, Bush has now declared that US is under ‘no legal obligation’ to provide uninterrupted fuel supply to India.

    Now what does this really means? Bush prefers to describe this agreement as a ‘framework agreement’ & hence not binding one. Now are there any ‘types’ of international agreements? As far as my knowledge of international law goes, international agreement is an international agreement. And it is binding just like any other treaty between the nations. What US domestic law says is not of any relevance to India as only thing that will matter is 123 agreement. Even as per Article VI of the US Constitution (as interpreted by US Supreme Court), obligations of an international agreement supersede provisions of domestic laws.

    It is true that our 123 agreement has one clause missing when compared with 123 agreement that China got viz. Clause 2.1 which says that “the parties recognize, with respect to observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. But that does not mean that provisions of Hyde Act trump the 123 agreement. Because Indian negotiators did manage to push through another clause i.e. Clause 16.4, “that the agreement shall be implemented in good faith & in accordance with principles of international law”. Now this phrase ‘in accordance with the principles of international law’ refers to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties, which clarifies that, “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. Same effect!!!

    So legally speaking, it doesn’t matter what Hyde Act says; it doesn’t matter what leaked letter says; it doesn’t matter what Bush says; the only thing that matters is 123 agreement, which unequivocally declares through Para 5.6 that US commitment of uninterrupted fuel supply would continue even after termination of 123 agreement.

But it is equally true that with muscly country like US, legal obligations may not always be enough. If we see, in such declarations and that too by none other than America’s Head of State, the reflections of ulterior intentions of US government, the path ahead needs to be treaded cautiously. We simply cannot afford to invest around 300 lakh crores in building nuclear infrastructure only to be left stranded without an ounce of fuel supply. However this danger looks least likely. Now that we are through NSG hurdle, whole of international market is open for fuel supply and we are not exclusively dependant on US.

US sources are saying that the latest statement from Bush comes out of domestic political compulsions (and thus would aid in getting the deal through Congress) and fuel assurance is very much part of 123 deal. It’s hard to buy this ‘domestic political reasons’ part though. Are they trying to say that Bush is trying to fool US Congress into believing that 123 agreement is just a political promise & nothing else? Whatever it might imply, one thing’s for sure, this epic melodrama of Indo-US deal has all the masala for a blockbuster movie. Any takers from Bollywood?

Now this is the third article of mine in the series on Indo-US Nuclear deal. I had highlighted the significance of getting the deal through the NSG hurdle and India has done it! It was hard-earned diplomatic victory. Yes, I do have certain reservations about the language of the deal; but the bigger picture I see, allows me to call it a ‘victory’. Even though quite a few contradictory interpretations of the final NSG declaration run against each other, the fact remains that India has managed to cut the deal without any major amendments in the original draft.

The NSG Meet & China’s backward summersault

NSG waiver has not come so easily. Even for US, it had to pull all the right strings at right moments and put pressures from highest levels to make countries like Austria, Ireland budge. There are also talks of America cutting the side-deals with discontent countries, which is quite possible. Pranab Mukherjee’s Statement, stirring the diplomatic calculations and yet yielding nothing new, was timely indeed. Austria did oblige under US pressure and had to take resort to this statement to justify their subsequent approval to the deal and to hide the obvious discomfiture.

A consensus was said to be in place with China on this issue. So is China suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder? Of course China would have been happy to play spoil-sport; but at the same time did not want to be principal spoiler. Even though the last minute opposition from China was not so surprising, the way Chinese diplomats handled the entire issue looked a bit clumsy, to say the least. Was China banking on smaller nations to be lot more adamant? Did China discount the possibility of some side-deals being cut? Because at the end of the day, China did look isolated & dissenting from rest of the world, something it can ill-afford.

The Global Response

Indian media is all cock-a-hoop over the success of the deal; but foreign media remains skeptic. Some think India walked away with a ‘too-generous’, unfair & undeserving deal. Some say India is going to get lot of things in return of nothing. Many fear the collapse of NPT significance while others mull over its impact on South-Asian stability or the wrong signals it might send to Iran, N. Korea & Pakistan.

But there is no doubt that India deserved what it got. Its impeccable non-proliferation record has established its clean image as a key nuclear player and the deal has only seconded this fact. Why would India be compelled to sign NPT when it has never proliferated while China, an NSG member is a non-stop proliferator (in words of K. Subramanyan, our former defense secretary)? India has gained from the deal; but so have NSG and the rest of the world.

What happens if India tests nuclear weapons?

Now this is a question catching the public eye and at the root of domestic political opposition. The language of the final draft is ambiguous enough to allow for different interpretations. The whole draft is in fact lawyers’ paradise. The NSG members are pointing out that India’s unilateral moratorium has turned into multilateral legality and contending that it implies strict legal obligation, which is binding on India. In the event of India violating the pledge, India may again be isolated or even be left stranded after having done humongous investment in this sector.

Indian think-tank, on the other hand, is arguing that India’s ‘political promises’ on voluntary test moratorium are not in any way equivalent to legal obligations & commitments made by member states of NPT. So there is no ‘automatic termination’ of the deal if India tests nuclear weapons.

Now after having read the final version of the NSG draft and also individual drafts filed by countries like Japan, Germany etc, one would deduce that even though India is not exactly bound by strict legal obligations under the deal, the option of terminating the deal does remain open for NSG countries. And what is upsetting is the fact that India would be only ‘consulted’ in case of any future amendments in NSG guidelines, which is more like- India will be ‘informed’ about future amendments in guidelines. So if tomorrow, NSG decides to amend anything which runs against Indian interests, Indian government & businesses would have to comply with these amended guidelines without any concrete say.

Now as to question of nuclear test, why would India need to conduct one in first place? As mentioned in my previous article, we already have the technology to create nuclear weapons. We are committed to out stance of no-first use. If at all we are compelled to conduct any tests, that would be in extreme situations and in such cases, the NSG members would be sympathetic to the cause, I believe. So the possibility of India being ousted again seems almost non-existent.

What does India get?

Plenty. India is nuclear power. It has not signed CTBT, it has not signed NPT and yet India is no more a nuclear outcast. India enters nuke-trade without compromising its strategic (military) programme. Assured uranium fuel supply and permission to reprocess & recycle spent fuels are the important gains. Doors will be open for duel-use technologies.

Indian Business firms stand to gain as well. The deal will generate billions of dollars in lucrative contracts for the corporate members of the U.S.-India Business Council and the Confederation of Indian Industry. Companies like L&T, Reliance Energy (plans to invest 12,500 crores), TATA etc. have already declared their intentions to jump into the fray. Utility companies like NTPC & NPCIL would have a piece of cake too. In the long run, Indian companies, with their gained experience, can play trumps in ever-expanding nuclear energy domain across the world.

India aims at raising their nuclear energy percentage from 3% to 15% by 2020 by generating 52,000 MW of nuclear electricity (40,000 from Light Water Reactors, 10,000 from the present Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors and 2,000 from Fast Breed Reactors). At present nuclear reactors are working at only 55-60% of their capacity; this can be lifted to at least 90%.

Dual-use technologies:

The possibility of unhindered supply of nuclear fuel and the consequent nuclear energy implications are hogging the limelight. But this is going to take some time (at least 7-8 years). Liberation from nuclear ostracism has opened the doors for dual-use technologies and this has some immediate application.

So what is dual-use technology? It includes, among other things, software, chemicals, advanced lasers, computer & flight control equipments etc. Manufacturers & suppliers in these domains are refrained from trading these items with countries outside the purview of NPT. Why? Because even though most of the technologies are used for civilian purposes, possibility of their military or nuclear application (i.e. their dual-use) cannot be denied. The NSG waiver implies that India is now open for trade in these technologies even though it has not yet signed NPT.

This is going to have an immediate impact, according to Business Standard, on Indian Manufacturing, R&D and scientific programmes; also in the fields of IT, defense, space, pharmaceuticals. After Pokharan I, India was blackballed from access to this advance technology and now India sees quite a potential in this emancipation. Of course, to address the proliferation concerns, a proper legal framework needs to be in place and India will need to amend its Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The proposal is already on the table in fact.

Geopolitical Impact

The Left parties in India are calling the deal a sellout and arguing that India’s foreign relations would be controlled by US. Of course the Left rhetoric need not be given too much of weightage. But the point needs to be discussed. Is India leaning towards US to the extent of losing part of its sovereignty? I don’t think so.

Manmohan Singh had assured the Parliament that India’s foreign relations will remain independent.  And interestingly while US is saying that the deal will help to rein in Iran’s nuclear programme, Indian government is busy strengthening its ties with Iran. Iran is in talks with ONGC, India to develop oil & gas reserves in the Caspian Sea.

So India is clearly going ahead with its own policy and US understands this.

What next?

The deal awaits the US- Congress approval. The attempt is also being made to bypass the 30-days ‘resting period’. This does not seem that easy and may or may not happen; but Bush should not find the task of getting the deal through too difficult now, with whole business lobby right behind the deal. And since US was made to flex lot of muscles at NSG meet, it simply cannot allow the deal to be dustbinned at this stage as that would be most ridiculous political imbroglio.

But if the deal gets stalled somehow, the delay might cost US. France & Russia are ready with their bilateral pacts with India and might walk away with early-bird prizes. France, for India is the most well-equipped country to help build advanced nuclear plants. There is of course gentlemanly understanding between India & US that US business groups should get a larger chunk of the cake; but still US’s urgency to pass the deal is quite understandable.

Word of caution:

Yet again, a word of caution! India might have walked away with the best deal possible. But the real responsibility begins now. India first needs a sound legal framework in place and that too very quickly to hasten up the process of foreign investment in this field. Experience of foreign companies in India has not been very rosy and India needs to address this conundrum immediately.

Nuclear energy is going to take some years to fruit. And the initial cost might be high. So India will have to look at other means of power generation, preferably the renewable ones. The right balance might just be the answer to India’s chronic energy riddle. So India, stand up, rejoice & get back to work!

Here’s Final Statement by NSG

Greetings Reader!

Welcome to Assorted Monologues… a place for me to indite about various topics, especially related to India.

If you find the articles interesting, don’t forget to add your comment… your suggestions, complaints, commendations!

Happy Reading!

    Google’s much awaited web-browser, Google Chrome is out… finally… after so many speculations & antinomies, here I am posting at my blog through Chrome. So what’s spectacular about this browser? Frankly nothing! But any product need not be spectacular to be good. But one can imagine, Chrome needed to be spectacular to lure in loyal user-base of the great- Firefox! This is just beginning, one must remind himself. We shouldn’t expect miracles from the first release, should we? May be we should for it comes from Google!

    Even though I am not a techie, here are my layman’s observations on Chrome…

1. It has got tabbed browsing, now a standard feature in all browsers including good old IE. But Chrome has sandboxed the tabs, which means if one tab behaves weirdly or hangs, only that tab crashes and not the entire browser. The interface is minimalistic… no menu bar, no status bar (Who needs them anyway?). There’s a toolbar for bookmarks. But bookmark organizing screen is still missing. Few themes & plugins are available for download. Of course, there are going to be plenty of them soon. Chrome borrows Opera’s highly acclaimed Speed-dial feature to give you easy access to sites you use most.
2. The best feature, however, is Google’s omnibar… an address-bar cum search bar cum favorite bar! Of course the address bar has evolved in all browsers (except IE I believe). Address bar of Firefox is smart enough to track your use & display relevant history right beneath the bar as you start typing. Chrome goes a step ahead… it shows the info not only from your browser history or bookmarks but also from search suggestions & top sites that you haven’t yet visited. That’s cool!
3. For Bloggers or users like Gmail or GDoc, another interesting feature is shortcut to an application where clicking a shortcut on the desktop will open the site with no address bar… means it will function like a desktop application, blurring the line between online & offline applications.
4. It is said to be a speed-demon especially when it comes to java-script rendering. Many modern websites use Java and Chrome clearly beats all browsers (including Firefox) in loading them. However with Firefox 3.1 coming up with some new java related technology, Firefox may again overtake Chrome.
5. What are the things we are gonna miss? Lots of them, especially if you are an ardent Firefox follower. At present there are no add-ons (that Firefox users cannot live without) or widgets (that Opera users adore). But Since Google has kept the code open, we should expect them soon. At present you cannot directly email a webpage from within the browser. You cannot zoom in or view page in full screen mode. But Google’s blog says that these features are on their priority list. There are some privacy issues too (which do not matter to me anyway). What I really miss as an old Opera user, are mouse gestures & password manager.

So, at present we should not hurry to compare Chrome with likes of Firefox. Firefox has taken years to evolve to a stage where it finds itself today. Let us give Chrome some time. If you cannot live without many Firefox addons, there is no reason for you to switch to Chrome. But if you prefer minimalistic web-browsing or are languishing in Internet Explore age, get a life and get yourself the Google Chrome. At the moment, it may not be a browser God, but who knows what future holds?

    This post of mine is in response to a comment posted by S. Sam Daniel, IPS to my earlier post: “Nuclear Deal: What’s in it for India’? I was about to post a reply in the comment section. But then thought of inditing about it in details. Hence this post.

    Mr. Daniel’s contention is that why we need to surrender ourselves to George Bush & US? With all due respect to his opinion, let me put forth the bigger picture.

    First, India is not going for this deal in order to become an obedient US ally. After the Pokharan II, this potential superpower and a key political power in South Asia was left out of the global nuclear commerce and plethora of impositions were inflicted by the whole world. India is desperate to break these shackles in the wake of its ever-increasing energy needs. And this Indo-US deal is the gateway to enter into global nuclear mainstream, to end the present boycott and to earn the position of a responsible nuclear player. In this context, the significance of deal cannot be lowballed.

    Secondly, what transpires between Bush & his Cabinet or Congress is of little importance in light of scope & binding nature of the 123 agreement. True, the letter leaked to Washington Post does reveal the ulterior intentions of the US regime. But we need to look at the bigger picture.

After Pokharan II, the then Vajpayee government through Brajesh Mishra had confidently announced that ‘India now has the technical know-how for conducting the nuclear tests’. If we are to believe this, and there isn’t any reason why we shouldn’t, India finds herself in no immediate need of conducting any nuclear tests. So why should we make this one issue a central point of our debate to the extent of compromising the possibility of getting the deal through. Having said that, India does not lose its sovereign right to conduct nuclear tests, if the need ever arises, even in the light of the letter leaked. It’s just that the America, in that case, may use its own sovereign right to withdraw from the deal (after a year’s notice, of course). This however, is least likely to happen. Because once we enter the global commerce of nuclear power, America & the business firms therein, cannot afford to be left out of the lucrative business opportunities in India.

    Finally, international diplomacy & politics has no place for egos or being swollen-headed. As McCain’s punch-line says…’Country First’. If the deal is in interest of the country, which is the case with impugned Indo-US deal, we need to look at the bigger picture I believe, turning a blind eye to certain hole-in-corner affairs.

The much-debated India-US nuclear deal cleared its first international hurdle when the 35-member board of IAEA unanimously approved the India-specific safeguards agreement. Of course, India’s impeccable nuclear non-proliferation record did help. The next step is the 45-nation NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) approval. (And just as I am typing this, NSG meeting has started and it seems that the presence of opposition is formidable. If NSG decides to meet again, which is more likely to happen, Indian wait will be prolonged and as more time goes by, it is going to get difficult). Now if India crosses this hurdle, it shouldn’t worry too much about George Bush leaving the office. It is true that both Obama & McCain have backed the deal; but it may not be on their priority list once they enter the office. However if India, by that time, clears the NSG hurdle, India may accelerate nuclear development by trading with other countries, leaving the US locked out of any deals.

India aims at producing 20000mw atomic power by 2020 and for this international cooperation is a must considering the Victorian-age nuclear technology India is languishing in. The three-stage nuclear programme was setup immediately after independence. But even after 60 years we haven’t progressed ahead of the first stage of Natural Uranium fuelled Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors.

The Impact of the Deal

A look at the probable impact of the Indo-US deal on India’s nuclear technology paints a favourable picture. Since 15 out of the 17 reactors in India use natural Uranium (instead of enriched Uranium), we will need a constant supply of natural uranium. Though India is relatively rich with thorium reserves, our uranium reserves (which aren’t of much high quality anyway) would be spent in few years time. At present India’s annual production of uranium is about 200 metric tones while current functional reactors, assumed to be running at 75% of the capacity need 510 metric tones of supply. And if we are to expand and buy advanced reactors, this demand would go up. Once the deal is in place, we can be assured of continuous supply of uranium. But can we afford the import cost? The answer is yes. The cost of mining uranium in India is much higher than many countries. While most of the uranium recoverable in India is at $130/kg, in countries like Kazakhstan, Canada, Niger, huge reserve is recoverable at less than $40/kg. Thus importing becomes cost-effective.

Light Water Reactors, the most common type of reactors found worldwide require enriched Uranium (U-235 at a concentration of 3% or more instead of about 0.7% in natural uranium). And with new lesser enrichment technology, several economic advantages can be gained as it involves lower energy input, lower capital costs & lower depleted uranium waste. The deal may secure access to this technology as well as supply of enriched uranium from open market.

Even though we have developed indigenous fuel fabrication technology for mixed plutonium/uranium oxide (MOX), US’s cutting-edge technology & the experience in the field can work wonders for India. Reprocessing the fuel is very important stage in nuclear production. Since spent fuel is 96% of its original uranium, the recovered uranium can be returned for subsequent re-enrichment. US have got a dual-use nuclear technology and India can buy this including materials & equipments that could be used to enrich uranium & reprocess spent fuel. The advanced technology would also assist in finding final geological repository for nuclear waste disposal.

Though Civilian Reactors to be kept under IAEA inspection cannot be used for producing nuclear weapons, the agreement does not seem in any way to be an obstacle in way of India’s strategic needs from other reactors. Thus everything looks hunky-dory with the agreement.

The Problems

But a word of caution is warranted here. Washington’s denial to offer similar deal to Pakistan has made Islamabad declare with vengeance that it will continue to expand its nuclear arsenal. India too can use reactors, which are not under ’safeguard agreement’ to build nuke-weapons. China already has strong nuclear muscles. Is this all leading to more instable South Asia?

Further, the economics of the deal might not work exactly in India’s favour. The deal is hardly going to assist the present Indian reactors and the myriad problems hobbling it, apart from supplying regular fuel of course. India will have to buy Light Water Reactors; but the cost of generating electricity out of these is roughly $ 1.5 billion to $2 billion per 1-GW reactor, which is much higher than the cost of the present Heavy Water Reactors (about $1.2 billion). Thus unit cost of electricity generation increases by around 25%, thus diminishing their utility for average Indian consumer.

Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy

Present Manmohan Singh government was ready to further the agreement at the cost self-existence. Is nuclear power that important? There is no doubting the significance of energy availability for economic development. By 2030, India would be third largest consumer of energy. India will need to quintuple its electricity-generation capacity from 1600 GW to 8000 GW. With limited supply of coal and rising prices of oil & natural gas, for a viable solution to the prevailing ‘energy crisis’, India has to look at relatively more sustainable sources of Energy…nuclear power being one of them.

Nuclear power is less pollutant and relatively safer than coal, gas or oil plants, provided we discount the rare possibilities of deadly meltdowns & radiations. It is more lengthy solution as world stocks of uranium & thorium are expected to last for 1000 years. Lesser fuel input needs of nuclear plants bring in the reliability factor. Nuclear energy also seems to be an apt reply to challenges of reducing green house emissions. Nuclear energy is also cheaper than renewable sources of energy.

There is a flip side to the coin as well. Apart from the possibility of repeat of Chernobyl (especially under shadows of terrorism), problem of nuclear waste disposal is an ominous issue as well. The byproducts of fission remain radioactive for thousands of years and special underground sites need to be constructed to lock away these products from harms way. Insufficient storage facilities limit the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year.

Huge initial costs, long gestation periods are other impediments. The notion that there is nuclear renaissance underway is ill-formed. Thus nuclear energy is neither sustainable nor green.

Conclusion

Getting the deal through various global occlusions would indeed be a diplomatic triumph for Indian think-tank. But the search for affordable energy should not stop with nuclear ties. India has tremendous potential, waiting to be harnessed in renewable energy sector. Wind power, solar power, biomass & small-scale hydropower would render a befitting solution to India’s vast energy needs. Relatively softer yet infinitely significant steps would be improving efficiency of current coal plants and taking measures to reduce power transmission losses.

Nuclear power is essential and with this deal opening doors for newer technology, India can hope that it will be in a position to use its huge thorium deposits to their potential. One should never forget though, that nuclear energy is not a panacea for all energy problems in India. It is one step ahead… but there’s still long way to go!

Did you know that attempt to commit suicide is punishable in India at present? It is… under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. But now the Law Commission has proposed to delete the section thereby decriminalizing the act of suicide attempt.

The Law Commission had recommended this reform way back in 1971 and had also got government’s nod. But somehow the move fell through in 1972. The Section 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court in many cases as well. In 1994, SC had in one case termed the section as unconstitutional; but then later a five-judge bench set-aside the decision upholding the constitutional validity of the provision.

Justice Lakshmanan, Chairman of the Law Commission along with other members observed that there is no gain to punish a person, who under extreme duress attempts to end his life, albeit unsuccessfully.

“Life does not mean mere animal existence”, Supreme Court has observed in plethora of cases and this view got a deserving support from the country’s Law Commission, when it decided on June 29 that they would further the recommendation of legalizing euthanasia (mercy Killing) in favour of those who are terminally ill.

The Law Commission makes sense when it observes in its reports, “If a person is unable to take normal care of his body or has lost all the senses and if his real desire is to quit the world, he cannot be compelled to continue with torture and painful life. In such cases, it will indeed be cruel not to permit him to die”.

Thus premature termination of one’s life to relieve him from long suffering could be possible if government decides to act on the report, to be submitted to it soon.

Ok, finally TATA has said ta-ta to West Bengal. Nano is going to some other ’safe place’ as Ratan Tata has ‘officially’ declared the suspension of all works at Singur plant. All overseas engineers have already left for Japan/US and TATA is trying to absorb remaining employees in other projects across the country. The decision, though unfortunate, isn’t very surprising considering TATA’s track record of pulling out of projects enmeshed into hostile politics (Remember the original Banglore Airport project?).

Mamata Banerjee, energized by her good show in Panchayat elections of the State and an apparent anti-Left wave, is trying to use Singur, local administration of which is under her control, as a springboard to launch herself into power. But now that TATA is moving out, will her stand backfire? Because Nandigram was different. The general public opinion was sympathetic towards farmers & tribals there. But the current mood suggests that general people of the State, a generous 85% of them, want the Nano to roll out from Singur Plant (Ref: Survey by Assocham, published in Business Standard). The loss of job opportunities will further add to the resentment in young Bengalis, who are feeling like pawns in hands of politicians. And the current Left regime, though highly guilty of letting the issue get out of their hands, might walk away clean putting all the blame on Mamata. At the end of it all, whoever might come out smiling, but the damage has already been done.

What started as a petty altercation between the State Government and land-owners dissatisfied over the amount of compensation, has turned with the intervention of political games by Mamata Banerjee, into something grave enough to raise serious & bigger issues. It’s not just the question of TATA’s 1500 crores of investment or vendors’ 500 crores of commitment, nor the fact that reallocation of plant will result in inevitable delay in the proposed launch of much-awaited dream car of masses. Bengal’s credibility amongst the industrial class and thus its future is at stake. Just when West Bengal, freshly coming out of the shadows of ‘militant trade unionism’, was looking at brighter skies with many business groups looking at it as a favoured investment destination, Singur misfortune has put the clock back.

After two decades of so called free-reforms & delicensing, if a squeaky-clean group like TATA faces an exile thanks to some pointless politics, the possibility of industrialists queuing up to set up their shops in the State looks pretty bleak. A.M.Naik, Chairman of L & T has already raised the concern, “If TATAs pull out of West Bengal, it will adversely affect investment in West Bengal“. Many others like Chnadrajeet Banerjee (Director General, CII), K.V.Kamath (CEO, ICICI Bank), Pawan Ruia (Chairman, Dunlop India) aren’t denying this possibility.

TATA’s prestigious Nano project, often labeled as ‘banner project’ is being watched by the entire world and this political drollery has resulted into some stinging criticism from Western Media. “The project to build world’s cheapest car,” New York Times writes, “has driven into a quintessentially Indian ditch“. True that the prepossessed Western Media need not be given prodigious weightage. But the serious question it has raised cannot be ignored altogether either. Calling the incident as a slap on the face of Brand India, the paper wonders, “Which foreign company will want to come in when India’s most respected group cannot set up industry in a state?” Not such a nano-problem for sure!