Article on controversial Shivaji book

http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-bhagwan300304.htm

Ten misconceptions about the nuclear deal

20/07/2008 23:39:46
Dr P K Iyengar,
Chairman (Retd,), Atomic Energy Commission

In spite of the fact that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest, many in the country, and in Parliament, support it because of misconceptions about the deal, which need to be clarified.

The nuclear deal is an agreement between India and the US for the US government to supply nuclear fuel and reactors to India.

Contrary to common perception, the nuclear deal or the 123 Agreement isnot a commitment on the part of the US government to provide us with uranium or nuclear reactors. Presently American law prohibits nuclear cooperation with India because we have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All the nuclear deal does is to grant a 'waiver' from that law, so that American companies can now pursue nuclear trade with India. However, if India conducts a test at any time, the waiver is revoked.

Imported uranium and nuclear reactors will be cheap and cost-effective.

Even if the nuclear deal is made operational, the actual sale of uranium and nuclear reactors will be governed by market forces – there are no guarantees of cheap or competitive nuclear power . To the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will be expensive.The cost of uranium in the international market has gone up four-fold in the last few years, and will rise further with further demand. The same is true of the cost of steel and other materials used in a reactor. Manpower costs are much higher in the West. The example of the Dhabol power plant has already shown us that importing power plants from the West is not necessarily a viable option. We would do well to learn from that experience.

The nuclear deal will safeguard our energy security.

It is true that nuclear energy is green energy, and therefore essential for our long-term energy security. But this does not translate into the nuclear deal will ensure our energy security.Power from the nuclear reactors that we buy will definitely be more expensive than indigenous nuclear power. Further, to keep the reactors running, we will always be dependent on imported uranium, which is controlled by a cartel – the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Therefore, the nuclear deal, by making us dependent on the cartel, will only compromise our energy security. Only our indigenous nuclear power programme can truly ensure our energy security. And in any case, for the next few decades, nuclear power will not exceed 6% of our total electricity production.

Importing nuclear plants is a quick-fix solution to the present power crisis.

Nuclear technology is sensitive. Even if the nuclear deal goes through, it will take time to buy and setup new reactors. We have examples of the French reactors in China, and the Russian reactors in Kudankulam, India. It will actually take longer to setup foreign reactors compared to indigenous ones. Just the negotiations and legal formalities could take years. It will be at least eight years before we see the first power. So importing reactors is certainly no quick solution. For the short term, we will still have to rely on coal and hydroelectricity.
The nuclear deal does not stop India from further nuclear testing, and therefore does not compromise our national security.

It is very clearly stated in the 123 Agreement it will be subject to national laws, and the Hyde Act is a law of the US. Therefore, the 123 Agreement is certainly circumscribed by the Hyde Act, which very clearly states that if India tests a nuclear device, all further nuclear trade is to stop, and the nuclear materials that have already been sold to us have to be returned. No future Indian government would dare to jeopardise such a huge investment in nuclear power, by testing. So, for all practical purposes the nuclear deal caps our strategic programme – which is precisely what the Americans intend.

We can pass a national law to counteract the Hyde Act, and this will protect our strategic programme.

Just as the Hyde Act is not binding on us, our laws are not binding on the US. We can certainly amend our Atomic Energy Act to enable participation of the private sector in nuclear power. But if we pass a law saying that we will retain the right to test, it will have no influence on the actions of the US.If and when we test, they can simply quote the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act, and pull out all their nuclear materials, leaving us devastated. The only option here is to renegotiate the 123 Agreement and have the clause inserted there. However, the Americans are unlikely to agree to this, since it goes against their non-proliferation policy.

The nuclear deal and the safeguards agreement give India the status of a nuclear power.

While the 18 July 2005 Joint Statement did indeed talk about India being treated as an equal by the US, neither the 123 Agreement nor the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, have borne out those optimistic statements.In fact, the IAEA safeguards agreement that has been negotiated is closely based on the model agreement that IAEA has for non-nuclear weapon states. The safeguards agreements that the nuclear weapon countries have signed with the IAEA require them to put very few reactors under safeguards, and allow them to take reactors out of safeguards. India, however, will have to place most of its reactors under safeguards for perpetuity. Therefore we are certainly not being treated as a nuclear weapons country.

Without the nuclear deal, we cannot get adequate uranium for our domestic nuclear programme.

The Department of Atomic Energy has always maintained that we have enough indigenous uranium for 10,000 MW of nuclear power for 30 years. We are not yet close to that number. The present mismatch in uranium availability for operating reactors is a consequence of poor planning, and inadequate prospecting and mining. There is talk of importing 40,000 MW of nuclear power, which will cost not less than $100 billion or Rs. 4 lakh crores. If even 10% of this money were spent on uranium mining in existing mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, on searching for new uranium deposits, and negotiating with non-NSG countries, there will be enough uranium for a robust indigenous nuclear power programme, until such time as thorium reactors takes over.
The safeguards agreement with the IAEA guarantees fuel supplies even if India conducts a nuclear test.

The safeguards agreement only notes, in the preamble, that India's concurrence to the safeguards is linked to getting fuel supplies. However, the IAEA has no role in this matter,and certainly, no such commitment is given in the safeguards agreement. It also notes that India may take 'corrective measures' in the event of a disruption of foreign fuel supplies. It does not specify what these measures will be, it does not provide for any role for the IAEA in this, and it does not bestow legitimacy on any such measures that India may take. It may well be that any such measures that we suggest, such as importing fuel from another country, will be disallowed by the nuclear cartel (the NSG). The only tangible corrective measure is for India to explore and mine more uranium, and to enhance the enrichment capability to provide fuel for those reactors. The latter is subject to uncertainty.

The nuclear deal has no impact on our foreign policy.

The Hyde Act states clearly that it is the policy of the US to secure India's cooperation on a number of issues involving Iran, including its capability to reprocess nuclear fuel (in spite of the fact that Iran, as an NPT signatory, has the right to enrich uranium for use in light-water reactors). This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and can only be related to influencing our foreign policy. Recent statements by Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, regarding Indo-Iran gas pipeline, only add fuel to such suspicions.

It can therefore be seen, that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not in the national interest. It presents the very serious danger of capping our strategic programme. That alone is reason enough not to go forward with the deal. Additionally, it does not guarantee the energy security that we are seeking, and, in fact, may only end up making us as vulnerable to the nuclear cartel, as we are today to the oil cartel.

It is easy to see why the US wants this deal so badly. At virtually no cost, since there is no commitment towards fuel supplies, they can cap our strategic programme, bring us into the NPT net, through the back door, as a non-nuclear power, keep a close eye on our nuclear activities, including R&D, through intrusive IAEA inspections, and subjugate us to the wishes of the nuclear cartel. If there were no cartel, we could have easily extended the Kudankulam agreement for more reactors, and avoided the present situation. If these are not reasons enough not to go ahead with the nuclear deal, then there are no reasons that reason can find.

Hary Nambiar 21/07/2008 06:07:27
Massive bungling upThe Congress government bungled this up in a massive scale. More than controlling India's nuclear program, the US multinational corporations, which control strategic global policies and programs are interested in the money. I respect the unparalleled stature of Dr. Iyengar, but cooperation with the United States, in industrial, defense and strategic area is most essential for the territorial integrity and cultural survival of India, let alone its prosperity. If India had the US cooperation from the time the AEC began its program, it would have been far ahead in national defense, nuclear R & D, power generation and industry. The sustained growth in the prosperity in west European, far eastern Asian nations and even China was accomplished mainly with US help. While India claimed to be non-aligned in the last fifty years, there has been little reduction in the US bashing until recently. Rejection of strategic relations with the US has only helped in weakening India's defense, material prosperity and cultural erosion. This "deal" was conceived, negotiated and reached at this stage with extreme kind of incompetence. Otherwise, why it is being supported by one former AEC Chairman and opposed by another? What is going on in the legislature is a charade. Politicians for or against it have their own agenda. The geopolitical paradigm is not the same as in the fifty's. Pakistan and China has always been at war with India. Now there are six Chinese naval facilities, numerous offensive air fields, lakhs of soldiers and fifty nuclear missiles targeted against India. How long would it take for the FBTR and thorium reactors to become a reality? Who is stopping the DAE from speeding up Uranium mining? How much more time the DAE needs to successfully test the next big thing? What do nuclear scientists in Trombay find so readable in Time and Newsweek? The DAE scientists successfully resisted NPT from its inception. Why this "deal" was not left to them?

Plea to MPs on vote of no Confidence in Indian Parliament on July 22

17/07/2008 11:22:51 Forum for Secularism and Development ( USA )
Letter to Members of Parliament and Patriot Leaders and Citizens

Subject: During the upcoming Trust Vote, Parliamentarians must consider dismal performance by Dr. Singh's Govt. on all issues, and reject the US imposed IAEA accord for the Nuclear Deal which relegates India to a “non-Nuclear State?”

Hon'ble Members of Parliament,
Hon'ble Patriot Leaders and Citizens

There is no decision as crucial in the history of a nation as the one that radically alters the complexion of its freedom in decision making and the right to exercise its sovereignty. Under the misguided stewardship of Sonia-Singh Govt. , you as members of India ’s only sovereign body are being asked to lend support to Govt. policies, that will relegate India to a “3rd class client state” obliged to follow the dictates of nation’s new foreign masters. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Indian Parliament, the fate of India ’s freedom, sovereignty and national security is in your hands. Mother India and her unsuspecting sons and daughters expect you to stand up for them and be counted.

The forthcoming vote of no-confidence against the UPA Govt. in the Parliament precipitated by the IAEA draft agreement presents you an opportunity for evaluating the performance of the Govt. It also affords the lawmakers a chance to consider the option of holding the next election a bit earlier by bringing down the current regime and put in office a new responsive Govt. with a commitment and vision for the future of the country. From every conceivable account the Congress/ UPA Govt. has failed on numerous fronts including combating terrorism by jihadists and Naxalites and the important agricultural sector as proven by the unusually high rate of suicides by farmers. Yet the architects of this sham of a Govt. are trying desperately to cling to power through the lawless religion based reservations and largesse. It is no secret that the Prime Minister, despite its clear cut anti-India provisions, has been overly obsessed with the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, for which he could not secure an equitable treaty and neglected many inter-related burning issues. You and the citizens of India will have to decide whether the return of the “East India Company” via this Deal, as engineered by Sonia-Singh combine under the direction of their imperialist keepers, is acceptable.

With every new stage of the clandestine negotiations between the parties the Nuclear Deal was progressively hardened with such tough conditions that today only a few can remember that the July 18, 2005, agreement-in-principle had promised India "the same benefits and advantages" as the US. A strong note must be taken of the fact that the recently divulged details of the operative parts of the IAEA’s accord with India mirror the clauses found in the IAEA agreements with non-nuclear-weapons states, basically denying and not recognizing India’s current de facto nuclear weapon status. "Through word and deed the Prime Minister has demonstrated his desperation to operationalize the Nuclear Deal before he demits office even if that required using the backdoor. In defense of her sovereignty and national security India must not allow its long-term and strategic interests compromised by a one sided and weak treaty negotiated craftily by a cunning Prime Minister who heads an illegitimate Govt. with questionable majority".

This Nuclear Deal should not have been rushed through by the Singh Govt. and the American bipartisan system should have been emulated for processing it. The Deal should have been accepted only when all parties, experts and jurists had publicly discussed and debated it and they had arrived at a consensus based conclusion in the country's best interests. The only sovereign body of the country i.e., the Parliament and the public cannot be side lined in an agreement affecting national sovereignty and security and binding them in perpetuity. But that is exactly what the Singh Govt. has done. Thanks to those who leaked out the draft accord, we can see the craftiness behind the PM's not so forthright and not so candid conduct in the oft repeated postponement of the discussion in Parliament of an unacceptable treaty, with the singular objective of giving the country a fait accompli.

1) For the nuclear accord, consideration must be given to:
a) Given India's security needs and hostile expansionist neighbors, India will need Nuclear Tests and a more dependable nuclear deterrence policy. At this point in time India still doesn’t have minimal, let alone, credible deterrence
b) The staggering costs of the mandated separation of civilian and defense nuclear facilities will effectively render them dysfunctional. The 'breadth of facilities' that India has decided to surrender to the so-called international safeguards is shocking as it includes elementary as well as 'fundamental physics and other research institutions'.
c) Exorbitant costs of the Nuclear Deal: Indian Public have not been told why the coal powered electric plants that are widely used globally cannot be built or bought, preferably with clean air technology. If this option was utilized India would be free from the strings of all foreign entities and in comparison that would only be a small fraction of the total costs of the nuclear power gained through the Deal in question. Furthermore, the immense hydro- electric power potential in the North East and Nepal has not been addressed.

2) Scientists are deeply concerned:

Three stalwart nuclear scientists namely P K Iyengar, A N Prasad and A Gopalakrishnan, have out rightly rejected this Deal. Their irrefutable conclusion is that the UPA Govt. has conceded more than is wise or prudent and obtained a worthless Deal whose energy rationale is fraudulent and which will seriously weaken the strategic nuclear forces, cripple indigenous nuclear technology development efforts, expose the nuclear program to intrusive international policing and, with the safeguards agreement, cement India’s legal status as a “non-nuclear weapon state”. The Govt. has unwisely not taken a note of these valid and pertinent opinions.

3) Nuclear Fuel Crunch is essentially a consequence of the inadequate funding throughout the 1990s.

When Dr. Singh was Finance Minister and Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the present Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, was the Finance Secretary the funding for the indigenous projects started to shrink. This lack of funding prevented the DAE from expanding its uranium exploration, mining and processing activities. In fact, it forced the department to shut down some old mines in Jaduguda (Jharkhand). The Govt. has slashed the budget of the Department of Atomic Energy by over 500 million dollars in the current year. With such financial crunch, it is obvious that the expensive separation plan mandated by the IAEA and the 123 Agreement will effectively close down the Indian nuclear research and development establishment, thwarting the defense and strategic needs.

4) The divisive policies of promoting two separate Societies for Hindus & Muslims that promote disintegration by Aurangzeb like privileged treatment to Muslims by Govt. must be countered:

Official commitment for enforcing the politically motivated Sachar Report, the Prime Minister's commitment for first preference to Muslims , his 15 point plan for Muslims ; and enforcing a communal quota system in employment and even at the topmost technical and management institutions could lead the country towards mediocrity and division once again. The uncalled for and unconstitutional largesse amounts to open bribery and class war initiated by Congress for clinging to power.

5) Divisive Civilizational war encouraged by Govt. against majority Hindus and Violation of their religious sentiments cannot be condoned .

With acts like the ones given hereunder, Govt. is fragmenting and not uniting the Indian society:
a) Violating the faith of 100 crores Hindus by questioning the existence of Lord Ram and calling him a mythical character and by demolishing Ram Sethu to further inflict injury upon their religious sentiments;
b) Strategic silence on J&K government's Taliban like denial about leasing 100 acres of land to temporarily house Amarnath pilgrims, particularly in view of the destruction, damage, occupation of hundreds of temples and their lands in Kashmir by Muslims since 1990.
It may also be noted that the GOI allocates massive funds of over Rs. 400 crores per year in subsidies to Muslims for Hajj. Recently in Delhi, the Govt. has decided to construct a six storey Hajj House at a cost of Rs. 30 crores.
c) Letting states usurp Hindu temples, their lands and endowments in utter violation of the secular constitution; and disrupting and demolishing the Hindu religious infrastructure by Govt. mismanagement and diversion of funds and illegal occupation and sale of the endowment lands meant for their sustenance in perpetuity.
d) The illegal arrest and detention of the H.H. Kanchi Shankaracharya on politically motivated and fake charges with great fanfare on Diwali night on November 11 in 2004, almost four years ago. He could not be convicted on fictitious charges. But the anti-Hindu Govt. has not exonerated him either. State penalizes the majority's religion and patronizes the predatory minority religions with massive state funding and facilities. It cannot be acceptable in a society claiming to be open, secular, democratic and equitable. It could only lead to communal disharmony.

6) Govt. inability to crush the Jihadist and Naxalite terrorism in India must also be considered a serious failure:

Under the current Govt. India is frightfully failing to contain the menace of Islamic terrorism and its leadership cannot evade the responsibility for this colossal failure. Some 30 per cent of the total districts in the country are reportedly infected by Naxalite terrorism. Over the past few years, major terrorist strikes have been engineered by Pakistan-backed groups in Delhi, Bangalore, Ayodhya, Mumbai, Varanasi, Hyderabad, Malegaon, Panipat ('Samjhauta Express'), Ajmer and Ludhiana, with lesser attacks at a number of other locations. In fact Varanasi, the most revered holy city of Hindus, bore the brunt of Islamic terrorist attacks twice. On March 7, 2006, at least 21 Hindus were killed and scores injured in bombings at Sankat Mochan temple and the railway station in Varanasi. Before that, terrorists had made an abortive bid to attack the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and so on. And the terrorist attacks on CPRF and in UP courts is an ongoing saga!It must be noted that there has not been a single terrorist attack in the United States after the first on September 11, 2001 due to the massive vigilance by the Govt. and strengthening of anti terrorist laws and security agencies and demolishing the political and financial infrastructure of the terrorist cells abroad. Compare that with Singh regime’s complete inaction but meaningless bombastic statements.

7) The accord with the IAEA largely resembles its agreements with non-nuclear-weapons states. This accord will rob India of all the rights that the five established nuclear-weapons states enjoy.

The accord carries a cosmetic reference to “corrective measures” in the preamble, but Preamble's references confer no entitlement on India. On the other hand the safeguards accord, like the 123 Agreement, is consistent with the provisions of the Hyde Act. The extension of this law to India brings the Indian nuclear domain and related fields directly under the jurisdiction of the American law. The provisions of the safeguards accord contradict Dr. Manmohan Singh’s assurances to the Parliament that India will accept only the “same responsibilities and obligations as other advanced nuclear states like the U.S.” For example, speaking in the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2005, the Prime Minister said: “We shall undertake the same responsibilities and obligations as … the US”; “we expect the same rights and benefits” as the US; and “India will never accept discrimination”. Despite such categorical assurances the Sonia-Singh regime accepted every conceivable condition that Uncle Sam could come up with. The accord provides for no guaranteed fuel supply and, contrary to the PM’s assurances in Parliament, has no link between perpetual IAEA inspections and perpetual fuel supply. India will not only open its entire civil program to external safeguards - read inspections and supervisions - but also will pay for such inspections.

In addition to special inspections, India has consented to another provision intended to preclude undeclared activity in a non-nuclear-weapons state — the early provision of design information. India will not only open its entire civil program to external safeguards, but also help pay for such inspections. The key benchmarks enshrined in the original July 18, 2005, deal today stand jettisoned. Even the termination and non-compliance provisions in the accord are identical to those for non-nuclear-weapons states, creating potential risks since India possesses a nuclear military program. A nuclear-armed India has agreed to be subjected to intrusive “challenge” inspections of the type the IAEA is empowered to carry out in non-nuclear-weapons states. “Challenge” inspections are officially known as “special inspections” - as distinct from systematic or routine inspections. In fact, there is no direct reference in this accord to the existence of an Indian nuclear military program or an acknowledgement of India’s special status — a nuclear-weapons state uniquely doing what no other nuclear power has done: putting its entire civilian nuclear program under permanent, legally irrevocable international inspection regime.
Moreover, far from “corrective measures” being defined, the accord explicitly forecloses that option by making it clear that, under no circumstance, will India be allowed to withdraw from its safeguards obligations, which are legally immutable. (Brahma Chellaney)

8) Survival of the UPA regime is fraught with dire and scary consequences –

A few dangerous possibilities amongst many for a strategically and militarily weak India include: a) In the absence of its nuclear capabilities India could capitulate against the expansionist Pakistan and China and consequently lose territory as she would have become literally an impotent non- nuclear weapon state. Entering into this accord will effectively deny India her invincible nuclear deterrence against her hostile neighbors; b) India’s neighbors would be encouraged to engage in more terrorism -- Jihadist, Maoist and Naxalite, and bleed her economically much more than they do now; c) Given the anti-Hindu policies of the Govt. there could be more discrimination, penalization and persecution of Hindus by Congress/ UPA; further decimation of their religious infrastructure and arrest of their holy saints on fake and concocted charges could increase substantially; d) To strengthen their vote bank strategy the people in power could resort to more preferences, reservations and patronization of Muslims to the extent that they may again declare that they could not live with “Kafir” Hindus, drive them out from areas where Muslims are in substantial numbers -- repeating the Kashmir story of cleansing of Hindus who must convert, be killed or migrate - but to where? e) Kashmir could be turned into yet another epicenter of Islamic terrorism and with Sino-Pak support become independent. China may move into Arunachal, etc.; North East may be cut off by Bangladesh or declare themselves independent Christian states as the followers of Christ did in East Timor.

9) Hon'ble Parliamentarians - India must be saved from Dr Singh's erroneous - nay dangerous vision:

There must be a vision for India to emerge as a powerful nation, prosperous at home, equal to others abroad. India must reject the IAEA accord and maintain its de facto nuclear weapon state status and sovereignty. But Dr Singh appears to act as a bureaucratic and accidental proxy Prime Minister guided by Sonia Gandhi and under hypnosis by George Bush. He is apparently obsessed with the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, possibly influenced by strong business and nuclear industry lobbies. And the US Ambassador, David Mulford’s attempts at activating the diplomats of the NSG countries' in New Delhi that "their countries should back the Deal as it was in the interest of nuclear non-proliferation system" says it all about the US crusade towards the quick finalization of the Deal. Hon’ble Parliamentarians, for the sake of making a rational decision you must keep in mind that the issue of the nuclear energy was a bait to render India a non nuclear weapon state and the Premier Singh and his partners became willing collaborators in executing this scheme – the one that has been described as a grand betrayal of India. The deliberate secrecy of the draft and partisan briefing with half truths was meant to misguide Indian public and dignitaries like Dr Kalam who earlier issued pro-deal statements without full knowledge of the treaty. However, subsequently Dr. Kalam has indicated that he has changed his stand -- presumably after seeing the draft of the accord. By abandoning transparency and keeping the Parliament and people in the dark and proceeding with the negotiations relevant to the accord Dr. Singh has created a scary situation for the country and its future. He has acted more like a loyal governor on behalf of foreign entities than an Indian leader pursuing the cause of an independent country. The Parliament has a right and responsibility to take a strong exception and declare that such deals made in a hush hush manner without its approval will and cannot be a binding on the country. This is not an issue of BJP vs. Congress, left vs. right, but it cuts across the party lines – this is a national and a systemic issue. Just like Dr Kalam, many MPs have been misled by the Govt. leadership. To preserve India’s sovereignty and independence in decision making, they too should review their stand on the accord and possibly reject it in view of its demerits and anti-India nature. MPs in general must unite, assume their authority as members of India’s only sovereign body and end Dr. Singh's usurpation of power from their body and vote for a change through early elections. That is the best way for undoing all the damage that Dr. Singh and his political clan has caused. Experts believe that such an action in general is consistent with the behaviors exhibited by historic anti-national personalities like Jai Chand and Mann Singh. Guru Gobind Singh should have been his inspiration for thwarting Western and Islamist surreptitious designs for domination.

10) Ladies & Gentlemen, you have the power and obligation to hold Dr. Singh’s feet to the fire and remind him of the July 18, 2005, agreement-in-principle that had promised India "the same benefits and advantages" as the US.

Ask him why, despite his solemn public assurance, he agreed to India having a “non nuclear power status.” By so doing he has violated his own assurance to the country and also betrayed the trust and confidence of the Indian people. During these tumultuous and transformational times when the country is faced with a multitude of challenges and opportunities India needs a forward looking, progressive and courageous leadership with a vision. Therefore, the upcoming vote of confidence should not only be considered as an opportunity for judging the unceremonious surrender of India’s sovereignty to a foreign power and the world body by the Sonia-Singh regime but also to evaluate the regime’s record of failures in every other field. A serious note should be taken of the government’s deliberate action in unconstitutionally usurping the Parliament’s powers and illegally signing away a sovereignty and national security related international treaty without any legitimate authority. Should you as a member of the Parliament take Sonia-Singh regimes record into consideration, without any fear or favor and exercise your patriotic duty of voting for India’s national interest, we have no doubt that you will send Dr. Singh and his colleagues packing. Such a firm action by you will help Dr. Singh leave the national capital around the same time as George W. Bush, his new found promoter departs from Washington, DC. Without your thoughtful indulgence things could get bleak. Please act judiciously, patriotically and consciously and save India's independence and strengthen her future role as one of the star countries in the community of nations. May God be with you! Hope that this short review ahead of voting will help you in making a decision that promotes India’s national interests and upholds her integrity. Thank you for your time and consideration.


Dr. Jagan KaulKrishan BhatnagarForum for Secularism and Development ( USA )July 17, 2008
email: krishan.kb@verizon.net





S Balasundar 18/07/2008 11:02:11
Manmohan Singh Govt should quit or face dismissal!It is a shame that De Manmohan Singh ,the indirectly elected , non member of LokSabha and the wekest PM India had ever seen ,is hiding in the "Hyde Act" deal and claiming falsely that India would be a loser if the Civil N-Deal with US is not signed .! This minority government,-after the 7th of July when the Leftists had withdrawn support- has no business to push through the Deal anymore. Indians are tolerant and dharma still thrive ,otherwise, this ministers of the government would not have survuved as all were drastic failures. The Article is timely and worth circulation with translations throughout. Let us throw out this unholy, undemocratic regime. The dictatorship of Rajiv's widow should be brought to an end,in Parliament itself.!It should go because ,Dr. Singh did not take the Parlamentary sanction to move ahed with the N deal.! Patriotrically,our MPS should vote out the Manmohan Singh ministry
K.M.MURALIDHARAN 18/07/2008 05:55:14
This Unholy Government should GoManmohan Singh is the first Prime Minister to declare brazenly that one particular minority community has the first preference to the resources of the country. That statement was contrary to the letter and spirit of Indian Constitution, which declares all citizens to be equal.Public funds are being wasted to serve particular religious communities, at the expense of the majority of citizens.Inflation and terrorist attacks have made the lives of citizens miserable and unsafe.Since in effect he is a proxy, acting politically for another person, the Prime Minister is unable to take any decision on his own. What more shame can a country have?This Government should go. that will be good riddance for the country.If the minority Government had any political morality, it would have quit office the moment the Left parties had withdrawn their support. Three kudos to Dr. Jagan Kaul and Krishan Bhatnagar for the article. We, millions of Indians share your feeling. I request all dutifulMembers of the Parliament to make sure the defeat of Manmohan Government.
Rajan 17/07/2008 23:41:52
Bharat Mata FIRST , Political interests NEXT ....I do agree that Manmohan Sing govt. is a failure . But I sincerely hope to see the Govt wiinning the vote of confidence. The Nuclear Deal in spite of all it's negative aspects will enable India to outsmart China. Even a 10% increase to our pathetic Energy output will be a great boon to the national growth . And above all , the Chinese spies , the anti-Indian "COMMUNIST RASCALS" are doing everything including conspiracy with Islamic Fundamenatilists to defeat the Govt and the Indian nation . Bharat Mata will be heartbroken if the DOG-Children COMMUNISTS succeed . Finally a humble request to my beloved BJP and RSS Leaders " Bharat Mata FIRST and Political Interests NEXT" .

Cremation vs. Burial

CREMATIONS and BURIALS
For those who believe in burial as opposed to cremation, they feel that this ritual demonstrates respect for the human body. They also believe that the body should be allowed to decay by a normal process instead of the hastening which occurs during cremation.
It is also believed that since we are no longer allowed to burn leaves which pollute our environment with fossil fuels, that the burning of bodies releases a number of pollutants into our atmosphere. These include carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride.
Some cultures have wakes for the departed whereby family and friends come together to pay their last respects. Traditional Irish wakes are occasions for food, drink and music where grief for the passing of the deceased is mixed with a hearty send-off to the next world.
The ritual of burial is an opportunity for family and friends to say a last goodbye to their loved one. After the funeral, they will then often gather at the home of a family member where food and drink is served. This provides a further opportunity for the sharing of grief and mutual consolation of the bereaved.
Having a place to go to visit the departed provides solace to many loved ones. A burial site provides a tangible link to the deceased. Some cultures have a specific day when the families go to the grave sites, picnic and clean the family burial plot.
In Mexico, the Day of the Dead is a national holiday celebrated on November 1 and 2. Family reunions are held in cemeteries while coats of paint and structural repairs are made to grave sites. Fresh flowers, candles, candy, food and drink are put on the graves as gifts to the deceased where a party atmosphere prevails. Some families even hire mariachi bands.
The practice of cremation dates back to the Pre-Canaanites who used it until about 2,500 BC. It was not practiced by the Egyptians, Jews, Phoenicians or Carthaginians. The Greeks and Romans based their practices according to the way they viewed the after life. Those who believed in a life after death buried their dead with food, pets and even servants to smooth the transition from one form of existence to another. Others who believed that the body decays practiced cremation so that the deceased would have a speedy trip to the afterlife.
At this time, cremation is not allowed by the Orthodox Jews, the Islamic religion, Eastern Orthodox religion and some Fundamental Christian sects.
What cremation is: the body of the deceased is reduced to fragments of bone thru temperatures ranging from 1,500 F to 2,000 F degrees. The actual cremation process takes from two to three hours with the time depending upon the weight of the individual.
There are various services that specialize in scattering the ashes of the deceased. One of these services will scatter the remains amidst a special fireworks display. If the family wishes to engage a luxury Coast Guard certified yacht and Captain that will allow up to 6 loved ones, the fees are FROM $3,500 to scatter the ashes at sea.
Another service will scatter the ashes in the High Sierras. Their fee includes all documentation of the ritual, pictures of the remains and filing all necessary local governmental forms for the sum of $225.00.
In summation, cremation vs. burial is based upon culture as well as upon the attitudes of the individuals responsible for making the final decision for interring their loved one if no specific instructions were provided in a Will.

====================================================