If you are the merchant of death,be you the one conducting bomb blasts in Indian cities or the one who are attacking minorities in karnataka, orissa..elsewhere, please read this text once:
Perpetrators of terror and communal riots follow the distorted versions of the preaching and are trying to preach the same nonsense to the whole world. And as for the revenge you are talking about, that would help you only to loose the sympathy or concern others have about sufferings, if any. Terror mongers communal fanatics attacking minorities like you are serving interest of none other than evils who are out to destroy harmony. By evil act of this kind you are killing my fellow human beings. When you were exploding those bombs in the city , it’s not only my parents and relatives who had worried about my safety but also my friends, most of them Hindus and Christians. They hadn’t thought before calling me whether I am a Hindu or Muslim. Because they knew bombs, whether made by Muslims, Hindus or Christians would kill all living things on earth notwithstanding one’s religion, region or country. Bombs don’t discriminate Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims or Indians or Americans or Pakistanis. Everybody is same for them. They will kill whoever comes in their way. So my friends worried about me, for they are human beings above all. Then only they are Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims.
The killers are just killers everywhere. They are neither Muslims nor Hindus, neither theists nor atheists, neither spiritual nor intellectual. They are just killers. They deserve a punishment what a murderer deserves. Nobody, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, should be ashamed of their religion in front of these killers. A religion resides in people’s heart, not in guns.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Forecasting the Stock Market
“ Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs get slaughtered.” Anon.
Every day I see in the financial section of newspapers how to forecast what the market will do in 6 months, 12 months, several years. “Ten stocks that will double in the next 6 months.” Right! I have trouble trying to forecast what it will do tomorrow. Do not trust any who claims he knows what the future will be for the market.
Of course, your broker will send you gobs of slick material about various companies that predict they will double or triple in the next 12 months. On the New York Stock Exchange there will be about one half of one per cent (0.5%) of companies that will double this year. Are you smart enough to pick those winners? I’m not and I am considered a professional trader. And I am sure your broker isn’t either. He just wants to make a commission and is probably promoting a stock his brokerage company wants to push.
Every investor wants to know the future and will send money to some “expert” who will send him news about a company that only (?) he knows. And pigs can fly. One thing about the market. It is almost impossible to keep a secret and everyone knows everything about other companies. As soon as some “analyst” finds a cogent fact that can influence a stock price he will share that “secret” with a few close friends. Within minutes the “secret” is known by hundreds of thousands and is immediately reflected in the price of the stock.
If you do get sucked into one of these money traps by some smooth-talking salesman or newspaper verbiage I strongly suggest you immediately plan your exit strategy. Without an exit plan you can easily lose a large amount of your “investment”. This is not an investment; it is a gamble and should be treated as such. The first thought of any professional trader is ‘if I am wrong how much am I willing to lose’? Maybe 2%, 5%, certainly no more than 10%. Pros understand that small losses are OK, but never take a big loss.
From 1982 to 2000 it seemed everyone was a financial genius. How many of those folks kept those big winnings from 2000? Almost none. Most lost 40% to 60% of their money. Brokers said, “Hang in there. You are in for the long haul”. Unfortunately he did not tell you that Modern Portfolio Theory is based on a 40 year time line.
Yes, but understand you don’t need to predict anything. Don’t forecast. What you can easily learn is follow the major trend. You bought in 1982 and you sold out in 2000. The trend can be found in many ways with the simplest being posted every day in Investors Business Daily newspaper under the IBD Mutual Fund Index. When the Index price is above the 200-day moving average you own equities and when it is below you are in cash or bonds. Nothing complicated,
Don’t try to forecast the market. Let the market trend tell you.
courtesy:Al Thomas
Every day I see in the financial section of newspapers how to forecast what the market will do in 6 months, 12 months, several years. “Ten stocks that will double in the next 6 months.” Right! I have trouble trying to forecast what it will do tomorrow. Do not trust any who claims he knows what the future will be for the market.
Of course, your broker will send you gobs of slick material about various companies that predict they will double or triple in the next 12 months. On the New York Stock Exchange there will be about one half of one per cent (0.5%) of companies that will double this year. Are you smart enough to pick those winners? I’m not and I am considered a professional trader. And I am sure your broker isn’t either. He just wants to make a commission and is probably promoting a stock his brokerage company wants to push.
Every investor wants to know the future and will send money to some “expert” who will send him news about a company that only (?) he knows. And pigs can fly. One thing about the market. It is almost impossible to keep a secret and everyone knows everything about other companies. As soon as some “analyst” finds a cogent fact that can influence a stock price he will share that “secret” with a few close friends. Within minutes the “secret” is known by hundreds of thousands and is immediately reflected in the price of the stock.
If you do get sucked into one of these money traps by some smooth-talking salesman or newspaper verbiage I strongly suggest you immediately plan your exit strategy. Without an exit plan you can easily lose a large amount of your “investment”. This is not an investment; it is a gamble and should be treated as such. The first thought of any professional trader is ‘if I am wrong how much am I willing to lose’? Maybe 2%, 5%, certainly no more than 10%. Pros understand that small losses are OK, but never take a big loss.
From 1982 to 2000 it seemed everyone was a financial genius. How many of those folks kept those big winnings from 2000? Almost none. Most lost 40% to 60% of their money. Brokers said, “Hang in there. You are in for the long haul”. Unfortunately he did not tell you that Modern Portfolio Theory is based on a 40 year time line.
Yes, but understand you don’t need to predict anything. Don’t forecast. What you can easily learn is follow the major trend. You bought in 1982 and you sold out in 2000. The trend can be found in many ways with the simplest being posted every day in Investors Business Daily newspaper under the IBD Mutual Fund Index. When the Index price is above the 200-day moving average you own equities and when it is below you are in cash or bonds. Nothing complicated,
Don’t try to forecast the market. Let the market trend tell you.
courtesy:Al Thomas
MICROFINANCE AND AGRICULTURE: AN ANALYSIS
Microfinance groups can effectively improve agriculture, water resources and standard of life of an individual, community….etc as various empirical studies has pointed out. People’s contribution along with assistance from banks and government could work well to stimulate investment in rural agricultural activities. Obtaining fertilizers at lower rate than market rate and easy availability of credits can provide relief to farming community. As any micro credit programme there is mutual sharing of plans, actions, and crises due to which members are able to react quickly to emergency situations and mitigate loss.
Today, there are about 60,000 retail credit outlets of the formal banking sector in the rural areas comprising the 12,000 branches of district level cooperative banks, over 14,000 branches of the Regional Rural Banks. On an average, there is at least one retail credit outlet for about 5,000 rural people. In the mist of the apparent inadequacies of the formal financial system to cater to the needs of the rural poor, NABARD sponsored an action research project in 1987 through an NGO called MYRADA. Encouraged by the results of field experiments in group based approach for lending to the poor, NABARD launched a pilot project in 1991-1992 in partnership with NGOs for promoting and grooming self help groups of homogenous members and making savings from existing banks and within the existing legal frame work. Steady progress of the pilot project led to the mainstreaming of the SHG-Bank linkage programme in 1996 as normal banking activity of the banks with widespread acceptance. The rapid progress achieved in SHG formation, which has now turned in to an empowerment movement among women across the country, laid the foundation for emergence of MFIs in India.
Delivering small-scale loans and savings mechanisms can be particularly challenging in areas of low population density, where the distance between clients is great, transportation networks are often poor and low income levels tend to translate into impracticably small financial transactions. This phenomenon prevails in India to a large extent. India has seen man farmer suicides during the last few years; the reasons attributed are many, ranging from pro rich approach of World trade Organization to lack of access to proper credit facilities.
The identification of agricultural microfinance is a significant remaining challenge to financial sectors that serve the majority of the poor spurred CGAP to undertake an analysis of current practices. CGAP in 2002 began desk research, consultant site visits, and stakeholder consultations to identify promising agricultural operations. The study was based on Kyrgyzstan, Bolivia, Peru, Mozambique and Kenya.
Summary of the studies are as follows;
Bai Tushum Financial Foundation (BTF) began agricultural credit operation Kyrgyzstan in 2000, after it assumed the foundering, three-year-old portfolios of several small agricultural credit associations. Through dedicated attention to building a sustainable institution and creative solutions to cultural and legislative barriers, BTF has quickly evolved into a strong local institution serving a range of rural and urban borrowers’ needs. BTF has half of its loan portfolio in agriculture, offering crop production and livestock loans, as well as a mixture of agro-processing, trade, and mortgage loan products. Yet it is profitable, achieving 230 percent operational self-sufficiency in its first year of operation. The institution’s commitment to agricultural lending appears to have superseded profit maximization however, with trade and other loans sometimes cross-subsidizing the agricultural portfolio.
Confianza, Peru is a small regulated financial institution in central Peru that provides a mixture of rural, urban, small business, agricultural, housing, and consumer loans to low-income clients. Confianza’s loan portfolio was almost exclusively group loans for agricultural purposes. Confianza was forced to make a set of swift, substantial changes in order to survive due to plunging commodity prices and combination of other factors. The organization’s approach demonstrates that agricultural lending can be viable when combined with other rural and urban financial services, making small-farmer clients attractive when competition is strong in urban areas. By the end of 2002, the organization was financially sustainable, lending more than US $4 million annually.
Equity Bank Limited (Equity), Kenya provides microfinance services to more than 250,000 low and moderate income citizens in Nairobi and Kenya’s Central province via a network of branch offices and mobile banking units. In 1994, it began tailoring its loan and saving products to a microfinance market, eventually adding two loan products for tea and dairy farmers that are secured by agribusiness contracts. By the end of 2003, the deposit base of equity had grown o US $44 million and its outstanding loan portfolio topped $22 million.
In very recent years some recognition has been given to food production by urban residents. And urban agriculture is a concept that evokes contradictory images. However, as urbanization overtakes demographic trends in developing countries, it is critical that policy makers in developing countries, it is critical that policy makers in developing countries and urban planners in particular heighten their awareness and appreciation of the important contribution that urban food and non-food production is making to the diversity of livelihood activities of the urban poor and the quality of life in urban centers in developing countries (Remenyi, 1999, and UNDP,1996)
It is only relatively recently that microfinance providers in Bangladesh have begun to target the needs of the urban poor for financial services. The Grameen bank restricts itself to rural areas. BRAC, on the other hand, initiated an urban credit program for slum dwellers in 1997. In a city (Dhaka) of two million people below the poverty line the BRAC share is only 2.5% of the poor. BRAC urban credit program is targeted at women slum dwellers, especially recent arrivals who have least knowledge of where land might available for planting or animal production, and with the least opportunities to use their rural production skills.
In addition to BRAC, ASA and SafeSave, willing cooperation was forthcoming from the Credit and Development Forum (CDF) in Bangladesh. CDF is an umbrella body representing microfinance and micro enterprise development programs and NGOs in Bangladesh. It is electronically networked b email to all 850 member institutions.
The project’s impact on the agricultural sector, however, was modest, largely because of the scattered nature of its activities and future interventions in Bangladesh will require a radical rethink to maximize overall project impact.
Today, there are about 60,000 retail credit outlets of the formal banking sector in the rural areas comprising the 12,000 branches of district level cooperative banks, over 14,000 branches of the Regional Rural Banks. On an average, there is at least one retail credit outlet for about 5,000 rural people. In the mist of the apparent inadequacies of the formal financial system to cater to the needs of the rural poor, NABARD sponsored an action research project in 1987 through an NGO called MYRADA. Encouraged by the results of field experiments in group based approach for lending to the poor, NABARD launched a pilot project in 1991-1992 in partnership with NGOs for promoting and grooming self help groups of homogenous members and making savings from existing banks and within the existing legal frame work. Steady progress of the pilot project led to the mainstreaming of the SHG-Bank linkage programme in 1996 as normal banking activity of the banks with widespread acceptance. The rapid progress achieved in SHG formation, which has now turned in to an empowerment movement among women across the country, laid the foundation for emergence of MFIs in India.
Delivering small-scale loans and savings mechanisms can be particularly challenging in areas of low population density, where the distance between clients is great, transportation networks are often poor and low income levels tend to translate into impracticably small financial transactions. This phenomenon prevails in India to a large extent. India has seen man farmer suicides during the last few years; the reasons attributed are many, ranging from pro rich approach of World trade Organization to lack of access to proper credit facilities.
The identification of agricultural microfinance is a significant remaining challenge to financial sectors that serve the majority of the poor spurred CGAP to undertake an analysis of current practices. CGAP in 2002 began desk research, consultant site visits, and stakeholder consultations to identify promising agricultural operations. The study was based on Kyrgyzstan, Bolivia, Peru, Mozambique and Kenya.
Summary of the studies are as follows;
Bai Tushum Financial Foundation (BTF) began agricultural credit operation Kyrgyzstan in 2000, after it assumed the foundering, three-year-old portfolios of several small agricultural credit associations. Through dedicated attention to building a sustainable institution and creative solutions to cultural and legislative barriers, BTF has quickly evolved into a strong local institution serving a range of rural and urban borrowers’ needs. BTF has half of its loan portfolio in agriculture, offering crop production and livestock loans, as well as a mixture of agro-processing, trade, and mortgage loan products. Yet it is profitable, achieving 230 percent operational self-sufficiency in its first year of operation. The institution’s commitment to agricultural lending appears to have superseded profit maximization however, with trade and other loans sometimes cross-subsidizing the agricultural portfolio.
Confianza, Peru is a small regulated financial institution in central Peru that provides a mixture of rural, urban, small business, agricultural, housing, and consumer loans to low-income clients. Confianza’s loan portfolio was almost exclusively group loans for agricultural purposes. Confianza was forced to make a set of swift, substantial changes in order to survive due to plunging commodity prices and combination of other factors. The organization’s approach demonstrates that agricultural lending can be viable when combined with other rural and urban financial services, making small-farmer clients attractive when competition is strong in urban areas. By the end of 2002, the organization was financially sustainable, lending more than US $4 million annually.
Equity Bank Limited (Equity), Kenya provides microfinance services to more than 250,000 low and moderate income citizens in Nairobi and Kenya’s Central province via a network of branch offices and mobile banking units. In 1994, it began tailoring its loan and saving products to a microfinance market, eventually adding two loan products for tea and dairy farmers that are secured by agribusiness contracts. By the end of 2003, the deposit base of equity had grown o US $44 million and its outstanding loan portfolio topped $22 million.
In very recent years some recognition has been given to food production by urban residents. And urban agriculture is a concept that evokes contradictory images. However, as urbanization overtakes demographic trends in developing countries, it is critical that policy makers in developing countries, it is critical that policy makers in developing countries and urban planners in particular heighten their awareness and appreciation of the important contribution that urban food and non-food production is making to the diversity of livelihood activities of the urban poor and the quality of life in urban centers in developing countries (Remenyi, 1999, and UNDP,1996)
It is only relatively recently that microfinance providers in Bangladesh have begun to target the needs of the urban poor for financial services. The Grameen bank restricts itself to rural areas. BRAC, on the other hand, initiated an urban credit program for slum dwellers in 1997. In a city (Dhaka) of two million people below the poverty line the BRAC share is only 2.5% of the poor. BRAC urban credit program is targeted at women slum dwellers, especially recent arrivals who have least knowledge of where land might available for planting or animal production, and with the least opportunities to use their rural production skills.
In addition to BRAC, ASA and SafeSave, willing cooperation was forthcoming from the Credit and Development Forum (CDF) in Bangladesh. CDF is an umbrella body representing microfinance and micro enterprise development programs and NGOs in Bangladesh. It is electronically networked b email to all 850 member institutions.
The project’s impact on the agricultural sector, however, was modest, largely because of the scattered nature of its activities and future interventions in Bangladesh will require a radical rethink to maximize overall project impact.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The sad state of minorities in India
Large number of young Muslims are being victimised by police on the charge of being involved in terrorist acts across the country, according to a public tribunal.
In its report, a people's tribunal on atrocities committed against minorities in the name of fighting terrorism noted that such instances were reported more from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. In most of the cases, the persons picked up are not shown to be arrested by the police until many days after their arrest in gross violation of the law. Their families are also not informed about their arrest. In many cases, they have been tortured in police custody and made to 'confess' and sign blank papers, the report said, adding that the police has often been humiliating Muslim detenues on the ground of their religion. The tribunal, comprising retired judges, academicians and media persons, said the testimonies it heard showed widespread communalisation of the police across states in the country.It also flayed the media for uncritically publicising allegations levelled by the police.
This has resulted in the destruction of the lives and reputations of a large number of persons picked up by the police, who have later been found to be innocent, it added. The tribunal observed that citizens who are picked up by police officers for interrogation are subject to repeated harassment and torture, and are implicated in false cases even after release or acquittal. They are further subjected to mental and physical torture.
Lamenting on the lack of accountability, the tribunal said unfortunately, the courts are going along with this behaviour of the police and are virtually ignoring allegations of torture in police custody. Criticising the Human Rights Commission for not standing up against such violations, the jury felt that by and large the complaints were being treated with casual indifference. "They either do not take up such cases on the ground that they are the subject matter of court proceedings or just ask for a routine police report without getting any independent investigation done on such serious charges of human right violations."Some of the recommendations put forth by the tribunal are:
State Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission and State Minority Commission should take up such matters seriously and come to independent finding itself and awarding adequate compensation in suitable Cases. It should not wait for somebody to approach the commission but should take action Suo-moto.
Courts must not routinely grant police or judicial custody, but must examine at that stage whether there is any credible evidence against the accused. The courts should keep in mind that no reliance should be placed on the alleged confession of the accused even for consideration of bail/remand.
Whenever any person is released by the police for want of evidence against him the courts should award adequate compensation for destruction of his life and reputation. In such cases, the courts should examine if the prosecution was malafide, and if it is so found, the police officials involved must be held accountable and the compensation payable to the victim must be recovered from the officers concerned.
Independent police complaints authorities must be immediately set up at all levels in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the Police Reforms case.
Trial courts be provided with a medical officer, who can immediately examine any accused complaining of torture in police or judicial custody.
The number of trial courts must be greatly increased to ensure speedy conclusions of Trials. Investigations must also be concluded within the shortest possible time and extensions of time must not be routinely given.
The police, during interrogation or investigation, cannot get blank papers signed by the accused; Police officers found indulging in such practice must be severely punished.
Narco analysis is a psychologically and physically third degree method of investigation, which is not even scientifically proven. It must not be allowed on persons, particularly without consent.
The media, both print as well electronic, should be very careful not to publicise mere allegations or claims of the police, which can irreparably damage reputations of innocent persons without subjecting them to basic scrutiny.
India must immediately sign the International Criminal Court Treaty, known as the Rome Statute which has been signed by most countries.
Courtesy: Rediff.com, 28/8/2008
In its report, a people's tribunal on atrocities committed against minorities in the name of fighting terrorism noted that such instances were reported more from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. In most of the cases, the persons picked up are not shown to be arrested by the police until many days after their arrest in gross violation of the law. Their families are also not informed about their arrest. In many cases, they have been tortured in police custody and made to 'confess' and sign blank papers, the report said, adding that the police has often been humiliating Muslim detenues on the ground of their religion. The tribunal, comprising retired judges, academicians and media persons, said the testimonies it heard showed widespread communalisation of the police across states in the country.It also flayed the media for uncritically publicising allegations levelled by the police.
This has resulted in the destruction of the lives and reputations of a large number of persons picked up by the police, who have later been found to be innocent, it added. The tribunal observed that citizens who are picked up by police officers for interrogation are subject to repeated harassment and torture, and are implicated in false cases even after release or acquittal. They are further subjected to mental and physical torture.
Lamenting on the lack of accountability, the tribunal said unfortunately, the courts are going along with this behaviour of the police and are virtually ignoring allegations of torture in police custody. Criticising the Human Rights Commission for not standing up against such violations, the jury felt that by and large the complaints were being treated with casual indifference. "They either do not take up such cases on the ground that they are the subject matter of court proceedings or just ask for a routine police report without getting any independent investigation done on such serious charges of human right violations."Some of the recommendations put forth by the tribunal are:
State Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission and State Minority Commission should take up such matters seriously and come to independent finding itself and awarding adequate compensation in suitable Cases. It should not wait for somebody to approach the commission but should take action Suo-moto.
Courts must not routinely grant police or judicial custody, but must examine at that stage whether there is any credible evidence against the accused. The courts should keep in mind that no reliance should be placed on the alleged confession of the accused even for consideration of bail/remand.
Whenever any person is released by the police for want of evidence against him the courts should award adequate compensation for destruction of his life and reputation. In such cases, the courts should examine if the prosecution was malafide, and if it is so found, the police officials involved must be held accountable and the compensation payable to the victim must be recovered from the officers concerned.
Independent police complaints authorities must be immediately set up at all levels in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the Police Reforms case.
Trial courts be provided with a medical officer, who can immediately examine any accused complaining of torture in police or judicial custody.
The number of trial courts must be greatly increased to ensure speedy conclusions of Trials. Investigations must also be concluded within the shortest possible time and extensions of time must not be routinely given.
The police, during interrogation or investigation, cannot get blank papers signed by the accused; Police officers found indulging in such practice must be severely punished.
Narco analysis is a psychologically and physically third degree method of investigation, which is not even scientifically proven. It must not be allowed on persons, particularly without consent.
The media, both print as well electronic, should be very careful not to publicise mere allegations or claims of the police, which can irreparably damage reputations of innocent persons without subjecting them to basic scrutiny.
India must immediately sign the International Criminal Court Treaty, known as the Rome Statute which has been signed by most countries.
Courtesy: Rediff.com, 28/8/2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Behind The Opposition of Nuclear Deal-Part II
The Deal has been pushed forward in India in an anti-democratic manner without approval of the Parliament - in fact in the teeth of opposition by a large majority of parliamentarians. Power from nuclear energy is a failed project in developed countries and the eagerness of the Prime Minister to clinch the Deal fails to generate any enthusiasm among the common people of India. Neither is nuclear energy a solution to global warming as some experts make it out to be. On the contrary the entire nuclear fuel cycle is fraught with danger and exposes human beings to hazardous radiation. The world is yet to find a safe way for disposal of radioactive waste, a factor which is constraining the growth of nuclear power programmes in the developed countries.
The US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Japan all seem to be reviewing their nuclear energy programmes and commissioning of new nuclear power plants in all these countries has almost come to a stand still. Australia, the biggest supplier of Uranium in the world, is yet to initiate a nuclear power programme. Everybody has realized there is no future in nuclear energy. Advanced countries are looking for alternatives. But because of the parochial vision of our government the ruling class of this country has become obsessed with the nuclear option without any clear understanding of its implications. There seems to be a superficial feeling that this Deal is somehow going to enhance the stature of India in the community of nations. Hence it is matter of vanity and false sense of pride with possibly no concrete benefits for the people of this country.
A Planning Commission study shows that even with the best possible estimates of capacity addition in power generation after the Deal is through, the country is not going to increase its share of electricity from nuclear energy from the present 3% to more than 7-9%. And this would come at a huge cost -- financially and politically. We would be required to bring our foreign policy in line with the US policy as has been already exhibited by India being forced to vote against Iran in the IAEA meeting.
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal is meant to serve the interests of the global nuclear power industry and is a ploy to keep India away from staking claims to shrinking fossil fuel reserves in proportion to its large population so that these reserves may last for some more time for the rich countries.
The undue importance given to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal as opposed to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, even though gas is predicted to be the major source of power globally for the next two to three decades, raises questions about the motives of the Indian government.
In the face of unprecedented pressure mounted by the US, the Left Front, a partner in the UPA alliance, must be congratulated for successfully stalling the Indo-US Nuclear Deal up till now. The Deal is now stuck at the stage of finalizing an India specific agreement with the IAEA. The Left party leaders have displayed foresight in foiling the US hegemonic designs in South Asia even though they have yet to take an ideological position against the nuclear power programme. It would make more political, economic and environmental sense for India to pursue a path of self reliant renewable energy programme for fulfilling its need rather than the elusive nuclear energy for which we'll always be at the mercy of external agencies. But then India will have to give up its own hegemonic designs of acting as a regional military super power.
Clean source of energy will have to be accompanied by clean politics. India will have to work on the agenda of regional peace, disarmament and stability rather than converting it into a region of warfare. If Manmohan Singh embarks on this twin objective programme, he would be remembered for his wisdom more than he would be if he were to finalize the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. He would favourably alter the course of history of not only this nation but also possibly the world towards a cleaner, safer and secure future.
Courtesy :Dr Sandeep Pandey.
The US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Japan all seem to be reviewing their nuclear energy programmes and commissioning of new nuclear power plants in all these countries has almost come to a stand still. Australia, the biggest supplier of Uranium in the world, is yet to initiate a nuclear power programme. Everybody has realized there is no future in nuclear energy. Advanced countries are looking for alternatives. But because of the parochial vision of our government the ruling class of this country has become obsessed with the nuclear option without any clear understanding of its implications. There seems to be a superficial feeling that this Deal is somehow going to enhance the stature of India in the community of nations. Hence it is matter of vanity and false sense of pride with possibly no concrete benefits for the people of this country.
A Planning Commission study shows that even with the best possible estimates of capacity addition in power generation after the Deal is through, the country is not going to increase its share of electricity from nuclear energy from the present 3% to more than 7-9%. And this would come at a huge cost -- financially and politically. We would be required to bring our foreign policy in line with the US policy as has been already exhibited by India being forced to vote against Iran in the IAEA meeting.
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal is meant to serve the interests of the global nuclear power industry and is a ploy to keep India away from staking claims to shrinking fossil fuel reserves in proportion to its large population so that these reserves may last for some more time for the rich countries.
The undue importance given to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal as opposed to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, even though gas is predicted to be the major source of power globally for the next two to three decades, raises questions about the motives of the Indian government.
In the face of unprecedented pressure mounted by the US, the Left Front, a partner in the UPA alliance, must be congratulated for successfully stalling the Indo-US Nuclear Deal up till now. The Deal is now stuck at the stage of finalizing an India specific agreement with the IAEA. The Left party leaders have displayed foresight in foiling the US hegemonic designs in South Asia even though they have yet to take an ideological position against the nuclear power programme. It would make more political, economic and environmental sense for India to pursue a path of self reliant renewable energy programme for fulfilling its need rather than the elusive nuclear energy for which we'll always be at the mercy of external agencies. But then India will have to give up its own hegemonic designs of acting as a regional military super power.
Clean source of energy will have to be accompanied by clean politics. India will have to work on the agenda of regional peace, disarmament and stability rather than converting it into a region of warfare. If Manmohan Singh embarks on this twin objective programme, he would be remembered for his wisdom more than he would be if he were to finalize the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. He would favourably alter the course of history of not only this nation but also possibly the world towards a cleaner, safer and secure future.
Courtesy :Dr Sandeep Pandey.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
"Why do I Oppose Indo-U.S Nuclear Deal?"
I am apprehensive about this deal because of various other reasons as well. Let us consider any treaty or international law with regard to the “respect” the US has been “endowing” upon them!
They have signed CTBT, but not ratified it ,
They have not signed Kyoto protocol,
They don’t care at all about the Geneva Convention ( Check for Rumsfeld, with the torn Geneva Convention Papers, in his hands, in Google!).
They withdrew from the International Court of Justice in 1986,
They have Nelson Mandela listed in the “terrorist list” (After i came to know this, i just could not stop laughing for an hour so. Probably in the 50’s Gandhi, would have been featured in the list!)
They knew there was no WMD in Iraq, but went on to attack them on the basis of their own false allegations!
IAEA- to which India is planning to hold talks about the 123 agreement – have been constantly bringing out reports that Iran doesn’t have enough capabilities to make a nuclear bomb. US is not convinced about this either; with their sheer conviction based on some biblical blathering about Rapture, they are devising an attack on Iran.
It is dangerous. If the US is telling Iran or North Korea against developing nuclear weapons. Even George Bush has described as evil the weapons of mass destruction. So it is wrong for the US to help any other countryThere is an awful lot of noise in the media these days because the dogmatic left parties in India are opposing the Nuclear Deal, the 123 agreement with United States. Left, according to the media is retrograde; they are still stuck in the Soviet era, the cold war hangover. The “rising” India needs energy, which, according to the present Congress government can only be solved by nuclear energy. The left claims, it is more of a strategic deal, the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress will subvert the deal and so on…
So where do I stand on this? I will not get into the technical aspects of the deal, but, the fact is that I don’t really need to delve into technicalities to oppose this deal. I have enough and more reasons that will eclipse the “technical advantage” this deal may provide.
First of all, I would like to ask: Where is that gas pipeline from Iran which we planned for? It has been totally pushed to oblivion; the only minister in the Congress government who pushed this plan was the former (please note!) petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar. He has been booted out of this portfolio a while ago and now, heads the sports ministry, and is in logger heads with all the sports bureaucrats in India. It is Congress’s internal issue that he was booted from the post. But, he actively campaigned for the Iran pipeline, and after he was made to leave, the petroleum ministry never uttered a word about this pipeline! Sources say: the American administration was not very happy with Mani; the self proclaimed leftist in the congress government. So that’s what he gets: a bloody boot! Having Mani as the petroleum minister who wanted to realize the pipeline would have irked the American administration as they are waiting for an opportunity to bring “Democracy in Iran” and make the government in Iran “accountable to the people”. As we all know, America is doing a tremendous job with Iraq! So we have been made to completely forget this pipeline by the media, as it is not acceptable to America and we still claim we have an independent foreign policy.
I am trying to dissect the sheer apprehension in me, about India signing a nuclear deal with them. Vikram Sood writes in The Hindu: “For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent.”
I still believe that this more of a strategic partnership than it being a simple nuclear deal. Dogmatic, you would say. US, with a tie-up with General Musharaff has been meddling around with our neighbor for a long while, but has not gained anything in particular, other than some hostility from the ultra-right wing groups in the region. With Russia and China building up strategic partnership through Shanghai Cooperation Organisation , joined military exercises and forthright comments from the hard man Putin against the unipolar world, the leftover major player in this area is India, with a susceptible Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. So, this deal is definitely more than a simple nuclear deal!
So what is wrong with having a nuclear deal which is not exactly a nuclear deal alone? Vikram Sood goes on writing in The Hindu: “The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.” If Japan, an outright ally of US, could take seven years in studying and charting out the repercussions of such a deal, why are we especially Manmohan Singh in a hurry? Is it that US needs an ally in us when they attack Iran? Russia and China have big business interests in Iran, they would not come out in support for the attack. As India has been restricted in laying the gas pipeline, we are not at stake if they attack Iran and some coaxing/bullying will enable USA to get us on their side. Though it is unlikely that we will send any troops or ammunitions, but we keeping silent, when such a blatant aggression takes place is more than enough for us to be on their side. So, there is no wonder US is pushing for another deal, along with the Nuclear one called Access and Cross Servicing Agreement, which will inevitably provide logistical support for US from different locations in India. I am not confident enough to make a statement on the part of our people about their knowledge that Iran shares a boundary with Afghanistan, and a logistical base in India for the US of A will not be a bad idea for their future plans of offering a “shock and awe” treatment for Iran!
They have been blatantly attacking nations doting all over the globe! They also maintain around 700 military settlements across continents. Their view of the world has a more uni-polar nature, where they tend to boss around.
So, where is our assurance that the US of A will abide all those clauses in the 123 Agreement? Their credentials from the past does not assure me that they will.
It is ridiculous and callous that our media is trying to simplify the issue as a dogmatic subservience. It shows the struggle of Indian Left, which failed to carve an identity of their own in this country. So, the middle class in India, catered by columns from the ilk of Tavleen Singh, who came on an NDTV discussion, with her perky mannerisms said, “ the model of democracy which US brought about in Afghanistan is wonderful”, are misled.
Her claim almost put me in bouts of laughter, pushed me in to a sense of sympathy, which later, turned into rage. I wonder, if there is any difference between her and a US spokesperson. So, it is not surprising to see the Indian, angrezi-speaking, middle class, supporting the Congress in their act of signing the deal, and vilifying the Left. I believe that it is crass on the part of the Indian media, to reduce this issue as a mere dogmatic subservience. When media affirm this point time and again, they fail to consider the point the Left is trying to raise, and is restricting them from having a voice of their own. This voice raised by the Left is to be considered, when Russia and China hardly matters as sources of inspiration for them anymore.
To conclude, personally, I am reluctant to accept the “clauses” offered by an American system, which I know is totally flawed, corrupted, and brazen on all fronts!
http://tushizap.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/why-i-oppose-the-nulcear-deal/
They have signed CTBT, but not ratified it ,
They have not signed Kyoto protocol,
They don’t care at all about the Geneva Convention ( Check for Rumsfeld, with the torn Geneva Convention Papers, in his hands, in Google!).
They withdrew from the International Court of Justice in 1986,
They have Nelson Mandela listed in the “terrorist list” (After i came to know this, i just could not stop laughing for an hour so. Probably in the 50’s Gandhi, would have been featured in the list!)
They knew there was no WMD in Iraq, but went on to attack them on the basis of their own false allegations!
IAEA- to which India is planning to hold talks about the 123 agreement – have been constantly bringing out reports that Iran doesn’t have enough capabilities to make a nuclear bomb. US is not convinced about this either; with their sheer conviction based on some biblical blathering about Rapture, they are devising an attack on Iran.
It is dangerous. If the US is telling Iran or North Korea against developing nuclear weapons. Even George Bush has described as evil the weapons of mass destruction. So it is wrong for the US to help any other countryThere is an awful lot of noise in the media these days because the dogmatic left parties in India are opposing the Nuclear Deal, the 123 agreement with United States. Left, according to the media is retrograde; they are still stuck in the Soviet era, the cold war hangover. The “rising” India needs energy, which, according to the present Congress government can only be solved by nuclear energy. The left claims, it is more of a strategic deal, the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress will subvert the deal and so on…
So where do I stand on this? I will not get into the technical aspects of the deal, but, the fact is that I don’t really need to delve into technicalities to oppose this deal. I have enough and more reasons that will eclipse the “technical advantage” this deal may provide.
First of all, I would like to ask: Where is that gas pipeline from Iran which we planned for? It has been totally pushed to oblivion; the only minister in the Congress government who pushed this plan was the former (please note!) petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar. He has been booted out of this portfolio a while ago and now, heads the sports ministry, and is in logger heads with all the sports bureaucrats in India. It is Congress’s internal issue that he was booted from the post. But, he actively campaigned for the Iran pipeline, and after he was made to leave, the petroleum ministry never uttered a word about this pipeline! Sources say: the American administration was not very happy with Mani; the self proclaimed leftist in the congress government. So that’s what he gets: a bloody boot! Having Mani as the petroleum minister who wanted to realize the pipeline would have irked the American administration as they are waiting for an opportunity to bring “Democracy in Iran” and make the government in Iran “accountable to the people”. As we all know, America is doing a tremendous job with Iraq! So we have been made to completely forget this pipeline by the media, as it is not acceptable to America and we still claim we have an independent foreign policy.
I am trying to dissect the sheer apprehension in me, about India signing a nuclear deal with them. Vikram Sood writes in The Hindu: “For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent.”
I still believe that this more of a strategic partnership than it being a simple nuclear deal. Dogmatic, you would say. US, with a tie-up with General Musharaff has been meddling around with our neighbor for a long while, but has not gained anything in particular, other than some hostility from the ultra-right wing groups in the region. With Russia and China building up strategic partnership through Shanghai Cooperation Organisation , joined military exercises and forthright comments from the hard man Putin against the unipolar world, the leftover major player in this area is India, with a susceptible Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. So, this deal is definitely more than a simple nuclear deal!
So what is wrong with having a nuclear deal which is not exactly a nuclear deal alone? Vikram Sood goes on writing in The Hindu: “The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.” If Japan, an outright ally of US, could take seven years in studying and charting out the repercussions of such a deal, why are we especially Manmohan Singh in a hurry? Is it that US needs an ally in us when they attack Iran? Russia and China have big business interests in Iran, they would not come out in support for the attack. As India has been restricted in laying the gas pipeline, we are not at stake if they attack Iran and some coaxing/bullying will enable USA to get us on their side. Though it is unlikely that we will send any troops or ammunitions, but we keeping silent, when such a blatant aggression takes place is more than enough for us to be on their side. So, there is no wonder US is pushing for another deal, along with the Nuclear one called Access and Cross Servicing Agreement, which will inevitably provide logistical support for US from different locations in India. I am not confident enough to make a statement on the part of our people about their knowledge that Iran shares a boundary with Afghanistan, and a logistical base in India for the US of A will not be a bad idea for their future plans of offering a “shock and awe” treatment for Iran!
They have been blatantly attacking nations doting all over the globe! They also maintain around 700 military settlements across continents. Their view of the world has a more uni-polar nature, where they tend to boss around.
So, where is our assurance that the US of A will abide all those clauses in the 123 Agreement? Their credentials from the past does not assure me that they will.
It is ridiculous and callous that our media is trying to simplify the issue as a dogmatic subservience. It shows the struggle of Indian Left, which failed to carve an identity of their own in this country. So, the middle class in India, catered by columns from the ilk of Tavleen Singh, who came on an NDTV discussion, with her perky mannerisms said, “ the model of democracy which US brought about in Afghanistan is wonderful”, are misled.
Her claim almost put me in bouts of laughter, pushed me in to a sense of sympathy, which later, turned into rage. I wonder, if there is any difference between her and a US spokesperson. So, it is not surprising to see the Indian, angrezi-speaking, middle class, supporting the Congress in their act of signing the deal, and vilifying the Left. I believe that it is crass on the part of the Indian media, to reduce this issue as a mere dogmatic subservience. When media affirm this point time and again, they fail to consider the point the Left is trying to raise, and is restricting them from having a voice of their own. This voice raised by the Left is to be considered, when Russia and China hardly matters as sources of inspiration for them anymore.
To conclude, personally, I am reluctant to accept the “clauses” offered by an American system, which I know is totally flawed, corrupted, and brazen on all fronts!
http://tushizap.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/why-i-oppose-the-nulcear-deal/
Friday, June 27, 2008
How To Write And Publish Your Own Book
There are great rewards when writing a book for the first time. Free ArticlesThere is a great sense of accomplishment by the individual person once they have a complete manuscript in their hand.The other reward is obviously money; if you write a good book that is marketed correctly you will receive a reward.Depending on how well you market your book will depend on the size of the pay cheque.The first step to writing a good book is…Writing the book.Start on your computer or with a piece of paper and start writing; don’t go back to correct spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, sentences that don’t make sense. Just keep writing.Set yourself a target each day, say you want to write 20 pages in a day, then stick to it and do it.In a short amount of time, hopefully in less than two weeks you will have a rough manuscript.The next step is to get your book proof read and copy edited. The copy editor will make any grammatical changes, correct spelling mistakes and get your book reading well.You then need to design the layout of your book, this is important because the book must have sufficient gaps, payout in the correct paces so the readers don’t get tired.You then need to design a cover for your book, you can do this yourself or you can find a cover designer on the Internet.Next you need to get an ISBN number; you can usually find these on the Internet. You can buy these from a few sources; the best price I have seen them for is $55.00.All books need printing, and you need to find a printing company, I would suggest Gardeners or Book Force. Upload your book to their websites; they will take care of all the printing and distribution for you.The penultimate step is to deposit your books in the legal deposit library; this is a requirement that 6 copies of each book written need to be deposited to qualify as an actual book.The final step is to register a book registration company; in the UK it’s Nielsons Book Data. You need to find out what it is in the USA. If you are a resident there.You all done, your book will appear on Amazon and other online book shops, all you have to do is go out and promote your book.Get out on the road, hire a PR agency, get on your local radio station, write to the newspapers.Good Luck and Good Writing.
Christopher Angus is a writer and promotes the following sites: http://www.mdhsasbestosconsultants.com/ http://www.the-printing-company.com/ http://www.everest-oxfordshire.co.uk/. » Read more articles by Chris Angus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)