Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Are Indian nuclear
power reactors safe ?

By K S Parthasarathy

Many perceive nuclear industry as an unloved industry. They may not know that currently, over 440 nuclear power reactors, operating in 31 countries, produce about 16 per cent of the electric power generated worldwide. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) operates 16 reactors with a total installed capacity of 3900 MWe. They include two Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) at . . .......more

Loyalty to royalty..........

By Allabaksh

With an assured overt support of the officialdom and political class in Washington, every US visit of the military ruler of Pakistan, Gen Pervez Musharraf, will remain 'a resounding success' in terms of both a political and media event. However, the clever man that he is, Musharraf utilised his latest visit to the land of his patrons by doing something that is astounding even by .......more

EDITORIAL

'Rang De Basanti'

Was it a correct decision by a prominent television channel to have shown "Rang De Basanti" on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti on October 2? There are no two opinions that "Rang de Basanti" is one of the most inspiring movies produced in recent years. It has almost become a cult among the youth of the country fed up with political and bureaucratic corruption. It is not for nothing that it has been cleared as India's official entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars to be held in February next in Los Angeles (United States). Incidentally, Jammu's Ved Rahi has been among the panel of leading Indian film producers who have selected the film for the highly prestigious global contest. The movie's producers have been encouraged to compete for seven more categories: best film, direction, cinematography, screenplay, editing, art direction, and sound design. There are many, however, who would have preferred "Lage Raho Munnabhai" as the country's formal representative at the 29th Annual Academy Awards function. Although different in content and approach it has equally stunned the nation. It has effectively tailored the Gandhian thought to tense modern life. No less a person than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made a reference about this picture during his recent trip to South Africa. Since, however, the decision about Oscar participation is in the domain of experts one should trust their judgment and hope for the best. According to reports they have found "Rang De Basanti" more representative of the contemporary India. However, the question that we want to address in these columns is whether it is relevant to the theme of ahimsa that October 2 represents. The film draws a parallel between the activities of revolutionaries like Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh and the predicament of the present generation of young persons. The latter constituting a group of five boys are shocked after the concerned political authority (Defence Minister in this case) puts the blame on the inexperience of one of their Air Force pilot friends for a MIG fighter aircraft mishap. The truth is that the pilot is much qualified for the job and sacrifices his life in a bid to ensure that the flying machine crashes far away from the populated area. The airplane is said to have actually collapsed because of faulty spare parts. The anguished young persons try to organise peaceful protests to press the acceptance of their demand for the resignation of the Defence Minister. They are foiled in their efforts by the ruthless police oppression and machinations of the ruling party. They then decide to take up matters in their hands in the manner of Azad and Bhagat Singh. One of them kills his father who is the supplier of spare parts and an accomplice of the Minister in shady deals. Together the young band guns down the Minister and then captures the All India Radio headquarters to take an "awakened" nation into confidence about their doings. Lest they were dubbed as terrorists working at the behest of "a foreign power" they decide not to return fire even as they are cornered and shot down in the AIR studio by the security forces.

As stated earlier the film subtly highlights prevailing deceit and distrust in our dispensation. Without beating about the bush it brings into sharp focus the real-life frequent occurrences of MiG accidents in the country. It has been cleared by important people like Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee and three chiefs of defence forces apart from, of course, the Censor Board. This speaks of the maturity of our democracy that none of the bigwigs has come in the way of the release of the movie. Their conduct in this case is a cause of celebration for us as an open society even as there is serious realisation that sleaze and deception are eating into its vitals. Would Mahatma Gandhi have liked the climax had he been around? Would he have allowed its screening on such a day as his birthday? The answer to the first question can only be one: no. He would not have agreed with the murder of anyone to prove his point. Violence was anathema to him. As for the second query he would not have created a hindrance. He did not believe in silencing his opponents but winning over them through dialogue and persuasion. The closest perhaps he would have come is to convey his disapproval of the way of tackling the evils confronting our administrative apparatus. No purpose will be served by tearing out of context his observation: "Better for than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle."

Having noted this one must admit that Bollywood has presented two clear choices before the country to cure its ills. "Rang De Basanti" and "Lage Raho Munnabhai" show the desperation that prevails among the upcoming generations. They are honest in their staging but provide different remedies. Those wanting to pay a tribute to Gandhi would have preferred to watch "Lage Raho Munnabhai" on October 2.

The first test

Let the probe into 7/11, 2006 be the first test of working of proposed joint anti-terrorism apparatus between India and Pakistan. Having conclusively established Pakistan's hand in Mumbai serial blasts on that fateful day New Delhi is confronting Islamabad with the necessary evidence. For its part Pakistan has held out the assurance that it would take action against any of its nationals having links with these explosions. These are the positive vibes in the midst of otherwise shrill cries notably by Pakistan which had initially sought to dismiss Mumbai police's findings in this behalf as "propagandist". Islamabad had gone to the extent of describing the police conclusions as not being "based on facts". "The purpose of issuing such statements," in its view, "is to divert attention from Indian indigenous elements by India who are behind terror attacks in Mumbai and Malegoan. This is all internal. This is another effort to externalise internal malaise." Is this not comical? Can there be a better example of pot calling the kettle black? It is interesting that Pakistan has at the same described terror as "a problem and menace that affects all of us generally."

The past experience in these cases shows that Pakistan cares a little for evidence. Even now it has stated that that it would not "hand over" suspects. This indicates that its response once again will be half-hearted. How will the proposed common machine function in that event? New Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon has done well to state that Islamabad will be judged by its actions and not words.

Minority votebanks

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Politic is a strange game of permutation and combinations. All political parties are engaged in wooing the Muslim voters. Given a 10 per cent or more Muslim population in 207 parliamentary constituencies, the Millat (community) appears to be almost in a position to make or break the fortunes of a political party. For the Congress, the move to placate the minorities flies in the face of the impression that the party has virtually given up on the support of the Muslim community after the Babri Masjid demolition. Whether the search for lost minority votes will bear some fruit largely remains an open question.

Are religious communities monolithic in terms of their political preferences? Perhaps nothing is farther from truth. Every attempt to create a major national political party of the Muslims after independence has failed. Equally notable is the paradox pointed out by the researcher Javed Alam: "As a pattern, Muslim and Hindu communal political power does not territorially coincide." To wit, the strength of the Bharatiya Janata Party lies essentially in the north and west, while Muslim parties have gained ground elsewhere: Indian Union Muslim League in Kerala or the Majlis-e-Ittehedul Muslimeen in Andhra Pradesh.

Since separate constituencies have been clearly reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes - since the second general election in 1957 - but not for the Muslims (except in the pre-independence period) the voting patterns of the latter despite the communal consequences of the partition have been greatly intriguing. It is this conundrum that the votebank theory tried to address but ended up in communalising the discourse of election analysis.

Muslim voting behaviour pattern disprove the 'minorities as a monolith' hypothesis. The myth then that Muslims vote en bloc emerged from the fact that in the first two general and state assembly election (1952 and 1957). The community voted predominantly for the Congress party. But then, so did the majority community. If in the initial elections the percentages of Muslim voting for the Congress were somewhat higher than those of the majority community, this could have been the result of the partition, and the charismatic, secular appeal of Pandit Nehru.

Already by the third Lok Sabha polls of 1962, the pattern had changed significantly. The first pre-election survey of 1961 indicated that while 58 per cent of the Hindus favoured the Congress, only 56 per cent of the Muslims supported the party. Between 1962 and 1971, Muslims voted more or less along the lines of the majority community.

The Congress - Muslim hiatus came with the excesses of Emergency in 1975, the formal separation following in the 1977 general elections. Though some claim that the divorce came only with the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the Mumbai riots facts show this is not entirely correct. Quite contrary to conventional wisdom which claims that right after 1977, the Muslim community moved back to the Congress, figures show that from 1977 to 1984 the Congress polled a lower percentage of votes in constituencies that had higher Muslim population content then others.

The explanation for the post-1977 differential pattern of Muslim vote lies in the growing division between the Ashrafs and the Azlafs, the forwards and the backward classes among the Muslims. While the Congress could win back some of the Ashrafs castes after 1977, the more backward sections among the Muslims proved more difficult to be wooed. This differential pattern of voting among the Muslims was clearly evident in the November 1998 state assembly election in M.P and Rajasthan. The Muslim-Yadav (MY) coalition in Bihar, Lalu Yadav, had largely been backward class coalition from both the religions. It was precisely the division of Muslim vote between Janata Dal, Samata party and the Congress in the 1995 Bihar assembly elections which helped the BJP to make its first inroads in several constituencies of north Bihar. In Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav had the support of the minority community in six Lok Sabha constituencies in 1998. In 2004 parliamentary elections the Muslim votes had split among non-Congress parties.

While, the long-term patterns of minority voting behaviour explode the myth of the Muslims monolith, short-term trends and constituency based research disprove the mini-votebank thesis held dear by some eminent Muslim leaders. The strategies employed by the minorities are neither uniform nor simple. Electoral research has conclusively shown that not only minorities of various regions and provinces vote very differently, even within the same region there are differential voting patterns even among neighbouring constituencies. This seems to hold true both for assembly and parliamentary polls.

Professor Harry Blair in his research on Muslim voting patterns in the 1970s in Bihar showed that population percentages of minorities within a constituency acted as a critical variable. While constituencies with higher Muslim populations voted more for Muslim candidates, those below the critical 20 to 25 per cent population voted strategically for the candidate most likely to win. Below 10 per cent population, Muslims within a constituency voted like their Hindu brethren. A similar pattern was observed by Mr. Paul Brass in the Lok Sabha elections in Uttar Pradesh.

Unfortunately for the self-appointed messiahs of all communities the voters are not as gullible as they would seem. And communities, both majority and minority, are not as monolithic as they are made out to be. In fact, all the signals for the impending in State assembly elections in 2007 point in the other direction. With uncertainties galore in the run-up to the impending polls, a process of dealignment between voters of all communities and political parties has set in. Old equations are out and new ones are yet to form. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the preferences of the Muslim voter will be shaped entirely by their response to the events following the Babri Msjid demolition. It also cannot be said that the Muslim vote would simply be a response to the issue of reservations or various giveaways likely to be promised by political parties, right before the elections. The choice will be much more complex, determined largely by local constraints. While Muslims in larger numbers are certain to vote for the SP in Uttar Pradesh - Congress will be a serious contender for the minority votes in Gujarat. Any division of minority votes among various contenders will have only one clear outcome; it will benefit the BJP in various parts of the country. INAV

Are Indian nuclear power reactors safe ?

By K S Parthasarathy

Many wrongly believe that nuclear power reactors may explode like atom bombs. The fraction of the fissionable material (uranium-235) in nuclear fuel is very small. In pressurized heavy water reactors, the percentage of uranium-235 in the fuel is 0.71. To produce an atom bomb you need uranium-235 at concentrations of above 90 percent.

Annual radiation dose due to radioactive releases permitted by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), to a member of the public staying at the fence post of any Indian nuclear power reactor is too small to be measured directly. The estimated dose varies between a few microsievert/year to a few tens of microsievert/year, a small fraction of 1000 microsievert, the annual dose limit for public, prescribed by AERB. (Microsievert is a unit of biologically significant dose. The skin dose in a chest x-ray examination is about 200 microsievert).

The doses to radiation workers are also within the limits prescribed by AERB.

NPCIL complies with the provisions in the AERB safety codes on siting, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. These are in line with those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Board authorizes NPCIL at stages such as setting, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning, AERB evaluates the sites for nuclear power stations selected by the Central Government before issuing sitem approval.

When a nuclear reactor starts operation, its fuel is mildly radioactive. But radioactivity gradually accumulates. The radioactivity in a reactor will be released only if barriers such as fuel material, its sheath, the coolant, the primary heat transport system, filter and ion exchange system, water in the calandria or reactor vessel and the primary and secondary containment break open. The primary and secondary containment structures are made of high quality, high strength concrete. Rigorous quality control during construction assures the integrity of every barrier including the double containment.

If an accident occurs the containment volume will get bottled up automatically. The air in the containment can be vented through 93-metre stack to ensure dilution after removing particulate activity using high efficiency filters.

The reactors have two independent, fast acting shut down systems which will get activated in an emergency.

Reactors have reliable core cooling systems. The emergency core cooling system consists of high pressure heavy water injection, intermediate pressure water injection, low power water injection and low pressure long term recirculation.

Power supply to the core cooling pumps is provided from several sources. Normal power is drawn from the grid. The operating management ensures the availability of reliable power by maintaining standby diesel generators. If they fail, there is bank of batteries which provide power to the coolant pumps.

An exclusion zone of 1.6 km around the reactor is another safety feature. The public cannot enter the area without permission.

Redundancy and diversity of safety systems ensure their reliability. The station staff checks various safety related systems as per prescribed periodicity and maintains records.

Every nuclear power station has in place detailed emergency preparedness plans before starting operation. Emergencies can be at the plant or site or offsite. Relevant authorities organise drills at ever station as per prescribed periodicity. They revise the plans based on review of the drills.

NPCIL manages radioactive waste generated at each station as per approved procedures. Spent fuel which contains high level radioactivity is currently stored at each site. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed technoloy to vitrify high level wastes.

AERB licenses the operating staff of nuclear power stations at different levels. The staff fulfils prescribed academic and professional qualifications and training requirements. During 2005, AERB licensed 187 candidates for positions such as Shift Charge Engineer, Additional Shift Charge Engineer, Control Engineer etc. AERB inspects the power stations regularly to identify unsafe conditions, if any. The Board directs remedial actions as appropriate. During 2005, AERB carried out 22 inspections (17 routine and 5 special) at power stations. The Board ensures that the station complies with the maintenance, in-service-inspection and quality assurance programmes.

NPCIL reviews every safety related event occurring in any nuclear power station. AERB rates them into seven levels (1 to 7) depending upon their safety significance by using the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Most of the events that occurred in Indian nuclear power plants over the past several decades were of level 1 or 0 with no safety significance. A fire incident at Narora, rated at level 3 was the highest-level incident. This did not cause any injury to workers or members of the public or release of radioactivity.

AERB can impose restrictions on the stations. It has directed NPCIL to reduce power levels of some stations, suggested modifications in equipment and systems, wherever necessary and on a few occasions demanded shut down of the plants.

NPCIL implemented the safety upgradations of the two Boiling Water Reactors at Tarapur (TAPS-1&2) which started operation in 1969. AERB authorised their operation till 2011. Both reactors at Kalpakkam underwent safety upgradations. The unit 1 at Narora is currently shut down for safety up gradations. The Board decided that NPCIL can operate Unit-2 at Narora upto 2007 and directed NPCIL to carry out safety up-gradations of this reactor after 2007.

In a nutshell, the nuclear power reactors in India have clocked in safety, 250 reactor-years of operation. The nuclear power stations have no adverse impact on workers, members of the public and the environment. PTI Feature

Loyalty to royalty..........

By Allabaksh

He may have himself prepared the ground that gave him the excuse to pitch a sales line at a very unlikely place when he told an American TV channel, ahead of his meeting with President George W. Bush, that just after the 9/11 attack on America, the then US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had warned him that his country would be bombed to 'stone age' if he did not fall in line.

Musharraf surely has a sense of timing, if the comment attributed to the barrel-chested Armitage, is true. Musharraf kept mum about the alleged threat for five years. He opened his mouth after a long gap at a time and at a place where he thought his commercial-cum political interests would be best served. It is a different matter that his calculations might go wrong.

Armitage has denied the comment attributed to him by Musharraf, who actually claims that he was told about the 'stone age' threat by his intelligence chief, Lt Gen Mahmoud Ahmed. The credibility and the mindset of this Pakistani general need to be questioned. That he was in Washington on September 11, 2001 may be incidental. But he was also the person Musharraf had sent to Kabul, just after 9/11, allegedly with the intention of talking the Taliban regime into doing a U-turn on terrorism. Mahmoud Ahmed did the opposite, assuring the Taliban rulers in Kabul of his support. When the Americans learnt about it they were furious. Musharraf had to remove this general and, indeed, a few more of the 'Mullah Generals' in his army.

At the time Armitage spoke to Mahmoud Ahmed. Pak ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, was also present. (A former journalist, she is a favourite of the establishment. Right now she is now envoy to the UK. She may come to Delhi to succeed career diplomat Aziz Ahmed Khan who soon completes his term as High Commissioner). She has refused to comment on the 'stone age' threat leak. She might have chosen to remain silent because she knew Armitage had not spoken the words that Musharraf says Mahmoud Ahmed conveyed to him.

The White House sales talk of Musharraf would contribute to an improvement in his battered image within his country. The Mullahs who were his allies till the other day refuse to join him as they pursue a more vicious anti-American line. Many in Pakistan are saying they knew it all along that Pakistan had joined the so-called war on terror under duress, though Musharraf has always maintained that he did his famous U-turn in renouncing terrorism in 'national interest'. And both Bush and Musharraf want the world to know that the 'war on terror' is being fought by a 'coalition of the willing.'

Even the sales pitch about the book, In Line of Fire, drew a lot of flack from a wide section of Americans who were aghast by the insolence of the Pakistani general in turning his joint press conference with the world's most powerful leader into a 'book promo' occasion. When Musharraf dodged a question on the 'stone age' threat saying that he was 'honour bound' not to speak about his book before its release (on September 25), Bush became a joint promoter of Musharraf's ghost-written book with the comment 'he is saying, buy the book.' Bush thought it was all very funny.

Not so, said the New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd. Her reaction to the Musharraf antic was that the Pakistani president was 'a smooth operator, a military dictator cruising around the capital….. (and) talking about how much he likes democracy, which he won't yet allow (in his country)'. She also noted that on the subject of arresting Osama bin Laden 'he is so slippery you want to lock him in a room with the muscle-bound Armitage.' Her concluding remarks were even more biting when she reminded Americans that Iraq was invaded because it was being run by a dictator who harboured terrorists to stay in power, Musharraf, a great American ally in the 'war on terror', is a dictator who harbours terrorists, 'including the one we want most'.

George Bush would certainly disagree with Maureen Dowd because he continues to renew his good conduct certificate to Musharraf. The latest testimonial from the White House says that Musharraf is helping 'to defend the civilised world.' But many Americans, ordinary persons as well as analysts, tend to agree with Mauren. No surprise therefore that Bush ratings are falling.

How an average American or people of other countries view Musharraf is illustrated by bloggers on the Internet. Here is a sample. Wrote an American, "Musharraf heads a state that admitted to running a nuclear weapons black market, and then denied the world access to the main accused. In the last couple of years every big terrorist attack anywhere has had a Pakistani connection".

A Canadian said that as a large number of Pakistanis sympathise with Al Qaeda, the Islamabad's hot pursuit of global terrorist No. 1 is 'half-hearted' and 'Pakistan is a hot bed of implacable Islamic extremism and ambition. Some day this will bring matters to a head'.

One Japanese recalled that Bush invaded Iraq because he said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; Pakistan has nuclear bombs. So how are America and Pakistan talking as 'friends'? At least some Pakistanis refuse to be impressed by their uniformed president. One of them has informed the fellow bloggers that his countrymen think that Musharraf is 'a liar'. They have noted that Bush has 'always eulogised his efforts', but the people in Pakistan are used to the 'whimsical ways' of Musharraf.

As for the memoir, a British blogger may have got it right when he wrote that it should not come as a surprise if one day it was 'suddenly' found that Musharraf was 'misinformed' and some 'peon' in Pakistan will be sacked and Musharraf would be in the clear. (Syndicate Features)