NUCLEAR DEAL NO CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION

At their recent meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama discussed methods of circumventing(Avoid or try to avoid fulfilling, answering or you can say धोखा) the Indian nuclear liability law to protect American reactor suppliers from the consequences of accidents caused by design defects. Although public details are scarce, if they have indeed reached an understanding on the issue, then this is not a cause for celebration; it should be a matter of deep concern.

The importance of supplier liability is illustrated by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. When the reactors were hit by the tsunami that year, the weakness of the General Electric (GE) Mark I design was cruelly exposed. The reactors’ inadequate containment was unable to prevent the spread of radioactivity when the cooling systems failed and pressure built up inside the reactors. Although this design defect was first noted about 40 years ago, just as the Fukushima reactors were commissioned, the industry resisted regulatory changes that could have ameliorated(to make better or सुधारना) the disaster.
Framework of impunity(दण्ड से मुक्ति or Exemption from punishment or loss)


The Japan Center for Economic Research estimated that the cost of cleanup at Fukushima may reach $200 billion. A 2013 expert study “Accounting for long-term doses in worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident” published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science estimated that the disaster may lead to about a thousand excess deaths due to cancer. However, it is unlikely that GE will ever be held accountable for its poor design choice. Under Japanese law, the supplier is indemnified(to give security) from liability for an accident. This is the framework of impunity under which nuclear suppliers like to operate.
Legal indemnity for suppliers creates a “moral hazard(A source of danger;)”— encouraging suppliers to take excessive risks since they don’t have to pay for the consequences(result). The case of GE not strengthening the Mark I containment is not an exception. The Presidential commission appointed to study the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster, which saw a partial nuclear meltdown, pointed out that the supplier, Babcock and Wilcox, was already aware of design defects that contributed to the accident, but never bothered to resolve them.

Nevertheless, suppliers have ferociously(भयानकता,in a physically fierce manner) defended their privilege of being free of liability, and they exerted(put to use) tremendous pressure on the Indian government when the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act was framed in 2010. Contrary to the industry’s propaganda, this is not a “tough” law. Indeed, several clauses in the law were directly lifted from an annex(An addition), to the “Convention on Supplementary Compensation,” created by the U.S. government to benefit its nuclear industry.

The law channels primary liability for an accident to the operator — the public sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India — and caps it at Rs. 1,500 crore. This overrides the absolute liability judgment of the Supreme Court, passed after the Bhopal gas leak disaster, which had no such limit. The cap is about a thousand times smaller than estimates of the damage that a serious nuclear accident could cause. Therefore, the law is designed to protect the financial interests of the operators and the supplier; victims or the taxpayers will simply have to bear costs beyond this cap.
Multinational suppliers are unhappy because a relatively minor clause allows the operator to recoup(Reimburse or compensate (someone), as for a loss) this compensation. By the scales of nuclear commerce, the amount of money involved is minuscule(very small). A single reactor may cost up to an estimated Rs. 60,000 crore — 40 times the maximum amount the supplier could be liable for. The figures of each unit have been arrived at from studying plants under construction in Finland and France. If imposing liability on suppliers leads to cost increases, it can only mean that they are using the law as an excuse to escalate prices.

A close reading of the statements made by advocates of their interests reveals what suppliers are really concerned about: the Indian law could set a precedent that could undermine the iniquitous(wicked because it is believed to be a sin) international system of impunity that they enjoy. “If litigants(Engage in legal proceedings) were able to file suit against suppliers, essentially it could destroy the whole industry,” declared Ashley Tellis, an American negotiator for the nuclear deal.

The United Progressive Alliance government repeatedly tried to subvert the law, earning a sharp rebuke(फटकार,scold) from Arun Jaitley who wrote in 2013 that “a leopard never changes its spots. The government’s intention to dilute(to lesson or पतला) the right of recourse … [has] continued.” He should explain why his own government is pursuing a similar policy. The current proposal of using a “legal memorandum” to reinterpret(Interpret from a different viewpoint) the law is similar to the UPA’s attempt to sign away its “right of recourse” on various pretexts.



No tangible(real) benefits

The most baffling(silly) feature of the current agreement is that it holds no tangible benefits for India. The United States has offered to sell two reactor designs — both of which are expensive and untested. The Westinghouse AP1000, which has been chosen for Mithi Virdi (Gujarat) is not in commercial operation anywhere and has encountered difficulties wherever it is being built. At Plant Vogtle, in the U.S. state of Georgia, Westinghouse and its partner Georgia Power have sued each other for a billion dollars over cost increases and delays. Even in China, the AP1000 has been delayed by about two years because of problems with reactor coolant pumps.
Even less can be said for GE’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), selected for Kovvada (Andhra Pradesh). After years of questions about ESBWR’s steam dryer, the design obtained regulatory approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — the first step before construction can commence(to start) — only in September 2014. There are no firm orders for the ESBWR.
The Vogtle plants were initially estimated to cost about $7 billion apiece. Even accounting for lower construction costs in India we showed — in a detailed study “Cost of Electricity from the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant” published in the Economic and Political Weekly —  could translate into electricity tariffs that are as high as Rs. 15 per unit. If the government is looking for cheap electricity to promote development, importing American reactors hardly seems like a smart choice.
Last week, the residents of Mithi Virdi wrote an open letter to Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi reminding them that the “gram panchayats of four most-affected villages … [have] passed a resolution declaring the entire … region as [a] nuclear free zone.” The leaders of the “world’s largest democracies” face a clear choice. They can channel billions of dollars into nuclear corporations by sacrificing safety and economic prudence. Or they can heed the democratic voices from Mithi Virdi and cancel these unnecessary deals.

Read more »

FOOD INSECURITY ACT

Food insecurity acts

The Shanta Kumar Committee report, released last week, on a range of issues relating to procurement, storage and distribution of food grains is not only deeply flawed in its reading of the situation on food security, but also short on facts. It was prepared under the guidance of the Prime Minister’s Office.
For example, the report asserts that only six per cent of all farmers have benefited from Minimum Support Price (MSP) through sale of food grains to an official procurement agency, according to data of the National Sample Survey Organisation’s 70th round. But analysts  have found discrepancies(A difference between conflicting facts, claims or opinions) between the survey’s estimates of the food grains sold to official procurement agencies and the actual amount of  grains procured by official agencies for that year. 
For kharif, the NSSO survey estimates that 13 million tonnes were sold to a procurement agency while the actual procurement that year by government agencies was 34 million tonnes. For rabi, the gap is even larger: 10 million tonnes estimated in the survey while the actual amount procured by an official agency was 38 million tonnes.

Selling at distress prices

Why did the Shanta Kumar Committee overlook these possible underestimates? Was it just to arrive at the sensational figure of six per cent and then argue that since only six per cent of farmers get the benefit of MSP and procurement, why have the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at all?
But there is another way of looking at it. It is true that large numbers of farmers are deprived of the benefits of MSP. It is not because they do not want to sell to the procurement agencies but because they do not have access to official procurement centre, which are set up only in selective States and regions. The majority of farmers sell at distress prices which push them deeper into debt. For this large section of rural India, reforming the system would mean a substantial increase in the number of procurement centres and easier access, so as to enable  it to benefit from MSP.
As soon as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed office, the first thing it did was to bring down the rate of increase of MSP to just about three per cent over the previous year — this when the prices of farm inputs have increased phenomenally. 
Some States under pressure from Kisan movements decided to give a bonus over and above the MSP to help farmers. The Modi government stepped in to “punish” such States. It decreed(Fixed or established especially by order or command) that it would not procure any food grains over and above the requirement for the Public Distribution System (PDS) from such States which gave the farmers a bonus.
Confronted with the Central government’s policy, the Chhattisgarh government, for example, which had given such a bonus,   issued a circular that it would procure only 10 quintals of paddy per acre from individual farmers. Andhra Pradesh has also limited its procurement. Thus, open-ended procurement which ensured India’s food security and farmer security is now in the process of being whittled down(Cut away in small pieces) while the rate of increase of MSP is delinked from the increases in the cost of production and adequate profit margins. This is in contrast to the Swaminathan Commission’s recommendation for MSP to be calculated at the cost of production plus 50 per cent profit, to keep agriculture viable.
The immediate impact in Chhattisgarh has been distress sales by farmers to private traders who can dictate(issue order) prices, buoyed(limited ) by the assurance from the government that it would not procure more grains.
 The Shanta Kumar Committee report takes these dangerous steps further by advocating limited procurement as the officially declared policy.
This is directly linked to its recommendation to scrap the existing Food Security Act (FSA). The Committee wants to reduce the coverage from 67 per cent to 40 per cent of the population. It also wants to double the prices that these food grains are to be sold at under the present Act by linking the price to the MSP. This means resurrecting the fraudulent and discredited Above Poverty Line and Below Poverty Line estimations and depriving equally poor people of subsidised grains. In fact, as the Left has consistently argued and fought for, it is only a universalised PDS that can meet the requirement to make India hunger-free. The Shanta Kumar Committee wants to eliminate even the inadequate provisions under the existing FSA and push the country back to the worst days of food insecurity.
Ironically, such a recommendation comes at a time when the United Nations agencies monitoring country-wise performances towards meeting  the Millennium goals have praised India for its reduction of malnutrition, giving credit for this to food security systems like the “ICDS [Integrated Child Development Services] as well as the public distribution system.” In spite of the reduction, which brings India from the “most alarming category” to the “seriously affected” category,  the country is still home to the largest malnourished population in the world; its rank in the Global Hunger Index at 55 out of 76 emerging economies  is only slightly ahead of Pakistan and Bangladesh but worse than Sri Lanka and Nepal.
 As in the case of procurement, the Modi government has  started to subvert the FSA in the case of implementation  too. The FSA became law in September 2013. More than a year later, it is being implemented in only 11 States. The Central government has excluded 25 States and Union Territories from the ambit(range or reach) of the Act. According to a release on November 28, 2014, these States and Union Territories “have not completed the preparatory measures required for the implementation of the Act.” It was further stated that “the Central Government extended the deadline for the implementation of the Act by another six months, namely till April 2014.”
The Government of India has no right to make the implementation of the Act conditional to “preparedness” on the basis of parameters it has decided arbitrarily. There is no such legal provision in the Act, nor is there any legal deadline. But the official release reflects clearly the  present government’s hostility  towards taking any responsibility for food security. This is also reflected in the allocation of food grains. If the FSA is to be implemented, then according to the calculations of the Food Ministry, the allocations will go up to 550 lakh tonnes of food grains compared to the pre-FSA allocations in 2012-2013 of 504 lakh tonnes.

Shift to direct cash transfers
According to the Ministry’s food grains bulletin till December 2014, allocations to the States were just 388 lakh tonnes of food grains. This is roughly the same as it was the previous year, before the Act was passed. In other words, the Modi government has already stayed the implementation of the FSA. It is preparing to shift to direct cash transfers for a more restricted number of families.
The Shanta Kumar Committee’s recommendations to unbundle  the FCI, allowing the free play of market forces in procurement and storage of food grains, and restricting the FSA are in tune with the demands raised by the western world led by the U.S. in the World Trade Organisation against India’s systems of procurement, storage and distribution. The India-U.S. agreement to end the stalemate in the WTO process is clearly premised on the changes being suggested by the Committee.
The government can be expected to try and bulldoze(to do equal) the required amendments to the FSA through Parliament using its majority. But undoubtedly it will face the resistance of the people.
(Brinda Karat?is a member of the CPI-M Polit Bureau.)

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH PART 7

What is the meaning of ‘siege mentality’?

The term was first used in psychology; nowadays, it is used in everyday contexts to refer to someone who thinks the world is against him. He believes that the people around him are his enemies who are plotting to harm him. Since those around him are not to be trusted, he takes every precaution possible to protect himself. The expression can also be used with groups of people.

*When he was young, everyone close to him cheated him. It is not surprising that Mayank has developed a siege mentality.

*Do you think our cricket team has a siege mentality?

How is the word ‘whinge’ pronounced

One simple way of pronouncing ‘whinge’ is to pronounce the ‘whin’ like the word ‘win’, and the final ‘ge’ like the ‘j’ in ‘jam’, ‘juice’ and ‘jump’ — ‘WINJ’. When MS Dhoni complained about the practice pitches in Brisbane, the Australian media accused him of ‘whinging’. This rather informal word has more or less the same meaning as ‘whine’. When you ‘whinge’, you keep complaining about something trivial in a manner that irritates everyone.

*he coach told the players to stop whinging, and get on with the game.

*Rahul is a real pain to be with. He’s always whinging about something.

Where does the expression ‘full tilt’ come 

When you say that someone is running ‘full tilt’, what you mean is that he is running as fast as he can. The expression suggests that the individual is using up a lot of energy to attain top speed. ‘Full tilt’ can be used with things to suggest maximum capacity, force or strength.

*We’ve been running the factory at full tilt for the past three months.

*James was running full tilt when he tripped over his own foot.

I understand the expression has been around for several hundred years, and it comes from the kind of ritualistic combat that knights participated in. The fight itself was called jousting, and in it, two knights on horseback rode at full gallop straight at each other with a lance in their hand. The weapon was held at an angle and the aim was to knock the opponent off his horse. The word ‘tilt’ comes from the Old English ‘tealt’ meaning ‘to totter’ — the force of the impact sometimes made the rider ‘totter’ before he fell off the horse. It is interesting to note that another name for ‘jousting’ was ‘tilting’.

What is the difference between ‘bruise’ and ‘wound’?

‘Bruise’ is usually used to refer to a minor injury. It usually results when you bump into an object or when someone hits you. In this case, the skin doesn’t break; you may not actually end up bleeding. But the place where you were hit or hurt becomes discoloured — the skin turns black and blue. This probably explains why people talk about a ‘bruised apple’ or a ‘bruised banana’. ‘Wound’, on the other hand, is a serious injury; bleeding is usually involved — people usually talk about a knife wound or a gunshot wound. It is usually used with animate objects — humans and animals can be wounded. One doesn’t talk about a wounded fruit or plant.

******

“The best angle from which to approach any problem is the ‘try-angle’.” — Unknown

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH PART 6

“You’re back early. I didn’t expect to see you here at this time of day.”

“Our team has been working round the clock the past couple of days. My boss suggested that we call it a day at noon.”

“Call it a day? Does it mean to stop working?”

“That’s right. When someone says that he’s calling it a day, he means that he’s going to stop whatever it is that he is doing and ...”

“He’s going home. In other words, he’s done for the day?”

“Exactly! In some of our government offices, people call it a day after lunch.”

“In some cases, even before lunch! We’re all tired. Why don’t we call it a day?”

“That’s a good example. This informal expression ‘call it a day’ has other meanings as well. It can be used to mean ‘to retire’. For example, after working in the company for 40 years, the Finance Officer decided to call it a day.”

“How about this example? Tendulkar decided to call it a day in 2013.”

“Most athletes know when to call it a day. Now then, how is your project coming along?”

“I really don’t know. When I first started, I thought it would be a child’s play. I ...”

“Child’s play is ...”

“I know what child’s play means. When you say that something is a child’s play, it means that it is very easy to do.”

“Very good! That’s what ‘child’s play’ means. But we don’t say ‘a child’s play’. It’s always ‘child’s play’. For example, solving difficult math problems is child’s play for Ram.”

“Serving booming aces was child’s play for Pete Sampras.”

“He had a fantastic serve, didn’t he? So, now you find doing a project is no child’s play.”

“Yes, I’ve certainly realised that. You see, I’m working really hard. Doing all the things I’m supposed to, but ...”

“But you don't seem to be getting anywhere. You’re not ...”

“Exactly! All the hard work that I’ve put in, I have very little to show for it.”

“I know that feeling all right. It’s like you’ve been chasing your tail.”

“Chasing my tail? What are you talking about?”

“When you say you’ve been chasing your tail, you mean you’ve spent a lot of energy and time doing things, but have achieved very little.”

“You feel frustrated about the whole thing.”

“That’s right! I’ve been chasing my tail all morning trying to find a two hour time slot when the surgeon and the anaesthetist are free.”

“Organi’ing the annual cultural event at college this year proved to be a trying experience. Most of the time, I had the feeling that I was chasing my tail. Tell me, where does the expression come from?”

“You must have seen puppies trying to catch their own tail. They go ...”

“Oh, yes! They go around in circles trying to grab their tail. Finally, they become exhausted and fall down. The poor things never manage to catch their tail!”

“That’s how I feel now. Completely exhausted.”

“Then you should call it a day.”

“I think I will. You take care.

******

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH PART 5

What is the meaning and origin of ‘dead in the water’?

The expression is frequently used in American English in informal contexts. When you tell someone that a project is dead in the water, what you are suggesting is that it is a failure. No matter what you do, things will not turn around.

*The economy of the country has been dead in the water for some years.

According to some scholars, the ‘dead’ object in the water refers to a ship. In the past, a ship that remained stationary or immobile because of insufficient wind was said to be ‘dead’. Like any dead individual, the ship showed no signs of life — no movement. Others believe that the dead object in the water is a fish.

How is the word ‘cicerone’ pronounced?

Most people pronounce the ‘c’ in the first and second syllables like the ‘ch’ in ‘chips’, ‘chat’ and ‘cheese’. The vowel in the first syllable sounds like the ‘i’ in ‘bit’, ‘kit’ and ‘hit’, and the following ‘e’ is like the ‘a’ in ‘china’. The final ‘rone’ rhymes with the words ‘pony’, ‘tony’ and ‘bony’. This Italian word is pronounced ‘chi-che-RON-y’ with the stress on the third syllable. It is used to refer to a guide — a tour guide, to be precise; a person who gives interesting bits of information about a place. This rather old fashioned word can also be used to mean ‘mentor’.

*We have hired the services of Yadiah, a well-known cicerone.

Many of the common words that we use in English come from the names of people — boycott, sandwich, sideburns, etc. Cicerone is another such example. Marcus Tullius Cicero was a well-known orator during Roman times. Since tour guides are expected to be eloquent and knowledgeable, Italians began to refer to them as ‘cicerones’.

What is the difference between ‘Who/Who ever told you that?’

‘Who told you that?’ is a question; it’s normally what you ask someone when you want information. The word ‘ever’ is frequently included in questions to indicate surprise, anger, confusion, admiration, etc. According to books on usage, it is used to make a question more emphatic. In this case, it has more or less the same meaning as the informal expression ‘who on earth?’ The ‘ever’ can be used with other question words as well — where ever, what ever, how ever, etc. There is a tendency nowadays to write ‘who ever’ as one word —whoever.

*What ever/What made you do something so silly?

Which is correct: Is the bank open/opened?

The word ‘open’ can be used as a verb and an adjective; ‘opened’ is the past tense form of ‘open’. In the sentence that you have given, the word is functioning as an adjective — therefore it should be ‘open’.

*Is the bank open? The bank opened nearly an hour ago.

*Our studio will remain open during the holidays.

******

“If you look like your passport photo, you are too ill to travel.” — Will Kommen

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH PART 4

What is the meaning of ‘monger’ in ‘scaremonger’?

(K. Vikram, Madurai)

‘Monger’, a rather old-fashioned word, is seldom used on its own nowadays. It was originally used to refer to someone who sold goods. In England, people talk about ‘fishmongers’, ‘cheesemongers’ and ‘ironmongers’. A ‘fishmonger’, for example, is someone who sells fish. Nowadays, ‘monger’ is usually associated with words that have a negative connotation — scaremonger, rumourmonger, warmonger, etc. In all three cases, the word ‘monger’ is used to refer to someone who participates in activities which cause trouble. A ‘scaremonger’, for example, is someone who spreads rumours or stories that cause panic among the public. The word can be used as a verb to mean ‘to sell’.

*According to the rumourmongers on campus, the death was no accident.

*The media were accused of rumour mongering.

How is the word ‘gravitas’ pronounced?

(K. Joseph, Kanyakumari)

The ‘a’ in the first and third syllables can be pronounced like the ‘a’ in ‘cat’, ‘bat’ and ‘sat’. The ‘i’ in the second sounds like the ‘i’ in ‘bit’, ‘sit’ and ‘hit’. One way of pronouncing the word is ‘GRA-vi-tas’ with the stress on the first syllable. It comes from the Latin ‘gravitas’ meaning ‘weight, heaviness’. Nowadays, the word is usually used to refer to an individual’s demeanour; his serious appearance and the way he behaves with others compel them to treat him with respect.

*The new Vice Chancellor has an air of gravitas about her.

*Vani lacks the gravitas required to become a CEO.

Which is correct: He was pressured/pressurized into doing it?

(C. Mala, Nellore)

It depends on which side of the Atlantic you are from. Americans would argue that the correct word is ‘pressured’; they believe that ‘pressurized/pressurised’ should be used when one is talking about air pressure — ‘pressurized cabin’, ‘pressurised can’, etc. The British, on the other hand, would argue that it is possible to use both ‘pressured’ and ‘pressurized’ in the sentence. When you are pressured or pressurized into doing something, you are forced or compelled to do it.

*She was pressured/pressurized into signing the contract.

*Rita was pressured/pressurised into getting married.

What is the meaning of ‘He’s a man of his words’?

(Manoj Kumar, Hyderabad)

First of all, it’s not ‘a man of his words’ but ‘a man of his word’. When you say that someone is a ‘man of his word’, you mean that he is a person who keeps his promise. The individual can be trusted or depended on because he always does what he promised to. He is someone who does not go back on his word.

*He is an unusual politician, for he is a man of his word.

*I will return this amount next week. Don’t worry, I’m a man of my word.

Is it okay to say, ‘She is in the family way’?

(L. Senthil, Chennai)

This is an expression frequently used in India to mean that someone is pregnant. Native speakers would consider it to be rather old fashioned. Other polite ways of saying that someone is pregnant are: ‘She is expecting/carrying’ and ‘She is eating for two’. In very informal contexts, one could say, ‘She has a bun in the oven’ and ‘She is in the pudding club’.

******

“You know what they say when a supermodel gets pregnant? Now, she’s eating for one.” — Jay Leno

upendrankye@gmail.com

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH PART 3

“So, are you excited about tomorrow's party? I know that Rahul is really looking forward to it. He is thinking of....”

“That's because Rahul is a party animal. He loves to....”

“Party animal? Does it mean someone who loves going to parties?”

“You could say that! A 'party animal' is someone who loves any social activity where people get together and have fun. This individual makes sure that he is seen and heard at these events.”

“In other words, he is usually loud?”

“That's right! The new club near my house is attracting quite a few party animals.”

“I know. My dad keeps complaining about the noise. I don't think anyone in my family is a party animal. What do you call someone who goes to parties, but spoils the mood of....”

“A person who dampens the enthusiasm of others is sometimes referred to as a 'party pooper'. He is a killjoy.”

“I see. Sailaja is seldom invited to parties because she is seen as a party pooper.”

“I don't enjoy parties very much, but I'm no party pooper.”

“That you're not. I'm going to the mall. Do you want to come along?”

“To the mall? At this time of day? What a birdbrained idea!”

“Birdbrained idea? I've never come across that expression before.”

“The expression is mostly used in informal contexts. When you call someone a 'birdbrain', you are suggesting that he is rather stupid or silly. He's scatter brained.”

“How about this example? Harini asked the class birdbrain for advice.”

“I guess that makes her a birdbrain as well! Not surprising, though. Considering the fact she's the daughter of a man who is well-known for his birdbrained schemes.”

“But don't forget. One of his so called 'birdbrained schemes' made him extremely rich.”

“That's true. He's rolling in money now. So, why do you want to go to the mall? It'll be a mad rush there. People will be running....”

“I know it'll be very crowded. But I need to go. I have to buy a full-hand shirt.”

“A full-hand shirt is an .....”

“Yes, a full-hand shirt. You know a shirt where the sleeves reach your wrist. You are....”

“I know what you mean. But what I was trying to say is that the expression 'full-hand shirt' is used mostly in India. Native speakers of English do not use it.”

“Then what do native speakers say?”

“They usually refer to it as 'long sleeved shirt'. My cousin Ganesh wears only long sleeved shirts.”

“My father is not particularly fond of long-sleeved shirts. He prefers the short sleeved ones. So, are you coming to the mall or not?”

“Sorry, no. But could you pick up a pair of white socks for me? I'll give you the money.”

“No need for it right now. I have a new credit card. So, I plan to pay for everything by credit card.”

“I thought you were against credit cards. You kept saying....”

“It was getting difficult to pay for everything by cash. It meant....”

“You can pay for something 'by cheque' or 'by credit card'. But you don't pay for it 'by cash'. You have to say 'I paid in cash' or 'I paid cash.' Do you....”

“Understood. I'll pay by credit card. Later, you can give me cash.”

****

May your troubles be as few and as far apart as my grandmother's teeth.” Irish Toast

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH JAN PART 2

“Is it true you’re planning to buy Mr. Sharma’s old car?”

“Wow, news travels fast. It’s true that I went to see the car, but I haven’t decided yet.”

“My father thinks you shouldn’t buy the car. He said ...”

“But why? What is ...”

“You know my father. He doesn’t really go into details. He merely said that you should keep your distance from Mr. Sharma. What was the expression he used? At an arm’s length! That’s it. He said that you should keep Mr. Sharma at an arm’s length.”

“Really? By the way, it’s ‘at arm’s length’, and not ‘at an arm’s length’. My new neighbour doesn’t talk to anyone in the building. He keeps everyone at arm’s length.”

“How about this example? Once he became a Minister, Madan kept all his friends at arm’s length.”

“Sounds good. But I think it should be the other way around. Once someone decides to become a politician, his friends should keep him at arm’s length.”

“Good idea. Heard your boss played a lot of golf instead of tennis during the break. Is he planning to play the game regularly now?”

“I’m not really sure about that. I think the jury is still out on that one.”

“The jury is still out? What are you talking about?”

“When you say that the jury is still out on something, it means no decision has been made or taken. The expression can be used with people as well.”

“I see. So the person who has to take a decision about someone or something hasn’t made up his mind. Everything is up in the air.”

“I guess you could say that. For example, we have decided on the eleven we want to hire. But the jury is still out on Jyothi.”

“Meaning the people on your team are not sure whether they want to hire her or not! How about this example? I think the jury is still out on whether nuclear energy is safe.”

“Not in India, it isn’t. Most people don’t want anything to do with it. Heard your parents might be going abroad for the summer. Is it true?”

“I think the jury is still out on that one. My mother wants to, but my father isn’t so keen. Doesn’t like the idea of spending three months with mom’s relatives.”

“Just like Anil’s father! You know ...”

“Talking about Anil. Have you heard from him recently?”

“Don’t expect to for a while. He’s gone technocamping.”

“Technocamping! What kind of camping is that?”

“It’s when you decide to take a break from everything digital. You go off to a place where you can’t access your email. Your cell phone has no signal, and ...”

“Good grief! How can one live without a cell phone?”

“There are lots of people who manage to live without a cell phone. I think it’s good to go technocamping once in while.”

“I would say that the jury is still out on that one. The only time I experienced what you call ‘technocamping’ was when I visited my grandfather’s village. It wasn’t fun at all.”

******

“TV and the internet are good because they keep stupid people from spending too much time out in the public.” — Douglas Coupland

Read more »

KNOW YOUR ENGLISH FROM THE HINDU PART 1

“So, what has your Principal decided to do? Is he planning to ...”

“I have no idea. All I know is, he has received a great deal of suggestions, and he ...”

“You mean ‘many suggestions’, don't you?”

“What’s wrong with ‘a great deal of suggestions’? A lot of people say it.”

“That’s true. But the expression ‘a great deal of’ is usually followed by an uncountable noun, not a countable one. You can say, he has received ‘a number of suggestions’ or ‘many suggestions’.”

“But not ‘a great deal of suggestions’. I suppose it’s okay to say, I have received a great deal of money.”

“Sounds fine. Here’s another example. The storm did a great deal of damage. So, tell me, how was your weekend? Did you work on your project?”

“I was planning to. But I ended up spending most of my time with my friend, Shomu.”

“Shomu? Oh yes, I remember him. He is the one with those flaky ideas about ...”

“Flaky ideas? What does it mean?”

“The word ‘flaky’ is used in informal contexts to mean eccentric. It can be used with people as well. For example, when I was in school, I had a flaky physics teacher.”

“You mean your teacher was crazy?”

“When ‘flaky’ is used with people, it suggests that the person is unpredictable or unconventional. Everyone thought my English teacher was flaky because she used pop songs in the classroom.”

“I guess some people would think that using songs and films to teach English is a flaky idea. I’m sure the students enjoyed the music, though.”

“We certainly did. Had a lot of fun in class.”

“Talking about having fun, how was your trip to Darjeeling?”

“It was okay. It was too short, and the conference itself wasn’t in Darjeeling proper.”

“What do you mean by Darjeeling proper? Do you mean ...”

“When you use the word ‘proper’ after the name of a place, it means the main part of the town or city. So, when I say, we weren’t in Darjeeling proper ...”

“You mean that you weren’t staying in Darjeeling; you were staying outside.”

“But very close to Darjeeling. Here’s another example. By the time we reached Shimla proper, all of us were cold and hungry.”

“Ratan has been to France several times. But he’s never been to Paris proper. Have you been to Paris?”

“I’ve never been abroad. I don’t even hold a passport.”

“I can see that. There’s nothing in your hand. So, ...”

“That’s not what I mean. You see, the word ‘hold’ has several different meanings. When you say you don’t ‘hold a passport’, you mean you don’t possess or have one. This use of ‘hold’ is considered formal.”

“I see. How about this example? In Dubai, many construction workers from India were arrested because they didn’t hold a work permit.”

“A few of my friends don’t hold an opinion about anything.”

“You’re lucky. My friends hold an opinion about everything.”

“Your friends are politicians in the making.”

******

“The worst thing about being a tourist is having other tourists recognize you as a tourist.” — Russell Baker

Read more »

The new alliance with the U.S.

The new entente(A friendly understanding between political powers) with the U.S. 

Author: Amitabh Mattoo

Robert Blackwill, former Ambassador of the United States and  Harvard academic,  used to often recount at his dinner round tables in New Delhi’s Roosevelt House an intriguing(Cause to be interested or curious) story about how he was persuaded to take up the job. In 2001, President George W. Bush called him to his ranch in Texas and said: “Bob, imagine: India, a billion people, a democracy, 150 million Muslims and no Al Qaeda. Wow!” More than a decade after President Bush’s first exclamation, India-U.S. relations have truly reached their ‘wow’ moment.
 
President  Barack Obama’s visit is so obvious a watershed in India’s foreign policy, and so overwhelming a development, that voices of dissent(disagree) are mute or feeble(weak). Not since India signed the treaty(A written agreement between two states or sovereigns) of peace, friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1971 has New Delhi aligned itself so closely with a great power. More important, outside the Left, both within India and in the  U.S. the consensus across the mainstream of political opinion favours stronger relations between the two countries. Anti-Americanism, once the conventional wisdom of the Indian elite, seems almost antediluvian(ancient) today.


Behind the change
The reason for the drastic change in the geostrategic outlook can be summarised quickly. The 1971 treaty was a response to the continuing U.S. tilt(disagree) towards Pakistan and the beginnings of a Washington-Beijing entente (President Richard Nixon’s then National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, went secretly to Beijing via Islamabad a month before India signed the treaty with the Soviet Union). In contrast, in 2015, it is the prospect of a powerful, belligerent(Engaged in war) and potentially hegemonic China in the Indo-Pacific region that is helping to cement the relationship. While this may seem like a parsimonious(Excessively unwilling to spend) explanation, it is rooted in an understanding of the manner in which great powers, rising powers and emerging powers have responded to changes in the balance of power in the international system since the  Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Clearly, the Obama visit has been removing the final hurdles in the civilian nuclear agreement to pave the way for its commercialisation, almost a decade after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President  Bush first issued a joint statement, in July 2005, on civilian nuclear cooperation. As we know, two sticking points were holding up an agreement: differences over liability in case of a nuclear accident, and over administrative arrangements governing the transfer of nuclear materials to India.
Consider first the latter. For more than a year, the  U.S. has refused to accept an Indian draft agreement that was based on the sound principle that New Delhi would  be accountable only for the totality of nuclear material supplied to it, and under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Given India’s closed fuel cycle, allowing nuclear material from different countries to be tracked and audited separately could be unnecessarily intrusive and could undermine the confidentiality of its nuclear programme. While the Canadians saw reason and accepted India’s draft in 2012, the non-proliferation lobby in Washington seemed to have had the upper hand as the political leadership seemed reluctant(unwillingness) to take a call even though it was against the letter and spirit of the 123 agreement: the fundamental basis of the civil nuclear agreement between India and the U.S. 

Nuclear liability issue
The deal has been done only because President Obama has now put his personal weight behind it, to marginalise those who still see India’s nuclear programme through the prism of Washington’s non-proliferation policies of the 1990s towards New Delhi. With the  U.S. accepting the Canadian model, it will be easier for India to negotiate with Japan and Australia, the other two countries still holding out for tracking and audit of nuclear material based on national flags. Hopefully, the deal will pave the way for GE, Westinghouse and other leading businesses in the nuclear industry to begin commercial operations in India.
Similarly, on the issue of nuclear liability, where American companies were concerned by the unlimited liability they could face in case of a nuclear accident under Sections 17(b)  and 46 of the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, a compromise seems to have been found.
New Delhi has agreed to create a  publicly funded insurance pool and the Attorney General of India is likely to issue an explanatory memorandum on Section 46 which will potentially clarify the limits of tort claims by accident victims against the suppliers of nuclear reactors. The latter, however, as Indian officials have said, is still a work in progress. Given the collective national memory of the Bhopal gas tragedy, this could still stir a public controversy if the limits are in absolute terms. Rather, the claims could be linked to compensations offered contemporaneously(during the same period of the time ) to victims of industrial accidents in the U.S. 

The vision statement
No less important is the commitment of President Obama and his team to support India’s membership of international export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the  Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime that will help to further mainstream India’s nuclear programme. Given that similar promises have been made in the past, it is important that India uses the goodwill of the Obama visit to ensure that Washington presses for this to happen as soon as possible — despite the obvious reluctance of some members of these regimes.
The media focus has been on the nuclear issue — yet the U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region is no less significant. It is a major advance on the early initiatives made during last September’s Obama-Modi summit in Washington. Indeed, given India’s traditional strategic caution, the vision statement could be even seen as radical by its standards. Shorn of the homilies, the vision statement has three significant features.
The first is the clear link between economic prosperity and security, and the critical importance of freedom of the seas in the region. The statement could not be more explicit: “We affirm the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.”
Second is the commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to “pursue resolution of territorial and maritime disputes through all peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law.”
Third is the agreement to work with other countries to better respond to diplomatic, economic and security challenges in the region. The five-year vision includes strengthening regional dialogues, making trilateral consultations with third countries in the region more robust, deepening regional integration, strengthening regional forums, and exploring additional multilateral opportunities for engagement.

China factor
While India has traditionally favoured a policy of deep engagement with all major powers, the special relationship with the U.S.  today, especially the “vision” statement, is rooted in great apprehensions in New Delhi about China’s aggressive “peripheral diplomacy,” particularly after the intrusions in Chumar during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India last year. That the new Chinese leadership had abandoned(Forsake, leave behind) Deng Xiaoping’s ‘24 Character Strategy’ of biding time, hiding its capacities and not attracting attention has been clear for some time now, but what is intriguing is that Beijing has managed to alienate(Transfer property or ownership) nearly all its neighbours, except North Korea and Pakistan, by its malevolence(The quality of threatening evil). Not surprisingly, a rising China is a cause of trepidation(A feeling of alarm or dread) in most capitals of the world today. Will Beijing now introspect and recalibrate(Make fine adjustments)? For it must realise that New Delhi’s closeness to Washington is also a function of its strategic distance from Beijing.

In late 2005, amidst the negotiations over the civil nuclear agreement with the U.S.,  Dr. Singh, appointed a task force on global strategic developments headed by the doyen of India’s strategic thinking, K.  Subrahmanyam. As a member of the task force, I remember the meetings essentially became a series of inspiring lectures by Mr.  Subrahmanyam on geopolitics. Mr.  Subrahmanyam was an architect of many of India’s key strategic decisions, including the policy that led to the creation of Bangladesh, the Indo-Soviet treaty, as well as the nuclear tests of 1998. But throughout the meetings, Mr.  Subrahmanyam, with a mind as agile(moving quickly) as that of a restless teenage prodigy(A sign of something about to happen), would emphasise the importance of arriving at a modus vivendi with the  U.S., the overriding importance of the nuclear deal, how it was in Washington’s own interest to support a rising India and how New Delhi should grab that opportunity. As the United States and India finally “recognise” each other and promise to realise each other’s potential, the new entente between the two countries is a fitting tribute to the legacy of India’s modern-day Chanakya, just days after his 86th birthday.


(Amitabh Mattoo is Professor of Disarmament and Diplomacy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)

Read more »

OBAMA VISIT

                                           OBAMA VISIT

President Obama’s attendance on this January 26 is as important from the perspective of furthering bilateral ties, as it is to show the world that India is ready to play a central role well beyond its borders The close relations between India and the U.S. are the outcome of almost decades of crises, understanding and dialogue.

Author: Rudra Chaudhuri

“There is a peculiar(Unique or specific to a person or thing or category) appropriateness about this January 26 for this day links up the past with the present and this present is seen to grow out of that past.” This was the central argument in Jawaharlal Nehru’s message to the nation prior to the inauguration of the Republic in 1950. That the day itself was of “great significance” is hardly contestable. It demonstrated the “fulfilment to a dream,” as Nehru put it. It was to communicate an achievement accomplished by no other nation in the modern world. History, as Nehru argued, was full of examples of the “chaos(A state of extreme confusion and disorder) giving birth to the dancing star of freedom.” India was an exception. On the whole, the great change that ushered(Take someone to their seat) Independence had “taken place by agreement.” This is perhaps the single most important fact that connects India and the United States. This was as true in 1947 as it is today. It was not just that India won her independence from colonialism, but that she did so minus violent rebellion. Similarly, it’s not just that India is the largest democracy in the world that attracts American entrepreneurs and political leaders today, but that it is a democracy able to absorb huge amounts of variance and remain largely steady.

Opportunities created by history
The invitation to President Barack Obama to be  the chief guest at the 66th Republic Day is both a reflection of something bold and at the same time unsurprising, when understood in historical context. Bold because concerns about perception and the bogeyman of empire matter little to a Prime Minister more interested in the future than in history. Unsurprising because much like Nehru’s message in 1950, the relationship between India and the U.S. too is an example of how the present has in fact grown out of the past. Most commentators have preferred to look at the opportunity of today. Nuclear agreements, defence contracts and export control laws absorb the headlines and for good reason.
At the same time, there is a historicity that has been lost in debating the immediate. More obvious explanations such as the change in leadership in India and a general transformation in the mood of the country appear to explain Mr. Obama’s special visit. In fact, the close relations in the present are but the palpable(Capable of being perceived; especially capable of being handled, touched or felt) outcome of almost 70 years of crises, understanding, and dialogue. That Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been able to capitalise on opportunities created by history is a feat. But this history is worth remembering as we look to celebrate our Republic and better understand why the U.S. President’s attendance on this January 26 is less shocking than otherwise suggested.

Funny People. This is how President Dwight Eisenhower once described Indians. The chief of Army Staff turned President could not bring himself to “trust” India. They were, after all, led, according to him, by a “personality of unusual contradictions.” Nehru’s India remained paradoxical to an entire generation of American Presidents, businessmen, and even journalists. India was a democracy but believed in giving the People’s Republic of China a place in the United Nations Security Council. It accepted military assistance from the U.S. during the war with China without once saying thank you. When a group of American and British military officials and diplomats arrived in New Delhi to meet the Prime Minister in the third week of November 1962, Nehru, as one American in the group recollected, was “withdrawn.” The snub(Reject outright and bluntly) aside, President Kennedy was found more understanding. Curiously, he accepted that America was wrong to expect a gracious nation: India was simply too self aware as a new born democracy to cede(to surrender) any space — even if only by way of rhetoric(Using language effectively to please or persuade) — that risked jeopardising(Put at risk) the freedom it fought so hard to win. Whether it is Kennedy, his successor Lyndon Johnson, or Richard Nixon after, American leaders well understood that India could not be pushed around.

The change

This was a period of learning. Indians were no longer funny in the sense Eisenhower once quipped. The paradoxes slowly came to be accepted as fact: India would be moved by her own interests. Of the 12 U.S. Presidents who have dealt with India since 1947, Nixon gratingly internalised this the quickest. During Indira Gandhi’s visit to the U.S. in 1971, Nixon invested in silly ploys to put both her and India in its place. He kept her waiting for 45 minutes to demonstrate “a kind of one-upmanship”, as an aide later wrote. That he intently disliked Mrs. Gandhi was clear. After all, whilst Nixon worked with Pakistan to break the ice with China, India would not let him ignore the atrocities committed in and around Dacca. Interestingly, following the 1971 war, Henry Kissinger was quick to admit that the White House backed the “wrong horse on the subcontinent.”
Mrs. Gandhi too realised that it was imperative to “seek new ties” and cut “across old rigidities.” Whether it was her or Rajiv Gandhi, the relationship was found changing well before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War merely provided the space for something structural to allow a period of engagement to what was already acceptable to Indian leaders and populations alike. Such change was premised on an understanding that the dancing stars of democracy that survived the Cold War left nothing to chance. Unlike the U.S’s relationship with France or Britain, there was a rough edge to an advance with India where disagreement and come-back incrementally invested in strategic resilience. Such resilience is what has allowed Mr. Modi to envisage a future with America, despite disagreements over a whole range of issues whether at the World Trade Organization or to do with insurance liabilities.

Unlocking the potential

Chalein Saath Saath. This is of course the professed joint vision shared by both Mr. Modi and Mr. Obama. Such agreed rhetoric was unthinkable at the time of Nixon and Gandhi or Nehru and Kennedy. After all, the first four decades following Independence was about investing in what might be considered a mutual fund, the dividends of which facilitated the transformational changes witnessed between the late 1990s till 2014. Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh essentially used this fund to their advantage. By 2004, when the Congress-led government was elected to power, the Bush administration was clear that India was “a strategic prize.” The sanctions imposed by the Clinton Presidency following India’s nuclear tests were a mere detail in the fog of history. The idea was to now transform the relationship into something deeper that would allow both these outsized democracies to walk more firmly together. The nuclear agreement achieved this. Despite three years of intense debate and at times hopeless attempts at a breakthrough, not to mention the near disintegration of the Congress-led coalition, it “unlocked,” as then Secretary of State  Condoleezza Rice put it, “a new and far broader world of potential” for India and America. In a sense, the agreement did something more than realise potential. It led to a makeover in the relationship, whilst clearly recognising that the Indian star only dances to its own tune. In short, the Bush White House conceded a lot more than what many of its critics thought a prize was worth.
Prior to 2014, the focus of the relationship between India and the U.S. was primarily dependent upon a fund that conditioned bilateral transactions. The rules governing the fund was equally shaped by a mix of old and new biases and prejudices that informed the way in which capital was built and dividends distributed. A degree of distance was important for Indian officials should China or even Pakistan feel betrayed by unlimited levels of U.S.-India market capitalisation. For the present government, these rules no longer matter. Free market politics is what seems to motivate Mr. Modi. Mr. Obama’s attendance on this January 26 is as important from the perspective of furthering bilateral ties, as it is to show the world that India is ready to play a central role well beyond its borders. Yet, like many funds, levels of interest may change depending upon the managers at the helm(A position of leadership), but the basis on which capital is built ought not to be ignored. This is especially moot(arguable) when considering a role in the world alongside an older democracy that understands funds and interests better than most.

(Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri is Senior Lecturer, King’s College London and author of Forged in Crisis: India and the United States Since 1947.)

Read more »