NUCLEAR POWER

On the eve of parliamentary debate on the Indo-US nuke deal, chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Anil Kakodkar, on Friday met India's former nuclear heads on the BilI and told them that he would convey their concern to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Kakodkar met the scientists at the Nuclear Power Corporation here on Friday. Those present included M R Srinivasan, Homi Sethna, A N Prasad, Y S R Prasad, P K Iyengar and A R Gopalakrishnan. Their stand was that the Bill will not serve the interests of Indian nuclear establishment since it had considerably deviated from the original July 18, 2005 agreement. "Kakodkar shares our concerns," they told mediapersons after the nearly three-hour meeting. In August 2006, these scientists had met the PM and expressed reservations about the nuke deal even before it was passed by the US Senate and the Senate and House of Representative versions were subsequently merged to become the Hyde Bill. Though the scientists were hoping that the Bill would be India-friendly, but that was not the case, prompting the meeting. A N Prasad said that they were clear that the Hyde Bill had departed from the original agreement and even from the promises made by the PM. "The points which we raised today should be used by our negotiators while dealing with the 123 Agreement and we have also insisted that it should be reflected in it," he said. The main thrust of their argument was that the 123 agreement should honour the commitments made in the understanding reached between US president George Bush and Manmohan Singh in Washington on July 18, 2005. Listing their concerns in a paper they said Hyde Bill suffers the following drawbacks:
• India has been asked to participate in an international effort on nuclear non-proliferation with a policy congruent to that of the US. • India has been denied the right to conduct future nuclear weapon tests. • The Act requires the US to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which this country would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. • The Act is totally silent on the US working with India to move towards universal nuclear disarmament, but it eloquently covers all aspects of non-proliferation controls of US priority, into which they want to draw India into committing. They submitted the paper to Kakodkar who in turn may show it to the PM. "In short, it is obvious that the Hyde Act still retains many of the objectionable clauses in the earlier House and Senate Bill on which the PM had put forth his objections and clarified the Indian position in both the Houses," the paper said. "As such the government of India many convey their views formally to the US administration and they should be reflected in the 123 Agreement." Srinivasan said that the Hyde Bill would be discussed during the next meeting of AEC. "We have also opposed the commitment which we are supposed to make on foreign policy issues like Iran," he said. While pointing out that PM was keen on standing committed to the 2005, agreement, "both India and the US should accommodate each others interests. Our nuclear independence should not be bartered away," he added "We have advised the PM through Kakodkar that the conditions in the agreement should be congenial to Indian interests

Statues as symbols

We build statues out of snow and weep to see them melt, Walter Scott once said. From schoolyards to public grounds to neighbourhood parks you see them everywhere. Stone, bronze, clay and plaster of Paris. Some mounted on stone, standing in alcoves, some larger than life, some much more modest. To celebrate victories, record achievements, honour heroes and, at times, the mark of the ambitious eager for immortality. The occasion is often forgotten but we are reminded time and time again of the power of these memorials to touch a primal chord in us. At a time when instances of statue desecration cutting across political ideologies are growing, it makes sense to step back and examine what it is that makes them such potent tools for adulation or animosity. For a start these spatial and temporal landmarks are loaded with memory. Anthropologist Katherine Verdery says statues symbolise a specific famous person while in effect being the 'body' of that person. By arresting the process of that person's bodily decay, a statue alters the temporality associated with him, bringing him into the realms of the timeless. Many of these symbols that once found expression in the beliefs and rituals of primitive society, continue to remain embedded in what Carl Jung calls the "collective unconscious", or that part of the psyche that retains and transmits the common psychological inheritance of mankind. "Often these symbols are so ancient and unfamiliar to modern man that he cannot directly understand or assimilate them", he says. That is why statues or monuments evoke such strong reactions, be it awe, fear, adulation or anger and violation when they are demolished. Indians are hardly unique when it comes to statuemania. Societies from Greeks to Romans have been obsessed with erecting memorials and busts. But there is something deep-rooted in the Indian psyche that explains the countless statues dotting our towns and cities. Statues, which freeze memory and time, are ideal for perpetuating stereotypes. They also help foster and propagate an environment of blind hero-worship. Ergo, subjects are always portrayed larger than life — be it Nehru holding court in his trademark jacket or Gandhi striding ahead supported by his walking stick or Ambedkar cradling a copy of the Constitution. They are generally elevated and placed in an enclosure that is regarded as sacred. Celebrating the individual was one of the aims of Roman sculpture. Romans routinely liked to adorn their houses with busts or herms — pillars topped by busts — crafted in bronze or marble. This does not allow human appearances to be forgotten or the dust of ages to prevail against men. In this, Romans were no different from Greeks. But while Greeks had given their gods an ideal human form, Romans strove to make their rulers godlike. As Daniel Boorstin writes in The Creators, "When Julius Caesar was given the title of Augustus and became the object of worship, his statue had to be 'apotheosized'... Sculpture became the vehicle of politics and the visual symbol of empire. Sculptors had to offer recognisable likenesses of Augustus to unite imperial loyalties yet the figure had to be sufficiently idealised to serve a religious ritual function, raising him above human rank". This is when they become totems or objects viewed as having a special mystical or symbolic role in society. During Mao Zedong's resurgence in China in the early 1990s, street markets were suddenly full of Mao badges, posters,embroideries, bust and buttons and even alarm clocks. For some Mao became a good-luck charm, for others a talisman, reaching a crescendo just before his 100th birth anniversary in 1993. Thus if statues could perpetuate memory, destroying them can erase memories. Romans had "damnation memoriae" as a punishment for treason. Along with execution and confiscation of property, images of the person were to be destroyed and his name erased from all inscriptions. Statues are symbolic of a community and its shared ideals and beliefs. Which is why destroying one is akin to iconoclasm, and desecrating or mutilating a statue rouses much stronger emotions than if a disembodied comme-morative plaque of a park or road is defaced.

Your cell phone = your wallet

For nearly a decade, cell phone carriers have dreamed of the day when consumers can shop using their handhelds, not their wallets. One touch of the dial pad and the holiday scarf for Mom is sold.
Only recently, however, has it become technologically viable for users to transfer money securely to and from their cell phones. In Japan and parts of Europe, consumers are actively buying stuff with their handsets. So U.S. carriers must be falling over themselves to sell phones with ATM-like capabilities here at home, right?

As it turns out, mobile phone operators are the ones holding up a new era of wireless money transfers in the United States. The reason: They haven't found a business model they like. Negotiations between carriers and consumer banks have recently stalled over when - and how much - users must pay when they buy double-shot lattes via their cell phones.
The impasse is wilting once-rosy projections on the potential size of the mobile payments market. ABI Research recently cut by 10 percent the number of handsets it expects to ship in 2011 that have the 'near field communication' (NFC) technology that can beam payments from bank accounts to retailers.
"This is not going to happen as quickly as we thought," says Jonathan Collins, an ABI senior analyst. "The business model needs to be hashed out before mobile payments can take off."
A cash cow waiting to be drained
The problem, explains Collins, is about rivalry and profit-sharing. With their tight grip on the mobile ecosystem, carriers have been reluctant to open up their customer base to banks, whom they also consider competitors.
Fees are the other main sticking point. The phone carriers want a percentage of each sale made with a cell phone. But banks argue that's not a viable model because it will effectively mean higher prices for consumers. If mobile payment services aren't cheap and easy, the financial firms argue, consumers won't use them.
Carriers have plenty of reasons to break the deadlock. The mobile payments market is expected to reach $55 billion by 2008, according to consulting firm Celent. A chunk of those riches will go to handset vendors like Motorola (Charts) and Nokia (Charts). But the carriers stand to reap untold ancillary revenues: If consumers can use their cell phone to buy movie tickets at the box office, the next logical step is mobile banking and other services that require customers to buy pricey data plans.
Thomas Zalewski, a Nokia executive, agrees that the big promise of mobile payments for carriers lies in secondary services - and not in any direct fees from cell phone-based purchases. "Perhaps that's where they get a piece of the action."
Niche carriers look for an advantage
Analysts aren't making any predictions on when the standoff will end. For now, the most shoppers can hope for are rudimentary services from much smaller cell phone carriers. Known as "mobile virtual network operators" (MVNOs), these fledgling carriers lease spectrum from major carriers and chase after niche markets.
Amp'd Mobile - an MVNO that targets music buffs, has rolled out a scaled-down service that lets consumers exchange money with each other via their cell phones. So, for instance, a father could text message $100 to his college son's cell phone. Helio, an MVNO aimed at young adults, will soon unveil the same service, called Obopay.
The problem with the above scenario, however, is that both the father and the son must sign up for Obopay for the service to work. The only way they can purchase goods is with a traditional debit card, just like shoppers do today. So Obopay, while moving in the right direction, still has a ways to go. The service is working with both Helio and Amp'd Mobile to enable consumers next year buy with their phones.
7-Eleven is also pushing into mobile payments through its Speak Out Wireless cell phone service. Last month the convenience store chain began a trial service in its Dallas hometown that uses near field communication technology. 7-Eleven is testing the program with Nokia and MasterCard.
But small players like 7-Eleven and Helio - a joint venture of Korea's SK Telecom and Earthlink - aren't about to snatch the mobile payment opportunity out from under the major carriers. Their collective customer bar is far too small, and likely to stay that way.
"To really scale this you need a large carrier that's willing to take a chance," says Nokia's Zalewski. Like most handset makers, Nokia is eager to bring its NFC phones to the United States. But so far, no American carriers have ordered any - either from Nokia or any other device maker.
They might be in for a long wait.
"Mobile payments won't happen until the [major] carriers are confident they'll make money from this," says Collins, the ABI analyst.

Break the silence on sexual assault

Ten years ago, I was raped by someone whom I trusted. I was forced to lead a secluded life, but the one who should have been punished is leading a happy life today as the case is still in court. Initially, my parents discouraged me from reporting the incident. But with the help of an NGO, I lodged a complaint though I don't know if I will get justice." — Aparna, rape victim "When I went to lodge a complaint against the rapist of my four-year-old daughter, I was asked by the police to sign on a piece of a paper and I did. Later, I found out that the paper had a statement saying I didn't want my daughter to undergo a medical examination. In the absence of a medical report, the accused was let off. The review petition in the higher court was also dismissed because two years after the incident, my daughter had become more articulate and so it was felt that she was tutored." — R Kapoor, father of a victim (names have been changed) The Imrana verdict might seem to be a shot in the arm for rape victims, but such verdicts are very rare. Most rape cases go unreported or drag on in courts for years. Afreen, legal officer with Lawyers' Collective in New Delhi, says that in 90% of the cases, the victims at some stage during the trial feel that the whole exercise is futile and would prefer to back out because they cannot maintain anonymity, though the law provides for it. ""Even Imrana was publicly named. But she had the support of the media and her family. In many cases, they are not assured of any security," says Akhila Shivadas, executive director, Centre for Advocacy and Research. She recalls an incident where a victim charged her husband with rape. But before she could gather evidence, he killed her. In most cases, the victims are made to either marry the rapist or the parents arrange for a hush-hush marriage. Shahjahan, a counsellor at NGO Shakti Vahini, remembers an incident where a victim was married to the driver of the rapist. ""She agreed as she had nowhere else to go," he says. Approaching the police is also not a welcome prospect. ""Investigating officers are advised not to visit the house of the victim and if they do, they should be in plain clothes. But that never happens," says Sudhir Rai of Centre for Social Research. ""Often, they presume that the victim is lying and treat her at par with the accused," adds Afreen. The problems start with the FIR itself. ""In most FIRs, the police refrain from using the word "rape' or "assault' but use terms like wrongdoing," says Afreen. The victims are even discouraged from filing an FIR. ""Recently, the father of a victim was told was "why did you let your daughter have so much freedom'? " says Rai. ""Most of the victims don't trust the legal system," says Ranjana Kumari, women's activist. ""There is no conviction in 99% of the cases. Also, it takes many years to get justice," says Flavia Agnes, lawyer and women's rights activist. Women are also humiliated and asked uncomfortable questions. ""Even for judges, it's a big joke. They laugh at the kind of questions asked in court," Agnes adds. The solution, she says, lies in improving the conviction rates and in inspiring confidence so that victims feel encouraged to report crimes.

Young, restless & religious: How God bridged Gen gap

Contrary to what many might believe, the young in India are no less religious than their elders, though their faith appears to be on the whole just a little more abstract and less ritualistic. In fact, if there is an age group slightly less religious than the rest, it is those in the early stages of middle age. The TOI-TNS poll shows that 72% of those in their twenties strongly believe in God, which is only slightly lower than the overall average of 75%, and another 19% "somewhat believe". This is more than the 69% of 40-49 year olds who are strong believers, the lowest figure for any age group. Whether those in their early middle age are less believers because they happen to be from the generation that grew up in the sixties and seventies or because they are at a stage in life in which trials and tribulations take a toll on faith is hard to say. But given that 39% of 50-59 year olds say they are more religious today than they used to be, the latter explanation might be more valid. The 50-59 age group is, not surprisingly, the one that comes across as the strongest believers as well as the one that has more faith in spiritual gurus and in the idea of God having a human form. The young (20-29), however, are more into religious books and music than any of the other age groups. Interestingly, the younger age groups perceived God (if he/she had a human form) as middle-aged, while the middle-aged felt God would be young. Of course, this difference in perception may be not so much because they visualise different ages for God, but simply because the definition of young and middle-aged tends to be different for different age groups. To return to the young, they are less inclined to see God as present in places of worship, idols, spiritual gurus or holy books. They are also less convinced that God is the creator, though 87% of them do believe this against 90%-plus levels in other groups. The perception of God as always just is also much lower among the 20-29 age group. A fairly high 21% of the youngest respondents felt God was always unjust, another 29% that he/she was sometimes unjust. Despite this feeling of unjustness, the young were less inclined to fear God than their elders. While 69% of them either fully or mostly agreed with the statement "I fear God", that proportion was 77% for those aged 30-39, 76% for the 40-49 and 73% for the oldest age group in the sample. The young are also less convinced that God will punish them for their sins, that incidents like Ganesha drinking milk or brackish water turning sweet demonstrate the presence of God or that their fate is predetermined. Theirs is also a less certain embrace of faith. Against the 8% of 50-59 year olds who said they never doubted the existence of God, 14% of those aged 20-29 were as sure about their belief in a supreme being. If you think this indicates a more open mind, try and explain this one: The young were less open to the idea of people converting from one religion to another, though the difference between age groups on this question is fairly small.

Child-hoods in jail? It's simply criminal

Child victims of trafficking and sexual abuse often face further victimisation under detention. No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily." So states the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the seven core treaties of the international human rights framework. But, according to Unicef, an alarming number of children around the world are being deprived of their liberty, held in detention without sufficient cause. The Convention stresses that imprisonment of a child shall be used "only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time", but many children are rounded up simply for being a nuisance or perceived as a threat. Moreover, most of them are not tried, and are held for months, and in some cases years, often without access to legal aid. Also, in keeping with the Convention, legislation in most countries requires separate facilities for children to prevent abuse and exploitation by adults. Yet detention with adults is routine in many countries. Unicef estimates indicate that more that one million children worldwide are living in detention as a result of being in conflict with the law. The term 'children in conflict with the law' refers to anyone under 18 who comes in contact with the justice system as a result of being suspected or accused of committing an offence. Most children in conflict with the law have committed petty crimes or such minor offences as vagrancy, truancy, begging or alcohol use. Some of these are known as 'status offences' and are not considered criminal when committed by adults.
Child-hoods in jail? It's simply criminal Most of these children are from deprived communities and families and are criminalised for simply trying to survive. Often, they are held under deplorable and inhumane conditions. Physical abuse is common and children suffer deep trauma resulting from torture and interrogation. Child victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation are often re-victimised. "Children in detention are frequently subjected to violence by staff...they may be beaten, caned, painfully restrained, and subjected to humiliating treatment such as being stripped naked and caned in front of other detainees. Girls in detention facilities are at particular risk of physical and sexual abuse," according to a UN study on violence against children released in August. Children in detention are also at risk of self-harm or suicidal behaviour, the study says. Putting children in prison instead of seeking alternatives stigmatises them as delinquents, robs them of opportunities for jobs and scholarships and exposes them to others who have committed more serious crimes. It also increases the likelihood of children breaking the law once again. Are there alternatives to detention? Yes, says Unicef. Its recommendations: Don't imprison children simply trying to survive; divert children who have committed minor crimes away from the criminal justice system; use detention only as a last resort; when children are imprisoned they should be kept separate from adults; governments should monitor the situation very closely, at a minimum having records of how many children are in jail and how long they have been there.