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.