|
|
A Tribune Special
India-Myanmar ties: A strategic perspective
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Juvenile justice
Profile
On Record
|
A Tribune Special K. Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathi join the scientists’ debate
WE respond to R. Ramachandran’s article, “Why There is No Case for Further Nuclear Tests” (The Hindu, September 25, 2009). His main points are: “technical information published by the Department of Atomic Energy does not show Pokhran-II (P-2) was unsuccessful”; (b) an assertion: there are compelling arguments against need for resuming (thermonuclear (H-bomb) device testing). Even if it was so i.e. even if the thermonuclear test was a failure (c) “the DAE employed different techniques to estimate test yields (i.e. power outputs); (d) yield values from other five tests “are stated to be”! (by BARC) consistent with its original estimate of 60 kilotonnes (a bomb’s output equal to 60,000 tonnes of TNT) for the two main tests on May 11, 1998, i.e. a 45-kt (thermonuclear or TN) device and a 15 kt A-bomb exploded simultaneously. Of these, post-shot Radio-Chemical Method (RCM) (of device yield measurement) considered most accurate; (e) both A-bomb “trigger” and main H-bomb produce a type of nuclear particles called Neutrons. However, H-bomb devices, produce more Neutrons than A-bombs. This leads to considerably larger amounts of two artificially created radio-isotopes — Manganese 54 and Sodium 22 — being produced by the TN device than the A-bomb. This higher ratio of Manganese 54: Sodium22 in the H-bomb explosion does provide an “idea” of the A–vs – H-bomb/device yields (no numbers at all; only “an idea” of relative yield magnitudes); and this is supposed to be nuclear “physics”!). The writer’s justification: “The absolute values and scale of this higher ratio, (in TN device case) withheld for “obvious” sensitivity reasons, but qualitative difference in levels is evident”. The writer’s source: a BARC Newsletter article (July 1999). It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. (f) His last technical “scoring-point” is a “desperate explanation” of why and how, while the “pure” A-bomb of the BARC-claimed yield of only 15 kt – when its collaborator in P-2 – DRDO, and our top scientific institutions, as also numerous top nuclear weapons laboratories worldwide, have rated it at much higher 20-25 kt, produced a crater 25 meters in diameter — which the BARC dishonestly-claimed yield of only 15 kt could never have produced — the BARC–claimed -to-be-“successful” -H-bomb-of-45 kt, – thrice as powerful – even at BARC de-rated 15 kt yield pure ‘A’ bomb – produced no crater at all when a genuine 45 kt TN device, even common sense tell us, should have produced a gigantic crater. He says “at some low enough TN device emplacements, i.e. deep enough shafts, there would (only be) upheaval within the shaft) but no material... There would be no crater”! Here is our response. As regards Mr Ramachandran’s regurgitation of the BARC argument that it used different techniques in yield estimation, he was not personally involved in the tests. Mr Santhanam was one of the four key scientists directing P-2 from day 1. So, he can only say “45 kt fusion device and 15 kt fission bomb “are stated to be” (by BARC) “consistent with original estimates”. On what basis can he say this when those estimates are highly classified? As for post-shot RCM being “most accurate” (for nuclear explosions yield (power) estimation), former BARC Director’s Radiochemistry Division (RCD) told us: “I measured yield of (P-I) (1974) using Mass Spectrometry (MS) method. A microgram of plutonium was separated from sample taken near core of device, and its isotopic composition — which does not change with various transformations caused by nuclear tests — measured. The MS technique considered internationally the most accurate and reliable method for yield estimation even more accurate than RCM (which the writer tomtoms about, without knowing about nuclear weapon yield measurement). The MSM is far less sensitive to major weakness of the RCM. That’s why Dr Ramanna, former BARC Director, former AEC Chairman, and Mission Director P-1, insisted on the MS method for (P-1) yield estimation in 1974. If the MS method was used in (P-2) also, why exclude it in the BARC’s briefing to Mr Ramachandran? Using S.B. Manohar’s article (BARC Newsletter, July 9, 1999) on RCM to determine TN device yield lacks credibility as it is an inhouse publication. As for the BARC argument, the TN device produced “copious amounts” of Sodium-22 and Manganese-54 isotopes “characteristic of fusion reactions”, in the absence of exact numbers, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. A “fizzled” TN device also produces “copious amounts” of these isotopes. Moreover, mere presence of isotopes is not a quantitative yield measure. It can at best be a qualitative indicator. This obfuscation becomes worse when the writer said, “…it does provide an idea of the comparative (i.e. H-bomb vis-a-vis A-bomb) yields”! As a scientist, he ought to know that precise quantified statements are core of science and scientific credibility. Using an imprecise phrase like “copious amounts” begs the question. “The classified exact plutonium mass in the core of the (P-1) device may not have been known to the RC Division of BARC after P-1. However, RC measurements in RCD’s report indicated yield are significantly lower than Ramanna’s and Chidambaram’s claim. So, RCD’s report on yield of (P-1) was frozen by Ramanna and Chidambaram and consigned to the archives”! The writer then moves to our statement that had TN test really worked, the 120-meter deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was emplaced, would have been totally destroyed and its deepest portions even vapourised. There would, in addition, have been enormous surface damage to even massive 2-tonne and 8-meter high tripod “A-frame” astride the shaft’s mouth. This “A-Frame” has a complex set of winches and pullies connected at their bottom to a lift-like “container” to lower and raise personnel, equipment and materials to and from the bottom of the shaft when the TN device is being assembled would have been shattered. Both were totally intact after the TN device test. Mr Ramachandran has ignored this damning evidence that the TN device failed! He moves to the issue of cratering, using the BARC’s arguments on geological and TN device-related factors preventing crater formation by 45 kt yield TN device. Based on 25 metre diameter crater formed by 20-25 kt “pure” A-bomb (which BARC rates at only 15 kt yield), the DRDO calculated a 60-70 meter diameter crater should have been formed by the latter fully confirmed by the ARC. Thus, one needs a cogent response from Mr Ramachandran why and how such a phenomenon is supposed to have occurred. The super hi-tech ARC, independent of both BARC and DRDO with a 365 x 24 x 7 operated very large seismic array, 10-15 per cent more sensitive and accurate than DRDO’s, measured all the seismic signals from all P-2 tests. Their calculations, far more sophisticated than BARC’s, indicated a TN device yield at only 20 kt max. Mr Ramachandran then moves to the article by former DRDO chief and strategic affairs analyst, V.S. Arunachalam and K. Subramanian, respectively (The Hindu, September 21). They say, even a 25 kt A-bomb’s damage on enemy city targets with large populations would be ‘unacceptable’ to any adversary and so such A- bombs would be enough for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each. Surprisingly, though they argued for decades that H-bombs were central to our Credible Minimum Deterrent (CMD), they suddenly say A-bombs (which cannot yield more than 80 kt max) are enough. Why? Sour grapes following the TN device failure and no weaponisation for the last 11 years! China would be totally undeterred by our piffling A-bomb “arsenal” of yields. We reiterate our view, fully shared by the overwhelming majority of our nuclear scientists, strategic analysts and, above all, our military, that a sole A-bomb arsenal is grossly inadequate to be a CMD against China; only TN bombs can do so. Otherwise, why did four Prime Ministers (including Mr Vajpayee and his NSA Mr Brajesh Mishra) direct the top of BARC-DRDO leadership — Mr Kalam, Mr Chidambaram, Mr Santhanam and Mr Kakodkar — that one Pokhran-II test at least must be a TN device? The current “controversy” over the failure of the sole H-bomb test of P-2 is the only case of the long history of DAE, BARC being “highly economic with truth” and using such “economy” to protect themselves from public criticism of major failures in various programmes and projects. The failures have been screened from public gaze on unwarranted and secrecy grounds. Worse, the DAE has tried to hide facts from successive governments, Parliament and the people, causing damage to our nuclear programme and national security. The Prime Minister and the Union Cabinet must help stop this. The nation waits with bated breath if they can or
will.
K. Santhanam is a former Chief Adviser (Technologies), DRDO and Programme Director, Pokhran II; and Ashok Parthasarathi is a former Scientific and Technology Adviser to late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
|
|
India-Myanmar ties: A strategic perspective
Recent developments indicate that the international community has initiated the first steps to gradually open up to Myanmar. Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, perhaps the most famous prisoner in the world after Nelson Mandela, has met Western diplomats in Yangon. Speculation is rife that sanctions may soon be lifted. India’s relations with Myanmar, a devoutly Buddhist country, have been traditionally close and friendly. Geographically, India and Myanmar share a long land and maritime boundary, including in the area of the strategically important Andaman and Nicobar islands where the two closest Indian and Myanmarese islands are barely 30 km apart. Myanmarese ports provide India the shortest approach route to several of India’s north-eastern states. India’s national interest lies in a strong and stable Myanmar that observes strict neutrality between India and China and cooperates with India in the common fight against the insurgencies raging in the border areas of both the countries. For India, Myanmar is a bridge with Southeast Asia. In fact, it is a bridge between all the countries comprising the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC – Myanmar has observer status) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first decade of the 21st century has witnessed growing strategic engagement between India and Myanmar. According to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, relations with Myanmar have become truly multi-faceted… “with cooperation in a range of developmental and other projects in the areas of roads, power, hydro-carbon, oil refinery, transmission lines, telecommunications and information technology.” The key drivers of the India-Myanmar strategic relationship are cooperation in counter-insurgency operations and the need for India to ensure that Myanmar is not driven into Chinese arms through Indian neglect of its security concerns and arms requirements. Indian insurgent groups (the NSCN, ULFA and Manipur rebels among others) have been operating out of bases in the weakly controlled areas across the borders of the Indian states of Manipur and Mizoram and Myanmarese rebels, primarily the Chins and the Arakanese, have often taken shelter on the Indian side. It is in the interest of both the countries to cooperate with each other to fight these insurgent groups in a coordinated manner. In April-May 1995, during Operation Golden Bird, a joint operation, approximately 40 insurgents were been killed and a huge cache of arms was recovered. Since then, the two armies have been cooperating with each other for mutual benefit. In November 2001, the Myanmar Army had raided several Manipuri rebel bases, rounded up almost 200 rebels and recovered 1,500 guns. India-Myanmar cooperation is also essential to control narcotics trafficking and to curb the proliferation of small arms in the region. China has made rapid advances into Myanmar and established close political, military and economic relations. Myanmar provides China the shortest land route access to the northern Indian Ocean. China has signed a long-term agreement with Myanmar for the exploitation of its hydrocarbon reserves and for the transportation of oil and gas through a 1,100 km overland pipeline from Kyaukryu port in Myanmar to the border city of Ruili in Yunnan. This pipeline will reduce the distance by 1,200 km and make China less dependent on the Malacca Straits. China is also developing Sittwe as a commercial port on the west coast. It is natural that Chinese naval activity in the Bay of Bengal will soon follow. China has also been stepping up arms sales to Myanmar as other nations, including India, are loathe to sell offensive military hardware to the country. China is reported to have told Myanmar to take artillery guns from North Korea in return for rice. Radars have been reported to have been erected on Myanmar’s west coast to monitor Indian missile tests. This is not a positive development as it will further increase Myanmar’s dependency on China. However, indications from the military regime are that it does not want China to exercise undue influence in Myanmar’s internal affairs. Reports of Myanmar’s quest for the acquisition of nuclear weapons from North Korea (with Chinese and Pakistani help), though uncorroborated, are of concern to India as nuclear weapons in the hands of another military regime would not be conducive to long-term strategic stability in South Asia. If the news about Myanmar’s nuclear ambitions is true, the international community must adopt all measures to necessary to prevent the emergence of another nuclear weapon state in the region. While India is concerned with the slow pace of progress on the issue of national reconciliation and the consequent delay in installing a democratically elected government in power in Yangon, the strategic scenario compels India to balance its security concerns with its support for the emergence of democratic rule. It is only through close engagement that India can promote leverages with the ruling regime to nudge it gently towards national reconciliation. India must also increase its economic footprint in Myanmar, particularly in areas that are contiguous to India. The military regime is firmly entrenched in power — the monks’ agitation notwithstanding. Sanctions and other diplomatic pressures have not worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the future. The fear psychosis of Myanmar’s military junta is being exploited by China and this cannot be in the interest of either India or any of the other democracies of the free world. It is important to end Myanmar’s isolation and to allay its fears that the whole world is ganging up against it. India and the other regional powers can play a positive role in the re-entry of Myanmar into the international mainstream so that it can be nudged towards becoming a strong democracy that is also mature and responsible and willing to play by the rules and traditions governing international relations. Perhaps multi-national talks, which include India, China, Japan, ASEAN and other stakeholders, would be the best way forward. At least in the initial stages it may be prudent for the US to stay away from such
talks.
The writer is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi
|
Juvenile justice
Children are the most vulnerable group in any population. They can be exploited, ill-treated and directed into undesirable channels by anti-social elements. In Legal Aid committee V. UOI, the Supreme Court observed, “children require the protective umbrella of society for better growth and development as they are not in a position to claim their entitlements.” The state is the foster father for all those children who are deprived of parental care. It has the duty of giving protection to them. Ideally, every home should be a ‘Child Care Home’ but the ground realities are different. Materialism has adversely affected familial relationships. Consumerism has taken its toll on social bonding. Homes are breaking and indifference has settled in community behaviour. We are evolving as individuals but degenerating as a social animal. In the prevailing cultural and social milieu, children have been led to the doorsteps of criminal world. According to the National Crime Record Bureau, 32,681 juveniles are arrested by police every year in India on charges of murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, burglary, theft, hurt and other crimes. Six percent of them are girls. Juvenile delinquency has increased by 1.1 per lakh of population in 1995 to 1.7 per lakh of population in 2008. Poverty and illiteracy were the two main causative factors behind this. In all, 27 per cent of the arrested juveniles were illiterate, 37 per cent under primary, 72 per cent from the BPL families, 6.8 per cent from the middle income group and 0.2 per cent from the high income group. The ill-effects of juvenile delinquency can be mitigated if the fundamental principles for the administration of juvenile justice are put into practice. The Beijing Rules and Riyadh Guidelines have declared the fundamental rules which should be applied to deal with the problem. India, being a signatory to all the conventions on the Rights of Child, is under legal and moral obligation to enact laws conforming to international standards. Articles 15(3), 21, 21(A), 22(1), 22(2), 23, 234, 37(e), 37(f), 45, 47 and 51A(k) of the Indian Constitution impose a primary responsibility on the state to ensure that all the needs of children are met and their basic human rights are fully protected. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 are the laws to deal with juvenile delinquents and juveniles in need of the care and protection. The Fundamental Principles for Administration of Juvenile Justice, as elaborated in Justice Rules, 2007 include presumption of innocence, right to be heard, positive measures, principles of no harm, no maltreatment and principle of best interest. Unfortunately, the apathy of the law enforcement agencies and the law adjudication authorities have rendered these laws as non-existent. To provide a child-friendly environment, the cases of ‘juveniles in conflict with law’ are to be adjudicated upon by the Juvenile Justice Board, to be constituted by the state government concerned in every district. Almost all Boards are functioning from the regular court premises, contrary to law. Childhood is the age for play and personality development and not for facing prolonged trial in the court. The rule 13(6) (d), therefore, rightly prescribed that cases of juveniles should be disposed of by the Board within four months. It can be extended by two months in exceptional cases involving transnational criminality, large number of witnesses and inordinate delay in production of witnesses. Except in serious crimes, delay in trial beyond six months should automatically lead to termination of the proceedings against the juvenile. Despite the clear mandate of law, lakhs of cases are pending in courts beyond six months. This is illegal and gross injustice to the children. The state machinery is equally negligent in providing infrastructure and facilities for the juveniles. The Child Welfare Committees to be constituted as per the provisions of JJ Act 2000 and JJ Rules 2007 are not in place in all the states. The Children’s Home and Shelter Home with prescribed facilities are non-extent. The selection committee for social workers to be associated with the Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge has not been constituted in most states. The state is required to put the apparatus in place to ensure proper adoption, foster care, sponsorship and rehabilitation of juveniles. The objective is to ensure social reintegration of every juvenile as a normal citizen. A juvenile is the responsibility of the state till he or she attains the age of 18 years. The After Care organisations are designed to prepare the juveniles who have attained adulthood, to rise on their feet. Unfortunately, the After Care organisations and the Social Reintegration mechanism as envisaged in the JJ Act have not been provided adequately in any of the states. To protect the human rights of children, crimes against children have been separately defined under the Act. All these crimes are cognisable offences where police can register FIRs and arrest offenders without warrant. The police is ignorant and hardly any cognisance is taken under these provisions though the children are suffering atrocities including the exploitation of child labour in public view. Any law is as good or bad as its enforcement. The Juvenile Justice Act 2000 is the best law and a complete code which anyone can imagine for the juveniles’ care and protection. Deplorably, these laws and rules are not implemented in letter and spirit. The law enforcement agencies should be told that acting in violation of the law is unpardonable. They can be held liable for their negligence. The only saving grace for them till now is that victims of criminal negligence are poor children who have no spokesperson to raise the voice for them at appropriate forum. The children’s rights need to be protected if the civilisation has to progress in the right direction. There is an imperative need for sensitising those who are given the responsibility of protecting the children’s
rights.
The writer, a senior IPS officer, is Inspector-General of Police, Training, Haryana
|
|
Profile The Act allows anyone of any rank in the army or a paramilitary force under its operational command to shoot, arrest or search without warrant and to kill on suspicion. In Sharmila’s state, this law has been invoked repeatedly. On November 2, 2000, a convoy of Assam Rifles was bombed by insurgents in Manipur. In retaliation, men in uniform went berserk, shooting 10 civilians. Sharmila had gone to Malon town to participate in a peace rally. She was shocked to see pictures of dead bodies on the front page of newspapers and thought the peace rally would be meaningless; something drastic has to be done to stop further violence. Consequently, she started “fast unto death” to press her demand. Time and again courts have released her but she resumed her fast and is invariably re-arrested. Kavita Joshi, a film maker, spoke to Sharmila in prison and shot a film on her struggle. She was asked: “How long are you prepared to go on like this”? Her reply was: “I don’t know though I do have hope. My stand is for the sake of truth, and I believe truth succeeds eventually. That is why I am still alive through these artificial means”. Sharmila devotes lot of time practicing yoga. She says, “It helps keep my body and mind healthy”. She also dabbles in naturopathy. As the interview was over and Kavita Joshi was about to leave, Sharmila expressed a wish: she wanted to read the life history of Nelson Mandela and requested a copy of his autobiography. The story of Mandela’s life was duly sent to her. Thirty-seven-year old Sharmila hails from a middle class family of Manipur. She is the youngest child of Irom Nanda and Irom Sakhi Devi. Her sister Vijayanti and brother Singhajit say, the ‘never say die’ spirit is ingrained in her since childhood. For some of her friends she is an yoga enthusiast who at times dabbles in naturopathy. For litterateurs of Manipur, she is a poetess, who has written hundreds of poems. For the vast majority of Manipuris, she is the ‘Iron Lady of Manipur’. Noted writer Mahasweta Devi during a visit to Manipur recently wanted to meet Sharmila but one does not know why she was not allowed to meet her. She had gone to Imphal to participate in he ‘Festival of hope, justice and peace’, organised by the Justice and Peace Foundation to mark the occasion of Sharmila’s struggle entering the tenth year. A disappointed Mahasweta said she appreciated the campaign of Sharmila and spread her message throughout the country. She will also write about Sharmila’s struggle in her future books. Sharmila will be honoured with the foundation’s Award for her crusade against human rights violation and for repeal of AFSPA. After so many years of struggle, Sharmila can see a silver lining. The general secretary of the Indigenous Nationalist Party of Tripura, Rabindra Debbarma has been quoted as saying that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P. Chidambaram have assured him that AFSPA would be amended so that tribals were not harassed by paramilitary forces. He recently met the Prime Minister and the Home Minister in New Delhi. He alleged that about 1,500 tribal youths were arrested by paramilitary forces over the years on cooked up charges. It may not be possible to repeal AFSPA but if the Act is amended, it will be a victory for Sharmila, paving the way for her to give up her nine-year-long hunger strike and start taking solid food instead of being forcibly
fed. |
|
On Record
MS
Sathyu, who is close to 80 years, keeps a good health and remains passionate about cinema. Best known for his movie Garam Hawa, Sathyu did his schooling and higher education at Mysore and Bangalore. His first assignment as an independent art director was for Haqeeqat, a film set against the Sino-Indian war of 1962, which got him the Filmfare Award in 1964. His repertoire includes over 15 documentaries and eight feature films in Hindi, Urdu and Kannada. Garam Hawa is one of the last cinema productions featuring 1950s’ Marxist cultural activists including Balraj Sahni and Kaifi Azmi. It won several Indian national awards in 1974, including the National Integration Award. It was invited for the competitive section at Cannes and was also the Indian entry at the Oscars, and got the Filmfare award for best screenplay. Sathyu is married to Shama Zaidi, screenwriter, costume designer, art director, theatre person, art critic, and documentary filmmaker. He speaks to The Tribune in Bangalore about his eventful career. Excerpts: Q: Your 1974 classic Garam Hawa is again being released in theatres. Is it correct? A: Yes. Some of my friends have decided to restore the movie and release it again in theatres. The movie had got damaged and hence the restoration. Sometime next month we can see the movie being released in some select theatres. A DVD of the film will be available for purchase in the theatres where the screening will take place. Q: Is there any special reason for having the movie shown in theatres all over again? A: The problem of communalism has led my friends to think of organising the screening of the movie. They think Garam Hawa carries the kind of message that is useful to combat the scourge of communalism. Another reason for having the movie released for a second time is to tell the younger generation about the tragedy of Partition. Young people these days do not know much about the Partition. Q: It is strange that you, a person from South India where the affect of the division of the country in 1947 was hardly felt, made a memorable film like Garam Hawa with Partition of the country as the backdrop. How did you get attracted to such a theme? A: Inputs for the film came from many sources. Originally, it was a story by Ismat Chugtai and my wife Shama Zaidi made a film script based on the story. Then Kaifi Azmi wrote the dialogues and made some changes in the script. The movie was produced by me and two other partners. I knew Partition affected people who had settled in Bombay. I also lived in Delhi for sometime and there I could see the aftermath of the 1947 division. My wife, being from a Muslim family of UP, helped me with some typical Muslim cultural symbols shown in the movie. Q: What was the experience of directing the great Balraj Sahni in Garam Hawa. A: This was Balraj’s last movie. We had worked together for stage performances before. Directing him did not pose any special challenge to me. All the other actors in the film were also from the stage except Jalal Agha. Q: How was this film received in Pakistan? A: It was never officially shown in Pakistan. People have only seen the movie in pirated cassettes and CDs. A few months ago when I went to Pakistan I took a rudimentary DVD of the film with me and showed it to a group of students in Lahore. They liked the film a lot. In Pakistan also there is very little awareness among the younger generation about Partition. Q: Are you making any film at present? A: I have just finished making a Kannada movie Ijjadu. I shall like to make a Hindi movie about Dara Shikoh if I get the finances. I produced a play on the Mughal prince and it was received very well wherever it was shown. However, a movie is a different ballgame. The battle scenes of the war of succession between the four sons of Shahjahan will cost a lot of money. What I particularly like about Dara Shikoh is that he was so
secular. |
||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
IT is unbelievable but true. An activist from Manipur, Irom Sharmila, has been on fast for last nine years except being force-fed intermittently. For five years, she is incarcerated at the security ward of J.N. Hospital, Imphal. She refuses to take food and has to be forcibly nose fed. She has been demanding repeal of the Armed Forces ( Special Powers) Act (AFSPS), a law that can be invoked in any part of India, described as “disturbed”. 