What Fukushima tells us...

Rather than question the safety of nuclear power, we should strive to strengthen it. We must learn basic lessons from Fukushima. The impending energy crisis, the risks of climate change and the limited time we have in tiding over these threats cannot be lost track of.

The accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant as result of a tsunami seems to have made a heavier impact on the public mind all over the world than the tsunami itself. This calls for a deeper understanding of the perceived as well as real risks of nuclear power.

India is the fifth largest producer of electricity in the world after China, the US, Japan and Russia. However, in per capita terms, it ranks around 150. China is at the 80th rank, Russia 26th, Japan 19th and the US 11th. Annual per capita electricity consumption , a key index of development, is at around 650-700 kWh in India. This is less than half of the average in non-OECD countries, one-fourth the world average and 14 times less than the average in OECD countries. We need to decide what our target should be. In my view, 5,000 kWh appears a reasonable number. This is significantly better than the world average and about half the average in OECD countries.

At this level of per capita electricity consumption for a projected stabilised population in India of around 1.6 billion, we need to add to Indian grids electricity generation of around 40% of the present-day global output. To realise the same target, China needs only about half as much. Our coal reserves can support electricity supply at such a level for around 11 years. Our total hydro potential can provide for around 5% of the needed generation capacity. Other renewables excluding solar can support around 2%. Nuclear and solar energy are thus the only energy sources that can meet the challenge of our development. This does not mean less emphasis on other forms of energy generation. We need to make full use of all energy resources available to us.

Let us talk about solar first. We would need to earmark around 4.5 million hectares of area to be able to collect enough solar energy to meet our needs. This is roughly a fourth of the barren uncultivable land available in India. We, however, need aggressive development of this technology to make it cost competitive . Also, since the sun does not shine on a 24x7 basis, we need cost-competitive energy storage technologies. There are other areas of development of energy technologies for the future such as fusion energy.
We may well be at the oil peak around now. Our coal is likely to run out in around 40-50 years. Alternative energy supplies at the requisite level of use would need to be ready before this time. A severe energy crisis is likely to hit us much earlier than it does most of the world.

We should look at nuclear energy in this backdrop. It already provides 16% of world electricity in a cost-competitive manner. Despite Fukushima or the earlier Chernobyl, TMI and other accidents , real risks with nuclear energy are the lowest compared to various energy forms in commercial use. The advantage of nuclear would be even higher if one factors in the additional risks associated with the predicted consequences of climate change as a result of use of fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner. Yet nuclear energy frightens us beyond all proportion.

According to a report of the United Nations Chernobyl forum expert group on 'health' published by the World Health Organisation in 2006, the Chernobyl accident caused 47 deaths till the year 2004 among firemen and severely exposed persons. From more than 4,000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in the 1992-2002 period, less than 1% died from this disease and the rest were treated successfully. We need to watch the situation further. An interesting point to note is that the effective dose as of year 2000 due to Chernobyl is already two and half times lower as compared to weapons fallout. We had Bhopal before Chernobyl when we suffered more than 3,500 fatalities. Yet Chernobyl remains a stronger image in our mind.

Fukushima so far has had no fatality caused by radiation. Seventeen workers have been exposed to doses in excess of 100 mSv, but that is lower than the permissible lifetime dose for occupational workers. There is radioactive contamination in the public domain, which will take quite some time to normalise. But the radiation dose received by people is unlikely to cause significant harm. The tsunami, which caused the accident at Fukushima, has taken more than 13,000 lives with more than 14,000 missing. Yet Fukushima seems to occupy much larger media space.

Seismically, the only region in India somewhat comparable to Japan is the Himalayan belt. As a matter of policy we do not locate a nuclear power station there. Epicentres that can potentially trigger a tsunami are around 10 times farther away in India's case as compared to Japan, which has not shut down reactors that are operable.

This is not to justify Fukushima . Such accidents are not acceptable . We must learn basic lessons from Fukushima and strengthen the safety of our nuclear activities without being complacent. We should also make rapid progress in bringing in advanced reactor systems such as AHWR with their greater degree of inherent safety. However, the impending energy crisis, the risks of climate change and the limited time we have in tiding over these threats cannot be lost track of. The tendency to read catastrophe into anything nuclear and allowing panic to grip us and deprive India from fulfilling its aspirations would be a self-defeating exercise.

Challenge science with fact, not jingoism....

The strange thing about controversies is that the logic of the text often loses out to the power of context. The myth of science has, as its ideal a value-free truth, a fact free from the colours of ethnicity, ideology or market interest. Controversies in science do not always follow the ideal.

Instead of a rational resolution by a peer group based on evidence, what we often get is a soap opera, where scientists slug it out, utterly indifferent to their professional roles. Consider the superbug controversy. It begins as an article in The Lancet, a prestigious and professional British medical journal, in August 2010. The journal publishes an article by Cardiff university scientists which observes that the water supply in Delhi has doses of the NDM-1 gene, which creates superbugs that trigger cholera and dysentery.

One must admit that the naming is a standard practice. But the naming here becomes lethal because of its mnemonic and labelling power. It is all right if basmati or champagne is seen geographically. It adds to its power as intellectual property but a bug named after its region of location lowers the market value of the region as tourist potential. Worse, such an act of scientific christening evokes a sense of pollution about the area conveying a negative sense of well-being, sanitation and hygiene. 

Now if a scientific fact were only a scientific fact, doctors would have met the argument by challenging it either with the empirical power of evidence, the statistical nature of the fact or the professionalism of the interpretation. The article would have been met with a well-behaved, well-marshalled rejoinder. Scientific issues whether on nuclear reactors, Bt Brinjals or superbugs rarely produced such well-behaved science. Science joins the costume ball of political and corporate interests.

The Indian medical establishment, politicians and the media reacted with concern but the concern was for Delhi's reputation. A city barely having recovered from the scandal of the Commonwealth Games could hardly afford a new scandal—especially an epidemic or a virus that is difficult to control.

The superbug threatened a variety of egos and interests. The naming of the bug after Delhi was seen as an insult. As a wag put it why malign a city, when a post box number could have served as an ID tag? The presence of the superbug challenges the competence of politicians. They are morally meant to be the keepers of hygiene. A superbug in the water becomes a challenge to Delhi's claim to good governance. Hygiene is to governance what chastity is to an individual. Third, it challenges a rising industry— medical tourism. This industry is built not just on lower costs and high efficiency but on a a boy scout reputation. The establishment retaliates with speed, questioning the study's sampling technique, the "singling out of Delhi", and the economic basis. It suggests it was inspired by a desire to promote certain pharmaceutical interests. Suddenly a bald fact acquires a baggage of other insinuations. Indian doctors retaliate that it is an attempt to threaten medical tourism and that the NHS record needs a detailed study. The media feels India has been insulted, convinced in its jingoism that the superbug cannot be a swadeshi effort. A conspiracy transforms a scientific debate into a cultural war.  

Our responses were too bureaucratic and ideological. Our health secretary wakes like Rip van Winkle and claims the study did not have the mandatory bureaucratic clearances. He goes one stage further by claiming the samples were intellectual property and insisting that "biological materials can't be exported without permission". Suddenly the bug seems to be pre-eminently native, circulating freely in the city of 17 million people.

The superbug as a scientific fact has met the suprabug of Indian polity—jingoism. A fear is a fear so long as it lacks an Indian marker. History is important here because there has been a tendency to ethnicize bacteria and viruses by locating their source in Africa or India. Tropical medicine always had a touch of colonial ideology. But oddly, when Indian science speaks on an issue, it sees itself as immaculately bias-free and sanitized of ideology or economic interest. There is often a double register of suspicion and immaculate science serving to protect science and governance in India.

The challenge before us is simple. Either India responds to science in scientific terms. Our scientists need to realize that a scientific fact is not value free. There are biases that surround it, which one must be sensitive about. Also, do we have to treat health and hygiene as chastity belts or can we realize vulnerability is a global phenomenon, which has to be responded to locally and globally? Why raise a scandal when we can be matter-of-fact? Why be jingoist or anti-colonial when we can be more at ease with science? Is meeting science with science a lost art form? Why do we behave like a church responding to a low-level Galileo? Can we anthropologize British fears of hygiene and immunity after Chadwick and Lord Lister and show that our cultures (bacterial and anthropological) have less to be afraid of? Is the inquisition still a permissible response to science? Imagine if the roles were reversed, would we respond the same way? The superbug has infected us all right. It shows we lack immunity to certain kinds of questions and our sense of science is still skin deep.  

This is how Kishan Baburao Hazare became 'Anna'

In the mid-1970's, a former Indian Army soldier declared war on illicit distilling and gambling in his village, Ralegaon Siddhi, in Maharashtra. Some liquor shops complied with Kishan Baburao Hazare's orders but for the rest, it was business as usual. Hazare decided to get tough when three drunkards from another village thrashed a local man.

He caught the three men when next they entered the village, had them tied to a pillar and flogged them with his army belt till they sobered up and promised to go on the wagon. Soon enough, all the liquor vends in the area vanished.

"It's not easy to bring change. If you really want to do some good, it's sometimes necessary to be tough," recalls Hazare with a smile.

Anna Hazare doesn't look like the toughie he talks about. He is short, moves slowly and talks softly. Dressed in a white dhoti-kurta, a Gandhi cap on his head, Hazare sits cross-legged onstage. Resting on a pile of white cushions, he surveys the crowd that has gathered at the site of his fast at the Ramlila Grounds in the national capital. Sometimes he claps his hands, joining the drumbeat of supporters singing revolutionary songs. Sometimes, he takes quick gulps of water from a steel glass offered by an attendant. Then as the sun climbs higher, he lies down, trying to sleep even as crowds swarm the stage from where he is challenging the government. 

"Look at this man. From which angle does he look like a fascist? He is 72 and on hunger strike to fight corruption and the politicians are calling him a fascist and a blackmailer. When politicians, cutting across party line, speak the same language, we have to be careful," says Ramesh Sharma, a social activist who has been camping at the venue, when Hazare began his fast-unto-death to force the government to accept civil society's recommendations on the Lokpal bill. Indeed, politicians have been talking much the same language.Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said Hazare had no locus standi on the issue because he was not an "elected representative" of the people; Mohan Singh of the Samajwadi Party accused him of employing "fascist tactics" and the Rashtriya Janata Dal's Raghuvansh Prasad Singh poured vitriol on him for "dictating" terms to the government.

Every time a politician opens his mouth against Hazare, he gets a few-hundred new followers, thousands of Facebook pages get updated and millions show their support for the man who has become a symbol of the fight against corruption. Bollywood actor Anupam Kher calls him a "selfless man who is risking his life for the sake of the nation"; Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy extends his "active support" to Hazare; Ravnish Singh, a jobless school teacher from Haryana sees "hope for the country" in him; student Shruti Khanna gets "inspiration from him to do something for the country"; and housewife Malti Rana from Faridabad feels as if "Gandhiji has come back to give us independence from the corrupt politicians".

Anna Hazare has never claimed he is Gandhi.The boy who left school after class VII, joined the army just before the 1962 war with China. He was shunted off to the border after he took on his superiors over corruption in ration supplies. "I was always a troublemaker. I used to have a temper. I could not see someone doing something wrong that makes others suffer. I would end up opening my mouth and get into trouble," says Hazare, who survived a massive Pakistani air raid on his convoy during the 1965 war. His comrades were riddled with bullets, Hazare survived. "That attack made me think about the purpose of my life. God saved me for a reason. I had to do something good and positive with my life," says Hazare, who returned to his village in 1975 and decided to clean it up with the help of young people. As Ralegon Siddhi moved to prosperity, Kishan Baburao Hazare became anna (elder brother) to the villagers.

Today, he is anna or elder brother for much of India. "There is a lot of anger among the people and they don't know how to express it. Suddenly they see an old man fasting to death not for any personal gain and they rally around him," says an IAS officer who just "walked by" the venue to "soak in the atmosphere". The officer, who doesn't want to be named for obvious reasons, adds that "the government miscalculated the impact of his fast. In this country a selfless act of sacrifice can pull a lot of people."

Simplicity is Anna Hazare's greatest strength. Integrity is another major factor that distinguishes him from other public figures. "They are calling him names now but Raghuvansh Prasad and Mohan Singh have done nothing to fight corruption. Being honest personally is not enough, they are members of parties which are synonymous with corruption," says Ramesh Sharma, the social activist. "Lobbyists, arms dealers and political fixers can influence government policy but there is no place for an old Gandhian in this system."  

Anna Hazare is a Gandhian with a difference. He is more like a street fighter who is not scared of taking on anyone because he believes his cause is just. And he is a man of many causes. At the venue, groups of poor farmers from Maharashtra talk of him as a hero. For them he is a living legend. All his actions — the fight against the liquor mafia; the battle against corruption in government offices; the crusade for a Right to Information act in Maharashtra; the campaign against the Mumbai underworld—has become the stuff of legend. And now he has many new converts in his fight against corruption. "I read somewhere that corruption is a middle-class fad. That's wrong. The worst victims of corruption in India are the poor. My fight is for the people living in the countryside who have to pay bribes to get what is legally due to them," says Hazare. "I will continue to fight for the people."

Hazare has been an activist for 40 years but has never touched hearts and minds in the way he did during his hunger strike for the Jan Lokpal bill. In a matter of two weeks, Anna Hazare has become a much larger figure than when he arrived in Delhi on April 3. Now, with the Lokpal bill issue settled for the moment, the fighter in Anna Hazare must surely be looking for his next big cause.  

What the PM should learn from Dhoni

My andawala, Raghavan, is a bent old man in his 70's with a serious heart condition . He is originally from Madurai. Yes, he confesses tiredly , he’s a long way from home and longs to retire there some day. But he says, with a philosophical shrug, he can’t think of it, not at this stage of his life. Why can’t he? His two sons are doing well; his grandchildren are healthy and happy; his wife is willing to look after him in the autumn of his life. What’s his excuse? He leans forward, looks over his shoulder surreptitiously and whispers, "Corruption! I can’t handle it any more. The country has its corruption."


"Hadh ho gayi.” He seems resigned to the thought of spending the remaining years of his life cycling from building to building, delivering bread and eggs to his regular customers. Over the months, i have seen the bright gleam in his eyes reduced to a sad flicker when he says, “Purana zamana hi theek tha.” By that he means life under the British! I wasn’t sure i’d heard right the first time he said that. So, he repeated it a few more times. And we left it at that. It’s a pretty damn depressing comment for any citizen of India to be making 63 years on. But there it is.

I met him the morning after our historic World Cup victory and asked him if he’d watched the match on TV. Indeed he had… his eyes were shining again. Just like old times. What did he think of the match? Dhoni ? The team? He shut his eyes and exclaimed, “If only Manmohan saab could learn from these jawan boys! Just look at how they have enhanced our desh ki shaan. Wah!” After a brief, euphoric chat, he picked up his heavy basket and left. His eyes were still shining. Well… countless eyes were shining for at least a week after Dhoni lifted the magnificent Cup, along with the spirits of a disillusioned and angry nation.


Comparisons and conclusions between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and our cricket captain were inevitable. It was all about effective leadership and leading from the front. Something poor Manmohan Singh has never been able to do (his hands and feet being tied). Sachin (the Legend of Legends) called Dhoni the best captain he’d played under. That is a huge compliment coming from the Master Blaster. In the political context, can Pranab Babu say that in all honesty about our PM? And, err... who will carry Manmohan Singh on their shoulders around the stadium called India? Over a billion people will happily do that for Anna Hazare, though!


One wonders what Manmohan Singh’s takeaway was from the final game against worthy opponents, Sri Lanka. Surely he must have noticed a few of the bold, unconventional, individualistic and risky decisions taken by Dhoni (changing the batting order being just one of them)? And surely, he must have applauded the manner in which the entire team played as a tightly knit, well-oiled winning machine , supporting each other’s strengths, covering up weaknesses , all the way?

How did Dhoni do it? Not by waving a magic wand. Not through bulldozing and badgering . And certainly not by looking the other way when his boys were tripping up or losing heart. Everybody agrees only Dhoni could have pulled it off, and as convincingly too because Dhoni has shown over and over again that he plays with a straight bat. Simple. And expects the same from his team. Dhoni also doesn’t play favourites and treats every player with the same respect. Dhoni is smart enough to realize he doesn’t have all the answers and seeks the guidance of seniors, even juniors, besides listening attentively to the team manager. Dhoni audaciously puts himself on the line when he has to (Sreesanth!) and takes his chances when he needs to (making Sachin bowl). He’s a man who knows his mind and speaks it (no mincing words, not even about his earlier lacklustre performances ). He has transformed what was considered a good team into a world class one through strategic planning and total commitment.


This spectacular win was no fluke. The first people to admit as much are his critics and they do so ungrudgingly. There is much to learn from Dhoni. And if Manmohan Singh keeps his eyes, ears and heart open, it’s still not too late to start reversing the damage done to a bruised nation. A leader who’s good at his job instinctively realizes when to push ahead and when to back off. A leader also knows whom to give credit to… in Dhoni’s case, that one person was clearly Sachin, but he made sure all the other key players in India’s win (Gautam, Virat, Zaheer and of course, Yuvraj) were duly acknowledged, as was every player in the team. Dhoni demonstrated admirable restraint (that’s one powerful trait he shares with the prime minister ) all through the dramatic season. Perhaps, that’s the key common attribute that Manmohan Singh should capitalize on and adopt —Dhoni’s Mr Cool attitude . No matter what the provocation . Tough, but achievable.

Team India has shown the world what it’s capable of on the cricket field. It’s high time the other Team India scores a similar victory in the global arena. Come on, Manmohan Singh – go for it! If all else fails, induct Dhoni into your cabinet! For all our sakes.

Prevent IAS steel from becoming bamboo's

Is it possible to run a 21st century economy, galvanized by 22nd century ideas and social networks, with a 20th century bureaucracy , interpreting 19th century laws? One of the few institutions created by the British, which has survived the test of time in more ways than one, and yet had some notable failures is the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
Despite prodigious reforms, the IAS has seen limited change. This is a cause for concern. The classic Westminster model, on which the IAS is founded, postulated that while politicians would debate and legislate policy, the civil service would execute it. This has, over the years, been turned on its head.

Politicians have found it profitable to get into every aspect of execution and indulge in rampant corruption, while the civil service is left to write something that passes off as policy. Add to this the increasing criminalization of civil servants' political masters and the influence of money power within the system. The IAS urgently needs reform if it is not to become increasingly irrelevant to development or be co-opted by the corrupt. 

What must be done? First, the IAS must not be a lifetime appointment . Initial appointment should be for 15 years. After that, every officer's performance should be evaluated by a constitutional authority such as the UPSC. The evaluation should be based on a 360-degree kind of appraisal, which is considered superior to traditional forms of assessment. Inputs should be sought from everyone - superiors, peers, subordinates and clients. The World Bank and the UK's bureaucracy successfully follow this system.

Those who do not make the grade after the evaluation and an interview should be 'put out to pasture' . They could stay on at the same level, pay and position for three years, after which the commission would evaluate them again. Alternately, they could collect a pension proportionate to their years of service and move on.

If the officer does make the grade, he can be hired through a competitive process on seven year contracts, with specific performance targets. For example, if a new airport needs to be designed and implemented, or if a Right to Food Act needs to be drafted, the respective ministries must advertise and recruit IAS officers competitively , based on their experience , aptitude and education. The terms of the contract should incentivize performance. Their accountability should be to the result , not just to the process. Further, they should be given the freedom to pick their own teams and to reward or punish them.

Second, there must be quick and visible punishment for deviant officers. The IAS, which mirrors Indian society, has its share of people who shoplift, are corrupt, access internet porn or harass people sexually. They must be punished and removed from the service after a fair and speedy trial. This will have a salutary effect on those who join the IAS for the wrong reasons. Recently, Himachal Pradesh removed two officers ; Tamil Nadu did so too a few years ago after they were convicted of corruption.
  
Third, promotions in the IAS continue to be based on a mix of seniority and merit and the latter is evaluated in a very subjective way. In an era of intense scrutiny by the media, CAG, CVC, CBI and the judiciary , the natural incentive for an honest officer is to shun initiative and try not to make decisions, to sign every file only after 20 others have signed it. In contrast, E Sreedharan broke with procedure to give Delhi a world-class Metro.

There are several CAG reports on his violations but had he not taken the initiative to violate procedure, the Metro would not have been completed in time and under budget . Unless the honest within the IAS are protected, unless the all-India conduct rules and their implementation become more nuanced and less mechanical, initiative will be stifled and officers will be prevented from leaving the system to learn modern tools, gather rich global experience and return. Officers will become frogs in the well rather than eagles in the sky.

In what is considered to be one of the most rigorous contests in the world, 500,000 of the brightest in India write a year-long , multistage examination, competing for just 80 seats in the IAS-half of which are reserved. The percentage of success is just 0.02%, roughly the same as the IIT entrance exam . Yet, something goes wrong and it needs to be urgently addressed . Countless IAS officers work selflessly every single day in difficult circumstances. I challenge any corporate CEO in India to report to a Mayawati or a Pappu Yadav rather than a Ratan Tata or a Narayana Murthy and still turn out a market-friendly performance . The IAS is merely one subsect of Indian society and reflects both the bright sparks and its problems.  

Wariness about the impact of the ‘Mohali spirit’

India-Pakistan relations —a challenge at the best of times, and in the doldrums since 26/11 —received an unexpected boost in April, 2011 from an unlikely source: cricket. When the two countries became semi-finalists in the game's quadrennial World Cup, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, to watch the game with him at Mohali, with talks over dinner. Though the resulting thaw has involved no substantive policy decisions, Singh has nonetheless changed the narrative of the countries' relations, and seized control of a stalemated process.

Some Indian critics are less than enthused. The government suspended talks with Pakistan after the horrific attacks on Mumbai. By talking again at such a high level, despite there being no significant progress in Pakistan in bringing the perpetrators to justice, India, the critics charge, has in effect surrendered to Pakistani intransigence.

Indeed, the critics point out that the wideranging and comprehensive talks agreed to by the two sides are the old "composite dialogue" under a new label. It was this very dialogue that India justifiably called off after Mumbai: there was no point talking to people whose territory and institutions were being used to attack and kill Indians. The fear in some circles in India remains that Singh's government has run out of ideas when it comes to dealing with Pakistan — or at least that it has no good alternatives to a counterproductive military attack on the sources of terrorism or a stagnant silence. Yet it is also clear that "not talking" is not much of a policy. Pakistan can deny its shared history with India, but India cannot change its geography. Pakistan is next door, and it can no more be ignored than a thorn piercing one's side. 

India's refusal to talk to Pakistan did contribute, together with western (especially American) diplomatic efforts, to securing some initial Pakistani cooperation, including the arrest of Lashkar-e-Taiba operative Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and six of his co-conspirators. But this cooperation had dried up, and India's continued reticence had long passed its use-by date. The refusal to resume dialogue had stopped producing any fresh results, and the only argument that justified it —that it was a source of leverage —gave some in India the illusion of influence over events that the government did not in fact possess.

Ironically, it was India —the victim of terrorist attacks financed, dispatched, and directed from Pakistan — that had come to seem intransigent and unaccommodating. The transcendent reality of life on the subcontinent is that it has always been India that wished to live in peace. India is, at bottom, a status quo power that would like to be left alone to concentrate on its economic development; Pakistan is the troublesome rebel, needling and bleeding its neighbour in an effort to change the power balance and wrest control of a part of Indian territory (Kashmir). Refusing to talk didn't change any of that, but it brought India no rewards. On the contrary, it imposed a cost: by appearing stubbornly truculent, India allowed Pakistan to appear reasonable and conciliatory, tarnishing India's international image as a constructive force for peace.

The thaw engendered by the two prime ministers —meeting , devoid of rancour, at a major sporting event, which Pakistan narrowly lost to India's eventual world champions — recognized that simply talking can achieve constructive results. Dialogue can identify and narrow the differences between the two countries on those bilateral issues that can be addressed.

Of course, not every issue that divides India and Pakistan can be resolved across a table, at least not right now. But specific problems like trade, the military standoff on the Siachen glacier, the territorial border at Sir Creek, and water flows through the Wullar Barrage are certainly amenable to resolution through dialogue. Progress on the big questions — the Kashmir dispute and Pakistan's use of terrorism as an instrument of policy — will require much more groundwork and constructive, gradual action. But, as Singh has realized, just talking about these questions can make clear what India's bottom lines are and the minimum standards of civilized conduct that India expects from its neighbour. And, should it prove necessary, dialogue can also be used to send a few tough signals.

"Cricket diplomacy" is not new on the subcontinent. It was tried twice before, each time with Pakistani military rulers travelling to India. General Zia ul-Haq's visit to watch a match in Jaipur in 1986 was an exercise in cynicism, since it was aimed at defusing tensions stoked by his own policy of fomenting and aiding Sikh militant secessionism in India. General Pervez Musharraf's visit to a cricket stadium in Delhi in 2005 came at a better time in the countries' relations, but, in hindsight, foreshadowed the sharp reversal three years later. Watching cricket does not necessarily lead to improved dialogue. But when two countries are genuinely prepared to engage each other, a grand sporting occasion can be a useful instrument to signal the change. That is what the "spirit of Mohali" has brought about. Now it is time to see if and how that spirit translates into genuine progress on the ground. 

Let's redefine 'progress' like Gandhi did

Is it time to let the 'historical Gandhi' fade into the background? At first this question may seem absurd . Pro-democracy protests in the Arab world have recently demonstrated the pervasive influence of Gandhian methods in challenging oppressive regimes. Anna Hazare's recent fast at the Ramlila Grounds was heavy with Gandhian allusions. All these protests draw on a relatively easy-to-admire dimension of Gandhi, the one that gives people confidence in truth and non-violence as a force more powerful than guns and swords.

But it is the catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that compels us to focus more closely on the 'civilizational Gandhi'. Naturally, this is an extremely difficult endeavour. Every generation since Independence has been taught to revere Gandhi's persona but assiduously ignore or ridicule his critique of modern civilization.

The historical Gandhi was a mere mortal, born in 1869, who grew to extraordinary heights before he was assassinated in 1948. Methods he devised for speaking truth to power will continue to inspire struggles against oppressive and corrupt regimes for centuries to come.

The civilizational Gandhi is a philosopher and visionary who poses fundamental and troublesome questions. Is civilization about increase of material comforts or is it about moral and spiritual evolution? Is civilization to be equated merely with clever machines or with greater harmony between human systems and the natural world?
In the first half of the 20th century, when Gandhi was constantly raising these questions, the conventional or dominant wisdom rejected him as being backward, a throwback to the antimachine Luddites of the 19th century. Today, with severe depletion of biodiversity and a red alert on climate change, Gandhi seems ahead of his time. But even then, the historical Gandhi has a much larger presence. Why?

First, challenging the brute force of a political class and its bureaucracy is a relatively simple matter. There are offensive rules or policies and actions people mobilize to oppose them. While he excelled in such mobilization, Gandhi repeatedly said that the departure of the viceroy and his British officers would not give us true swaraj.

Second, Gandhi did not merely equate swaraj with moral renewal. He linked it to challenging and overthrowing "modern civilization". By this he meant, primarily, the amoral nature of modern science and industry. Gandhi perceived a profound violence at the heart of modern science . He abhorred the practice of vivisection scientific experimentation that inflicts pain on 'lower' forms of life and justifies it as a valid means in the pursuit of knowledge.

This, Gandhi believed, is wrecking havoc far greater than the old forms of "might over right". It would not have surprised Gandhi to learn that the second atomic bomb, the one dropped over Nagasaki, was partly a means of experimentation. Closer to home, people displaced by industrial projects are even today being told that someone has to pay the price for progress.

Third, since all this is seemingly remote from our everyday lives, it is generally deemed to be imperative that we continue to ignore Gandhi's civilizational vision. Even disasters like Bhopal, Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon or Fukushima Daiichi are meant to be taken in our stride as part of an inevitable element of risk in human existence. There is room to ask for better safety standards but virtually none to question the definition of progress.

Yes, the catastrophe in Japan might trigger a comparative review of risk assessment between different forms of energy. But what's needed is a collective introspection not about specific technologies but about basics. Just how much energy do we need, rather than want? How much is being wasted? How might we seek that vast realm between the extremes of involuntary deprivation and born-to-shop consumption?

It might help to focus on just two dimensions. Distinguishing needs from wants can be creative rather than frustrating. And respecting all forms of life need not be a ticket back to the Stone Age. But working with these possibilities might become easier if we look at developments outside the BRICS nations' growth story.

Bolivia is about to pass the world's first law granting nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth is the work of Bolivian President Evo Morales, the first person from an indigenous tribe to lead that country. The law will redefine the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical measures to reduce pollution and control industry. Even Ecuador has changed its constitution to give nature "the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles."

Such measures are not complete in themselves. They are part of a larger striving to redefine progress. It is commonly argued that India does not have the luxury to travel down this road it must concentrate on the known model of growth and progress. In any case, where is the alternative model?

But we don't need a ready-to-install alternative model. Answers have to be found by individuals, groups, companies and governments by re-examining goals putting functional convenience in the background and values in the foreground . We could then engage with the civilizational Gandhi, not as an oracle who has all the answers, but as someone who can help us think things through.

Working to improve a rotten system

Rahul Gandhi: I am working to improve a rotten system

The very day Anna Hazare broke his fast, Rahul Gandhi wrote that though he was concerned about corruption “like most right thinking Indian people”, he was working quietly on that problem as he had “absolutely no interest” in becoming a hero.

The provocation was a sharply-worded letter he had received the same day, from former Supreme Court judge V R Krishna Iyer asking, “Why should the Hazare phenomenon occur at all? Only because so many evils and no action from Delhi !.”

In his response to Iyer, Rahul said: “Like most right thinking Indian people I feel exactly the way you do. I spend a lot of my waking hours thinking and working to improve what I see as a rotten system. The difference is that I cannot get away simply with writing letters and complaining as you can. I am faced with the reality of changing things which requires much more than the periodic release of emotion.”

If Rahul took such pains to convey his commitment to combating corruption, it is because Iyer had accused him of indifference as well as presumptuousness: ``If you are sensitive about the people's needs and aspirations, you must attack the big corrupt persons in power. Why are you silent? You are a young man and can rise to be a great nationalist, (but) not by ambitiously aspiring to be Prime Minister because you are of the Nehru family. That would be anti-democratic and oligarchic.''

The Gandhi scion also reacted sarcastically to the left-leaning jurist's suggestion that he could become a hero if he took up the challenge of turning India into ``an egalitarian society, a Gandhian India, a Nehruvian India, NOT nuclear India. Please be great so that the people may have a better tomorrow.''

Rahul's response: ``As far as becoming a hero is concerned, unfortunately that is of absolutely no interest to me. I work because I believe in working to improve a system that is rotten and not to be glorified.''

But he accepted the 95-year-old Iyer's counsel that he must read Jawaharlal Nehru's autobiography to understand socialism and patriotism. ``Thank you for your very impassioned and well meaning advice. I appreciate it. I have read JN's autobiography. I will do so again as you suggest.''

In this exchange on corruption and related issues, Rahul was however silent on Iyer's criticism of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Iyer had written, ``Your Prime Minister has become known for inaction. He does not touch the former CJI K G Balakrishnan or any other corrupt VIP. When public power is vested in anyone for the purpose of giving clean governance to the country, to be silent and inactive is breach of trust.''

It seems significant that while conveying his shared concerns, Rahul did not clarify whether his agreement with Iyer extended to his criticism of the Prime Minister as well.