Story of a lost journalist

July 23, 2008

Manmohan’s speech against Advani, amazing

Filed under: Political — Cris @ 08:51
Tags:

I am not political. Infact am the exact opposite and know too very little to stand on anyone’s side. But happened to see the speech scroll on NDTV today morning that Manmohan lashed out against Advani. And I couldnt help applauding.
Some parts of it were

“Before levelling charges of incompetence on others, Advani should do some introspection. Can our nation forgive a Home Minister who slept when the terrorists were knocking at the doors of our Parliament?”

“single handedly provided the inspiration for the destruction of the Babri Masjid with all the terrible consequences that followed”.

“at least three attempts to topple the government to fulfill his ambitions, the Prime Minister said, “but on each occasion his (Advani’s) astrologers have misled him”

“At his ripe old age, I do not expect Advani to change his thinking. But for his sake and India’s sake, I urge him to change his astrologers so that he gets more accurate predictions of things to come” — my personal favorite

“Can a nation approve the conduct of a Home Minister who was sleeping while Gujarat was burning leading to the loss of thousands of innocent lives?”

And against Left – “Our friends in the Left Front should ponder over the company they are forced to keep because of miscalculations by their general secretary.”

Advertisements

28 Comments »

  1. :O Manmohan actually said that?? Way to go 🙂

    Comment by Tony Sebastian — July 23, 2008 @ 10:54 | Reply

  2. Nice one..

    Comment by Gov — July 23, 2008 @ 12:35 | Reply

  3. Yeh I also got that link 🙂
    Btw you are tagged..

    Comment by Dhanya — July 23, 2008 @ 12:48 | Reply

  4. 2 parties voting against a trust motion doesnt mean that they are together. congress voted with BJP to bring down the third front government.

    Comment by deepak — July 23, 2008 @ 14:02 | Reply

  5. oooh.. I missed that!! I thought Manmohan was dumb !

    Comment by Srijith — July 23, 2008 @ 15:32 | Reply

  6. Nice collection. To show the relevance of Prof. Singh’s words, I wish to say something.

    In my opinion, the nuclear deal is good for India. Infact one can show that alternate energy can fulfill all the energy need. Alternate sources like,

    1. Build dams across all the rivers.
    2. Build dams across all the streams.
    3. Wind energy harvest on all hills.
    4. Gobar gas, natural gas, marsh gas.
    5. Solar energy, Lunar energy, Stellar energy.
    6. Coal and petroleum stations (most preferred because petroleum is very cheap)

    Too much of them! Now if you sum all these, it will certainly be greater than the nuclear energy that we are going to buy. But just think, that is all mess. The powercut that we have now is due to the failure of a generator/s. Mullaperiar is a threat already, for life, peace and integrity of the country. Narmada, pooyamkutty are unresolved issues. Every thing has its own merits and demerits. But things clean, efficient and straightforward should
    always be preferred. Any thing not so, will only remain in paper. Remember, we live in India: not in Utopia.

    India have had nuclear tests and gained sufficient data for future simulations. Also we possess atomic weapons and efficient delivery systems like long range missiles and most advanced aircraft. Weapon makers will do their job what ever be the conditions and sanctions. General public need not bother about that issue too much. Just think they didn’t, but India blasted nuke in Pokhran.

    Finally, I know enough physics and know enough number of engineers from almost all fields to make an estimate of alternate energy enough to show that the nuclear deal is unwanted. I don’t do it because I don’t have a perverted mind or any political motives against the deal or both. Also I want to see this nation prosper: above all, above all the world.

    Comment by manu — July 23, 2008 @ 18:35 | Reply

  7. ^^^ well said Manu.. Above all politics, one has to work towards the progress of our nation. In fact , that’s what politics is for!

    Comment by Srijith — July 23, 2008 @ 19:48 | Reply

  8. well – energy needs need to be fulfiled?

    Why should one prefer Nuke Deal over Iran Pipile? The former has a lot of strings attached, whereas the latter doesnt have any

    If we build a bunch of nuclear power plants banking on the US, and US suddenly discontinues supply, what will happen? It is a known truth that distribution is required for fault tolerance

    @ Manu
    Why are non-nuke sources so bad? Because there are so many of them? If so, think of hydel power, and compare it against the rest, the rest are worse because there are too many of them!! Ur argument adapted, not a new argument

    @Manu
    Hydel is the best power for kerala, because we have all the monsoons and rivers carrying a lot of water to the sea. Its largely untapped. Mullapperiyar issue is not because hydel is not good – its because of a 150 year old karaar between princely states. Once a new dam is built, its solved (You would have known that if u have been following the news). Lets leave Narmada etc alone – Hydel is not a major source of power for other states anyway. Failed generators can be repaired. Machines which have been working for decades do fail. And nuke power plants also can fail – they are not perennial non-failing machines. And mullapperiyar being a threat to the integrity of the country – Kerala cannot have any nuke plants (because of density) and hence, so nuke power trade between states shud happen – and thats also a threat to the integrity.

    @Manu
    I suggest one thing – when u want to argue against power source A and in favor of N, raise problems which matter to A and not to N. Talking about reasons which apply both to N and A (e.g., national threat, generator problem etc) would not serve ur purpose.

    Comment by deepak — July 23, 2008 @ 21:23 | Reply

  9. @srijith Thankyou!

    @Deepak No one needs an introduction to the power output capability of nuclear plants. Hydel projects: we were discussing about them for the last 60 years. Every one know what and how much they amount to. Pipe Line is good, if Iran were our close neighbor. Iran is not, and we know our immediate neighbors very well. So think of the possibilities. Another thing the opponents point out is the defense issues. India is strong enough in many ways to protect its secret files if anyone what to have a look at it. So if we buy nuke power, it is just a business deal.

    Comment by manu — July 24, 2008 @ 08:56 | Reply

  10. @Manu
    Once again, u r raising points which equally apply to nuke power:
    1. Hydel power production cost is 10ps per unit (or maybe, a bit higher – say, 30-40ps), whereas nuke power is anywhere between 2-5Rs. So, running cost wise, hydel is better. Maintenance cost – Hydel is close to nil – u just need people to man the plant, and generators may fail once in 40 years. Nuke has a huge waste disposal cost – u will have to take it to the coeans and bury it deep – else, it would be very hazardous. So, maintenance costwise, hydel is much lesser in cost.
    2. Initial cost – Hydel requires building a dam and some kudiyozhippikkal. Nuke requires evacuating people around for a lot more area (because of health reasons). So, nuke cannot be any less expensive than hydel in this regard. The only problem with hydel is that only kerala (and maybe, a few other states) can produce it.
    3. If Iran is not our close neighbor, US is not either. And oil pipelines have been built across thousands of kilometers before – there is no problem in building a long pipeline.
    4. If you buy nuke raw material (I understand that u think we are trying to buy nuke power – but thats not the case. The nuke deal is about buying raw materials for nuke power plants), it requires us to build nuke reactors to make power, place them under international inspection, and assume that we will get continued supply of raw materials for the nuke plants to keep running. So, its not something like buying toothpaste (or some ready-to-use commodity like that), using it and throwing it away.

    Comment by deepak — July 24, 2008 @ 09:08 | Reply

  11. @Tony, yes! And thanks for dropping by 🙂

    @Gov, thanks! Manmohan should be happy to know you appreciate 😉

    @Dhanya, I saw! Wow this is only the second time I am tagged! Sniff thank you so much!

    @Srijith, seems he isnt :-). Thanks bro for that search link!

    @manu and deepak, carry on the healthy discussion. I am learning a lot! Thanks guys!

    Comment by Cris — July 24, 2008 @ 10:17 | Reply

  12. Good to see the ‘Manmohan speech’ post produced so much comments abt the best source of Energy.Wish our MPs also discussed things like this in Parliament.

    Comment by Charakan — July 25, 2008 @ 00:55 | Reply

  13. @ depak :- Hydel power: An ideal generator operated in ideal conditions by ideal people may produce 1 unit for Rs 0.1 (the consumers should also be ideal). Anyway we now pay Rs 5 per unit for hydel power. Then their about their failure rate, they are most of the time semi-shutdown if they are not totally shutdown. Every one knows hydel plants and hornbills are the most anxious about rains in Kerala.

    Pipe Line issue: America is more distant than Iran. But nuclear fuel is shipped and not transported through pipelines running through enemy territory.

    Toothpaste issue: If you are economically and politically strong, then someone or the other will always be there to help. Where where this US earlier ? So, enstrengthen us with efficient power sources. If we are strong and if US goes, there will be four to sell uranium and to maintain our reactors.

    @Charakan:- Straightforward discussions always lead to clear solutions. That may be the reason they don’t discuss the issue.

    Comment by manu — July 25, 2008 @ 17:11 | Reply

  14. @Manu
    Even now, hydel power is generated @ 0 or 30 paise. Its because the entire supply is not hydel. Thermal power is more costly (maybe, 6-8 Rs.). Thus, we pay close to 4-5 Rs now. If hydel was not there, you would have paid 8 Rs.

    So, is the dependence on rain that makes hydel uninteresting for you (or their company with hornbills in this aspect?). Nuke is dependent on US. And historically, rains have been much more predictable and consistent than the US.

    Okay – Nuke material is shipped. Why is shipping better than flowing? Flowing, to me, looks like less expensive. Is it Pak thats causing the problem here? If you havent read it, Pakistan also benefits from the pipeline. So, there are no such concerns. Infact, nobody – even BJP – hasnt raised such concerns.

    Comment by deepak — July 25, 2008 @ 17:20 | Reply

  15. @Manu
    Hydel is the best method available – in terms of cost. There are of course, envt concerns, but, small plants dont have such issues. So, ur argument of saying nuke is better than hydel is definitely incorrect. The problem in India is that, only a few states in India can make hydel power (other areas dont have many rivers, nor rains). So, its not really useful to invest ur energy in inventing reasons to say that hydel is worse. Even hard core pro-nuke people are not doing that.

    Comment by deepak — July 25, 2008 @ 17:24 | Reply

  16. Nice discussion 🙂

    Comment by Tedy Kanjirathinkal — July 25, 2008 @ 19:03 | Reply

  17. @Charakan, yeah but then they dont get a chance to listen when they are busy talking. Maybe the Parliament sessions should be held online and on blog space!

    @Tedy, yeah I am glad I paved the way to it!

    Comment by Cris — July 26, 2008 @ 00:14 | Reply

  18. @depak Bullock cart is much less costlier than motor vehicles. So aviation industry is extremely unnecessary.

    Comment by manu — July 27, 2008 @ 11:37 | Reply

  19. @Manu
    Nice that you summarized ur argument in 2 sentences.

    But, i would disagree here. If you thought hydel was bullock cart and nuke is aviation, thats incorrect. Aviation enables faster travel and hence, there is at least one very impt parameter in which aviation is better. Hydel is less costly, more safe, and doesnt include dependencies on foreign countries. But, nuke is costlier, has huge safety concerns, and comes with a dependency on US. On the other hand, hydel is not feasible in many areas. So, we need to look for alternate sources – those that come with no string attached are better than those which come with a lot of conditions (when both are available). Thats the whole point. (I just restated it because you dont seem to get what I am saying).

    Comment by deepak — July 28, 2008 @ 07:38 | Reply

  20. very interesting discussion! just thought I’d let you know that my blog has been Updated http://notytony.blogspot.com/2008/07/gateing-away-with-murder.html [:)]

    Comment by Tony Sebastian — July 29, 2008 @ 18:27 | Reply

  21. @Tony, yes I read that. I have taken your feed to my google reader 🙂

    Comment by Cris — July 30, 2008 @ 01:04 | Reply

  22. You said it! Aviation and Bullock carts: both are a means of transport. Bullock
    carts are less costly, more safe, and doesn’t include dependencies on foreign countries.

    But aircrafts are costly, more dangerous, and does include dependencies on foreign countries. But aircrafts necessary, because faster travel is sometimes required. In a discussion about aviation, why should one say: “Bullock Carts are less costly” ?

    Similarly, Nuclear power plants are necessary due its high energy output, though it may be costlier than hydel power. They have qualities (capability to produce more power etc) which any other power source cannot substitute. Atleast with the science and technology that we have today. I said ‘science and technology’ because science alone may allow one to make huge but impracticable estimates.
    We need to look for alternate sources. If every thing comes with strings attached, go for the best and manage the strings attached to it.

    Comment by manu — July 30, 2008 @ 15:50 | Reply

  23. @Manu
    I think you are simply wasting time in this discussion by forcing me to repeat stuff and by refusing to be systematic.
    >>You said it! Aviation and Bullock carts: both are a means of transport. Bullock
    >>carts are less costly, more safe, and doesn’t include dependencies on foreign >>countries.
    Yes – but, repeating my previous post sentence. You would prefer aviation to bullock carts because there is one parameter “speed” and maybe, “comfort” on which aviation is much better.
    >>But aircrafts are costly, more dangerous, and does include dependencies on >>foreign countries. But aircrafts necessary, because faster travel is sometimes >>required. In a discussion about aviation, why should one say: “Bullock Carts are less >>costly” ?
    Exactly – thats what, why do u bring up an example which is so very different from the present discussion
    >>Similarly, Nuclear power plants are necessary due its high energy output, though it >>may be costlier than hydel power. They have qualities (capability to produce more >>power etc) which any other power source cannot substitute. Atleast with the >>science and technology that we have today. I said ’science and technology’ >>because science alone may allow one to make huge but impracticable estimates.
    Wasnt this the discussion we had a bit before? Scroll up and see. Why do u raise it again here? maybe, because, u dont have anything else to argue.
    >>We need to look for alternate sources. If every thing comes with strings attached, >>go for the best and manage the strings attached to it.
    Yes – but, when u have things which are equivalent, and one comes with strings and one doesnt have strings, then, my argument is that u shud prefer the one with no strings. Do you disagree to that? Please do not repeat ur argument again, i.e., dont say again “if everything comes with strings attached, prefer the best” just because thats not the problem that we are discussing.

    Comment by Deepak — July 30, 2008 @ 17:45 | Reply

  24. @Manu
    Let me restate it. There is not even one parameter on which nuke is better than hydel other than availability. And there is not even one parameter on which the oil pipeline is worse than nuke. And there are plenty of parameters on which oil pipeline is better than nuke.

    Comment by Deepak — July 30, 2008 @ 17:54 | Reply

  25. @deepak
    Everyone is inconsistent to a certain degree. But in the present case the most inconsistent is the one who made multiple replies to the same post. The consistent will consolidate ones views and analyze its purpose before it being posted. See, I haven’t ever made more than one reply to any post. But, you made it. Then, I don’t bother if someone make unilateral declarations.

    On nuke power. For me to believe it is inferior to any energy source, I must see the proof that the mass energy relation E=MC^2 is wrong. Further it should be shown that E=MC^ k, where k<<1. However, there are sufficient reasons to believe k=2. (In away k<> There is not even one parameter on which nuke is better than hydel other than availability.

    The first and foremost quality of some thing to be included as the part of a plan is AVAILABILITY. Then you may ask what plan. A plan for the future infrastructure as well as economic development of a country. As a general advice I would say: always plan with what is available to you.

    >>And there is not even one parameter on which the oil pipeline is worse than nuke.

    I haven’t said “oil pipeline” is worse. I just told “gas pipeline” is not as good as nuke.

    >>And there are plenty of parameters on which oil pipeline is better than nuke.

    Oil pipelines usually run from the oil wells to the refinery and from the refinery to the shipyard to be filled in tanker ships. There is absolutely no aspect in this which it can be related to nuclear power.

    ‘GAS’ doesn’t make much sense !!

    Comment by manu — July 31, 2008 @ 21:57 | Reply

  26. @Manu
    I was forced to make multiple replies just to make my point clear again – else, u will raise teh same point. the second reply was just a summary.

    Yes – gas, not oil – that was a mishtake. You could reply to the “gas pipeline”. I am sure that u knew it was a mistake, but, chose to reply in detail to the mistake!!

    Comment by Deepak — August 1, 2008 @ 06:52 | Reply

  27. http://www.saynotoadvani.blogspot.com/

    Please spread the word

    Comment by kschaitanya — April 27, 2009 @ 16:45 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: