Friday, May 07, 2010
After, Before
Basic right is in the common sense..not in the bad acts..Pics and videos tells the effects only not the causes..Civil society leading these things to happen,never a barbaric time..There are politicians whose helps made the things worst and films shaping these ideas a novel activity..Money from unknown sources and enforcement from poverty causing the incidents..All of them thinks about the last chain and responsible eyes and hands were living in the same land..Yes me need help from myself only; but what about you people ??
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Order order
Who are the people to kill another one by enforcing laws ?..Politicians and film industries killing people slowly by implementing worst policies and giving ugliest ides to the mass , respectively..They are superiorly giving importance to worsening the thoughts and ordering directly killing machines to go away from them them..First penalise those who are responsible for the attack and then give others what they deserve,,Poor fellow commentators..forgetting the basics....
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Present Political Scenario - Solution
"Electronic voting machine buttons - 1. I party, 2. II party, 3. III party, and there should be another one - No one is eligible for my vote."
And it should be implemented rather soon than later. That is the only solution for the present scenario.
There may be an option; its purely personal-one can suggest another persons name who is more eligible than the political party sponsored mere human being.
It may be a joke at first but later it has the power of its own.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Deepest Part of the Ocean | frozenly.com
Deepest Part of the Ocean | frozenly.com
Filed under Oceanography, Scienceno comments
The Mariana Trench is located in the Pacific Ocean, just east of the 14 Mariana Islands (11″21′ North latitude and 142″ 12′ East longitude ) near Japan. As you probably already know, it is the deepest part of the earth’s oceans, and the deepest location of the earth itself. It was created by ocean-to-ocean subduction, a phenomena in which a plate topped by oceanic crust is subducted beneath another plate topped by oceanic crust.
Fact-The Mariana Trench is 11,033 meters (36,201 feet), (6033.5) fathoms deep. The Pressure at the deepest part of the Mariana Trench is over 8 tons per square inch. The Mariana Trench is 2, 542 km (1,580 miles) long and 69 km (43 miles) wide.
Amazing Creatures:
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Naxalism – Need To Revisit Basics
Article Window
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A HAMMER, every problem is not a nail. Left extremist problem is serious but use of Army is no solution. We first need to understand the nature and ingredients of the problem. Naxalism is a variant of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) in which civil society is the critical element of war. This war is to protect the civil society and at the same time fought in the battle ground of civil society.
Experiences of the armies world over, including India, have been that armies have not proved best antidotes against warriors who are camouflaged in civil society and hold no defined ground. Armies are trained, structured, equipped and work on doctrines suited to fight against visible enemies and defined territories. The studies conducted so far indicate that the societies that are fragile, fragmented and alienated on one hand and ruled by governments low in legitimacy, credibility and capacity on the other are not only vulnerable to threats from 4GW but quite often lose them — their military strengths notwithstanding.
The modern day guru of 4GW William Lind aptly observes that, “If nation states are going to survive, people in power must earn and keep the trust of the governed.” Addressing the American Council of Foreign Relations, he said: “The heart of Fourth Generation Warfare is a crisis of legitimacy of the state”. How true to the Indian model when he added that, “The establishment is no longer made up of ‘policy types’— most of its important functionaries are placemen. Their expertise is in becoming and then remaining members of the establishment. Their reality is covert politics and not the competence or expertise”. When the 4GW will visit them their response would be to “close the shutters on the windows of Versailles”. To meet the challenge India has to raise its level and style of governance, build capacities and raise legitimacy of the political class.
The immediate need in India is for all the political parties, national or regional, to realise that Left wing extremism is a political plan to acquire power through blood bath and it is their politics which is responsible for it. Maoists feel and are able to sell that ousting their form of polity is doable as the political class is fast losing its legitimacy and credibility due to its subordinating national interests to electoral policies, craving for power only to make money and perpetuate themselves, allowing vested interests to undermine the civil society at the cost of justice and fair play and using their political genius to fragment the society on all conceivable fault lines to gain power. All this provides the right recipe for a 4GW and in a setting like this any external adversary will exploit it as a low cost and sustainable option to bleed India.
Developing a political consensus, cutting across party lines, and all democratic forces joining hands together treating it as a common threat is the first national requirement. With a political consensus it should be possible to invoke Article 355 of the Constitution, empower the Centre to suo moto deploy central forces in badly hit areas with total central support, legislate new laws and empower central security agencies to undertake more effective initiatives.
Majority of Maoist supporters or even their cadres have little to do with Maoism. They are only frustrated and angered people with a perceived sense of injustice, oppression and indignity. Maoists are cleverly exploiting this sentiment to their advantage — caste conflicts in Bihar, resentment against landlords in Andhra, discontent against forest laws in tribal areas, unemployment amongst youth and radicalism amongst Muslims prescribing capture of power through gun as solution of all their grievances. The local grievances need to be effectively addressed through improved governance and ruthless accountability.
Maoist propaganda must be effectively countered, particularly at the political level. All parties should activise their local units to counter the pernicious Maoist ideology — a job that has been totally ignored and cannot be done by policemen on their behalf. Additionally, through a concerted, credible and sustained psy-war offensive highlighting contradiction in their ideologies and practices, tales of their brutalities, collaborations with the rich to collect funds and their use for personal comfort, incidents of moral turpitude etc. should be exposed. The local and national media, think tanks and NGOs operating in the region could be leveraged for the purpose. Some of their front organisations, masquerading as think tanks and NGOs, engaged in subversive propaganda also need to be tackled effectively, through new legislations, if necessary.
Money is one of the most important factors helping extremists to acquire weapons and explosives, raise their cadre strength by recruiting youth on regular salaries and carrying out mass mobilisation programmes. They are reportedly collecting Rs 1,600-crore a year, which is big money for carrying out armed insurrection in an impoverished area. With a determined effort and no risk, the governments can take stern actions against business houses paying protection money, transporters paying levies, contractors giving taxes and corrupt government officials sharing the loot from the developmental funds. Most would be willing to cooperate if provided sense of security and protection which can be achieved at a much lesser cost.
The most important advantage of 4GW warriors is the advantage of invisibility. Only quality operational grade intelligence can make them visible for counter physical or legal actions. It is also the only instrumentality through which proactive operations can be launched. The tendency to underplay the role of intelligence and doing little to strengthen it is largely responsible for recent tactical setbacks. The tendency to raise additional battalions without corresponding accretion in intelligence network creates little pressure on the extremists and only provides them more visible targets to hit. State police forces, with their intimate knowledge of the terrain, language and local recruitment are best equipped to develop ground intelligence. They need to be resourced and trained for intelligence work at war footing. Diversion of atleast 30% of central modernisation grants to state police for intelligence work should be made mandatory.
Naxalism – Need To Revisit Basics
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A HAMMER, every problem is not a nail. Left extremist problem is serious but use of Army is no solution. We first need to understand the nature and ingredients of the problem. Naxalism is a variant of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) in which civil society is the critical element of war. This war is to protect the civil society and at the same time fought in the battle ground of civil society.
Experiences of the armies world over, including India, have been that armies have not proved best antidotes against warriors who are camouflaged in civil society and hold no defined ground. Armies are trained, structured, equipped and work on doctrines suited to fight against visible enemies and defined territories. The studies conducted so far indicate that the societies that are fragile, fragmented and alienated on one hand and ruled by governments low in legitimacy, credibility and capacity on the other are not only vulnerable to threats from 4GW but quite often lose them — their military strengths notwithstanding.
The modern day guru of 4GW William Lind aptly observes that, “If nation states are going to survive, people in power must earn and keep the trust of the governed.” Addressing the American Council of Foreign Relations, he said: “The heart of Fourth Generation Warfare is a crisis of legitimacy of the state”. How true to the Indian model when he added that, “The establishment is no longer made up of ‘policy types’— most of its important functionaries are placemen. Their expertise is in becoming and then remaining members of the establishment. Their reality is covert politics and not the competence or expertise”. When the 4GW will visit them their response would be to “close the shutters on the windows of Versailles”. To meet the challenge India has to raise its level and style of governance, build capacities and raise legitimacy of the political class.
The immediate need in India is for all the political parties, national or regional, to realise that Left wing extremism is a political plan to acquire power through blood bath and it is their politics which is responsible for it. Maoists feel and are able to sell that ousting their form of polity is doable as the political class is fast losing its legitimacy and credibility due to its subordinating national interests to electoral policies, craving for power only to make money and perpetuate themselves, allowing vested interests to undermine the civil society at the cost of justice and fair play and using their political genius to fragment the society on all conceivable fault lines to gain power. All this provides the right recipe for a 4GW and in a setting like this any external adversary will exploit it as a low cost and sustainable option to bleed India.
Developing a political consensus, cutting across party lines, and all democratic forces joining hands together treating it as a common threat is the first national requirement. With a political consensus it should be possible to invoke Article 355 of the Constitution, empower the Centre to suo moto deploy central forces in badly hit areas with total central support, legislate new laws and empower central security agencies to undertake more effective initiatives.
Majority of Maoist supporters or even their cadres have little to do with Maoism. They are only frustrated and angered people with a perceived sense of injustice, oppression and indignity. Maoists are cleverly exploiting this sentiment to their advantage — caste conflicts in Bihar, resentment against landlords in Andhra, discontent against forest laws in tribal areas, unemployment amongst youth and radicalism amongst Muslims prescribing capture of power through gun as solution of all their grievances. The local grievances need to be effectively addressed through improved governance and ruthless accountability.
Maoist propaganda must be effectively countered, particularly at the political level. All parties should activise their local units to counter the pernicious Maoist ideology — a job that has been totally ignored and cannot be done by policemen on their behalf. Additionally, through a concerted, credible and sustained psy-war offensive highlighting contradiction in their ideologies and practices, tales of their brutalities, collaborations with the rich to collect funds and their use for personal comfort, incidents of moral turpitude etc. should be exposed. The local and national media, think tanks and NGOs operating in the region could be leveraged for the purpose. Some of their front organisations, masquerading as think tanks and NGOs, engaged in subversive propaganda also need to be tackled effectively, through new legislations, if necessary.
Money is one of the most important factors helping extremists to acquire weapons and explosives, raise their cadre strength by recruiting youth on regular salaries and carrying out mass mobilisation programmes. They are reportedly collecting Rs 1,600-crore a year, which is big money for carrying out armed insurrection in an impoverished area. With a determined effort and no risk, the governments can take stern actions against business houses paying protection money, transporters paying levies, contractors giving taxes and corrupt government officials sharing the loot from the developmental funds. Most would be willing to cooperate if provided sense of security and protection which can be achieved at a much lesser cost.
The most important advantage of 4GW warriors is the advantage of invisibility. Only quality operational grade intelligence can make them visible for counter physical or legal actions. It is also the only instrumentality through which proactive operations can be launched. The tendency to underplay the role of intelligence and doing little to strengthen it is largely responsible for recent tactical setbacks. The tendency to raise additional battalions without corresponding accretion in intelligence network creates little pressure on the extremists and only provides them more visible targets to hit. State police forces, with their intimate knowledge of the terrain, language and local recruitment are best equipped to develop ground intelligence. They need to be resourced and trained for intelligence work at war footing. Diversion of atleast 30% of central modernisation grants to state police for intelligence work should be made mandatory.
Taking stock of climate negotiations
Article Window
AS CLIMATE negotiators again converge in Bonn this week, it is appropriate that we take stock of the key issues that must be resolved if climate negotiations are to yield an equitable solution that is also acceptable. Beyond the political rhetoric that is bound to follow, progress on the issues listed will be the key determinant of the degree of success.
The most critical unresolved issue vexing the negotiations is the issue of accepting and interpreting historical responsibility. The touchstone of “common but differentiated responsibilities” under the Framework Convention embodies the historical responsibility of the developed world that is home to less than 20% of humanity but responsible for almost 80% of the current greenhouse gas concentration of our planet.
Post Bali, the North (led by the US) has denied any historical responsibility. The North recognises that in a climate constrained world, the developing countries cannot even reach poverty levels of the North without significant incremental cost that will eat into the South's priority and, indeed, its right to development. All proposals crafted by the North, including the Copenhagen Accord, not only seek to preserve a disproportionate share of even the remaining environmental space for the North but require the South to make binding commitments to address climate change and bear the cost of such commitments to varying degrees but, in all cases, disproportionate to the South's contribution to the problem.
If one ignores historical responsibility, the position of the North can be defended. However, the Framework Convention and the Bali mandate recognise historical responsibility and hence make all mitigation actions by the developing world voluntary and require the developed world to pay the full incremental costs incurred by the developing world for such voluntary actions and for adaptation to climate change. Clearly one cannot decide how much reparation to pay (in the form of money and/or technology) unless one first agrees on the extent and nature of the historical responsibility.
The planet's carbon constraints were formally recognised by the international community at Stockholm in 1972. One way could be to equitably distribute the world's cumulative carbon budget to its citizens using 1972 as the base year. Unused entitlements could be traded to pay for the incremental costs of addressing climate change. Such a formulation would implicitly take care of when a country “peaks” or “graduates”.
Agreement on the level of mitigation actions within the borders of the developed countries is the second major unresolved issue. Quite apart from the inability to extract binding and ambitious emission reduction targets from Annex I countries for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, it needs to be recognised that the level of OECD's consumption of energy and other natural resources to sustain its lifestyles is simply unsustainable. The proposed market mechanisms that will reduce emissions where they are most economic to reduce (i.e., the developing world) will be only as successful as we are in redistributing, more equitably, the world's energy and natural resource consumption.
THIS can happen only if OECD's consumption comes down significantly. As an example, OECD continues to disproportionately consume the incremental supplies of commercial energy that are coming into the market. The developing world cannot reduce or trade emissions that it does not have because of low levels of access to energy and natural resources. Under current patterns of production and consumption, the world is on auto pilot for a 3.5° C temperature rise unless the Annex I countries undertake to reduce emissions within their borders by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This assumes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change numbers are right.
The third area of discord that must be addressed is the negotiating forum and the enforceability of the negotiated outcomes under international law. While the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the recognised multilateral forum for these negotiations, its processes are being openly questioned and its decisions do not appear to have the force of international law. There are many parallel negotiating forums in play that are clearly not compatible with or authorised by the UNFCCC. I am not against progress through parallel initiatives.
However, all such initiatives must be legitimised by the only multilateral forum that is recognised today by all and we must find a way that gives legal teeth to the outcomes of such legitimised negotiating processes. An acceptable solution is only likely either under the UNFCCC or a process/forum duly authorised by it.
The fourth area of disagreement that must be addressed is the issue of Shared Vision. The long-term global goal is not as important nor is it essential to cast it in stone. Given knowledge gaps in climate science and the impossibility of predicting the potential and timing of new and disruptive technologies, what really needs to agreed is committed actions by different countries in the next 10, 15 and 20 years. Even the 15- and 20-year commitments should not be cast in stone and should be open to review at the end of each period in light of improved understanding of scientific and technological truths. Suffice it to say that if we cannot agree and commit to deliver what we agree for the next 10 years, there is little value in what we might agree on for 2050.
There are dozens of additional issues that are bracketed in the negotiating texts pending agreement. Space constraints limit my ability to address them all. But all the remaining disagreements are second degree issues in my mind. If we can reach consensus on the four issues highlighted above, there can be rapid progress on the balance.
(The author is the former principal
adviser, energy, and core climate
negotiator, the government of India)
All proposals crafted by the North not only seek to preserve a disproportionate share of the environmental space for the North but require the South to make binding commitments to address climate change, says Surya P Sethi
AS CLIMATE negotiators again converge in Bonn this week, it is appropriate that we take stock of the key issues that must be resolved if climate negotiations are to yield an equitable solution that is also acceptable. Beyond the political rhetoric that is bound to follow, progress on the issues listed will be the key determinant of the degree of success.
The most critical unresolved issue vexing the negotiations is the issue of accepting and interpreting historical responsibility. The touchstone of “common but differentiated responsibilities” under the Framework Convention embodies the historical responsibility of the developed world that is home to less than 20% of humanity but responsible for almost 80% of the current greenhouse gas concentration of our planet.
Post Bali, the North (led by the US) has denied any historical responsibility. The North recognises that in a climate constrained world, the developing countries cannot even reach poverty levels of the North without significant incremental cost that will eat into the South's priority and, indeed, its right to development. All proposals crafted by the North, including the Copenhagen Accord, not only seek to preserve a disproportionate share of even the remaining environmental space for the North but require the South to make binding commitments to address climate change and bear the cost of such commitments to varying degrees but, in all cases, disproportionate to the South's contribution to the problem.
If one ignores historical responsibility, the position of the North can be defended. However, the Framework Convention and the Bali mandate recognise historical responsibility and hence make all mitigation actions by the developing world voluntary and require the developed world to pay the full incremental costs incurred by the developing world for such voluntary actions and for adaptation to climate change. Clearly one cannot decide how much reparation to pay (in the form of money and/or technology) unless one first agrees on the extent and nature of the historical responsibility.
The planet's carbon constraints were formally recognised by the international community at Stockholm in 1972. One way could be to equitably distribute the world's cumulative carbon budget to its citizens using 1972 as the base year. Unused entitlements could be traded to pay for the incremental costs of addressing climate change. Such a formulation would implicitly take care of when a country “peaks” or “graduates”.
Agreement on the level of mitigation actions within the borders of the developed countries is the second major unresolved issue. Quite apart from the inability to extract binding and ambitious emission reduction targets from Annex I countries for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, it needs to be recognised that the level of OECD's consumption of energy and other natural resources to sustain its lifestyles is simply unsustainable. The proposed market mechanisms that will reduce emissions where they are most economic to reduce (i.e., the developing world) will be only as successful as we are in redistributing, more equitably, the world's energy and natural resource consumption.
THIS can happen only if OECD's consumption comes down significantly. As an example, OECD continues to disproportionately consume the incremental supplies of commercial energy that are coming into the market. The developing world cannot reduce or trade emissions that it does not have because of low levels of access to energy and natural resources. Under current patterns of production and consumption, the world is on auto pilot for a 3.5° C temperature rise unless the Annex I countries undertake to reduce emissions within their borders by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This assumes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change numbers are right.
The third area of discord that must be addressed is the negotiating forum and the enforceability of the negotiated outcomes under international law. While the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the recognised multilateral forum for these negotiations, its processes are being openly questioned and its decisions do not appear to have the force of international law. There are many parallel negotiating forums in play that are clearly not compatible with or authorised by the UNFCCC. I am not against progress through parallel initiatives.
However, all such initiatives must be legitimised by the only multilateral forum that is recognised today by all and we must find a way that gives legal teeth to the outcomes of such legitimised negotiating processes. An acceptable solution is only likely either under the UNFCCC or a process/forum duly authorised by it.
The fourth area of disagreement that must be addressed is the issue of Shared Vision. The long-term global goal is not as important nor is it essential to cast it in stone. Given knowledge gaps in climate science and the impossibility of predicting the potential and timing of new and disruptive technologies, what really needs to agreed is committed actions by different countries in the next 10, 15 and 20 years. Even the 15- and 20-year commitments should not be cast in stone and should be open to review at the end of each period in light of improved understanding of scientific and technological truths. Suffice it to say that if we cannot agree and commit to deliver what we agree for the next 10 years, there is little value in what we might agree on for 2050.
There are dozens of additional issues that are bracketed in the negotiating texts pending agreement. Space constraints limit my ability to address them all. But all the remaining disagreements are second degree issues in my mind. If we can reach consensus on the four issues highlighted above, there can be rapid progress on the balance.
(The author is the former principal
adviser, energy, and core climate
negotiator, the government of India)
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)