Anything Else

Was reading a rebuffal of global warning on by this fellow, here is something I found really interesting:

I confess: I understand that global warming may have negative consequences. Heat waves, droughts and coastal flooding may become more intense. Temperature-sensitive viruses such as malaria could become more widespread. Lakes may be depleted by evaporation. Animal life will suffer.

But as Bjorn Lomborg points out in his sharp, persuasive and aptly titled book "Cool It," a warming climate has advantages, too, and not just trivial ones. Though global warming will cause more heat deaths, it will also mean many fewer cold deaths. Drought may increase in some areas, but warming also means both more rain and longer growing seasons. Temperature changes will harm some wildlife in some places. But many species will benefit from a bit more warmth. Does anyone know for certain that the net human and environmental losses from global warming will exceed overall gains? 

This is the crux of matter, isn't it. Global warning is bad is a naive statement. Global warming is bad for warmer(=under developed) countries, and is good for colder(=developed) countries. Nobody mentions this fact in global warming debates, as if assuming Bush and party are equally concerned of death of Americans and death of Middle Easterns. The whole global warming debates makes so much sense now. 

Came across this insightful comment on Peter Foster's blog:

In India, development is INSPITE of the government while in China, development is DUE to the government.

Of course, a large part of India has been very unfortunate in having despotic, cruel, oppressive regimes ('governments') for the last 700+ years or so. Indians thus have become used to the fact that they should not depend on the government and that they have to do most of it themselves, including building private roads (the rich) where necessary, arranging potable water supply (the private tankers) etc.

So true! We never had a phase of well meaning kings or rulers in our history. 

Note: I wrote this article few weeks back, and refrained from posting it till I was done with creating somepickle. 

The quality of comments on Rediff articles is usually pathetic, but there are exceptions:

by John W Davis on Jul 30, 2007 04:42 PM | Hide replies

Pakistan has given the trainings to people in the name of Islam who carried out the bomb-blasts in Bombay which left more than 400 innocent people dead.

If pakistani government is so much devoted for Islamic cause then why they raided the Red Mosque in Pakistan and killed the Maulvi and all his supporters.
- What ISI, pakistan based Jihadi group who fight for the so called cause of Islam, what they were doing at the time of raid on the masjid.

Had this act been done in India of raiding a Masjid, Pakistan must have made a lot of hue and cry so also media. They would have declared India anti-islamic, would have prepared so many provocative videos and would have spreaded them in the name of Islam and prepare the people to carrying out anti-India, terrorist activities and kill innocent people.

Pakistan always try to pose itself "Massiha" of musalmaans and in the name of helping the cause of Islam, pakistan use India Musalmaans for carrying out anti-India and terrorist activites.

Pakistan's president openly and happily mentioned that they attacked the mosque since China asked to do so (some chinese citizens were made hostage by Red Mosque and later freed).
So, if Pakistan is really devoted for Islamic cause, they would not have carried out the attack on the mosque and killing so many people just because China asked them to do so.

No idea how long would the comment stay on that page, Rediff does not have peramalink for individual comments. They also routinely censor comments, not that that sounds as bad given the quality of comments, but a very bad lesson nevertheless. These people should be fighting government censorship, how can they do it now, now that they themselves do it.

They say media is the eye of a nation, I guess we are pretty much a blind country.

Just gave me the idea, a slashcode based website for India. We are utterly full of contempt against our media, the user comment may prove more informative than the stories themselves. We need a forum for people to speak/argue, and slashcode's moderation system/user kerma ratings is the best out there. 

News for Indians, stuff that matters.

Why not! 

India culturally places too much emphasis on respect. An article on rediff has this to say:

We grow up in a society where we learn to respect and listen to adults, in many cases even if they are wrong. We address our neighbours by calling them uncle or aunts from early childhood.

When we move into business, we tend to show a lot of respect and value to the folks who are higher up in the organisation or higher up in society. So, when they endorse something, it really means a lot to us.

In our story, Ravi was trying to convince Bob with a status based persuasion approach. Bob on the other hand was constantly asking if these ministers, senior officials were engaged in similar real estate deals. Bob was trying to understand if Ravi was providing these names as credible references who 'has been there, done that' with Ravi. The fact that these guys did not participate in a deal like this but were willing to vow for success criterion regarding this effort did not go well with Bob.

Again, if you are negotiating with an American who is not prone to Indian ways, it may be better to provide credible reference that may not be big names rather than using big names to receive status based concession.

Seeing things in this regard, respect seems to brew an authoritarian mind set, it places too much importance of status and individualism suffers. Respects eats up credibility.

Peter Foster, found this emphasis on respect refreshing for a westerner. Our parents like it too.

If we respect people because we are supposed to respect them, and not because of what they have done, it leads to us turning a blind eye towards evaluating people, evaluating what they have done. Shashi's blog post on pride and respect also emphasises similar points:

In my opinion, this - not taking pride in your work - is only one side of the coin. The other missing side of the argument is lack of respect for work. We don't believe in dignity of work - any work, however important or trivial it is! "You are an air hostess with SpiceJet or Air Deccan? You need to get out of the rat hole and join Kingfisher or Jet" is our attitude. People think, as they are charged exorbitantly at five-star hotels, it is their birthright to curse every single thing and all the staff. We show respect (or pretend to) only to the people in the socio-economic strata higher than us. (And then we cry foul when we are at the receiving end of it and confirming that we are hypocrites.)

We are culturally trained not to respect people's work and their actions, as it will invariably lead to situation where we are supposed to disrespect someone based on what they have done, but have to respect them because what they are. You will be blamed for not respecting someone higher up to you, you will be punished by that somebody and by others as being someone who does not respect people, and criticizes people. Respect based on status is a comfortable system for those in power, they do not want to be criticized, not be held accountable to their actions. We play it safe by just ignoring actions and focusing on the status. Teacher => respect, Elder=> respect, Boss => respect, and we come to expect the same respect from others. If we do not respect people's work and actions, what we are left with is a very mediocre country.

Indians are not good in taking or handing out criticism. The culture of respect says even answering back to someone is disrespectful. Looking into eyes is disrespectful. The system is so smooth with rules of respect driving every aspect of interpersonal interaction, that the moment someone tells you something against you, it becomes very personal. It no longer about the act that someone criticized and it becomes about you getting criticized. How dare he? is the first thought, and probably the only thought, not the credibility of the accusation.

We always shout that politicians are only promising us stuff and not doing them, well this is what we get for being a respectful country. Status Based Respect == Lack of Respect for Action == Cancer of our country.

After discussion with AshishS about the treaty, I am becoming more and more convinced that this treaty is a bad thing, and India must not sign it.

Has No Bearing On Nuclear Tests

PM assured as in the Parliament that this treaty does not stop India from doing further nuclear tests. What is the difference between these two scenarios:

a) The treaty does not say anything about nuclear tests, but is signed with an understanding that India will not do any further tests.
b) Treaty forbids India from doing further tests?

If b was the case, should India have signed the treaty with equal ease? Would PM be able to make the statement he made above? But b is not the case, and a is. How does it matter if the treaty explicitly forbids or if its implicit, the fact of the matter is India can not do nuclear tests as long as this treaty is in effect. Treaty forbids tests, and PM is on record saying the contrary. You may say but its not written in the 27 page document, so talking technicality, I win ha ha ha! But trust me, its the US who is going home laughing not you.

Did PM Lie?

Don't ascribe to malice anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity. To agree that he lied to us, would be to agree that he knew all this nuances in the treaty, and knowingly avoided telling it in Parliament to get the treaty through for some political or personal reason, and had reasons to believe that he can get away with it. To me that is like giving too much credit to Manmohan Singh, he is not that smart. Bush is. But he is not. US administration out smarted him, they put an excellent piece of lawyering, and poor India, we were not even allowed to have a lawyer be involved in the drafting of the treaty. If we were not the one being screwed over, I might have appreciated the smartness of the move.

No PM did not lie. Our PM probably has no more ambition that thinking "If I sit completely still, and don't move at all, not even blink my eyes, ignore what is happening around me, I might last my term! Wouldn't that be cool!". Scathing attack you say? We we, Indians, realize the follies of our leaders and we write articles about them, we criticize them, but when outsiders realize their gullibilities, they use it to their advantage, exactly what US is doing right now in my opinion.

Treaty Can Be Revoked By Either Side

Ashish objected to above argument by saying India can revoke the treaty. Now this is a pandora's box to me. What is the procedure to revoke the treaty? Having a simplistic world view in which "one day we sign the treat, treaty comes into full effect, then some other day we revoke the treaty and treaty is gone" is too simplistic in my opinion, black and white. What about the concept of "voilating the treaty". What are the penalties for it? India will just stop getting more Uranium supplies? Thats it? In my opinion voilating a treaty between two countries is an open invitation to act of war.

"Why US Wants This Treaty More Than Us" Or The Question Of "Why Now"

You would say: oh come-on, US is not going to go to war with India, what am I smoking? I am not saying they will. Diplomacy is the art of nuances and subtleties and sophistication or elaborate arguments under the shadow of war. Lets look at the US motives. India had an offer for such an treaty since almost the beginning of the current sanctions, soon after we conducted the tests, our PM was in US, trying to revoke part of the sanctions to allow for civil nuclear energy production. It was denied, and was never under consideration till about few months ago. What, did India suddenly revived diplomatic efforts for this treaty, or could it be the timing of this treaty has something to do with US interests. They say US interest is purely financial. Sure it is financial, but it always was financial. Why now?

During the Iraq war, US asked for Indian assistance in the form of direct army involvement, then in the form of peace keeping force, then finally as police force for new Iraq government. India politely declined. We are not the only one who were approached and declined. Precisely my point. US is almost completely cornered in Iraq. Iraq is far from over, they still are increasing the troop deployment there. The Iraq episode of US-requests-troops-India-declines is not even over yet, and trouble is brewing in Iran. Same episode would be repeated there if things go out of control. And then Pakistan, Osama is still hiding there, may be with change of govt in US after 2008 elections, some front may open in Pakistan too? Would India offer troops?

May be India will. Or may be India will not. India will do what is in our best interest and is based on our values. You know why, because India is a free country. We have the sovereign right to take decisions, without getting approval of other countries. We are proud of this fact, and hold this dearly in our hearts, and will defend jealously any attempts to tarnish it in any fashion.

A shadow of the war can limit our freedom.

This brings us to violation of treaty and not revocation. It is not in US's interest to revoke it, but violation if proven can serve them.

The Trap

Look at article 1.M:

"Peaceful purposes" include the use of information, nuclear material, equipment or components in such fields as research, power generation, medicine, agriculture and industry, but do not include use in research on, or development of any nuclear explosive device or any other military purpose.
 

Article 2.3 talks about information and material transfer. Article 3 is all about Transfer of Information. Article 14.1 states termination period of a year. 16.3 states even if the treaty is terminated by a party, provisions of this treaty will still be applicable.

To adhere to this treaty India will have to prove that any material or information transferred will not be used for military purpose. There are guidelines about how to secure materials, but none on information. And yet information has a section devoted on it. Who will you prove, beyond doubt if alleged that such violation has not happened? Information containment can only be achieved by segregating our nuclear scientists and all research facilities into those that are working on nuclear energy applications and those working on that for military purposes.

It would never be possible for India to prove any of that. And therefor never for us to say we are not in the violation of the agreement.

The treaty is a trap. Section 14.4 states a requirement for return of what has been obtained during this treaty. By the very nature, fuel gets spent when nuclear energy is produced. We would spend the fuel we will get, and yet we will have to return all that fuel once this treaty has been terminated. US would not allow us to borrow nuclear fuel from other sources to return.

In Conclusion

Even if India today scraps all its nuclear military research, and consumes what has been provided due to this treaty for peaceful purposes, on cessation of this treaty India will have to somehow return the Uranium that we would have exhausted. If we continue our nuclear defense programs, it would be impossible for India to prove that information has not been shared between military and peaceful applications. We are under complete whims of US to decide if we are violating the treaty or not.

US can take us to security council if they feel a international treaty has been violated by a country, and the conditions are not being met. This would be a huge crisis for us, and will give US ample room for arm-twisting India into conceding lesser demands like agreeing to send troops in the next war US decides to wage.

PS: Please post your views on this matter on somepickle.in. 

I and AshishS are launching a site as our Independence Day thing. Somepickle.in: News for Indians, stuff that matters. 

What is it?

Somepickle, or SP/sp in short, is a discussion site. This site focuses on India specific topics. Anyone can submit a story for discussion, and our editors will edit it and publish it on the site. Anyone subscribed to http://somepickle.in rss feed will get latest stories, and they can read the views of other people about it. 

Rediff has comments, so does blogs, there are forums, so why this? 

The key point is moderation and reputation. So many comments you find on many news sites/blogs are just "me too" or "they suck" or something trivial like that. This does not encourage participation as finding signal to noise ratio is quite high in those systems. Somepickle.in is powered by slashcode that powers slashdot, and distinction of slashdot from digg for example is, the value you get from the quality comment you read in the slashdot stories. 

How is quality of comments/discussion achieved? 

Slashcode has a comment moderation and meta moderation system. Every user who signs up on our system is given some kerma, default is 5 for example. The kerma of a user increases when the comment by the user gets moderated +1 or -1. A comment has a kerma rating too, the kerma can go from -1 to +5. If the kerma of the user posting the comment is high, beyond a certain threshold,  the default kerma of a newly posted comment would be +2, otherwise if the comment is from a registered user, the initial kerma would be +1. Anonymous users can post a reply too, or a user can post a comment anonymously, in which case the initial kerma of the comment would be +0.

Then comes moderation. Randomly, users are picked and are given moderation points. How many moderation point given and how often a user is picked, depends on the users kerma, the higher it is, the more the user can moderate. When user is eligible for moderation, as decided by the system based on the said rules, user will see moderation options along with each comment they come across. A moderator has many options moderate a comment, for example user may consider it:

Normal: Gives 0 kerma to a comment and the poster, this is the default state of a new comment. This can be given if the moderator wants to undo moderations for a comment, lets say if the moderator sees a comment "+5 Insightful" and thinks the comment is deserving, but its not perticularly insightful, its just a normal good quality comment.

Offtopic: This is a negative moderation, the poster and the comment will get 1 points deducted from their respective kermas. This is given when commenter posts something totally unrelated to the discussion going on.

Flamebait: This is another negative moderation, 1 point will be deducted. This is used when it appears to the moderator that the intent was provoking an angry reply. For example there might be a contentious issue that has been resolved, but the commenter has knowingly ignored the resolution and alleged something completely contrary to resolution.  

Troll: This is also a negative moderation, 1 point deducted. This is quite similar to flamebait, but in this case the intent of the commenter is not to provoke an angry reply and get hasty response, but to pretend to be serious about the topic, but is intentionally being ignorant and saying wrong thing.

Redundant: Negative, -1. This is a me too type comment, someone repeating something that has already been said or discussed, and has no meaningful value.

Insightul: This gives +1 to the comment and the poster, and is used when some new insight has been shed by the comment. Something I did not initially seem connected are actually connected, it will be insightful for example. It usually comes from indepth/accidental knowledge/research.

Interesting: Postive, +1, this is used when something interesting is being said, for some general agreeable meaning of "interesting".

Informative: Postive +1. This is when someone posts a link or write something that shed more information about what is being discussed.

Funny: Positive +1, doesn't really require an explaination.

Overrated: Negative -1 moderation, this is when the moderator feels the comment has got more moderation than it deserves.

Underrater: Positive +1, this is opposite of Overrated.

Moderation guide contains more detailed information about the moderation system.

Conclusion

With such extensive rules it is hoped that most of comments you come across would be of worth your time, and will thus encourage users to participate, and hopefully contribute towards everybody's understanding about things that are happening around us. We need users, so please let others know about it. Happy Independence Day everybody!

PS: Thanks goes to Thakkar and Amol for site and logo design respectively, mind you, they are not done yet, and any screwups you notice is our faults.  

These days in India, the only way to get things done is to file PILs. Here is how to do it:

1. How can I file a PIL?

PIL is filed in the same manner, as a writ petition is filed. If a PIL is filed in a High Court, then two (2) copies of the petition have to be filed (for Supreme Court, then (4+1=5 sets) Also, an advance copy of the petition has to be served on the each respondent, i.e. opposite party, and this proof of service has to be affixed on the petition.

The Procedure:

A Court fee of Rs. 50, per respondent (i.e. for each number of party, court fees of Rs 50) has to be affixed on the petition. Proceedings, in the PIL commence and carry on in the same manner, as other cases. However, in between the proceedings if the Judge feels that he may appoint the commissioner, to inspect allegations like pollution being caused, trees being cut, sewer problems, etc. After filing of replies, by opposite party, or rejoinder by the petitioner, final hearing takes place, and the judge gives his final decision.

2. In which cases, can a PIL be filed?

PIL can be filed only in a case where “Public Interest” at large is affected. Merely because, only one person is effected by state inaction is not a reason for PIL.

There are some of the possible areas where PIL can be filed.

· Where a factory/ industry unit is causing air pollution, and people nearly are getting effected.
· Where, in an area/ street there are no street lights, causing inconvenience to commuters.
· Where some “Banquet Hall” plays a loud music, in night causing noise pollution.
· Where some construction company is cutting down trees, causing environmental pollution.
· Where poor people, are affected, because of state government’s arbitrary decision to impose heavy “Tax”.
· For directing the police/ Jail authorities to take appropriate decisions in regards to jail reforms, such as segregation of convicts, delay in trial, before the court on remand dates.
· For abolishing child labor, and bonded labor.
· Where rights of working women are affected by sexual harassment.
· For keeping a check on corruption and crime involving holders of high political officer.
· For maintaining Roads, Sewer etc in good condition.
· For removal of Big Hoarding and signboards from the busy road to avoid traffic problem.

3. Who can file the PIL?

Earlier it was only a person whose interest was directly affected along with others, whereby his fundamental right is affected who used to file such litigation. Now, the trend has changed, and, any Public-spirited person can file a case (PIL) on behalf of a group of person, whose rights are affected. It is not necessary, that person filing a case should have a direct interest in this PIL.

e.g. a person in Mumbai can file a PIL for, some labor workers being exploited in Madhya Pradesh or as someone filed a PIL in supreme court for taking action against a Cracker factory in Sivakasi Tamilnadu, for employing child labor or the case where a standing practicing lawyer filed a PIL for release of 80 under trials in a jail, than the period prescribed as punishment for offence, for which they were tried. It is clear that, any person can file a PIL on behalf of group of affected people. However, it will depend on every facts of case, whether it should be allowed or not.

4. Against whom a PIL can be filed?

A PIL can be filed against a State/ Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private party. However, “Private party” can be included in the PIL as “Respondent”, after making concerned state authority, a party. For example- if there is a Private factory in Delhi, which is causing pollution, then people living nearly or any other person can file a PIL against the Government of Delhi, Pollution Control Board, and against the private factory. However, a PIL cannot be filed against the Private party alone.

5. Can a Letter Explaining Facts to Chief Justice be treated as a PIL?

In early 90’s there have been instances, where judges have treated a post card containing facts, as a PIL. Many PIL has been filed on this basis in the past. Since, many people have tried to misuse the privilege of PIL, the court has required a detailed narration of facts and complaint, and then decide whether to issue notice and call the opposite party. However, as there is no statute laying down rules and regulations for a PIL still the court can treat a letter as a PIL. However, the letter should bring the true and clear facts, and if the matter is really an urgent one, the court can treat it as a PIL. Even a writ petition filed by the aggrieved person, whether on behalf of group or together with group can be treated as a PIL.

6. What are the various reliefs available by PIL?

There are many kinds of remedies, which can be given in a PIL, to secure the public interest, at large. They are:

· The court can afford an early interim measure to protect the public interest,
· The court may appoint a committee, or commissioner to look into the matter and
· The court may also give final orders by way of direction to comply within a stipulated time.

Painstakingly compiled by Subhashini.

Too cool!