Energy is no different from a river, it flows or it is stored. We obtain all the required energy from the stored energy resources, otherwise we construct dams to capture the flowing energy and hence make it usable.
The fake term “renewable energy” often used and advertised by environmentalist is nothing but the stored energy of the sun.
In reality, there is nothing like “renewable energy”, every energy resource including the sun is limited.
Environmentalists often shout against the use of Fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels are also nothing but stored solar energy. The capturing of solar energy in form of fossil takes millions of years and fossil fuels are highly concentrated source of energy, almost 10 times more concentrated than wood. The wind energy or raw solar energy the flow of energy is too weak to be used. Solar energy is 10 to 50 times less concentrated than fossil fuel. There is no technology to concentrate solar or wind energy and hence, to harvest any significant amount of energy directly from flowing solar or wind energy, the only way is to use more and more land, but land space is limited and that limits the use of both solar and wind energy.
According to T. Boone Pickens’s famous wind energy drive,¹ a single wind energy power station would require some 12,000 square miles of land area. That is too much when compared with the land space required for a Nuclear power plant.
Another natural store of energy is coal that is extremely abundant in nature. We may never run out of coal no matter how much we use it. Coal is a concentrated store of energy, much concentrated than wood.
Octane molecules of gasoline are further dense source of energy; they are densest form of all resources of carbon energy. Carbon energy itself is nothing but a natural dam of solar energy that is carbon energy is solar energy.
Yet, environmentalists want to reduce world’s carbon footprints; hence, they want to ban usage of carbon energy resources. On the contrary, they support the use of solar energy, wind energy in crude, and dilute form.
Nuclear energy is very different from any of the above discussed energy resources.
Nuclear energy is not a form of solar energy; the Sun is not the source of nuclear energy. People in general know less about nuclear energy.
A pinch of uranium contains more energy than 100 full trucks of coal. Despite the governments throughout the world providing support to solar and wind energy power plants by means of government subsidies (regulators forces utility companies to but renewable energy), the solar and wind energy plants produces only about 0.9% of the total electricity we consume.
The most effective solar panels (used on the space stations) are expensive and their conversion efficiency is only about 20%, which is too less. We cannot support the idea of using those much expensive solar panels with such less efficiency rate to be adopted on earth. Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate a meager 300 megawatt of energy, we can not rely on them, also, the reflectors must be kept exceptionally clean and maintained to the hilt, and otherwise they will not work. At the stage of current technological knowledge, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, sea or wave energy can fulfil even half of our demand for energy.
Environmentalists are against carbon energy resources, one may think they are right, but they are against nuclear energy resource too and they support only the crude form of solar, wind and water energy. Obviously, they want to push us back to the dark ages² .
The wind, solar and wave energy can be made more efficient with improving science and technology, not by forcing all of us to go without electricity.
The environmentalists call for massive subsidization for wind and solar energy, while they want to abort usage of carbon energy by applying carbon taxes.
Subsidies for wind and solar energy along with ethanol, recycling and many other similar issues clarifies that they are not efficient, because if they are efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? They need to be subsidized because they are not efficient.
Energy resources for which the environmentalist cries for are those, which benefit no one. The only reason environmentalist want them to be subsidized is the fact that they cannot compete in the market. No one will opt for wind or solar energy in a free market because it is inefficient very less, causes loss. In order to force people to opt for solar and wind energy, environmentalists suggest carbon taxes.
All this clarifies solar and wind energy is not good enough yet.
When the technology will improve and with that improve the efficiency of solar and wind energy, the free market will adopt them freely.
Wind will still fail to be any major source of energy because of the difficulty of transmitting the wind energy power. Wind is also unpredictable and hence the production of energy will also remain unpredictable.
Energy through nuclear fission is the proper alternative to any form solar energy that may solve out all the genuine environmental concerns, and they will ensure that we keep progressing in the future rather than being pushed backward to dark ages.
Uranium produces enormous amount of energy in a very little place that wind and solar energy together can not come close to.
Those who oppose nuclear energy are simply against any realistic way towards sustaining and improvement of technological advancement and our life in turn.
Uranium is abundant, clean and safe to use, furthermore, the residual of the nuclear reactors, that is, the “nuclear waste” can also be re-used after enriching plutonium.
The environmental geeks show their concern about the safety of nuclear reactors.
One of such nuclear accident happened at Chernobyl,³ every green geek puts up that case, what they do not tell us is the fact that, that mishap happened just because that US government run reactor was highly unsafe.
The greatest scientific feat of 20th century was the discovery of neutron and the knowledge about the highly concentrated nuclear energy. We discovered that the energy concentrated in nucleus of atom is 2 million times as more as the energy concentrated in the shell of atom.
The energy in the shell of atom is known as the chemical energy. Everything from wood to coal, from crude oil to gasoline is the play of chemical energy. Using chemical energy thus does not necessarily decreases the carbon footprints. The only way to successfully decrease our carbon footprints without pushing us backward to dark ages is the Nuclear energy.
The danger of nuclear waste is false because in reality, there remains nothing like “nuclear waste”; the waste of nuclear reactor can be used for further production of energy without hurting the environment by any means.
That so-called nuclear waste is also being used as the medical isotopes. About 40% of advanced medicines now are Nuclear medicine.
Conclusion: Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and most effective and efficient way we have, to not only to fulfil our current requirements but to meet all futuristic demands without leaving any carbon footprints.
Anyone who opposes Nuclear energy is whole out wrong and is against human progress and prosperity.

1. T Boon Pickens, Pickens plan [↩]
2. The Catastrophic Lovers want to return to Dark Ages, Reason for Liberty [↩]
3. The Chernobyl Disaster, wikipedia [↩]

After all the ruckus of Parliament, the women’s reservation bill was passed on 9th of March. The brouhahas of the dramatic parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation and the consequential voting over it was no less dramatic than the fake emotional ‘atyachar’ so commonly used and seen in various reality TV channels shows. All seemed to be pre-planned and directed and well-executed, and the result was huge TRP coverage for the ongoing Parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation bill and every news coverage related to it. News channels declared the passing of the bill as a historical milestone in the Indian political arena. Every person was forced to get involved with the issue of reservation for the women and literary was forced to accept that reservation actually is a noble idea that may provide equality and will improve the society by any means. Those who opposed the bill were wilfully shown as villains and those who supported it were shown as the heroes for the women cause, and the main leader was obviously the bigwig of Congress Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.
The process of entitlements, reservations, and special privileges was shown as the process of liberty and hence the freedom of individual was virtually brutalized by means of the whip of reservation. More than 100 blue commandos were called to bundle out the villainous MP’s who were trying to offset and oppose the voting for the support of WRB (women’s reservation bill) in Rajyasabha, and in planned way, the opponents applied the most illogical and irrational way of opposition, their opposition was no less than ‘violent’. Nobody actually opposed the idea of reservation nor they supported the idea of empowerment of women, what all of the MP’s of Indian parliament were doing was an act to influence a particular voting sect or the other, and the winner came out to be the ruling party which facilitate the women’s reservation bill. Now Congress party may dream of getting most of the fairer votes in the upcoming elections, after all, they bribed the women of India by providing them special privileges over their male counterparts.
Is the Women’s Reservation Bill of any Worth?
Women’s reservation bill assures 33% seats of MP’s in the parliament to be reserved for the women, i.e., at least 33% of MP’s would be women from now on. Will that change the scenario of politics, will that make Indian parliament look better or say ‘more beautiful’? The reservation for women may soon be enforced in public sector services of India too and then it may be enforced in the private sector too while enforcing a law on private sector to make it compulsory that every genuine company or enterprise must provide at least 33% of their jobs to females.
Will that improve the society? As a matter of fact, such entitlements, special privileges and reservations divide and weaken the society, but this time, the attack is not on the society alone, it is directly an attack on the families of India. The reservation is not going to increase the employment but with the compulsion of at least 33% of jobs to be provided for women, the government will virtually force 33% of women of India to be the soul bread earners of their families. What will their husband do? Well they may choose to be house-husbands, or may choose to try for entrepreneurship. Will that provide equality of men and women in the society?
More importantly, is the equality a virtue.

“Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.”¹

Consequences: All this political drama of reservation and special privileges for women will weaken Indian society and Indian women. It will increase further egoistic clashes between the two genders and will decrease the familial harmony. The reservation for anyone itself is a curse to society but reservation for women will start cursing the families. There will be more divorces, more cases of unsatisfied, sad and deranged couples applying for divorces. It is not a good trend although it may increase the voting account of the political parties. When Indians must oppose reservation based on Caste, religion and birth, the politicians of India has forced Indians to think about reservation based on gender too.
The major humanitarian idea of no differentiation based on caste, creed, sex, religion, colour, ethnicity has been abused and the trend of specific privileges and entitlements for the gain of political vote banks has been enhanced. It is the process of weakening of Indian Individuals and the Indian society as whole, but the major victims will prove to be women alone. A woman full of ambition does not need any reservation to prove that she is able. By providing her reservation, it has been virtually proved that she is not able and she lacks ambitions.

Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.
Michael Levin

1. Timothy Leary, Timothy Leary Wikipedia [↩]

To make certain determinations and resolutions at the arrival of New Year is such a normal trend. Everybody wants to improve his routine life, everybody knows what wrong in going on and everybody further knows that if he determines to change certain attitudes, his life will improve and hence almost every second person resolute at the new year eve, to change himself and to improve. Than comes the part when he realizes that he fell back into most of his old habits by the January 15th, he almost forgets his resolution and gives up on them.
Thus, the trouble for an average man is not that he neglects the importance of making resolutions; rather it is that he makes too many resolutions. He becomes so habitual at making resolutions that he is forever forgetting and breaking them and again making resolutions afresh, again to break them.
Every time one gets late at office, he determines to get early next day. He sees himself getting up early at 7, dressing easily, enjoying breakfast with no hurry, no irritation, no fear that he may miss the Bus and he realizes that it is not so difficult to manage his time well, that he can resolute to overcome his habit of getting late. Obviously, he knows his imperfections and he knows how to perfect them.
Yet, he fails to remember his resolution for long. Soon he gets busy in the daily office routine. A number of things occupy his attention and his resolution temporarily drops out of his mind. By evening, he gets an idea to spend a little time at the dance bar. He suddenly remembers that he has resolved to not get late to office next day, yet the temptation of little pleasurable time tends him to go to the bar with his friends and have some drinks. He again resolute to not to take more than two drinks, he determines he will return to his home at most by 9 p.m. Again, in the friendly environment, when one of his friends offers another drink after the first two, he forgets his resolution, accepts one more, and enjoys a little more time at the bar. At last, he finds himself at his home at 11p.m, obviously late. He again tries to keep his resolution stern and decides he will sleep as early as 12a.m. After finishing his dinner, he open up the television set to listen the news headlines, determined to sleep as early as possible, yet his fingers wanders at the remote and after noticing the news headlines, he turns to some music channel to enjoy a little romantic slow melody, or may be some hard rock before he may fell asleep. At 1.30a.m, he realizes that he is again late and he gets frustrated, cursing himself, he enters his bed.
Next morning, the alarm clock warns him at 7a.m, he gets up, angry, resentful against the alarm he himself had set. He knows he had resolved to get as early as 7 a.m. Yet his body does not respond to the eagerness to keep up his resolution and he switches off the alarm and sets it again to 7.30a.m. By 7.45a.m, he gets out of his bed, again hurried and frustrated, he knows he has to hurry otherwise he will miss the local Bus his office. His body again is slow to respond to the mental eagerness to keep up with resolution to not to get late. By 8a.m, he still has to take bath and take his breakfast and by 8:30a.m, he realizes that he is again set to get late. All this making and breaking of such resolutions keeps adding up his frustrations and he fells in a trap where he finds himself unable to control his own accords, he realizes he is lacking will-power and than he resolute again, to never to make a resolution.
It is not the issue whether resolutions helps of improves someone, or they causes further frustrations, it is also very subjective whether to say that making too many resolutions is wrong or bad.
The only thing that is beyond any doubts is, if one makes a resolution, he needs to keep up with his resolve. There should be an insistence that if one makes a resolve it should be carried out. To make a resolve and break it demoralizing and it obviously fills one with further frustrations and complex characteristics. There should be no exception at keeping up with one’s own resolution. No matter nobody knows about your resolution, no matter even God will ever come to know that you broke your resolution, you would know it, you will realize that you fell weak you cheated yourself and that becomes a cause for you to loose faith in yourself. Next time whenever you realize any imperfection, any fault in yourself, you fear to make a resolve; you lack faith that you may better yourself. On the other hand, if you succeed in keeping up with even a single resolution you have made, it increases your self-confidence, your inner strength. You feel empowered, ready to take further chances, alert to improve further. Keeping up with a resolution enriches your capability to desire more, it increases your faith in yourself, your will-power.
Overall, it can be said that one should make fewer resolutions, and one should try his best to keep up his resolution. That is, one should be very choosy about making a resolution. Before making a resolution, ask whether you are serious at executing it, examine it dispassionately. Consider not only the advantages of keeping up such a resolution, but also the disadvantages of keeping up that resolution. Weigh the advantages and disadvantages of committing yourself to a resolve selfishly and thoroughly. As for example, if you resolve to get early in morning at 7a.m, consider the sacrifice of loosing the sleep of end leisurely moments. If you are habitual to remain in bed until quarter to 8a.m, you are doing so because there are some advantages. Balance those advantages to the advantages of getting up at seven. You may find out that it is a deal of loss to get up at 7a.m, that to enjoy a little more sleep is much more beneficial than the little relaxation time you will get if you get up at 7a.m, and than you may decide to resolve to get up at 7.30a.m, as that would not only allow you to enjoy the little more early morning sleep, but also, it will let you have 15 minutes extra to get ready to your office. By weighing each of such facets of a resolution before committing to it, you will certainly reach to a conclusive pattern that would allow you to loose least of your pleasures and gain most of the advantages of improving your habits.
That is, before committing to a resolution, one needs to weigh and value all the advantages and disadvantages of keeping up with that resolution. His judgement should be specifically selfish, fulfilling his most important needs and desires. Once a person commits himself to a resolution that is certainly going to be beneficial for him and he realizes whatever little he will have to loose to keep up that resolution is certainly not of that importance and value to that of the advantages of keeping up with the resolution, he finds himself in a better position to keep up with his resolution and increase his self-confidence, his moral and faith.
Conclusion: Resolutions are obviously made to improve oneself and to denounce the imperfection. To make a resolution hence, is a very selfish act and one need to be careful that he may be able to keep up with his resolutions without any exception. If one fails to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of executing a resolution, he often tends to break the resolution at any moment he realizes that to keep the resolution is not as beneficial as to break it. That certainly demoralizes him and forces him to further his distress. Ultimately, the same resolution that he pursued to improve himself becomes the cause of his lack of self-confidence and demoralization. One should be very cautious and selfishly profit-loss calculative before committing himself to a resolution, to commit to a resolution hence, is obviously a very selfish act meant to improve oneself.

Indian state is as much a natural conception as it is a political planned fertilization of the diverse linguistically different regions of an area whose only common identity before the unification by the British was the same racial and religious identity. India as a unified state never existed in history, and it never had a common binding factor that unites all its populace regardless of race, cast religion or linguistic identity. The British unification of India not only united the geographical region, but, for the first time in history, it provided them a reason to unite, against the common enemy, the foreign invaders. However, as soon as it was clear that the fight was won, the leaders now had to provide a separate reason for which the state must continue its unified existence, and bar the Muslim League, nobody could propose a clear and distinct definition of what India was going to be like. The Muslim league wanted a state based on religion that could unite the mass after the departure of British, their movement got a great support, and they were able to form their state, an Islamic republic, through the partition of India. Nevertheless, the non-viability of that identity in the sub-continent was proven by the partition of Pakistan, in a linguistic basis, though the inhabitants of both the countries were Muslims predominantly, and had taken part in the earlier partition enthusiastically.
India was born with a nation identity which was conceived in negation to these historical occurrences, India was a sovereign country, which wanted to protect itself from being occupied by foreign force, India was a secular country, unlike Pakistan, and this “unlike Pakistan” part was very important to Indian people, who failing to understand the proper meaning of secularism interpreted it as religious tolerance. India was not going to be divided by the linguistic biases, so, states were created out of linguistically distinct areas. Hence most of Indian identities established at the point of independence were rather reflection to past and present occurrences, rather than being a conception of conceived and new ideas. As time has progressed, the state of world around has changed, but the principal denominator of Indian National Identity has not changed, and deemed extremists demanding independence on mostly ethnic, religious or linguistic grounds have emerged. Thus, the first conceived identity has failed somewhat, as it was precisely against these very ideas.
To add to this has been the indecisiveness over the government form, India, conceived by Gandhi Ji was a state whose power rose from the Panchayeti Raj, that conceived by Jinnah gave states almost full autonomy, and that conceived by Nehru-Gandhi rulers was centrally dominant. As such, states have felt exploited sometimes or the other during history, as most of the states of India have linguistically and culturally distinct people, who do not necessarily identify with the great Indian cause unless their cause has been properly addressed. Furthermore, the government has given some states more power and autonomy than others (e.g. Kashmir) though declaring it to be a special circumstance, the people of other state have not stopped short of creating special circumstances for their own states. The India government has been blackmailed so many times at gun point, that every other ethnic group now has one or two extremist factions.
The failed idea to promote one national identity through one national language during the 60s have been forgotten by the Saffron Brigade who are promoting it in a new pack of triple Indianism (Hindi, Hindu, Hindutwa) with poster boys like Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, and incidents like the demolition of Babri Masjid. It has quite often published in the media that Dr. Kalam starts his days by reading a verse or two from the Geeta, which according to the saffron brigade, is what an ideal secular Indian would do. Dr. Kalam has been exploited till he could yield no more, he has been used to prove that Muslims can be patriotic, that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean having a soft corner for Pakistan. The saffron brigade in last 20 years has created amidst the majority that they have been wronged time and again throughout history, and then by their very own government. Now, the majority resents having to share a state with Muslims, who were given a separate state — Pakistan.
To add to this feeling have been the introduction of various reservations. India, a country where being of higher caste meant you were worshipped as God once is now seeing various groups demanding that they must be bracketed with the Scheduled classes and tribes. And these demands are often turning violent, and in some extreme cases, given rise to terrorist organization. The introduction of reservation, which it was thought that would get rid of discrimination have divided the Indian populace like none other, and it has involved the educated elite too, who previously did not care about castism. Rather than getting rid of caste differences and making people forget it as a shameful part of history, the government has taken it out and put it before everyone and made it something which everyone must be aware of.
The political parties of India show how far India really is from achieving a true national identity. Most parties are conceived in racial, linguistic or religious circumstances, and barring the communists, no party has a clear economic stand point, forget about individualism. Even the communist, who come from a strong economic and philosophical ideology has been found confused and reacting in a knee-jerk manner. Their acceptance by the educated once showed that India once was prepared to move beyond the politics of cast and religion, but now, communists are mostly seen waving their secular flag rather than using their true red flag of equality and social justice. Hence, they have been rejected by the educated people, and now are in dangerous of being wiped out of a state which they have ruled for 27 years, and that too to a lady whose political agenda is solely based on objecting to the communists and nothing more. Such a shame.

I, a libertine, was very much interested in the communist politics in my young adulthood, as that appeared to be the only party which was addressing the real issues and moving away from cast and religion. Many of our friends came to join the party, but soon became disillusioned not because the party was proposing communism, which we did not like, rather because, it was going in the same direction as the others. But all those people from the previous generation, who wanted to vote on economic basis, had no option but to vote for them, and it is sad, for their demise proves that the field for true libertine philosophies is almost non-existent and is violently opposed by the present parties.
Now, the Indian Nation identity is very much limited to that of being born in this country to a mother and father who are Indians. And hence, the rate of emergence of separatist movement is increasing every year, and the government has to bribe to keep the nation integrated. Perhaps, someday, the identity shall be established on economic and philosophical terms, and citizenship by birth be abolished in favour of citizenship by choice. But then, what would limit the boundaries of such a state? A global mega state brought about without the use of arms, perhaps!

War has a Role in Peace¹

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India [↩]
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia [↩]
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia [↩]
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org [↩]

Dates for the 15th general election of democratic India are about to be announced and there is enough fret about the clash of dates of the 20 over cricket tournament IPL with the dates of election.¹
Some politicians have shown there concern and have suggested to avoid any such clash. It sounds a little funny. Will the electorate choose to entertain themselves with the romance of 20 over limited cricket match, or will they look forward to cast their vote and decide for the leader of their fates for another five year span.
It is an interestingly strange point of democratic period when the politicians are sincerely worried whether they will succeed to bring the voters out of their houses to choose for a government and its new representative. They fear that some cricket match may decrease the percentage of votes.
Elections are the festivals of democracy, and voting is not only a ritual, yet it is an important activity that can be expressed as right of the voters as well as his duty.
Often we choose the better option between the available, yet the socio-political conditions of a country or even a constituency may force the electorate to choose for the lesser evil.
India at present is drastically suffering from any strong base of leaders and Indian politicians doesn’t have any major issue to stage a platform to bring about some certain magical “change”. May be that is why the fuss about the clash of dates of elections and IPL matches is more real. Politicians know there is no charisma which can invigorate the masses in the urban India to go to election booths and vote for them massively, that is why these days all television channels and news papers keep advertising about the importance and worth of voting. Obviously, the worth of voting is not visible by itself. So the question arises, can a fairness cream make you fairer?
It is not hard to see the crumbles and fault of democratic system whole round the world and especially in India.
We all know that democracy to an extent is much better than all other known governance and administration systems, then why is that people are less and less interested in the democratic processes? Why Indian youth feel it of no use to cast a vote? Why we need models, popular actors and advertisers to remind us and “wake us up” to cast a vote?
The basic reason behind this lethargic or uninterested attitude of Indian youth towards the election is the lack of sense of freedom. Casting a vote is not about giving our consent; it is more about choosing a dictator for five years.² The dictator supported by majority becomes the ruler. The structure of majority rule makes it faulty.
In Indian scenario, the worth of government is depleting fast and especially in 2008, many incidences exposed not only the inadequacy of government but also the need of lack of governmental interventions.
The inability of Indian intelligence and police to abort the terrorist activities and safeguard the common person was one of them. Aftermath of Mumbai attack again raised the issue of need and importance of private security services to protect cities and citizens. The bigger business conglomerates already announced to innovate and device some private security systems, sooner or later, security system will see a surge of viable options for the common man too to get the more efficient, result oriented, just and unbiased security services at viable charges.
Recently, a top operator of the terrorist group Indian Mujahedeen confessed about his involvement in 2006 Mumbai train blasts. Sadiq Sheikh confessed his involvement on a private news channel, the amazing fact that Mumbai ATS has already filed a charge sheet against 13 people for that terrorist attack and Sadiq Sheikh was none of them. Mumbai ATS claimed that those train blasts were conspired and staged by Simi activists and Pakistanis, Sadiq Sheikh belong to none of them.³
Obviously, it signifies the failure of Indian security services and intelligence, more than that, it creates an environment of disbelief, and how we can say now that the person charge sheeted by ATS already are really criminal. We have already suffered the monopoly of governmental forces in Gujarat and we can avoid any repetition by privatizing the security services.
Not only government police system, government judiciary system is also suffering from of extreme corruption and inadequacies. The extreme number of unsolved unheard cases shows the need of some innovative ways to provide justice and there rises the possibilities of privatized judiciary system, which eventually will gain roots in India if projected properly and rationally.
According to a new governmental survey, the private sector in India is providing much more job opportunities in India in service sector and almost 86% of such service sector enterprises are self-sufficient, independent of any governmental help, subsidy or increment. The services included in the survey were hotels and restaurants, transportation services, travel agencies, education, health and social work. Thus, what were not included in the survey were trade, government and public sector companies and industrial establishments.⁴
The survey clarifies that government is actually not required for proper administration and job creation. Privatization of roads and railways is not only properly viable, but also it is already under consideration to be experimented and implemented in India.
At some level or other, the common man also realizes that the government interventions in daily life activities not only causes wastage of wealth and efforts, it makes activities go slow and clumsy too, and the recent failures of governments worldwide to control the economy through their Keynesian plans of bailouts and governmental spending further indicate the lessening worth of government.
Indian government have already provided two economic stimulus plans and RBI has applied its policies to ease down the market. RBI may again decrease the rates.
Bailout fails and will fail again because of the fact that they are not cure but the disease. Economic stimulus is just like the case of giving an invigorating drug to an exhausted worker who is working since long without any rest and sleep and is at the verge of collapse so that the worker may work a little more. It actually does not help because even after the drug effect, the worker will succumb to exhaustion.
The best way to solve out the economic crisis is to let the economy cure itself, let the worker take rest and gain energy to work again.
In absence of any reasonable issue to raise mass support, politicians often prefer to raise emotional and irrational issues, in India, politicians often divide the vote bank on the name of caste, creed, religion or sex. Often some politicians uses the issues of class differences too and start raising communistic slogans, yet with the time, the electorate is becoming more informed and positive and ultimately such emotional and irrational issues will also see an end.
The basic flaw of democracy, which makes it none different from majority rule, is because of the governmental policy of compulsory taxation.⁵ Taxes are the sign of slavery. As a matter of fact, we do pay for every breath we take; we pay for the permission to live. No one is FREE in this entire world wherever there is a system of tax/subsidies/bailouts.
A US citizen is as slave as Indian Chinese, Russian Iranian, Pakistani, or African. Slavery was never abandoned in our world.
We pay for the permission to live, to buy water, or a soap, to buy a pin or a tractor. Whatever we do, we do only after we pay the permission for doing so.
That is what compulsory taxation is, price of permission to live, to act.
In a free society, compulsory taxation will be a crime.
Voluntary taxation will be the right way as it will represent the agreed upon mutually beneficial action of a group.
Eventually, slavery will see an end and we will get rid of the curse of compulsory taxation sometime in future.
Often people say that government is necessary evil, eventually people will start realizing that lack of government does not necessarily mean chaos; it can very well be a well sustained system without any coercive government yet based on rational humanitarian principles of individual liberty and free market.

1. IPL and Election dates may clash, Yahoo news [↩]
2. Impasse of Democracy, Reason for Liberty [↩]
3. IM man puts ATS in black spot, Times of India [↩]
4. 86% service companies are self-sufficient, Times of India [↩]
5. What are Taxes, Reason for Liberty [↩]

India is well-known as an outsourcing hub, we provide customer services, tech support, IT services, and we provide surrogate mothers too.
The basic reason for growing outsourcing services is India provides satisfyingly efficient workers at much lower cost. India not only provides a number of successful IVF clinics with excellent technology and services, there are many women willing to provide surrogate services. According to some estimates, Indian surrogacy market is already a whooping $445 million a year. No wonder India is already gaining fame as the cradle of the world, poised to become the surrogacy outsourcing capital.
Not only foreigners visit India for gaining cheaper medical services, foreign couples suffering from infertility are gaining interest in India because of the same reason. Surrogacy costs about $12,000 in India, including surrogate mother’s fees and all medical expenses. In the U.S., the same procedure can cost up to $70,000.
A surrogate mother can gain some $6000 for her services. Now $6000 is not a small amount, it is equivalent to almost Rs30, 000.
Some people may argue that foreigners are exploiting poor Indian women using them as surrogates, but same argument one can put forth for every outsourcing job Indians provide. India provides fairly advanced medical system and services and English speaking doctors, but above that, Indian surrogate market is yet not suffering with the legal-red-taping, ill-defined surrogacy laws and governmental interference, making things easy and economically viable.
Surrogacy is not a new concept for Indians. Since long, infertile couples used to have services of other woman in form of mistress or second-wife, to have a baby.
It certainly does not mean that there are not problems with surrogacy in India.
The major problem is finding a surrogate mother; it is certainly not easy irrespective of the fact that there are many willing women to serve as surrogate mothers on commercial basis. Yet, it is always better to involve a good lawyer, reliable clinic and health care system. In case of relative or friend providing surrogate services, reliability may be much more, yet if she turns out to deny giving up the child later on, things may go sour.
Although many Indian women willingly agrees for providing surrogate services, yet they prefer to keep it secret as the traditional society often considers it as an immoral act, as if the such surrogate mother is result of some immoral sexual relation. People just cannot grasp that a woman can be pregnant without actually involving herself in any sexual act, there can be virgin mothers too. One of Indian surrogate mother discusses her experience here.¹
In case of commercial surrogate, it is necessary to involve a good lawyer to maintain the honesty in the deal. If surrogate mother is anonymous, then clinic is responsible for the proceedings.
Yet the real problems occur after the birth of the child. The surrogate mother may change her mind.
Let us assume that a woman agreed to provide surrogate services for an amount of $7000, she gained that amount, she is entitled for best clinical facilities and health care possible during the pregnancy and you will be paying for that to the clinic involved. That is, you have invested a whole lot of money in all this. After the pregnancy period, the birth of the child is successful and the newly born child is healthy. Now the question arises, who will sign as mother and father of the child on birth certificate? How will they sell their parental rights to the infertile couple for which the woman served as surrogate mother? What if she changes her mind and denies giving up the child? What if she blackmails the infertile couple and demands more money?
As there is no importance of mutual contracts as such in India, and any such contract regarding selling of parental rights need to be testified with recognized adoption agencies, it forces the infertile couples to engage in the convoluted system.
Basically, it is not at all necessary.
In a free market, the contract holds value and it certainly does not require any authority to testify a contract between two people.
If a woman agrees to provide surrogate services, she signs of the contract to provide those services at a particular prize. Once the deal is contracted, and woman agrees to it, she holds no right to deny it later on after the birth of the child. Even if she feels strong surge to not to hand over the child, she will need to pay back the money which was invested on her plus a monetary fine as punishment.
In case of anonymous surrogate mothers, it becomes the duty of the clinic to make sure that birth certificate holds the name of infertile couple as mother and father, and the clinic is responsible to check the procedures of adoption. Obviously, the convoluted process of adoption in India should be eased and adoption should be allowed freely. A well drafted document of agreed contract between surrogate mother and infertile couple should be enough to maintain the sanctity of process. Any sort of red-carpeting and government involvement ruins the efficiency and burdens wastage of resources and money.
The clinics should hold the power to issue birth certificates, so that the clinic may avoid any chance of blackmail or breach of contract after the birth of the child and the role of registered adoption agencies should be reduced, such regulatory agencies just increases the burden of non-productive-activities.
Why the adoption process should be free?
If the adoption process is not free and it involves a registered agency to facilitate adoption, the system provides enough space for corruption. The surrogate mother or her husband in such cases may easily breach the original contract and wilfully dispute the contract. In such cases, the infertile couple is likely to find themselves enmeshed in a legal predicament; and with the inefficient Indian court system, it is quite likely that the child will be of 12 years before the issue of parenthood may reach a solution.
Obviously, such situation is not only harmful for the infertile couple that invested on the surrogate mother, but it is also harmful for the surrogate mother too, as she will also be emotionally stretched, but more than that, the newly borne will suffer the most.
Other issue regarding surrogacy is its misuse or overuse.
A women suffering from recurrent miscarriages often start feeling that her uterus is weak and she is not able to be a mother. The clinics also suggest surrogacy as the first solution as it is commercially profitable for the clinics. Yet such women may be treated in much cheaper and easier ways. Some aged women willing to be mother often thinks that their aged uterus is not able to carry the embryo, but the fact is most of such miscarriages are not because of weakness of uterus, but because of genetic weakness of aged eggs. Thus, if the eggs are weak, even changing the uterus will not solve the problem, those eggs will not be able to fertilize properly providing healthy embryo in strong uterus of surrogate mothers too and she will also suffer miscarriage, creating confusion and wastage of money and resources. Better option in such cases is donation of strong eggs to the infertile woman. That is, instead of renting a womb, such infertile woman may buy healthy eggs and carry a healthy child in their own womb.
Now egg donation and womb donation both require surrogate mothers. In egg donation, the surrogate mother provides her eggs and becomes the genetic mother of the newly borne child thus produced, which takes birth from the womb of infertile mother. On the other hand, in case of womb donation, the infertile mother remains the genetic mother of the child, yet the child takes birth from surrogate womb.
Egg donation treatment is obviously cheaper and it involves lesser regulatory issues because Indian authority does not consider DNA proofs for deciding parenthood.
Woman suffering from recurrent miscarriages, unable to get pregnant but still ovulating, feels sudden surge to get a solution, and in that surge they need proper direction whether to choose for surrogate womb services or egg donation services.
I would suggest any woman looking for such solution should try to gather maximum information she can to avoid any future disputes. Obviously, a free market regarding surrogacy and child adoption will be much beneficial, yet in absence of that, only solution is to gather more and more information to avoid frauds and accidents.
Infertility is such a common problem that in near future, the market of surrogacy will evolve much more.
There can be chances that some women may adopt of surrogacy just to avoid delivery pains. Although I just do not approve such ideas, yet if some woman opts for having surrogate services to avoid delivery pains, I do not consider it any wrong. Such women cannot force anyone to provide her surrogate services and if some women willingly agree to provide surrogacy in such cases, then it is their proper right.

1. Surrogate Mothers:Renting the Womb, world reports [↩]