Dr. A. Prabaharan’s

Nepal faces frequent political instability. The revolutionary communists who won the hated democratic exercise are fighting among themselves. They are not comfortable with the pillars of governance. Naturally there is a huge crisis of governance.

The Hindu editorial writes, 5 May 2009

The political crisis in Nepal has taken a dangerous turn with the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda.’ The immediate trigger was President Ram Baran Yadav’s decision to reject a resolution of the Maoist-led cabinet dismissing the Nepal Army chief, Rookmangud Katawal, for insubordination. Although the Maoists can be faulted for acting hastily and unilaterally, the anti-democratic attitude of General Katawal towards civilian control in general and the peace process specifically lies at the root of the crisis. Nepal established its democracy through a political process that ended a decade-long civil war and abolished the country’s hated monarchy. Integration of Maoist combatants drawn from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a reformed and democratised national army was a key principle to which all parties agreed when the struggle against King Gyanendra was at its peak. But now that the republic has been established and the task of framing Nepal’s constitution is under way, the Nepali Congress and even the Unified Marxists-Leninists have been dragging their feet on this question. But most damaging of all has been the stand taken by General Katawal.

In defiance of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the army chief pushed ahead with inducting thousands of new recruits, unilaterally extended the tenure of eight senior generals, and withdrew the army from the National Games on account of the PLA’s participation. No democracy can tolerate such insubordination from its army chief. Worse, General Katawal lobbied for support with foreign countries and there was even talk of a coup d’etat. Although he exploited the constitutional provision designating the President as the ‘commander-in-chief’ as a fig leaf for his machinations, it is a settled principle of parliamentary democracy that a non-executive head of state cannot exercise any powers in this regard independent of Cabinet advice. So blinded are the UML and the Nepali Congress by their opposition to the Maoists that they have applauded Mr. Yadav for his action, which has introduced a dangerous dynamic into civil-military relations in Nepal’s fledgling democracy. Unless the standoff is ended, the peace process could collapse. What all parties, including the Maoists, must do is to act soberly and responsibly to re-establish a working arrangement that allows Prachanda to remain Prime Minister, General Katawal to serve out his remaining four months as army chief, and the core principle of integration to remain intact.

There is no possibility for the continued stability of the government in Nepal. Atleast the development work must not be hindered. Bureaucracy and civil society organizations should continue despite the political instability.

Poverty is a pet theme for politicians across the world. Intellectuals use it for their survival.

Bachi Karkaria writes in The Times of India, 24 April 2009,

Imelda Marcos once pronounced that she had to live so extravagantly ‘because the poor need to look up from their slums and see a star’. She may
have ended up as a black hole with fancy shoes, but what she expressed so crassly had always been a fact. In ancient Rome, that diversion was the circus Games for the impoverished plebs. In the present, it is Page Three for the middle-class masses.

But all this has turned downside up. Everyone is lapping up sordid slumdog sagas with the rapt attention formerly reserved for the glam-sham of business princes, Bolllywoodcesses and botoxed Queenies. On the Gawk Quotient, the bustierati is being jostled out by the busteerati. It’s the new version of ‘upliftment of the poor’.

Take the reported sale of Rubina-Latika. Prime time, Page 1, cyber chatter and penthouse indignation all focused on it. True, there was so much buzz because the story sprang from a sting operation by a gora tabloid; it’s unlikely that there would have been the same fuss had it merely oozed out of a self-righteous expose in the Indian Express.

Truer still, the Rubina sale released as much adrenalin as a top-brands Sale not because it involved just any slum kid whose ilk is routinely bought and sold without the daiquiri divas getting their thongs in a twist. It was about the child who had walked the Oscars red carpet o a greater dazzle of flash bulbs than Abhi-Ash at Cannes.

On day one, more reporters and TV crew were deployed at Rubina’s Garib Nagar bustee than at a Gandhi/Advani rally. Mercifully, the IPL managed to salvage some of the glitzzat of conventional celebrity. A respectable number of TRPs did accrue to Preity, Shah Rukh and Neeta Ambani.

Are we hurtling into a role reversal of gawker and gawked-at? Is this the dawning of the Age of Reverse Celebrity? Or is it the narrowing of the gap between the haves and the have-nots in a perverse mutation of Garibi Hatao. Consider these four factors.

One, the tale of Rafiq Qureshi trying to hawk his Cinderella to the highest bidder should sound familiar enough to the merchants of the plush matrimonial market. Also to the greedy parents who relentlessly turn their little kids into circus bears on t.v shows. Indeed, the rich should have no trouble recognising Greed as Life’s Principal Driver, even if they don’t deign to identify with this story’s ‘Fake Sheikh’, Authentic Arab, or Cad Dad.

Two, the shrewd Mr Qureshi has taught business barons a sharp lesson in market capitalisation, cashing in on the brand equity of his overnight asset. Little Rubina too seems to have quickly acquired the insouciant savvy which hallmarks rich brats, thus doubling her innate street-smartness. She has tasted blood big-time, so why shouldn’t she sashay into the luxurious future her beloved abba-jaan had planned for her? Inshallah, it may not have a sinister aftermath.

Three, if the rich have always arrogated special concessions to themselves, the parentally challenged Mr Qureshi doesn’t see why he should be flayed for flouting the rule book. “I’m poor,” he said, without even bothering to whine. And the minister ostensibly in charge of protecting the country’s children seemed to agree when she pronounced on national TV that we should not presume to condemn the ethics of the poor from the comfort of our air-conditioned spaces.

And finally, take the catfight between Rubina’s step and biological mothers. It sounded salaciously similar to the concurrent one between Adnan Sami’s estranged wife, Sabah Galadari, and Pooja Bedi. Right down to the fact that the slum photograph showed a Muni disrobed by a screeching Khurshid, while, according to Pooja’s police complaint, Sabah had bared her breasts as she hysterically accused the actress of having an affair with her husband.

Mubarak ho, the rich-poor gap has been bridged.

It is time to stop weeping over rich poor gap and maximise the benefits for all. Eradicating poverty is a day dream. As long as the competitive world survives poverty will thrive.

Climate change is in the top of the

talking points of world leaders. More speech are heard than any substantial action on the ground.

Paul Krugman writes in The New York Times, 1 May 2009,

The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply.
But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.
Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.
But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.
Let’s talk first about those costs.
A cap-and-trade system would raise the price of anything that, directly or indirectly, leads to the burning of fossil fuels. Electricity, in particular, would become more expensive, since so much generation takes place in coal-fired plants.
Electric utilities could reduce their need to purchase permits by limiting their emissions of carbon dioxide — and the whole point of cap-and-trade is, of course, to give them an incentive to do just that. But the steps they would take to limit emissions, such as shifting to other energy sources or capturing and sequestering much of the carbon dioxide they emit, would without question raise their costs.
If emission permits were auctioned off — as they should be — the revenue thus raised could be used to give consumers rebates or reduce other taxes, partially offsetting the higher prices. But the offset wouldn’t be complete. Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy.
But how much poorer? Not much, say careful researchers, like those at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even with stringent limits, says the M.I.T. group, Americans would consume only 2 percent less in 2050 than they would have in the absence of emission limits. That would still leave room for a large rise in the standard of living, shaving only one-twentieth of a percentage point off the average annual growth rate.
To be sure, there are many who insist that the costs would be much higher. Strange to say, however, such assertions nearly always come from people who claim to believe that free-market economies are wonderfully flexible and innovative, that they can easily transcend any constraints imposed by the world’s limited resources of crude oil, arable land or fresh water.
So why don’t they think the economy can cope with limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Under cap-and-trade, emission rights would just be another scarce resource, no different in economic terms from the supply of arable land.
Needless to say, people like Newt Gingrich, who says that cap-and-trade would “punish the American people,” aren’t thinking that way. They’re just thinking “capitalism good, government bad.” But if you really believe in the magic of the marketplace, you should also believe that the economy can handle emission limits just fine.
So we can afford a strong climate change policy. And committing ourselves to such a policy might actually help us in our current economic predicament.
Right now, the biggest problem facing our economy is plunging business investment. Businesses see no reason to invest, since they’re awash in excess capacity, thanks to the housing bust and weak consumer demand.
But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment — investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.
To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.
This short-run economic boost isn’t the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly.
So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.

The world must collect all energies and talents to save the planet earth from further ecological devastation