The Indo-US nuclear deal has generated a lot of media interest and political upheaval in India. As I surfed through web pages dedicated to the deal, there were some expert opinions worth sharing. But first a quick quick roundup of the deal-
1. India agrees to allow inspectors from IAEA to access its civilian nuclear program. India has promised to keep all future (and many exisiting) civilian thermal and breeder reactors under the IAEA safeguards.
2. India agrees to continue halting its nuclear weapon testing and commits to increased security of its nuclear arsenals.
3. US companies will be allowed to build nuclear reactors in India.
4. India works with US towards negotiating the Fissile Material CutOff Treaty, which calls for banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, with the US.
And now the comments-
“The bilateral agreement signed in August 2007, arising from the deal but yet to be approved by the US Congress, allows nuclear trade between the two parties and “also, where appropriate, trade between third countries and either party of items obligated to the other party.” The trade is envisaged in nuclear material or fuel, related technology and equipment. The trade in fuel, which is uranium, can only tie India and its energy program to an international cartel, notorious for its price manipulation practices. Representatives of the uranium producers of Canada, Australia, France, South Africa and the UK formed a secret cartel after confabulations in Paris in 1972. This led to the great uranium scam soon in the US, with Westinghouse House Electric becoming a victim of the cartel. The company, the largest US manufacturer of reactors, signed contracts to supply cheap uranium to utilities which bought its reactors and failed because of that cartel’s price-fixing practices, standing to lose billions in the bargain. The cartel got away with the connivance of the governments of the five countries as well as the US.”
“The cartel’s exposure did not change its conduct. The price of this precious metal, better known in the market in the powdered product called yellowcake, has always remained viciously volatile. Over the past five years, the international spot price of uranium has spiraled faster than that of crude oil, with its price now hovering six times above its long-term average of $10 a pound.”
“In January 2005, seven months before the deal was struck, a sharp rise in uranium prices was predicted. The uranium market, experts agreed, had become a classic “seller’s market.”
“The prediction proved right. Between 2004 and 2007, the spot price of uranium more than quadrupled. According to an assessment made in June 2008, the nuclear construction program in India and China is likely to result in a 58 percent uranium price rebound. Such price fluctuations are not what exactly the doctor would order for a developing economy.”
—J. Sri Raman, freelance journalist and a peace activist
“Rather than integrating India into the nonproliferation mainstream, the proposed deal would set a risky double standard that would shatter the delicate bargain upon which the global nonproliferation regime is based.”
“In addition, by increasing India’s capability to produce nuclear weapons, the deal will exacerbate an already perilous nuclear arms race in South Asia, because Pakistan is likely to respond by expanding its own nuclear capability.”
“The Bush administration’s desire to complete the deal before it leaves office cannot be allowed to come to fruition at the expense of key U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The deal should be left to the next administration and the next Congress, where, we hope, its numerous shortcomings will be remedied.”
—Leonor Tomero, Director of Nonproliferation, Centre for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Washington
“I do not share his (Manmohan Singh) view that this deal is so important to India that it is worth sacrificing everything for. But I do not dispute that his view stems from his conception of national interest.”
“And I think he is playing this all wrong.”
“He is coming off as a man who is prepared to martyr his party at the altar of his own beliefs while he heads off to some high-minded retirement.‗Vir Sanghvi, editorial director, Hindustan Times
“On balance, the India-US nuclear deal as proposed is the much-needed recipe to regenerate our nuclear establishment that is stifling under present international regulations. If the status quo is allowed to prevail, our ambitious plan for nuclear power will not only remain a pipedream but even the status quo will become unsustainable as Indian nuclear fuel sources are limited and of inferior quality that make it more costly.”
—Indrajeet Rai, Zee News
“For Singh, who like many Indians sees China as much a rival and potential danger as an opportunity, a strengthened relationship with Washington is the natural route to security.”
“Bush’s offer is extraordinarily generous. India will be quietly recognized as a nuclear weapons power, its past sins of defiance of the international non-proliferation regimes will be consigned to diplomatic amnesia.”
“India is only being asked to put its civilian nuclear reactors — not its weapons program — under international regulation. In return, Washington says it will back India in negotiating a special deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.”
—Jonathan Manthorphe, Vancouver Sun
“We need a supply of uranium till our thorium reactors are ready. The pact will help us.”
—Abdul Kalam, Financial Express
“The nuclear power generation (NPG) is currently about 3% of total power generation in the country and with this agreement which will involve transfer of technology, as well as continuity of fuel(Uranium) the share of NPG will go to about 6 -7% by 2020 by importing 12 Reactors probably from the West with a total capacity of 12,000 MW.”
“It will be a turn key operation about which India has always had bad experience. Turn key operations in the power sector have historically never generated in-house expertise…”
“There is no need to put such a great emphasis on nuclear energy as if the country’s future depended on it. We need to build good expertise in all aspects of power by focusing on modern technological aspects as well as investing in alternative energy sources. The nuclear aspect of the deal can wait but the greater technological cooperation between the countries must be given priority.”
—M A Pai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Univ of Illinois
Karoly
On a more serious note I will extend the logic of keeping an open mind. I’m sure even the Quran does not prevent you from applying your judgement. If certain things were practiced earlier then it does not mean that it should be now. India is a democracy that believes in socialism and secularism now. These may have been practised in the past in some form but surely these are something we have borrowed as a modern concept from the west – the concept of equality of all and freedom of speech. And it has nothing to do with Hinduism – its common sense – to learn from someone who has perceptively better knowledge and information than you. That’s why we chose to be a secular country even after a partition on religious basis.
The fundamentalists in Hinduism also felt that the ancient practices were perfect – but it was due to reformers like Vivekananda/Raja Rammohan Roy/Dayanand Saraswati that we opened our mind out. It was the spirit if enquiry during Renaissance in Europe that took it out of the dark ages.Read your history lessosn well…if you are from the Indian education system..its not so bad.
Sudie
It is obvious that your problem is in not understanding the difference between chariot and charity. “If certain things were practiced earlier then it does not mean that it should be now”. Sure, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t continue them now either, unless you have valid reasons. Instead of making clear what makes you think polygamy is bad, you have just posed me the counter-question how I can justify polygamy. I do not retaliate by asking what makes you justify monogamy either, and not just adopt free sex taking inspiration from our native Kamasutra. Yes there are reasons that justify polygamy. In any society, except may be where monogamy is practiced (reason given below), females outnumber the males by about 5% by birth and still more by other reasons. Also the sexual needs of males and females cannot be really compared. I am sure that temperamentally, majority of the males will prefer to do with just one wife, mainly due to the liabilities involved; but if you don’t give a legal route for those with the extra urge, this minority can cause chaos both for themselves as well as for the system – which explains the connection between multiple wives and AIDS, which is notably a recent phenomenon too. (Or you have to change wife every now and then, like the westerners do.) Moreover the dowry system too is a byproduct of monogamy, arising out of high competition among the females for the exclusive single wife positions of an outnumbered male population; as a result you see mothers in rural areas simply killing off their female daughters on birth. While you are busy shedding tears for the “poor, suffering” multiple wives, stop to give a thought for the scores of dilapidated females enjoying their “freedom” in the red streets, and beckoning you to share a little of that, and a small disease too, when you pass by – all for the least liability.
To commentators above,
Some corrections:
Hinduism is silent on polygamy in both its polygynous and polyandrous forms. It is not a religion of “laws”. The puranas/mythology give instances of both. Draupadi had 5 husbands. Besides, if “multiple” spouses were allowed on the basis of LOGIC, polyandry should be practised more than polygyny – the natural average for the sex ratio is about 105 men per 100 women between the ages of 15 & 65.
The very statement “marrying a woman, which entails a great deal of responsibility and liability on the part of the husband .., and which accords her livelihood and protection…” is not only sexist but discriminatory because it implies that men are RESPONSIBLE to ‘materially’ provide for women which indirectly implies that women cannot/should not provide for themselves. How can a wife be a husband’s LIABILITY?
She is his equal in providing for and recieving benefits in that relationship.
In today’s world, men and women are and have to be treated equally, are equally responsible for their marital “expenses” and therefore have equal entitlement to any annulment of such a relationship.
Please refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR#Human_Rights_Set_out_in_the_Declaration
Any religious law that is against the UDHR should be disallowed.
Sridhar
I don’t ask you what will the 5 out of the 205 men, as per your statistics, do to find a mate. It is a question no monogamist has been ever able to answer. But it is an affirmation that polygamy should be logically inevitable, if at all marriage is, since the sex ratio is never likely to be exactly balanced. You need not doubt the least that men are responsible to materially provide for women, even as per the Indian laws and tradition. It doesn’t imply in any way that women cannot/should not provide for themselves – it is simply a benefit available for them, which you need not grudge. It is in this respect that I said that wife becomes a husband’s “liability”. Moreover I hope you don’t condone the way women in the red streets provide for themselves – try asking them why they can’t work as porters.
However both of us agree on one thing – that polyandry cannot be allowed, due to biological and other reasons. So how can we explain your statistics? Look around, and you can see this beautiful universe, with all its elements synchronized in unity, its incredible complexity and diversity seamlessly blending together, and its parts complimenting each other in perfection. Likewise you can see the divine decree, will and design manifested in the human society too. In that God has made man with muscles and females with uterus, we can see an excellent example of this complementary relationship. And if the polyandry does not fit into this matrix of synchronism, blend and perfection, then be aware that you have got your statistics wrong – unless you have taken it from where there is the missing girl child.
In fact, the preponderance of females in the world is an established fact. For example see some census results giving the male, female ratios:
Russia (1970) – 46.1:53.9
UK(1971) – 48.55: 51.45
U.S (1971) – 48.8:51.2
Brazil(1970)- 49.73:50.27
Karoly,
Your logic (or lack therof) in some of your statements completely baffles me:
Let’s take your statments one by one:
You said “I don’t ask you what will the 5 out of the 205 men, as per your statistics, do to find a mate. It is a question no monogamist has been ever able to answer.” Firstly, though a monogamist myself, I cannot give a logical reason as to why ‘polyANDRY’ is illogical.
You said “Moreover I hope you don’t condone the way women in the red streets provide for themselves – try asking them why they can’t work as porters.” I say, actually what’s wrong with what they do…for example in Amterdam sex workers are legal and in fact, AIDS cases are far fewer than anywhere else in europe. So long as it is regulated (by mandating safe sex and periodic medical examinations), I don’t think prostitution is an ill by itself.
You said “polyandry cannot be allowed, due to biological and other reasons”. Firstly, biology does not define the concept of “spousal” relationships like polygamy. It only defines sexes and the possibility of 2 sexes in having an offspring. Could you give me one OTHER reason please? If you go with the familiar “who would be father question”, I ask you why is it so very important to know who the “father is”..or why can any/all of them be the child’s father and be responsible for it’s upbringing.
“God has made man with muscles and women with uterus”…I am surprised how that got through our famed “moderator” because that is even more sexist than the wives being LIABILITIES of their husbands. So, are you trying to imply that one is “physically” stronger than the other (which is actually false).
Lastly regarding your “preponderance”. The word preponderance has 2 meanings one (a) superiority in strength, weight, power or importance (b) superirity in NUMBERS i.e. majority. If you meant the latter, then you are once again wrong:
Refer to world statistics on male/female ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
Karoly
Arguing with you is fun and somewhat misplaced in context of the Nuclear Deal. Here is my case
1) Please do research on the latest figures of gender imbalance. Anyways by your argument we can have polygamy in Russia, UK, US, Brazil. So why don’t you propose this solution there. Here is a more recent source http://www.answers.com/topic/sex-ratio
2) In the South Asian countries, males outnumber females. So what happens by your logic of Supply and Demand when more “powerful” males corner the already lesser number of ladies and we have a lot of “eager” men on the streets.
3) I cannot understand your definition of “Sexual Needs”. I think there are many needs that need to be controlled in a civilized society. If someone has the “urge” and goes violent, our criminal system can take care of them.
4) Clearly its a mindset difference. Some of us are talking about the “Better Half” and you are talking about the 20% “liability”. Well, anyways our secular “constitution” does take care of the extra “urge” of the “men” of certain communities. Men of other Religions have to learn to be “Gentlemen”.
Its a futile argument with this logic. I find it akin to arguing against the schools of thought that demand that women should not be working or be equal citizens or that there should not be education for women.
Is there instance of polygamy being widespread among all members of the society, or was it only the king (Dashrath) who had multiple wives? Without concrete evidence, it’s dangerous to extrapolate from n=1 (or 2, or 3) that a certain practice was widespread/prevalent in the society.
The links provided by both of you (in fact more believable references are required – the one I gave was from Encyclopedia Britannica) gives ample account of the role of sex-selective abortions and infanticides to the detriment of the females in skewing the sex ratio, especially in India and China (with one child policy) where 1/3 of the world population reside. Also the “more recent” statistics are likely to show “better” sex ratios with the sex determination and abortion techniques becoming more available and accessible in recent years. I had pointed out how monogamy plays a role in this, leading the sex ratio to approach 1 or even higher in the process. Historically it was polygamy which was practiced everywhere, and this is logically possible only if the females outnumber the males. No wonder you don’t find polyandry illogical since you don’t care about the “who would be father” question. Then what is the need for marriage even, especially since you don’t find prostitution a bad thing? Your vision for safe sex practices for women selling sex for food, especially in India, may be hard to realize. I had spoken about man’s muscles and woman’s uterus only to illustrate their complementary characters and roles. How is it that saying that woman has uterus implies her weakness? Yeah, there is a possibility that more “powerful” males corner too many ladies. This is for this reason that Islam, for the first time in history, put the ceiling for the number of wives to four. Otherwise, normally, the supply-demand equation will take care of everyone’s need, even leading to grooms providing handsome dowries for the brides, as happens in Arab countries, and benefitting widows and divorcees in the process. About the need to control urges, I am demanding for a legal outlet for men’s legitimate urges only. We cannot argue that such an urge doesn’t manifest in India, where there is already the largest number of AIDS patients in the world, and where sex work is legitimate. Since need for food and sex are the strongest urges in man, and lack of food causes revolutions no one can control, likewise sexual urge too needs appropriate gratification. I admit that it may be difficult to argue with a person who says that women rape men in equal number to men raping women. However producing a better sex ratio by killing girl children is not the solution to our problems.
Karoly,
The statistics you gave are dated circa 1970 (as per your previous comment) and you call them latest. The statitics on wikipedia are sourced through the CIA “World fact book” circa 2006. You decide which one is the latest and which one is probably more accurate.
Here’s a list of countries as of 2006 “CIA World Fact Book”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
Also, marraige in today’s world is absolutely unnecessary if you consider that “spousal” relationships include those where 2 sexes simply co-habitate as is the rule in many western countries. Also, today, 2 people “living under the same” roof for a definite period (length varies by the country) are considered spouses and accorded EQUAL rights to property and custody. So marriage is not necessary.
Also as i said that provided prostitution can be regulated by mandating that it is by free will, does not involve minors, mandates proper sexual protection & health checks from participants, is not practised in specific zones and sex workers are not discriminated by the government, it is not an ill.
Also about the limit for four wives, why should there be a limit at all. Any one can choose to have as many wives (read spouses) and husbands one likes provided the other existing spouse(s) is/are willing to have such a relationship?
You take the “creme de la creme” of being a sexist when you say “I am demanding for a legal outlet for men’s legitimate urges only” – so you imply to satisfy a man’s “legitimate” urge he was allowed to marry upto 4 wives. So what about a woman “legitimate” urge? Shouldn’t she be allowed to marry 4 men then? Also, what is so “illegal” about finding a “casual” partner to satisfy your urges (not that I would)?
Also, is there any scientific journal you can definitely quote to say the a man’s need for food and sex are stronger than a woman?
Karoly
…As long as you can afford them…have them…but you might want to sign the pre-nup….Enjoy!
I think you have made your case. Whether its latest figures from “1970′s” or the Ramayana. After all if Hugh Hefner can live in with mulitiple GFs so why should you be denied?
Lesser mortals aka non-Muslims will have to abide by the law of the land.
Figures and facts can be sometimes misleading and subjective depending on the dimensions of their implications. For example, if you search for the number of Jews in the world you may get similar figures from all sources. However if you want to know how many Jews were killed in the holocaust you may get more different answers than the actual number of Jews killed! That is because this figure has got much political, cultural, historical, racial and religious implication. Similarly no one may be interested in the total population of the world; but sex ratio is different. As we know, polygamy is a highly controversial subject where Islam is, in modern times, at loggerheads with every other religion and ideology; whereas almost the entire Muslim apologetic on polygamy is hinged on the sex ratio. So it may not be easy to find objective and unbiased figures in this case, much less in reference sites updated by casual surfers. However if you can produce convincing research-based proof that females do not outnumber males in natural conditions then you can really make a case for yourselves.
To conclude, the question of polygamy is not whether every man should be allowed to marry more than one woman, which is not possible logically for more than 95% men. But it is simply what to do with the surplus 5% women in the society. We have two options. One is monogamy, which as we have seen is against the rule of nature and leads to dire consequences including preferential mindset for male child, sex-selective infanticides and abortions, dowry system, promiscuity, abandoned women, ruined families and proliferation of fatal sexual diseases. Another is polygamy with none of these problems. I choose polygamy. And you?
Karoly,
I am quite amused at your complete “U turn” from statements like “Also the “more recent” statistics are likely to show “better” sex ratios with the sex determination and abortion techniques becoming more available and accessible in recent years” to “Figures and facts can be sometimes misleading and subjective depending on the dimensions of their implications” once the latest facts were presented to you. Wow!
I think your assumption (or typographcial error) that that are 5% more women in the society is wrong because the statistics I provided from the CIA World Factbook are updated every 2 weeks. I just checked them for 2008 from their website. These are collected from various national and international sources.
Here’s a link to the CIA World Factbook on “sex-ratio” as of 24 July 2008 (estimate):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
Lest you might think that this link is updated by “casual surfers” I add that you cannot update CIA World Fact statistics without a dependable and verifiable source.
Even if we assume that these figures are not dependable (which I think no sane person can deny), one cannot simply ASSUME (as you do) that there are more women than men.
You said historically only polygamy was practised. Can you prove that no polyandry was practised at all? Here some proof for the latter. The “Toda” community in TamilNadu used to and still does (though diminishingly) practice fraternal polyandry.
About monogamy you are once again deeply wrong: How can monogamy lead to female infanticide, dowry and promiscuity? That is the most bizzare conclusion any sane person can draw? Can you give a LOGICAL (or is that too much to ask) proof for this statement please!
Female infanticide is a social evil of aborting/killing a female child. If it were not practised the ratio of men to women in the society would be close to 1. How can it be (even remotely) related to monogamy?
Finally, here’s some math for you. There can be only 4 possible combinations of chromosome pairings for a child from a father (with XY pairs) and amother with (X1X2) pairs, 2 possibilities for a girl child (viz. X1X and X2X) and 2 for a boy (X1Y and X2Y). So the chances are exactly 50:50. The statistics for the M/F ratio over the world are actually leaning towards the 1 mark though there is no scientific reason why there seem to be more men than women.
Polygamy (i.e. have multiple spouses not just wives) would be ethically fine if it were allowed for both the sexes. Otherwise, monogamy is the only choice in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I don’t. I choose peace of mind. And my “urges” are under control
.
PS: I’m impressed. This is a version of women’s emanicipating that I have never heard of. I will recommend that you take this suggestion to President Pratibha Patil/UN. May be you could and a few others could make a bigger sacrifice for the world and marry all the “extra” women.
Sridhar, Sudie, Karolie, I can judge that all of you are yet not married.
Once you get married I am sure you will realise that its very hard to handle one spouse. Unless you are a rich person who wants to create a harem .
Islam does permits polygamy for men. But the rule was for a time when wars were very common and lot of women used to get widowed. The law was to ensure that a women’s life will still continue with ease in a male dominated society if she marries someone.
In between Nuclear deal is still stuck .I hope the people handling this are married and are not discussing monogamy versus polygamy.
Sahil,
I have been married for quite some time now…monogamously, I might add. Before you ask if I would look for “casual sex” to satisfy my “urges”, I would like to say no! Firstly, I love my wife very much as she does me and we find our relationship such a mutually satisfying one that neither of us is looking for a spouse to fulfill desires that the other cannot provide.
Secondly, even if for argument’s sake, my wife were to ask me if I would be fine with her marrying a another man (or woman) while being married to me, I would not agree not because I think a woman should not have a another husband (or wife) but because I am not willing to share my love for my wife with another person.
PS: I don’t have children yet and I am not sure how they would react to a hypothetical situation of their mother marrying another while remaining married to one. Though in the end, every human must be able to live freely in accordance with one’s feelings provided it does not interfere with another person’s freedom to lead their lives similarly. That’s human rights 101.
Sahil
I’m upset!..You are not following my wisecracks!
My contention…..its always better to report to one Boss than to more than one. Its not a question of womens’ rights, its more about men!
PS: There is no problem at all with Islam, but there are problems with some of the followers.
Islam as a religion has codefied many things that were very progressive by the standards at that time. About some of the laws that I’m aware of, are very well reasoned even by todays liberal standards and I admire the foresight of the people at that time. Unfortunately I think in more cases political elements misinterpret these laws to suit their convenience. The very essence of not allowing any debate or questioning interpretation is what disturbs many people. The fact is that Islam limits polygamy and does not encourage it. In fact it prescribes monogamy and allows some leeway (shows its liberal standards for those days) as an exception. Unfortunately the twisted follower who exploits this liberal streak. I personally see no reason how monogamy is considered contrary to what Islam preaches.
Well as i have said in other posts. Muslims should refrain from commenting on such articles and issues, as they may be labeled as Anti-India.
For Example, if someone by the name Raj, Suresh or Mahesh comments against the nuclear deal, then it is considered a personal opinion.
But if somebody by the name Yaseen, Abdul or Mohammad comment against the deal, we would be labeled as collaborators, traitors, islamists, etc.
So why get into unnecessary trouble when our plate is already filled with it.