HyperActiveX's (Post)Posterous Posts: March 2011

After lunch today I switched on the telly to watch the news. A live broadcast of the proceedings in Parliament was being aired and I settled down to watch it. A lady Parliamentarian was making a rather impassioned speech. She was referring to the cash-for-votes scam of July 2008, the fires of which were recently kindled by the winds of that notorious cyber anarchist operation WikiLeaks.

She said that a few days ago, the prominent newspaper -- "The Hindu" -- carried a story based on information sourced by WikiLeaks from the US diplomatic cables from India containing a dispatch from the US Charge D'Affaires in India dated July 17, 2008 stating that an aide to a Congress leader said to a US embassy staff, in an aside, that a political party had been paid off for each of their four MPs to support the government in the no-trust motion regarding the nuclear deal.

So, essentially, she said that the newspaper said that WikiLeaks said that the US Charge D'Affaires said that a colleague said that an aide to a Congress leader, "in an aside", said that they were paying cash for votes. According to the lady MP making this speech, this constituted adequate evidence that the Prime Minister and his party were guilty of corruption. She went on to reprimand the PM for his earlier statement in Parliament that this allegation was "speculative, unverified and unverifiable." Apparently the Hon'ble lady believes that this allegation is indeed verifiable.

So I tried to imagine how such a verification might proceed. In my mind, I began asking direct questions to all concerned in this narrative chain, starting with the immediate source -- the good lady MP herself. This is how my imaginary investigation went:

Question to aforementioned Lady MP: Ma'am, do you have evidence that the PM and the Congress party paid bribes to secure votes from other political parties in the no-trust motion back in July 2008?

Aforementioned Lady MP: No, I don't, but you should read the report in The Hindu, which clearly points to such evidence.

Question to The Hindu: Do you have evidence that the PM and the Congress paid bribes to secure votes from other political parties in the no-trust motion back in July 2008?

The Hindu: No, we don't - we only published what came out of the WikiLeaks download.

Question to WikiLeaks: Do you have evidence that the PM and the Congress paid bribes to secure votes from other political parties in the no-trust motion back in July 2008?

WikiLeaks: No, we are not making any such claim. We merely accessed a bunch of diplomatic cables that captured communication from various US embassies and the government in Washington.

Question to US Charge D'Affaires in India: Sir, do you have evidence that the PM and the Congress paid bribes to secure votes from other political parties in the no-trust motion back in July 2008?

US Charge D'Affaires in India: No, I don't but a staff member in the embassy told me that there might have been some pay-offs.

Question to US Embassy employee: Do you have evidence that the PM and the Congress paid bribes to secure votes from other political parties in the no-trust motion back in July 2008?

US Embassy employee: I was told that the Congress is securing votes using various tactics, by an aide to a Congress leader, who showed me "two chests containing cash and said that around Rupees 50-60 crore (about $25 million) was lying around the house for use as pay-offs."

Follow-up question to US Embassy employee: You saw the chest containing cash, but did you see a Congress party member giving the cash to another political party member in return for a commitment to support the UPA government in the no-trust motion in Parliament the next day?

US Embassy employee: I didn't say that did I? If I'd been witness to something like that, then that's what I would have said, instead of what I actually said.

Question to aide to Congress leader: Did you pay said cash for said votes?

Aide to Congress leader: "I do not know anything. I have not witnessed anything"

Question to the Congress leader: Sir, what do you have to say about the report that your aide showed chests of cash to a US embassy employee claiming it was meant as pay-off to buy votes?

Congress leader: "I do not know what the Hindu is talking about. I have never known this person. There is no question of him being my political aide."

OK, so some part of this Q&A (but not all) happened in my mind. But seriously, reality would be no different if someone were to actually go up to these dramatis personae (other than the ones who have already been approached for comment) and ask them those questions (other than the ones that have already been posed to them by journalists as per the corresponding links). And if you doubt that, go ahead and prove me wrong.

So much for verifiability. I think the BJP and other members of the opposition need a crash course in the methodology of empiricism and, particularly, need to be educated on what constitutes "verification" and "verifiability".

Speaking for myself, I have little doubt that the Congress is guilty -- in this instance, as much as most other such instance where strong doubts have been raised on their integrity. Probity is not one of their strong suits, as I've observed in an earlier post. But, that said, the BJP-led opposition needs to learn how to do its job in exposing such cases of corruption. They have wasted precious time in Parliament on shallow argumentation and sabre-rattling, when they should have done some mature "opposing" ... or else focused on so many other issues that urgently need deliberation. All they appear to be doing is baying for the incumbent government's blood at every given opportunity -- big or small, wanting to overthrow the UPA government and replace it with their own. This is their understanding of their role as opposition. Makes me wonder whose interests they have at heart. With opposition parties like these, who needs enemies?

Barely an hour ago, I tweeted:

After the BP oil spill they were against oil. Now they're against nuclear power. We need to learn the right lessons! http://econ.st/fkEEvB

And for those who are wondering what I meant by the "right lessons" ... here's what I was referring to:

1. More robust controls on, and better risk management of, conventional (including nuclear) energy sources/ plants/ installations

2. Better disaster management infrastructure, systems and processes around high-risk areas

3. Development of technologies and procedures that help clean-up harmful effects of conventional energy sources in the event of a disaster (or even otherwise)

4. Development of inexpensive "clean" technologies that harness renewable energy sources and development of the business ecosystem and industry supply chain around the same

5. Development of technologies that conserve energy (fuel/ power) consumption and reduce wastage, and are built-into new versions/ models of existing product lines

6. Spreading a culture of moderation in the worldwide consumption - direct as well as indirect - of energy (i.e. avoiding extravagant consumption and wastage in general)

I am not an expert in this field, but I know enough about it to know that each of the above "sustainability imperatives", as I'd like to call them, is profound enough to call for more detailed study. I am not qualified to go into that here. But they are all directionally sound guiding principles, and where they point to is where we should be headed. Trouble is, each of them needs far more investment in R&D in terms of time, energy and funding, than is currently being pumped in. To me, that's the single biggest lesson we must learn from the tragic nuclear crisis in Japan, rather than indulge in reactionary rhetoric based more on emotions than on facts.

More power to clean energy!

P.S. An appeal - There're a few signature campaigns going around, aiming to petition concerned authorities against nuclear energy. I don't have a quarrel with those, but what I know about the 'state of the art' in civil nuclear technology is not enough to make me agree with those petitions. My post here is not a petition or a signature campaign, it's just a simple blog post that shares my perspective on this matter. But if this post made sense to you, or at least got you thinking (or affirmed your pre-existing thought process) along these lines, then please pass it around, with your comments in the comment field below. Not to popularize my blog (thank you), but because we need more and better public discourse on this subject before we form a critical mass of informed opinion.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts