1. What is your background in the nuclear field?

Ans.: I am a Professional Engineer with the States of New York and New Jersey. My Master's thesis at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Arts, New York City, was on the effect of nuclear radiation on special steels. Subsequently, I worked, among other places, in a firm working on the design and maintenance of nuclear steam supply system (NSSS).

I published Fusian Asia, a quarterly magazine on science, technology, energy, economics, from New Delhi for 10 years between 1984-1994.

2. What is "economic growth" as you understand it, and what is the role of plentiful energy and water in achieving it?

Ans.: Economic growth goes way beyond immediate growth of gross national product. To me, economic growth means developing the potential for a long-term development. When I say "long-term", it means necessarily a generation, which could be 25 years. In developing the long-term potential, water and power are two very important ingredients, next perhaps to developing the infrastructure for primary and higher education and health care for all.

3. Do you understand that it is important for Australia to adopt nuclear energy?

Ans.: I believe nuclear power for electricity generation, water desalination, heating of pavements in cold countries, for instance, are a necessity. Eventually, every nation, big and small, will have to adopt nuclear energy for power generation. However, to develop the entire nuclear fuel cycle is not an easy task. It is not only expensive, but also is time-consuming. It takes years to develop the skilled manpower and to set up diagnostics to learn and master the subject.

Australia has a small population and a large landmass. Australia will not be a major nation unless it enhances its population significantly, and in order to achieve that, it has to adopt nuclear power for electricity generation and utilize the waste heat. There is no question that the country has the core manpower to do it in future. The more important issue perhaps is whether Australia wants to play a role worthy of its physical size. If not, it does not need nuclear power.

4. To your knowledge, is nuclear desalination possible in Australia?

Ans.: Yes, primarily for augmenting domestic and commercial water requirements along the coastal areas, and converting the brackish water inland into potable water. Rainwater, which flows into the groundwater system and into the rivers, should be used judiciously for opening up new lands for settlement and agriculture, and less and less for domestic and commercial consumption.

5. On what scale should nuclear energy be adopted in Australia over the next 20 years?

Ans.: I do not believe that Australia will be able to develop its entire nuclear fuel cycle in the next 20 years, considering the chaos that exists around this issue in that country. On the other hand, it can import reactors from outside. But the issue, again, is what Australia wants to be. Does it want to be a significant nation, or a exporter of raw materials to other nations so that a small population within Australia can be very wealthy ? This is for the Australians to decide.

6. Amongst nuclear energy, nuclear desalination and a pan-national rail network, where would an Australian space program fit in the priorities list?

Ans.: Again, this is for the Australians to decide. All I can say is that if Australia wants to be a powerful nation over the years, it has no choice but to adopt nuclear technology, space program, high-speed railroad network. These are the cutting edge technologies. These technologies are expensive when imported from abroad. The process of developing these technologies within the country develops skilled manpower, and by-products of these technologies could very well transform the agro-industrial technological scene of the country and bring it up to a much higher plane. But, this is not an easy task. It needs years of research, development, perseverance and, finally, the commitment. I could be wrong, but I have not noticed that commitment within the Australian policymakers. It seems Canberra is quite content to play the second fiddle.

7. What do you consider to be the best method for a country to finance a nuclear energy programme?

Ans.: Since nuclear technology has a weapon factor, its research and development should be wholly under the control of the national government.

8. How important is energy independence for a nation?

Ans.: I believe energy independence is important, but it is not crucial. There is really no reason to believe that small nations like those in the Middle East have any intent to stop the flow of their oil and gas if we treat them with dignity, respect they deserve and pay them the fair price for their goods.

9. What do you have to say about the fact that Australia has a water shortage despite the fact that it is surrounded by ocean and has the world's largest supply of uranium?

Ans.: I believe the Australians never really asserted their demands to the powers-that-be in the country to become citizens of a powerful nation.

My understanding of the Australian situation is that Australia wanted to be left alone with enough capability to maintain its old ways of life. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising at all to find Australians have done just that much necessary to maintain their way of life. That could change soon, though.

10. What do you have to say about Australia's snubbing of India in refusing to supply uranium on the grounds of India's "non-NPT" status?

Ans.: I believe Australia was technically "right" on that. India is a non-signatory of the NPT and is not entitled to receive enriched uranium from other nations. However, the fact remains, and it would be much simpler for all of us if we go by the fact, and not fantasy, that a number of non-NPT signatories have developed nuclear weapons. These include India, Pakistan and Israel, for sure. Out of these three, India, in particular, has developed an extensive nuclear science capability and has put in place the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

It is time for Canberra to realize that even if Australia refuses to supply India with enriched uranium in order to maintain the sanctity of the fast-collapsing nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),

11. What is your understanding of the reasons why India did not sign the NPT?

Ans.: There are a number of reasons why India did not sign the NPT, although India was one of the founder-members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). But to be concise, I would discuss two reasons.

To begin with, the NPT was clamped down in 1970, when it was ratified, and it said that there would be five nuclear weapons states (NWS). These five countries - three of whom were major nations: USA, Russia and China, while the other two were virtual adjuncts, or otherwise identified as victors of World War II-France and the United Kingdom. At the time, as it is now, India was the second largest populous nation on earth. It was full of poor people, but they were people nonetheless. Like the population of China, this large number of people needed security as much as the much smaller number of people in Britain and France needed protection. India tested its nuclear explosives first in 1974, but the NPT was devoid of any provision whereby such important nations as India, or Indonesia, or Brazil, could be included at a later date as NWS. New Delhi maintained that this was a discriminatory premise on which the NPT was adopted.

Secondly, the Article V of the NPT put in clear words that the five NWS countries would work toward eliminating their nuclear warheads. However, what the NWS countries did was just the opposite. During the heightened stage of the Cold War, nuclear warheads sprouted like mushroom after a rainy spell. In other words, the NPT was used by the NWS to prevent others to develop nuclear weapons and at the same time, stuff up their nuclear arsenals.

In my book, neither India, nor Pakistan, nor Iran, nor North Korea, were the first ones to violate or abuse the NPT, undermining of the treaty was accomplished under the rubric of legality a long time ago by those who called the shots.

12. What posture should the Australian government take towards India?

Ans.: The Cold War is over and India is no longer a friend of an "enemy nation." India, in fact, is now a friend

More importantly, Australia has the largest deposit of thorium in the world, India has the second largest deposit. India, though shackled by technology sanctions imposed on it by the NPT-enforcers since 1974, has nonetheless developed a full thorium cycle. This was always in their scheme of things and they have done it. No other country has mastered the neutron science in this area as well as the Indians have done. It is an opportunity, and privilege, for the Australian nuclear scientists to cooperate with New Delhi and help utilize their own thorium reserves. That would prevent wasting Australian people's time and money in re-inventing the wheel all over again..

13. What relationship do you see Australia as having with India is in the best interests of Australia?

Ans.: I believe a good, solid cooperation with India in the area of thorium fuel cycle work would help Australia a whole lot. For India's future development, Australia is an important, but secondary, factor.

14. What incidental/secondary development or wealth do you expect the construction and operation of the plants to generate for the localities, state, regional and national economies?

Ans.: Nuclear power plant construction involves highly sophisticated construction work. It requires huge amounts of top-quality concrete work, as well as steel of various qualities. Because of the high- temperature and high -pressured steam that the plant generates, the material and workmanship needs to be flawless. By observing the testing that the nuclear plant machineries undergo would give you a glimpse of how sophisticated and careful one has to be in order to build and operate such plants. Maintaining this quality of construction raises the quality of workmanship in the country to a much higher level. In many ways, space program does the same uplifting of technological capabilities almost overnight.

15. What is your view or understanding of using private bank credit?

Ans.: It is the right way to go. However, through laws and bye-laws the government must make sure that money used for building nuclear power plants is not expensive. Nuclear power plants take at least five years to build and requires a heck lot of capital expenditure over these five years. Over a long period of time, these plants help create an enormous amount of wealth. Generation of wealth helps the citizens, and therefore, the nation. It is for this reason the power generated by nuclear power plants should be sold cheap. This would be possible only if the money used for building nuclear power plants are provided to the builders - private or public-- at a lower than usual interest rate.

Ans.: India-Australia relation at this point in time is not of very high importance for India. Australia, with a population less than 20 million, would have been considered as one of the least populated countries had it been situated within the subcontinent. With a population as small as that, it has a very small agro-industrial potential when compared to that of India's. On the other hand, Australia has developed some technologies and did very well. Also, it is located strategically and has an important security role to play. In other words, India-Australia relations now should develop around some specific high-technologies and security.

17. What could Australia do to improve its relationship with India? How could Australia help India more? What are the greatest things that India has to offer, and can offer, to Australia?

Ans.: I think, India-Australia relations should develop keeping the high-tech collaborations as its focus, and they must work out arrangements to help each other out in maintaining maritime security of the sea-lanes in the region. I believe that would create the right environment for future broader participation. Of course, for that to happen, Canberra cannot remain the second fiddler in the orchestra.

18. What do you like and what do you dislike about India's current infrastructure building and infrastructure financing plans?

Ans.: I am highly critical of the Indian authorities about their lackadaisical approach toward developing India's physical economy. I have written about this in a number of places. The problem lies in the mindset of the Indian elite. To them, infrastructure development can be done only when the country generates enough surplus. Such generation of surplus would ensure stability of the economy and would bring in foreign investors in droves to put money in India's ramshackle infrastructure, the Indian elite believe. Those who understand economics, and not in this are only for the purpose of lining their pockets, know the argument is wrong all the way. To begin with, surplus cannot be generated unless the nation allows investment in the infrastructure sector to optimize productivity. The lack of Infrastructure would keep labor's productivity below a certain point. Cheap wage of labor would do nothing to alleviate that calamity, except creating social turmoil.

Secondly, infrastructure investment, particularly the large investments, do not generate return in abundance directly. That is why private investors would rather put money in the market (where money may multiply or vanish at a double speed) than in building railroads, health clinics for those who cannot pay high fees, education centers, power plant and so forth. In addition, to expect foreign investors, who know less than enough about India, to put big money in this not-so-exciting investment, is either a pipe-dream or a deliberate fraud perpetuated to fool the people and not invest in infrastructure.

19. What is your understanding of the current status of the world financial system and the globalized system of free trade?

Ans: I think the international financial system is living on a borrowed time. The most powerful nation on this earth is also the most indebted nation on this earth and registers routinely every month a huge current account deficit. In reality, the most powerful nation's economy runs on money held by other countries who thankfully plough it back to the indebted country to finance its huge budget. It has made the most powerful nation one of the most vulnerable of all nations. The stock market, which is supposed to be the engine of all entrepreneurial ventures, have become wholly speculative. There is virtually no connect between the state of country's real economy and what the market defines as the health of the economy.

On the globalized state for free trade, a few words must be said. Globalization really helps those who have the capital and is ready to invest wherever they want. They naturally want to optimize their profits. That means, they go and invest in areas where the cost of production is most favorable to them and profit potential is maximum at that point in time for the investor. Once that country does not remain any longer the most profitable production center, the investor takes the production center elsewhere, where in his/her view the grass is greener. The investor has the legal right to be wholly unconcerned about the working people who had served their interest for years. Investors do not have to concern themselves what happens to the people who made them rich and fatter, or obligated to the nation that protects them. This is all legal but it plants the germs of social chaos, if the process of globalization is not abolished immediately. What globalization does to further social chaos is that it destroys security of every working person's family, destroys the skills that people had acquired solely to serve the investor's needs. The globalizers have made the people helpless about their economic future.

On the other hand, the profits multiplied by the investors through globalization laws and regulations do not reach the promised shores to help the citizens. It goes to the off-shore banks to protect the investors from paying taxes. Everything is legal and in my view, everything is self-destructive for the people in the long term. In the short term, as some developing nations are "enjoying", globalization process brings in jobs which once belonged to the people of economically-privileged countries. But these jobs could, and would, leave shores one day as fast they came.

Home