Archive for the 'technology policy' Category

Scientific Support for Nuclear Energy

April 10, 2011

George Monbiot’s article, published in The Gaurdian and republished in The Hindustan Times provoked me to seek the truth, and look for scientific evidences for building factories for producing nuclear energy, called nuclear power plants.   I posted the following as a comment at the latter’s  site.  For the record and possibly for a ensuring more eye balls, I am reproducing the comments here.  The context may become clear if you could read the article linked above from either of the source.

Even if the anti-nuclear lobby took advantage of the Chernobyl incident and exaggerated the deaths to be 900,000, or even if Chernobyl did not occur, I still hold that factories for generating nuclear power should not to be touched by human beings on this earth. The reasons are scientific.  So, I seek scientific evidence to the

  1. Artificially accumulating  radioactive substances is inviting trouble.  Even if a group of people are capable of taking care of it in a nicely sealed containers, when it leaks due to an accident it does not specifically take only those who accumulated and took control of it.  It takes the lives of innocent people.  Even if radioactive leak selectively kills the responsible nuclear engineers and policy makers, it is not justified.   Scientists cannot leave such a thing loose and say they are not responsible.  Scientists have no scientific answer to repair this damage.   A deadly poison  (like cyanide)  will have only local effects, it kills only those who take it.  Even fire kills only those who got burnt.  Nuclear material is not of this kind. Nuclear material causes non-local damage.Do we scientifically know how to repair this damage?  I want a journal publication to show that this kind of damage is repairable.  Could the pro-nuclear power lobby provide a scientific claim published in a journal that exposed accumulated radioactive material does not cause damage to lives.  At least 300 people did die at Chernobyl.  Did they die because they got crushed under the rubble of concrete?  Was the death of 300 innocent people cheap?  Are they martyrs for the crazy nationalistic patriotic nuclear scientists pursuit or the private factory that makes justifiable amount of money? I do not see any logic in the author’s argument.  Just because some anti-nuclear activist’s figures are wrong, it does not follow that nuclear energy production problem is scientifically solved.
  2. All other kinds of furnaces and boilers that we use in factories and thermal power plants work at a possible temperatures allowed at this cooled environment of earth where nuclei are mostly stable. Radioactive nuclei are present on Earth, but at a density that allowed life to happen and flourish.  Nuclear energy produces temperatures that are not suitable for this earth.  None of us scientifically know how to live or repair the perturbations caused by that scale of energy.  Even if we can produce with a lot of sophistication nuclear energy, as several nuclear power plants are doing now, there is no scientific evidence that another chernobyl or tsunami does not occur ever in the future.  Is there any scientific reason published in any journal so far that gives pro-nuclear energy gang the confidence that the probability of nuclear accidents of this kind is so low that we can go ahead with the factories producing  nuclear power.

I am still perplexed how scientists can scientifically justify and play with a factory of nuclear energy.

While I will not defend a factory of nuclear energy, I will defend a few nuclear plants for scientific research., since this is not let loose to companies and factory management.

Seeking scientific evidence for the two cases above.

What is wrong with facebook?

March 8, 2011

Not f'd — you won't find me on Facebook

A Declaration on sustaining the Free Culture

February 27, 2011

This document is not written by me, but participated in the process along with others.  I am a signatory to the declaration.  I urge you to consider thinking about the issues raised and even if you agree with at least 80%, consider adding your signature.  Please continue to participate in the dialogue to create a sustainable creative commons.

We can no longer put off re-thinking the economic structures that have been producing, financing and funding culture up until now. Many of the old models have become anachronistic and detrimental to civil society. The aim of this document is to promote innovative strategies to defend and extend the sphere in which human creativity and knowledge can prosper freely and sustainably.

This document is addressed to policy reformers, citizens and free/libre culture activists to provide them practical tools to actively operate this change.  Read the full documents from the links given below.

FCForum Declaration: Sustainable Models for Creativity in the Digital Age [2 pages]

How To for Sustainable Creativity [30 pages]

1. Who Generates Culture?

In order to develop and grow, the human capacity for creativity requires access to existing culture, knowledge and information. Everyone can contribute to the production of culture, values and wealth on different scales, ranging from very basic to very complex creative contributions. The resources and time required for creative activities also vary in scale. We want to promote ways of liberating this time and these resources so that the distributed potential can be deployed in a sustainable way.

2. Basic Principles for Sustainable Creativity

  1. The restructuration of the cultural industries is not only necessary but inevitable.
  2. More culture is created and circulates in the digital era than ever before: in this context sharing has proved to be essential to the disseminate culture.
  3. The profits that the cultural lobbies are fighting to defend are based on the artificial production of scarcity.
  4. The cultural sphere needs to recognise the skills and contributions of all of its agents, not only producers.
  5. The digital context benefits creators as well as entrepreneurs and civil society. Appropriate models make it easier for users, consumers and producers to gain access to each other. The role of middle-men has to be revised in light of an approach based on collaboration.
  6. The Internet is an essential tool for establishing contact between creators and their audiences. This is one of the reasons why everybody must be guaranteed non-discriminatory access to it.
  7. Governments that don’ t promote the new forms of creation and diffusion of culture are generating lost profits for society and destroying its cultural diversity.
  8. As Free/Libre Software has shown, peer production and distribution are not incompatible with market strategies and commercial distribution.

Economic Models for Sustainable Creativity

The following list starts with the models that are most similar to those traditionally accepted by the cultural industries, and moves towards those that are closer to the idea of sharing that pertains to our age. Many of these models are currently actively implemented and are already working. We need to expand these conditions by removing barriers that limit their growth.

1. Pay for what you get

Or some advice for the restructuring of the cultural industries: the public is prepared to pay for cultural products or goods as long as they deem the price to be reasonable and paying does not restrict their freedom. Make it easy and accessible; make it affordable; don’ t make it compulsory, static and criminalised, make it optional and offer choice. Pay fair wages when you contract professional work.

2. Advertising

Between bombarding users with ads and the total absence of ads, there are intermediate, ethical options: Selective ads (accepting advertisements only from projects with affinities); giving users control over the consumption of ads; allowing users to request ads related to the article they are reading, for instance, …

3. Pay for a Plus

Sharing copies helps creators to build up a reputation, which then becomes the base for charging for services and other things that cannot be copied, such as live performances, works-for-hire, specially designed gadgets, attractive physical copies…

4. Freemium

Freemium is a business model that works by offering basic services, or a basic downloadable digital product, for free, while charging a premium for advanced or special features.

5. Contributions

A contribution-based model enables users to donate sums of money in order to help sustain a given project or enterprise. The more involved and respected users feel, the better this system works.

6. Crowdfunding

Enabling individual citizens or entities to contribute to a cultural enterprise by becoming stakeholders. This contribution can take the form of an investment before the work has been created, or via micro or macro credits or donations towards existing works.

7. Commons-based strategies and distributed value creation

The providers of commercial platforms for cooperation share their revenues with the creators who produce the material that makes their services valuable, while commoners are able to freely share and exploit the commons.

8. Collective Financing System

A flat-rate on internet connections can be consider only if it implies an equitable and democratic resource- pooling system and recognizes citizens rights to share and re-use works freely.

9. Basic income

When connecting the issue of free culture to visions of large-scale social transformations in capitalistic economies, the basic income idea propose to sustain the society as a productive body. A guaranteed basic income is a way to avoid precarity and redistribute economic wealth.

10. Public funding/policy making

We believe that in the context of a society of tax payers, culture must receive a share of public investment due to its undeniable social value. Social funding should not be seen as a substitute for public responsibilities in relation to the funding of culture and Free/Libre culture should not constitute an anomaly.

  1. Publicly funded works should be released, after a reasonable commercial life span, for circulation on digital networks so that the public who paid for them can access and re-use them.
  2. Tax deductions should promote micro-funding and the release of works without restrictive licences.
  3. The public should have the option to contribute to deciding how this public investment in culture is shared out.
  4. Alternative distribution channels should be encouraged. Cultural policies must work towards achieving greater cultural diversity and sustainable collaboration platforms.
  5. Networks of independent producers, distributors and authors should be supported, and they should be represented on public broadcasting.
  6. Impact statements should be a prerequisite for the introduction of any new cultural policy. We must analyze the effects that proposed regulations would have on on the cultural and knowledge commons before they are implemented.


The Commons, Public Domain and Business

The new business models that consider collective production as a context that needs to be nurtured and safeguarded, and not simply as a context to exploit, are based on the premise that cooperation is compatible with market dynamics. The most evocative practical examples stem from free software communities. The “output” is shared under non-restrictive licences, allowing third parties to use and modify it as long as the same freedoms are obligatorily applied to derived works. This creates a commons that is constantly improved by successive contributions, while not preventing the commercial exploitation of the knowledge and skills arising from them and of the works themselves.

Users become generators of value, and join a virtuous circle of production and consumption that they benefit from.

Meanwhile, in this new context, it is necessary to defend, promote and implement the conditions that enable online collaboration.

Embroiled in a different logic, the traditional cultural industries want to keep feeding off collective production, without responding to the collaborative logic that is now current thanks to the Internet. These industries try to keep imposing appropriation frameworks onto the commons, becoming entrenched in a predatory idea of culture (the economy of scarcity), which is totally at odds with the philosophy of free culture (the economy of abundance).

I met a person who is in a jail

February 18, 2011

I  met a person who went to jail.  Do you know any one who is serving a term in a jail?

So, it seems!  I announce that I enjoy the distinction of meeting a person who is in a jail.  I met a person face-to-face who is allegedly one of the top defaulters of public office in India.  I shook hands (or probably I may have done a namaskaar with folded hands, don’t remember now) with a person who sold a portion of natural light illegally (electromagnetic spectrum), technically called 2G spectrum (so that citizens do not know that Govt. claims the authority to sell licenses to use a portion of nature.)  So, I spoke to someone who is in jail for twenty minutes.

Aren’t you curious to know why did I meet him, what did I speak to him about?  When did that meeting take place?  And at the end of course, who was the person that I feel so great having met? Read my earlier post on this blog. And the report of the person in Tihar Jail here.

I am actually lying, since I know several people intimately who have been to jail, such as my grandfather and grandmother who were freedom fighters.  I not only met, but hosted (made tea, served water) many distinguished freedom fighters (all of them friends of my grandfather) in my house, some of them were put in jail by Indira Gandhi during emergency. But, they went to jail to end corruption, but this Raja is different.

What makes me really sick is when I realise what Governments do today, all over the world:  Instead of spreading and supporting the means of taking  the great inventions of scientists and engineers, they control their inventions.  The deliver them in bits and pieces.  half G, 1G, 2G, 2 and a half G, 3G, 3G+, 4G …   The issue of how an abundantly available component of nature, namely light, is controlled by these “Mafia rajas”  of today, to give each one of us the feeling that they are indeed scarce commodities.  It is sad to know how Government is behaving like a business house, and listens to them, gives them red carpet welcome, and ignores all voices of those who want to claim the nature back to people.

Kozhikode Declaration: National Conference on Free Software and Education

September 12, 2010

This is a Draft Declaration

We request all those who read this page to suggest any changes before Monday 13th September 2010, so that the declaration can be released sooner than later.   The draft is uploaded on the wiki page.

The text is pasted here for broad dissemination.

The Role of ICT and Education in Social Inclusion

Information & Communication Technology (ICT) is one of the most powerful technologies ever developed by humankind. It has drastically changed the way we do things, the way we communicate and even the way we think. Education is one of the spheres of human activity that is being strongly influenced by ICT. While the teaching of ICT has been incorporated at the school-level, ICT itself is being used in the classroom and outside for teaching and learning more effectively. However, access to ICT is not universal due to various reasons, including obscurity and the high cost of proprietary software.

Education is a basic requirement for a comfortable life in today’s society. In view of this, some countries, including India, have made it a fundamental right. This is certainly a move in the right direction. Education in ICT and ICT-enabled education are also becoming wide-spread. Part of the reason for this is the rapid decline in the cost of hardware. At the same time, the high cost of software is acting as a hurdle for further progress. Another factor that prevents more wide-spread use of ICT is the fact that the interface is not available in many languages, which bothers a lot of people.

Obscurity stops people and especially students to learn how things work, software in particular. The right to use, know, change and share technical knowledge about modern artefacts is an essential human right in knowledge societies.

Why is Software Freedom a necessity and not a choice?

Proprietary software does not allow community participation in shaping the ICT to be used for education, and is not suitable for education since their solutions treat students as consumers. Free software community (sometimes called free and open source software community) on the other hand produced GNU/Linux operating system and a comprehensive stack of collaborative workspaces that enable students during the last 25 years. Most of the free software workspaces are made accessible for speakers of all languages of the world, including physically challenged students. The software freedom granted to the people (1. to use the software for any purpose; 2. to study how it works; 3. to modify it and 4. to distribute the modified software) is unquestionably the core source of the free software revolution that is being witnessed. Any software that grants these four freedoms is called Free Software. These freedoms are essential for students to learn how things work, and to share their experience, knowledge and collaborate with others without legal encumbrances.

The software freedom makes it eminently suitable for any purpose, especially for education. The software used in education has to be freely available and accessible to all because education has to be universal. Moreover, the software has to be available in the language used by the community in that part of the world, however small the community may be. This is normally not possible with proprietary software because some communities could be too small to satisfy the commercial interests of the company.

But the situation is different with Free Software. Since the source code is available for study and modification by anyone, students of computer science and software engineering are able to see code written by master programmers and learn from them, just as students of literature learn from works of great writers, or students of art or cinema learn from the works of great artists and movie makers. This is obviously not possible with proprietary software.

Any community that has people with reasonable software skills can customise the interface to show the menu and other items in their own language. They can also create fonts for the language if they are not available. And they can localise applications to suit their culture and environment.

Finally, the students who have computers in their homes can use the same software they use in their educational institutions without either breaking the law and using illegal software, or spending a lot of money to buy the same software.

Thus, Free Software is undeniably the most ideal for use in all educational institutions at all levels; for primary, secondary or higher education. Proprietary software keeps people divided and helpless, while Free Software empowers them. Free software nurtures the much needed creativity by encouraging us to critical thinking and reasoning while proprietary software forces us to consume what they pack.

It is important for the graduating students to become entrepreneurs or join the various agencies for employment. Considering this requirement it is essential that the syllabus in educational institutions focuses on skills and does not include any specific branded applications. Therefore, the syllabus should be neutral and not mention any particular brand.

Just as the software requires to be free, it is essential that learning and teaching resources including documentation, books, journals, and other media should be released with a license (such as Creative Commons by Share Alike) which grants similar freedoms for other resources. All these resources must also be encoded in an open standard so that the exchanged documents are decodable in all platforms ensuring interoperability.


considering all the reasons mentioned above, we, the undersigned, call on all educational institutions, policy makers, students and teachers in all corners of the world to discard all proprietary software and use exclusively Free Software.

A Free Knowledge Verse from Sanskrit

February 18, 2010

Yesterday I went to MET (Maharastra Education Trust) college at Bandra in Mumbai to deliver a key note address on “Introduction to Free Software Movement” for Tech@MET festival.  I looked at a verse written in their handout that fits very well with free software and free knowledge movement.  The verse in Sanskrit is as follows: (Find the English Translation below)

न चौर हार्यम न च राज हार्यम |

न भ्रात्रभाज्यम न च भारकारी ||

व्यये कृते वर्धते नित्यं |

विद्या धनं सर्वे धनं प्रधानम्  ||

Knowledge can neither be stolen by a thief, nor snatched by a king.

It is indivisible unlike ancestral property, it never burdens the bearer,

it multiplies manifold when offered to others.

Knowledge is the supreme form of wealth.

The college does not seem to use free software as of now, but has intentions to use.  The vice chairman of the MET trust Mr. Sunil G. Karve mentioned that free software goes well with their philosophy.  I do hope, it will eventually go well with their practice as well.

If any of you know the exact source of this verse, please let me know.

Wake up call to all Govts

January 20, 2010

German and Frensh Governments warning their citizens not to use Microsoft IE for security reasons is welcome!  But, all Govts should also realize that bundling MS by hardware vendors by default is the root cause of the problem.  Most people have already paid the unreasonable MS tax while buying the PC itself.

Governments should not only take remedial measures, they should make a serious attempt to eliminate the evil from its roots.

Also do read an article posted by Swapnil.

No offline option to seek interview to get US Visa from India

October 17, 2009

This is an update on my open letter sent to the Ambassador/Consulate of USA in India, and the VFS office complaining that their site is not interoperable and does not work with Mozilla Firefox. I received no reply for two weeks, then I sent another reminder email, to which they replied saying: “There is no other alternative.”  Considering this I reiterate my protest and will not honour any invitation from USA till they commit to rectify and make it interoperable so that free software users are not forced to use proprietary software.

Meanwhile, I reactivated my application to try again and discovered that the site does not work with Mozilla Firefox but manages to work with Konqueror.  The fields in the application however are misaligned in most places.  It is difficult to say without further investigation whether this is due to bad coding on the server side or on the browser side.  I could not test it through the process since no date before 21st of October 2009 is possible even under emergency category, therefore I gave up.

Free software users are increasing in number all over the world.  Unless such roadblocks are cleared we cannot build a greener digital environment. Fight for freedom even if it is expensive!

US Visa application not possible if you use free software!

October 2, 2009

I wanted to go to the international conference on semantic web to be held in October 2009 near Washington.  So I try to apply for US visa.  There seems to be no way for a person to apply for US visa without using MS Internet Explorer.  Firefox/Mozilla based browsers don’t work.  In protest to this unfair practice, I have written the following open letter to the Ambassador of United States in India.

2nd October 2009



Dr. Nagarjuna G. Reader(F), Homi Bhabha Centre, TIFR, V.N. Purav Marg, Mankhurd Mumbai 400088


Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer The Ambassador of United States of America

Sub – An Open Letter Addressed to the Ambassador of the United States, Department of State

Dear Sir,

I write to bring to your notice an unfair practice followed by the U.S. Embassy in India, Department of State, namely, an imposition on all citizens to use a particular proprietary commercial software in order to submit their application for visa.

This is how it happens.

All applications for a U.S. visa from India are done through the Visa Facilitation Services (VFS). The procedure is to first pay the visa fee, wait for two days or till the number gets activated, and then proceed through the filling of forms at the website ( As I did the above, along the way I found that the VFS site did not work with my Mozilla Firefox browser. On inquiring with VFS I found that the site works with Microsoft Internet Explorer only.

As a regular user of the GNU/Linux operating system, I do not use any proprietary software either at work or at home, hence I found this an unwarranted restriction on my individual freedom.

Despite these reservations I borrowed a friend’s laptop which runs the proprietary Microsoft Operating System, filled my form, and got an appointment for the 1st of October 2009. I was pressured into doing this, having already paid Rs. 57,000/- as registration fee for attending a conference (, having then paid the visa processing fee of about Rs. 6,000/-, and having requested for, and granted, financial support for my air-travel from my office ( With two of my presentations scheduled at the above conference, meetings fixed with professional colleagues in the U.S., and the time running out, I thought too much was at stake, let me compromise on my moral values and follow the advice of the VFS.

However, on reflecting on the situation I felt that this compromise of my principles was helping promotion of the unfair use of non-inter operable technology to impose restrictions on citizens. As the Chairperson of Free Software Foundation of India I have been advocating the use of free software like the GNU/Linux operating system and non-proprietary browsers and application for every citizen. As a part of my professional commitment, I develop free software, and my visit to the USA, is for the purpose of presenting my free software to the International community. My conscience thus does not permit to go ahead and attend the interview as scheduled.

I consider it a serious infringement of individual freedom when the U.S. Embassy in India, Department of State, endorses and promotes the use of a specific operating system and a software application, while other competing applications, like Mozilla Firefox, and GNU/Linux operating system, could have also performed the same job if the software used was inter operable and standards complaint. If the U.S. Embassy agrees that it is an unfair restriction, I expect that you would ask VFS to fix the problem as soon as possible. Not fixing this problem would amount to a support of monopoly trade practices and non-adherence to interoperability by the U.S. Government.

Until this problem is fixed, or unless I am assured that it will be fixed sooner rather than later, I have decided, as a mark of protest, not to apply again for a visa interview to visit the United States.

I urge that you do not interpret this gesture as mark of disrespect for your country. I have enormous regard for the way individual liberty as well as intellectual freedom is valued and protected within the United States. I would definitely be happy to reconsider my decision if I receive a positive response from you on this issue.

I have to leave for U.S. on 21st of October 2009, so time is running out. I request you to please respond as early as possible and restore my faith that the U.S. will respect individual freedom and provide me an option that will not enforce the use of Microsoft Internet Explorer for taking my next appointment.

“You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.” –Mahatma Gandhi

It is with this spirit that I write this letter on the birthday of one of the greatest freedom fighters, Mahatma Gandhi.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely

(Nagarjuna G)

Maharashtra Govt’s MoU with Microsoft

August 19, 2009

Most Indian news papers and agencies reported today regarding the MoU signed by MS and Maharashtra state Govt.  The details of the agreement does give clear indication of how education, particularly IT education in Maharashtra, will be sold out.  See one of the reports.

Govt may be thinking that MS is helping the state.  While the fact is that the state is helping MS.  How dumb can the administration be to let the education system traded off.

What right a Government has to get into this kind of exclusive agreements with commercial entities for something as primary as education? All civil organizations must get together to stop this kinds of MoU forever. They should be legally banned. Wake up the justice department! Why do we need to help MS become monopoly? How can academic topics be decided by commercial companies? How can the syllabus include brands.  Let us raise our voice against this. This must stop.

I will write a detailed blog pointing out why this is unjustified and quite possibly illegal.

%d bloggers like this: