Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs”

October 21, 2010

Rashtrapathiji,
Your Majesty, the King of Bhutan,
Raksha Mantri,
Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force,
Lt-Gen. Prakash Menon, Commandant NDC,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am deeply honoured to have been asked to deliver the keynote address before the seminar on “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs” to celebrate the golden jubilee of this prestigious institution. The NDC has made outstanding contributions to the spread of strategic thought and the integration of civil and military thinking in India. You have today assembled a galaxy of experts and authorities to discuss this important question. We await your deliberations with great expectations.

Rather than trying to anticipate what your seminar will throw up, I thought I would look at two issues that you will probably consider in much more detail. Is there in an Indian doctrine for the use of force in statecraft? And, how have recent changes in the world and strategic affairs affected the role of force in today’s world?

Is there an Indian doctrine for the use of force in statecraft? This is not a question that one normally expects to ask about a power that is a declared nuclear weapon state with the world’s second largest standing army. But India achieved independence in a unique manner; through a freedom movement dedicated to truth and non-violence, and has displayed both ambiguity and opposition to classical power politics. In the circumstances posing the question is understandable and legitimate.

To answer the question let us look at traditional Indian attitudes to force and the lessons India draws from its own history, and at Indian practice since independence in 1947.

Attitudes to Force and Lessons from History

While India may have achieved independence after a non-violent struggle, it was a struggle that Gandhiji described as non-violence of the strong.

As far back as 1928 Gandhiji wrote, “If there was a national government, whilst I should not take any direct part in any war, I can conceive of occasions when it would be my duty to vote for the military training of those who wish to take it.... It is not possible to make a person or society non-violent by compulsion.”

During the Partition riots at his prayer meeting on 26 September 1947 Gandhiji said that he had always been an opponent of all warfare, but that if there was no other way of securing justice war would be the only alternative left to the government.

Faced with the tribal raiders sent by Pakistan into Kashmir in October 1947, Gandhiji said that it was right for the Union Government to save the fair city by rushing troops to Srinagar. He added that he would rather that the defenders be wiped out to the last man in clearing Kashmir’s soil of the raiders rather than submit.


In saying so, Gandhiji was entirely in keeping with a long Indian tradition which has regarded the use of force as legitimate in certain circumstances, namely, if there is no alternative way of securing justice. This is in essence a doctrine for the defensive use of force, when all other avenues are exhausted.

Our two greatest epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana are about wars, and treat rivalries as natural and normal. And the two classical expositions on the use of force, the Geeta and Bhishma’s death bed lecture on statecraft in the Mahabharata’s Shantiparva are extended explanations of a unique point of view.

The clearest description of the uses of force in statecraft is in the Arthashastra by Chanakya, which deals with both internal and external uses of force.

The lesson that comes through very clearly in both the major Indian epics, which deal with wars of necessity, is also apparent in Kautilya, the original realist, and in Ashoka, the convert to idealism. Ashoka and Kautilya were both products of a highly evolved and intricate tradition of statecraft which must have preceded them for centuries. A simple reading of the Arthashastra suffices to prove how evolved Indian strategic culture was as early as the third century before Christ, and how the use of force was limited both by practical and moral considerations. This was not a doctrine of “God on our side”, (though that helped, as Krishna proved in the Mahabharata). Nor is it about just wars. In the Indian tradition the use of force is legitimate not just if it is in a good cause and its results will be good. Instead, this was a doctrine that saw force as necessary in certain circumstances, to obtain justice, when all other means are exhausted, and which also recognised that force was not always the most effective or efficient means to this end.


The other lesson that Indian thinkers have consistently drawn from history is of the perils of weakness. The colonial narrative of India’s history, stressing “outside” invasions and rulers had as its corollary the conviction that India must avoid weakness at all costs lest that history be repeated. The Indian quest after 1947 for strategic autonomy and for autonomy in the decision to use or threaten force has a long tradition behind it.

What I am trying to say is that Indian strategic culture has an indigenous construct on the role of force in statecraft, modified by our experience in the last two centuries. War and peace are continuing themes in Indian strategic culture. While not celebrating war the culture treats defensive war as acceptable when good fights evil to secure justice. Indian strategic culture has been comfortable with this contradiction. While Gandhiji shunned the use of force and opposed violence in politics he was politically steely and unyielding, and accepted violence as unavoidable and justified in certain circumstances.

As a result of this acceptance of contradictions, Indian strategic culture supports ethical views that dovetail easily with international norms of conduct, whether legal or on human rights. It is a culture that tends instinctively to pluralism, tolerance of different views and positions, and a reliance on argumentation, diplomacy and law before recourse to the use of force. It is therefore no surprise that it seeks a rule based international order to limit the anarchy among states that is sometimes evident.


This aspect of Indian strategic culture is common to what Kanti Bajpai described as the three streams of Indian strategic culture, namely, “Nehruvians”, neo-liberals and hyper-realists. They might differ on the best means but not on India’s strategic goals . To summarise Bajpai, all three streams agree on the centrality of the sovereign state in international relations and recognise no higher authority; see interests, power and violence as the staples of international relations that states cannot ignore; and think that power comprises both military and economic capabilities at a minimum. Beyond this they differ.

Interestingly all three streams, “Nehruvians”, neoliberals and hyperrealists, believe that nuclear weapons are essential for India’s security in a world that has shown no signs of moving to their abolition and elimination.

In other words, there is substantial agreement on values, on goals and even on means in our policies, despite marked and rapid changes in the external environment in which we have operated. That is why the core traits of our foreign and defence policies have persisted since independence, irrespective of the parties in power.

The Indian Practice since 1947

Let us look at this aspect of Indian strategic culture in action, in other words at Indian practice and policy since independence.


• The defence budget has only exceeded 3% of GDP in one year of the last sixty-three.

• There have been clear limits on the use of force internally. The use of military force for internal security functions has been severely circumscribed, limited to those cases where there is a strong correlation to inimical forces abroad such as Nagaland and J&K.

• The armed forces of the Union have only been used defensively against external aggression in the sixty-three years of the Republic.

• India has never sent troops abroad except for UNPKO or at the express request of the legitimate government of the country concerned. This was true in the Maldives in 1987, in Sri Lanka in 1987 and in Bangladesh in 1971.

• India has also never retained territory taken by force in the wars that she has fought. This is so even for some Indian territory taken back from Pakistan in the Indian state of J&K which was returned to Pakistani control after the 1965 and 1971 wars.

India as a NWS


The Indian nuclear doctrine also reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament. We have made it clear that while we need nuclear weapons for our own security, it is our goal to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, and that we are ready to undertake the necessary obligations to achieve that goal in a time-bound programme agreed to and implemented by all nuclear weapon and other states.

In sum, there is an Indian way, an Indian view and an Indian practice in the use and role of force. We do not claim that it is better or worse than any other way that other nations adopt. It is a result of our own history and experience, and we feel it best suited to our goals and situation. And it too is evolving, both consciously and unconsciously, as is the world around us. It is time now to consciously build our own concepts and strategic thinking, adapted to today’s realities and India’s environment, including on the role of force.

Force in Today’s World

The other issue that you will be considering is how changes in the world and in strategic affairs have affected the role of force.

It seems to me that the changes we see in world politics and the effects of technology are the two factors that have most affected the strategic calculus of those in the international system who might seek to use force for political purposes.

Consider the global political situation first.

With global and regional balances of power characterised by unequal distributions of power; the interdependence between major powers created by globalisation; the state losing its monopoly of violence in contested hegemonies both internally and externally; and the diversity of values espoused by states, world politics today is in an unprecedented state of flux. It does, however seem that the cost to the major powers of using force in their dealings with each other could prevent the emergence of direct conflict between them.

The effects of technology are harder to describe and predict. In the early fifties, there were those who hoped that the unprecedented power of the atom bomb had made war unthinkable and therefore abolished it! Unfortunately, we now know better. In fact we have seen technology place increasingly lethal power in the hands of non-state actors. Terrorism is technologically enabled and knows no boundaries today, even drawing on support from within state systems. After several centuries, once again the state is not the sole or always the predominant factor in the international system. In some cases, it is businesses and individuals who now determine our technological future and it is these units that a successful policy must now increasingly deal with.

We have also seen technology create new domains for contestation, such as cyber space, where the speed of manoeuvre, premium on offense, and the nature of the battle-space make us rethink traditional concepts of deterrence. As technology has expanded the spectrum, the line between conventional and non-conventional warfare has blurred. The definition of force, the classic marker of power, has now expanded, thus changing the utility of force as traditionally configured.

As we enter a world of multiple powers, with rapidly shifting balances, change alone is certain. Unfortunately, force is the hedge chosen by several powers against heightened uncertainty in the international system. The balance is shifting between force and the other instruments of statecraft. We therefore need to develop a new and different statecraft.

If change alone is certain, and if the utility of force in statecraft is itself changing in fundamental ways, it is all the more necessary that we return to the values in which the use of force must be embedded. Ultimately it is not just the logic of politics or technology but the values and purposes of the state and society that determine the choices that we make of the uses and nature of force.

What India seeks is a new security architecture, an open, balanced and inclusive architecture, to correspond to the new situation that is emerging. The security challenges of the twenty-first century are radically different from those of the twentieth. Nuclear confrontation or war between major powers is not as likely as the threat from derivatives of nuclear deterrence, namely, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which are being used to subvert the emergence of a plural, secular and democratic international order in the twenty-first century. The challenges of a globalised world cannot be handled by twentieth century military alliances or containment strategies.

Conclusion

So in effect my argument is that in India’s experience the use of force must be governed and circumscribed by the values of state and society. I have also tried to suggest that there may be value in studying the Indian way, the Indian view and Indian practice in the use and role of force in state-craft.

It also seems from recent experience that the utility of force, as traditionally configured and conceived, is of limited value in protecting a society or achieving some policy goals. But one can hardly jump to conclusions about the futility of force when limited war under nuclear conditions remains possible, and when adversaries need to be deterred. This debate will continue.

I wish you success in continuing the debate and in your deliberations.

New Delhi
October 21, 2010

Darker American aspirations towards Indian defense

Original report from TimesNow:

Even before US President Barack Obama touched down in the country, away from the gaze of the cameras, a script was being written - to make Indian defence subservient to Pentagon. Talk in New Delhi’s defence circles - about a deal that - if through - would give the Americans unprecedented access to Indian defence forces and the communication systems for three services. Top secret documents that would be declassified only ten years from now - in 2020. Documents that show that the US is trying to force India into an agreement that our defence establishment does not need and does not want. The contention is the communications interoperability agreement. Part of this agreement - are six clauses that if India were to agree to - would be humiliating to say the least and completely under US control.

Article 5 of inter-operability agreement says that it will be the Indian defence ministry that shall bear the cost of reconfiguring the communications systems. More interestingly - India can only buy from the US Department of Defence. The other clause is in Article 6 of the agreement which says that the US Department of Defence shall provide defence support - subject to approval - which means - whenever it wants. Article 7 of this top secret agreement points to an effective takeover of our defence communications - since the clause says that it will be American officials who would be training Indian Govt personnel and also conducting inspections of the equipment given to India. Then clause number four - which is in Article 9 of the agreement - that says it will be only US army personnel who will have the right to access and inspect the equipment and material given to India.

Article 8, then goes on to say - that the Government of India cannot use its own equipment - without the prior consent of the American Government. So without a nod from Capitol Hill - India can’t touch its own equipment. And the sixth binding cause - which no American equipment provided to India, will be subject to any cooperative development - meaning that India cannot develop further on US prototypes. These are six of the most relevant clauses in this top secret document - that show how America wants to deal with the India- on their terms - wanting to control Indian defence communications. And they have lobbied hard in order to get India to agree but still not been able to convince the defence establishment.

And it was exactly that sentiment - echoed when the Defence Secretary met with the Defence Chiefs. Not just that - even before Obama arrived - the service chiefs have made their displeasure known. It is because of the open and clear displeasure shown by the defence establishment - that the strong American lobbies are having a rethink. New Delhi extremely wary of American moves. After all - similar defence agreements with other world powers - have given India the flexibility to maintain complete control on its defence establishment. So as the US President attempts to hit the right chords, lurking in the shadows are those who are trying to force a deal - that New Delhi simply does not want.

-- TimesNow.tv

Evolution - my perspective -- "Gene Mutation caused by Mind"

Since childhood I have always been thrilled about Evolution when I first read it in one Environmental Science (EVS) text-book. Remember EVS? It is a standard text-book in Goan secondary schools. I will try to describe evolution very briefly so that we usher in the context. Evolution is defined as "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations". Mutation (as in the change) in organisms is driven by two processes, 'natural selection' and 'genetic drift'. Natural selection (Darwin's theory) is synonymous to the concept of "survival of the fittest". Genetic drift is a random change in common traits in a population (and not linked to the natural selection concept). -- all definitions courtesy Wikipedia.

The way science is progressing, it is always about 'what you see is what you believe'. Basically because theories need proofs and proofs can be validated only with experiments.  I feel that evolution process has a third dimension which is distinct from the two processes described above.

When I was young I used to wonder how some fish have a false eye on the back or the tail. The obvious reason is when a predator fish strikes another fish it notices the eyes first. The survival rate is higher if it bites the tail. For that matter all animals that have eyes look in the eyes of other animals when they refer to them. Here are some photos which I picked up.

Another striking example is the Weaver Ant mimic spider.

And here's a Weaver ant (popularly called a 'Humlo' in Konkani).

These mimic spiders attack the poor ants by deceiving them. I have seen this happen at my ancestral house. The weaver ants crawl on a branch just like the one above. The mimic spider hides itself under the branch and does not show itself unless an ant is alone. When the ant is alone, it tries to deceive it into believing that its just another brother ant and then it attacks.

As you can see, these are not random genetic changes. These a very selective changes, depending on how, say, a fish perceives a predator fish may be thinking. Or how a predator spider thinks it can mimic and deceive an ant. Even the dinosaurs, each species have distinct horns. How can you have a horn  through survival of the fittest? or through random genetic changes? Does the current definition of evolution accommodate mimicry or stealthiness as shown above? NO!!!! Not yet. Now that I have stepped in! :-P I will augment the theory of evolution today!

The current theory of evolution accounts for 'reactive' changes, which may be true. For example, when a population is struck by a deadly disease, many die. But those who manage to survive develop the immunity for it. This information is then passed on to future generations. I think evolution can also be 'proactive' and this definition may well be predominent.


I think that the third dimension to the theory of evolution is "Gene Mutation caused by Mind"! Mimicry and stealthiness cannot be achieved unless you observe. And only the mind can process the observation. This also means that there is a direct link between the mind and the genes. Again this also means that mind is a significant player in the process of reproduction. Nowadays we find more and more cases of how a DNA combination can describe an emotion or a personality trait.


Let me go one more step further. When you are planning a baby, have a good mindset first! Indulgence in bad things will only get passed on to the generations ahead!

Indian neutrino lab to have world’s biggest magnet

India is set to start work on a 250-million-dollar underground laboratory, called the Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO), which will be built in the Bodi West Hills Reserved Forest in the state of Tamil Nadu.

INO will be made of 50,000 tonnes of magnetised iron, dwarfing the 12,500-tonne magnet in the Compact Muon Solenoid detector at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.

The iron sheets will interact with the neutrinos and spew out charged particles, whose paths will be bent by the iron's magnetic field. About 30,000 detectors sandwiched between the sheets of iron will track these charged particles, providing information about the incident neutrinos.

INO will initially study atmospheric neutrinos, which are produced when cosmic rays smash into the upper atmosphere. It will be sensitive to both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, which interact with matter in different ways.

Neutrinos and their antimatter counterparts oscillate between three types: electron, tau and muon. INO should help physicists understand which of the three types is the lightest and which is the heaviest.

Courtesy - www.zeenews.com
http://www.zeenews.com/news663195.html

Swarg, Prithvi and Patal, manifestations of the same world?

Today, I was travelling in the bus to office and it takes 90 minutes to reach. All along the way my mind is usually empty :-) and as you know 'An empty mind is a devil's workshop'. But I do try to shoo the devil off by following a modified idiom, 'A good thought a day keeps the devil away!'.

So what is a devil? Isn't it a manifestation of bad thoughts and actions? There are so many other examples on the good side too, like Laxmi for wealth, Saraswati for education and Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh for creation-preservation-destruction. Such representations exists in other religions as well.

In Hinduism, an evil man will go to Patal (Hell) and will be tortured. A virtuous man will go to Swarg (Heaven) and experience eternal bliss. And then what happens? Does he stay there forever? Hindus say that a man will go on reincarnating (Janm) in this world (Prithvi) until we know how to detach ourselves (the Soul) from the body (Mukti) and permanently bind to the Almighty (Paramatma). Does that means that a man will be sent back to Prithvi for another stint with incarnation? Is it like a packaged tour to Hell or Heaven, that we end up on Earth (Prithvi) again and again?


I seriously do not believe so. I think Swarg, Prithvi and Patal are manifestations of the same world. It is right that we keep on reincarnating but only on Earth (unless there is another habitable planet :-)). Whether you are sent to Hell or Heaven only means whether the birthplace on Earth is Hell or Heaven. There are two perspectives to this. Firstly, whether you perceive it as Hell or Heaven and secondly, whether the place is really rotten! But I think the former is true. Because it is finally on how you perceive it. One sibling in a family may feel it is the best place he could be, and the other sibling may sulk and curse it all the way.


If you are virtuous and kind then you will be promoted to Heaven in you next Janm. If you are vicious then you will be demoted to Hell. But all is in this very world. I mean look at it, there are plenty of places which are suitable to be either one of the extremes.

Success. Can you tell me what it is?

I can read your mind! You are asking me, why Dr. Ambedkar's statue in this blog post? Well, I feel that he is an erudite statesman and he guided our country in the direction of success.

Coming back to the topic. What is success? I feel success is more of a paradox. I work hard and I achieve something, then I am successful. Tomorrow I lose what I had achieved, so I am unsuccessful? Success is not something that you achieve when you reach a goal, but it is the path that is taken to pursue it. I think this is the right definition. This post is open-ended, so I would like to know your opinion.

Success is primarily based on three pillars, Knowledge, Wisdom and Strength. I feel intelligence is not primary because it is derived from these pillars. Knowledge and wisdom is pretty easy to understand, I mean the concept. But how do we define strength?

Strength may be Will Power (grit) and Execution Power (power to get things done). Every person has strong traits and weak traits in his personality. Strong traits are easy to handle because there is immense strength associated with it. You may be the best in that field. I am not only talking about career, but also other simple aspects like housekeeping, emotions, practicality, sex (?), fatherhood, motherhood, unclehood, bachelorhood, old-man-hood (? Well I am sure you guessed it right!) and so on.

My curiosity is towards how to derive strength from the weaker traits in a personality. For example, there are somethings which your inner self desperately wants you to do, but your conscious mind knows that it is wrong and always tells you not to do it. In such situations, the inner self mostly wins.  The few times when your conscious mind has won is always because you derived the strength from some source. I would like to know what are the sources that you derive your strength from? Yesterday, my late beloved granny came in my dreams and whispered something. Today, I gained super-strength from that! There are other cases where I take advice from my beloved ones and so on.

Is it possible to have full control upon oneself?

University of Manchester scientists win the Nobel Prize for Physics

Coup for UK Physics, as two University of Manchester scientists are awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery of graphene.

Professor Andre Geim and Professor Konstantin Novoselov have been awarded the highest accolade in the scientific world for their pioneering work with the world’s thinnest material, graphene.

This represents a landmark achievement for Physics in the UK, as it is the first time an academic or academics have received the Nobel Prize for Physics while on the staff of a UK university since 1979.Graphene, with the potential to revolutionize the electronics industry, was discovered by Professors Geim and Novoselov at the University in 2004. It has rapidly become one of the hottest topics in materials science and solid-state physics.

Professor Novoselov, 36, known as Kostya, first worked with Professor Geim, 51, as a PhD-student in the Netherlands. Andre Geim joined the University of Manchester in 2001, Kostya Novoselov followed Geim to Manchester in 2004. Both of them originally studied and began their careers as physicists in Russia.
The award of the Nobel Prize means there are currently four Nobel Laureates at The University of Manchester.

(This is a an email received by all alumni of the university.) 

Laser War - War paradigm of the future

Let me be the first to say this; laser weapons are going to be the next paradigm of war strategies. Maybe people will remember me after say 15 years, that I had claimed this. He He!

Today, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems like fighter aircrafts, submarines and ballistic missiles are the mainstay of all the nuclear weapon states in the world. The nuclear command in these countries is predominantly involved in modernizing these delivery systems.

Simultaneously, a few countries including India have started investing heavily in R&D of laser weapons and their delivery systems. These are called Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). For example, the US is developing an air borne laser delivery system called the YAL-1A (shown in pic - courtesy Wikipedia)

This delivery platform is a Boeing airliner modified to fit a laser device which can generate a laser beam having 1MWatt of power. If it is focused on an enemy aircraft, it can fry it in mid-air at the speed of light. India has also started a lot of projects in this area, both civilian and military oriented. The civilian projects involve 'laser dazzlers' which have applications in health care, transport etc. The military applications involve diffusing Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), causing temporary blindness to neutralize a person, etc. The strategic application is to create a blanket cover over India to protect it from hostile projectiles and enemy aircrafts using high power lasers. Currently India has developed a gas dynamic laser systems which can generate a laser having a power of 100 KWatt. The gas dynamic technology is old and is not portable. The next step is to create solid state lasers which are very portable and can be fitted on various platforms. This is projected to be achieved by 2020.

My claim is that when such technology matures, then it will render all current nuclear weapons and the delivery systems worthless. Because the lasers can just burn it off in a second! A very important requirement is to have very accurate and effective radars which can locate and track the enemy projectiles at runtime and activate offensive laser weapon systems which can neutralize it. Ground based, ship based and air borne radar systems have a limited capability to locate and track such projectiles because of limited range and accuracy.

The most ideal way is to have radars and laser weapon systems deployed in space, mounted on satellites. This opens a completely new and scary ideology called 'space weaponisation'. The name is quite intuitive. Currently, space is only used for civilian and reconnaissance purposes and fortunately the world has followed this policy. Any weaponisation of space is disastrous but i feel it is inevitable in the future. Just imagine, the Chinese can burn me off when I step out of the house, by firing a laser from space!!

If this is what is going to happen by the year 2020 itself, then why are we buying all these aircrafts, ships, submarines which are not immune to laser attacks? We should start preparing for laser defenses as well as offenses simultaneously.

Mobile robbers - Know the enemy.

Today I was about to be robbed of my mobile while travelling in the BMTC bus between the bus stops "Jayadeva - East End" and "BTM - Water Tank". This was the second time at the same place by the same gang. And the mobile robber gang operates all day and steals a lot of mobiles I reckon!

Their strategy; usually they are a gang of three and the **first sign of suspicion** is that they are drunk and stink of alcohol. They attack any guy who is standing close to the door way, so that they can flick off your mobile and run away easily. So it is not a good idea to stand near the door. One guy will stand in front and block your face away from the door, by clutching the holding-bar on the ceiling, in a peculiar way **second sign of suspicion**. Another guy will stand behind to block you from moving behind. The third guy sticks to you in front (facing his back) to attempt the robbery. Then he will use his hand to stealthily lift the mobile from your pocket **third sign of suspicion**.

I defended simply by holding down my mobile. This happens like in a split second!

Linking all the major rivers in India

There has been a long and old ideology of linking all the rivers in India. This has meandered over the years and shelved every time it was brought on the table. The concept was visualized by a British engineer Arthur Cotton way back in the 19th century. He wanted to build canals and link all the rivers in India. Then, Captain Dinshaw J. Dastur, an engineer, revitalised the concept in the year 1945. All the attempts were turned down because of the massive expenditure to materialize the project.

Today, India is poised to be an economic super-power and has the economic capacity to undertake such a colossal project. This year the north-western region in India suffered floods because of 11% more rainfall, and the eastern and north-eastern India received 13% less rainfall. Just imagine if all the rivers were connected, then the waters from the Jamuna and the Kosi could be redirected to meet the Bramhaputra or the Krishna or the Kaveri or a new canal through the Rajasthan desert. So many million lives could be saved, so much destruction and health hazards averted. Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam emphasized on this, in his speech at the Field Marshal KM Cariappa Memorial Lecture. 

If the project is undertaken, the canals can serve as water-ways for ships to deliver goods throughout India. This can be another significant and cheaper mode of transport. The Ganga basin is so flat that for the entire length of around 3000KM, the drop in altitude is just a few tens of metres. For this reason, the rivers flowing through the basin constantly change their paths over time. Just imagine, you have a hut on the banks of Yamuna and you have been living there for the past 10 years and suddenly, one early morning, the river changes path and it starts flowing right through your hut. What do you do? These canals will fortify the banks and prevent the river from changing its course. An artificial canal through the now dead Saraswati basin in Rajasthan can revive the lives of so many people.

This project can help in irrigation. There are many central and southern rivers in India which are not perennial. If connected with the northern rivers, they can be a constant source of water.  Smart water redirection systems can manage the water levels throughout India, bringing prosperity to the 60% of our population which is directly or indirectly involved in agriculture.

Water treatment plants can be systematically built and tanneries disallowed to flush effluents into the river. Of course without coordinated efforts from all the State governments, this is not possible. For example, Delhi cannot think of installing a water treatment plant because it will get choked from all the waste that is flushed into the river by the tanneries in Haryana. 

Did you know that we have fresh water  Dolphins in Ganga? Yes, they are still alive, I don't know how they survive. There are many many unheard of species in the Ganga which we have lost forever because of our own foolish doing. The ecology can be saved by implementing this project. I know this is too far fetched but I think it is time this project is taken seriously.

Using God as a toilet cleaner?? Shameful!

I travel to office everyday through the heart of Bangalore. Like a normal Indian metro, there are inadequate amenities provided for the general public, especially the public toilets. People love to do their stuff on the walls, wherever and whenever convenient!

The government has been very innovative nonetheless, by painting brilliant concepts on the walls. People seem to abstain from dirtying the place where they see paintings. This has given employment to the painters of yore who used to paint the banners of newly released films (claimed by Pramesh).

The shameful part is that I have noticed a parallel trend here. Since people dirty the walls, the house owners have started sticking tiles having Hindu deities on the walls. Just to keep the area cleaner. Is this the way to make use of God?? When I can notice this, why can't people see such a dastardly act?

Konkani Mhan

"Zanvyak divche mhanje revent mutche"

Translation:
Gifting a son-in-law is like pouring in the sand!

Meaning:
No matter how much you gift a son-in-law, he is never going to be satisfied.

Karma Yog

Karma means any action that you do in your everyday life. It also includes the repercussions of those actions. I have followed Karma Yog for many years now and I have seen how fulfilling and satisfying it can be. It is very simple, but what seems to be simple can be one of the most challenging to accomplish.

In this fast paced world, people don't have time to even reflect into themselves and see where they are heading. The competition is immense. People slog at their workplaces, students struggle to get the highest marks, parents push their children to their limits. This leads to stress and then its derivatives which I don't have to reiterate. If I look at the whole picture then I realise that we are pursuing a less than ideal path towards growth.

People work for a variety of reasons. Some work for power, some for money, some for status and some just for pleasure. I am not saying these Karma are all bad, but I will definitely say that they are not the best. And working just for pleasure is the most foolish Karma, a man (includes women with due respect) can do. Even after achieving all such goals in life, there will always be a place in your mind saying "This is not enough, I want more!". And after achieving more, it will again say "More More More!". There is no end. You are always dissatisfied with what belongs to you or what you have earned.

The ideal Karma Yog is to do work for the sake of work, selflessly. There should be no expectations of what comes out of it. The heart should be bound to God and hands to work. This, as the great sages have discovered, is the best way to be happy in life. No worries about marks, ranking, promotion, salary hike, appreciation, etcetera. Everything will fall into place. God will give you what you deserve, and only your Karma can determine how your future will be, just like how your past actions has brought about your present.  Even if you are in the worst situation, and you are an ardent follower of Karma Yog, then you would not even bother about the situation, nor about whether your actions, good or bad, will bear fruits or not. Why bother, when you have selflessly worked all the way? Definitely you may have your goals, but you need not keep hope of achieving it.  Whats important is that you have selflessly worked towards it, while loving your work for the sake of loving it!

Konkani Mhan

"Jhetan Shivaji, Shetan Ubo"

Translation:
Proudly Shivaji, standing in a field.

Meaning:
Typically used when someone energetically does something, without taking care that he can really do it.

Konkani Mhan

"Tash kaay na, saglo nashiba khel"

Translation:
Nothing like that, it's all fate.

Meaning:
Don't worry, it's all a game of fate.

Konkani Mhan

"Kutryak khaee fatar maar, to fakt davyach payan kut-ta"

Translation:
Wherever the stone hits, a dog will always hop on the left leg.

Meaning:
This idiom means that whatever someone does, the blame always comes onto one's own self.

Konkani Mhan

"Khadak uzo laglach, ata cha-i karun ghevya"

Translation:
Now that your beard is on fire, lets make tea!


Meaning:
This idiom is used to say that someone has utterly exploited an opportunity.

A more polished meaning:
"Aata konacher aakant aylach, titun amchei kaam karun udovya.." (Courtesy Amrita)