DEMOCRACY, U.S. AND PARVEZ MUSHARAF

Though not an expert on the subject, I have been a keen observer of the happenings in the world around me, which includes the immediate neighbour Pakistan. I had a very negative opinion of the ultra conservative and crude-looking President Zia-ul -Haq and the regressive administration that he headed. I also remember the subsequent periods of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and the squabbles and instability of the period. Both these so called stalwarts of democracy were notorious for the corrupt practices of their regimes. The name of Asif Ali Zardari being synonymous with corruption is still fresh in our minds.Then rose on the horezon of Pakistani politics the name of a suave and gentleman-looking Pervez Musharaf who has come across to millions of TV viewers as a relatively progressive, modern-minded and no-nonsense man. He ensured stability to the administration of Pakistan during the post 9/11 period and lent support to the West's fight against terrorism. He did this putting his own life at stake, when politicians like Benazir or Sharif would have dilly-dallied.

Yet when the politicians regrouped and are exerting their collective presssure against Musharaf, the same West/US, which once found him handy, is deserting him in the name of "democracy". I fail to understand whether corrupt or not, politicians and lawyers have an exclusive claim to democracy. If such is the case how do the US and the West approve of the rulers in the Middle East. And if they follow this kind of use and discard policy, who else would be foolish enough to co-operate with them in their "fight against terrorism"?

Would some one care to answer?

ALL THE GODMEN !

There is a raging controversy going on in my home state of Kerala and, infact, in the whole of India and the rest of the world on the issue of Godmen. Some people have been deliberately trying to limit the debate to merely Hindu Swamys who dot various parts of the state and the country. But I feel, objectively defining, any Godman (or is it Man God?) should be any Man (need not be a male) born on this earth, of all the universe, biologically and is alive, or is no more and he himself or his followers claim that he is the Supreme Creator of all the visible and invisible universe. (Of course God should not be meant for the earth and its inhabitants only !) Viewed in this manner, not only the Godmen who live in our midst presently, but Jesus Christ and Budha and the others who were born and lived here, a couple of thousands of years ago, when such media and public scrutiny was unthinkable of, could be said to have been more fortunate. Or, by the same token, can't the present-day Godmen pass the test of time after say another two thousand years and be confirmed as God?

Don't you think the Supreme Creator is not one bound by such constraints of time and space, and geography? Comments are invited !

INDO-US NUCLEAR TREATY

I am not anti-American. But as I am not a technical person/scientist, I would like to be enlightened on the subject. I would like to know:

1.Will nuclear power be able to take care of all the existing and projected power requirements of India without having to resort to any restriction of consumption?

2.How long it will take for the reactors to be erected and be operational?

3. Cost wise, how nuclear power compares with hydel power, per unit?

4. What would be the size of the investment required for the purpose and would it be within our means?

5. Would it be more advisable to use our abundant supply of coal?

6. What happens in the event of interruption in fuel supply?

7. How safe are nuclear reactors, considering our tardy approach to matters of vital importance?

8. And finally how do we handle the nuclear waste, given our abysmal record in ordinary garbage disposal?

With greetings to all visitors, MATHEW PHILIP