Vol 01 No. 03
Each era has had to face some challenge to the continuation of civilisation. However,
mankind has managed to turn back from the precipice in time to save itself. I hope we still retain enough sanity to be able to solve the issues concerned with use of nuclear energy. The other side of the coin is that every new invention has brought in its wake a group of people who have felt that the new invention may lead to doom. May be, their constant vigilance and warning is what has lead to ‘taming’ of the new invention enough to control its capacity for doom. However, if we have as a race met all these past challenges, why should we doubt that we can and will do so once again ? No doubt, there must exist and thrive a band of vigilantes who take up such
issues and work as the voice of conscience and sanity. Secondly, I feel that in the context of the
world situation as it exists today, your voice of reason and sanity is too weak to be heard or
to have an impact.
Sharad Shirodkar, Bombay
It was interesting to hear about the work against nuclear industry in India — I keep wondering how one can oppose both nuclear weapons and nuclear power in a non-adversarial way. I have found in the U.S. that we are a ‘ ‘nation of protest movements”—not a nation of peace movements. I have recently written a book called “WAYS OUT, a book of changes for peace’. I find Gandhi’s constructive protest a wonderful resource. I do not believe we can ask people to give up jobs in nuclear industry without carrying them a gift of some alternative possibilities for work.
Gene Hoffman, Santa Barbara, California
This is in response to the letter written by Shri N.G.Goray (Vol. 1 No. 2, October, 87). He seems to live under an illusion that scientists will find some way (one day) to separate nuclear energy from its attendent destructive elements and further that they will know how to control the BRAMHASTRA
they have invoked. Any dillemma of science is also the dilemma of our entire civilisation.
But for him the problem of nuclear energy seems to be the persisting diemma of science
alone. If one knits his emphasis on mastering energy (underlining the national and international politial implications to enforce hierarchy) and the question of signing of a nuclear free zone agreement amongst China, Russia, Pakistan and India (a most improbable event) one finds that his vision is that of a nuclearised India living under a conceptual deception known as the ‘doctrine of deterrence’. We should instead strive for a non-nuclear India and a nuclear free world in the interest of preserving both ours and the global civilisation.
R.Mani Vannan, Delhi