The return of the one-horned rhino

Last updated on: March 24, 2015 18:37 IST

A painstaking effort is on to bring the one-horned rhino back to Assam's Manas National Park, the place it once inhabited

Saurabhgupta8/Wikimedia Commons

Once upon a time in the Northeast, there was a vast forest next to a river. Its grasslands were home to the one-horned rhinoceros and the pygmy hog, while giant hornbills nested on its treetops. Till the mid-1980s, the Manas National Park in Assam was known for its excellent biodiversity and the multitude of rare fauna it housed. The Bodoland agitation and the socio-political conflict in the area took attention away from forest management. Consequently, by 2000, Manas was almost completely stripped of its rich flora and fauna, including all its 100 rhinos.

It was at this time that the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) along with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) decided to intervene. "While there were no rhinos left in Manas National Park, our assessment was that it was still capable of being a healthy habitat for rhinos," says Vivek Menon, executive director, WTI. In conjunction with the Bodoland Territorial Council and the forest department of Assam, WTI-IFAW created a unique programme in 2002 to revive Manas and its biodiversity, embodied by the one-horned rhino.

"We set up India's first rescue and rehabilitation centre, Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation, near a protected area -- in this case, Kaziranga," says Menon. Here, orphaned rhino calves are hand-reared (some even bottle-fed) for up to three years. "Then we transport them to Manas, allow a one-year period for acclimatisation in controlled but wild conditions and then release them into the jungle," he says.

Newly rescued rhino calf from Burrapahaar

That seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a handful of rhinos, but Menon says it is worth it. The presence of the one-horned rhino, the largest herbivore of the grasslands, is a sign that the habitat is in good ecological health. "This augurs well for smaller, lesser-known grassland animals such as the pygmy hog," he says. Also, the rhino is an evolutionary marvel that can do with some human intervention for its continued survival in the wild. "Unlike other species that have adapted to diverse habitats, rhinos can only survive in grasslands, that too on very specific grasses," Menon explains.

Crew that executed rehabilitation, transportation and release of rhinos from CWRC to Manas National Park Moreover, its breeding habits are so slow that it's a wonder that rhinos reproduce at all. Males attain sexual maturity at nine years while the notoriously choosy females become mature at four. Mothers rear their calves for three years before they literally push them away. To make mating matters harder, the sex ratio of one-horned rhinos is skewed in favour of females. "This makes it incredibly tragic when we lose a couple of them to poaching, accidents or illness," says Menon. "Also, if the dead rhino has a calf with her, it stands little chance of surviving on their own in the wild."

Crew that executed rehabilitation, transportation and release of rhinos from CWRC to Manas National Park

In the last four years, three of the eight rhinos that WTI-IFAW bred in captivity and relocated to Manas have given birth in the wild. "We are thrilled," says Menon. "This shows they've completely adapted despite being hand-reared. Also, their age of calving has ranged from nine to eleven years, which is similar to free-ranging one-horned rhinos." The first to give birth was Jamuna, rescued as a three-month-old calf during the annual floods in Kaziranga in 2004 and relocated to Manas in 2007. The other two proud mothers are Ganga and Mainao. Last year, three male calves were released from their temporary enclosure in Manas, taking the total number of calves rescued, reared and relocated to 10. "We plan to scale up as far as possible, but our programme depends on how many calves we are able to rescue and nurse back to health in a year," says Menon.

The ghar wapsi, so to speak, of rhinos to Manas has had positive connotations not only for wildlife conservation but also for the communities around the protected areas. For the Bodos, rhinos in Manas have come to symbolise a resurgence of their ethnic pride, which has taken a battering in the last few decades. In many ways, the Bodos' fight for their ethnic identity echoes the rhino's fight for survival in a rapidly shrinking habitat.

In 2011, Manas National Park was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger and was commended for its efforts in preservation. To lay people, the idea that an entire forest can be regenerated and even repopulated with its lost endemic species, is incredible. But Menon has always believed otherwise.

"When we began this project, I never doubted nature's resilience for a minute," he says. Today, Manas represents hope -- hope that it is possible to reverse some of the depredations of poaching, social unrest and climate change on nature; hope that in spite of, and with some help from, mankind, the law of the jungle can prevail once more.

Sunny Leone: India is NOT a sex-starved nation

Last updated on: March 24, 2015 18:54 IST

'There are two things that will never go out of business in most countries around the world -- oil and sex.'

Sunny Leone gives us her point of view.

It’s a Saturday afternoon and Sunny Leone is sitting in a tastefully done up office, sipping from a can of Red Bull.

The actress is still trying her best to leave behind her baggage of being an adult star, and find recognition as a Bollywood heroine.

"The audience may not say I am the greatest actress but if they call me a decent actress, I would happy," Sunny says, with a big smile.

In an interview with Sonil Dedhia/Rediff.com, Sunny discusses her new filmEk Paheli: Leela, why she doesn’t mind her sex symbol tag and why she finds Ranveer Singh sexy.

It’s been three years since your first film Jism 2 released. Are you happy with your career in Bollywood so far?

The journey in Bollywood hasn’t been easy.

It is impossible for an adult star to work as a heroine in a mainstream film but I have been lucky that I was accepted and loved.

I am looking forward to the release of Ek Paheli: Leela. The movie looks really beautiful and has been shot well.

Have you picked up Hindi?

Haan, main Hindi roz bolti hoon (laughs) (Yes, I speak Hindi every day).

I am still working on my accent but I have picked it up really well.

You have three films (Ek Paheli: Leela, Mastizaade and Tina & Lolo) releasing this year. Are you nervous?

I am definitely nervous. I have worked really hard on all the movies.

I hope the audience notices that I have improved as an actor and have progressed as far as my acting is concerned.

Tell us about your character in Ek Paheli: Leela.

It’s the toughest character I have played so far because she is a rustic.

A part of the film is set in Rajasthan so I had to speak Hindi in a Rajasthani accent. It was difficult to pick up the accent and the mannerisms of a village girl.

The other challenge was the hair and make-up. My body was painted every day to get a tanned look and on top of that, it was incredibly hot.

How did you pick up the mannerisms and the accent?

It was tough. Every day we had workshops on the sets.

The director (Bobby Khan) helped me a lot. I might not be the greatest actor in Bollywood, but I am a good listener (laughs).

I’d take help from the assistants; I would just grab someone from the director’s team and ask them to teach me the language.

You have emulated Rajinikanth in a song in the movie.

Yes, that was a lot of fun.

I love South Indian movies, everything is so colourful.

I had fun imitating Rajinikanth’s steps where I twirl my sunglasses. I had to practise quite a bit for it.

There’s a line in the film where your character says, “Glamour industry mainsuccess ka shortcut is short skirts.” Do you agree with that?

I don’t necessarily believe in it because I think the key to success is determination and hard work.  

But I guess it’s a good dialogue. The writer has done a good job since you remember it.

You always maintain that you want to be taken seriously as an actor but your sex symbol tag always precedes you. Will that ever change?

I don’t know. Whatever I have done so far has brought me so far. It doesn’t matter if I have a tag.

As long as the media keeps tagging me as an adult star or porn star in every single article, my sex symbol tag will never go away.

I think every individual is sexy in his or her own way. I can’t get rid of my sexiness so people can perceive me as they want to.

The audience may not say I am the greatest actress, but if they call me a decent actress I would happy (smiles). 

But the kind of roles that you have done so far has a lot of sexiness…

(Interrupts) Yes, that’s because the role requires it.

When you see Ranveer Singh or Salman Khan or Katrina Kaif, they are in gorgeous sexy costumes or no shirt, in a chiselled body. Is that not sexy? That's sexy too.

You become the talking point of any film you star in. Your co-stars could feel insecure at your hogging the limelight.

I just read an article about that and it was so stupid. 

I have no idea if my co-stars feel insecure; I have never asked them, nor have they ever complained.

I do my work and that is all that matters to me.

Ekta Kapoor said in an interview that Sunny Leone is a sweet girl in a sex-starved nation. Do you agree?

I don’t think India is a sex-starved nation. I wouldn’t say that about any country.

She (Ekta Kapoor) feels that way and she is entitled to her opinion. 

There are two things that will never go out of business in most countries around the world -- oil and sex (laughs).

There are so many unfortunate incidents happening with women across the country. What do you think can be done?

It all starts with education. If our teachers in school and parents at home teach us the basic etiquette, maybe the message will come across very clearly.

This is applicable to any country in the world.

I also feel all women should learn some self-defence technique.

Which actor do you find the sexiest in Bollywood?

It has to be Ranveer Singh.

He is not only a good actor but whenever I see him on television or at awards functions, I feel he has a larger-than-life personality. He is an attractive looking guy.

An Indian actress whose wardrobe you’d like to steal?

Priyanka Chopra. She has a great sense of fashion and her style is very hip.

Your husband Daniel Weber has lost a lot of weight. Is he preparing for his debut film Dangerous Husn?

No, it’s not for his debut film. In fact, for the film he needs to bulk up. The workout sessions are tougher and longer now.

But yes, Daniel works out in the gym like a maniac. Sometimes I feel lazy to go to the gym but he will not miss even a single day.

He has always been health-conscious; he is very particular about his diet.

'India cannot survive without coal'

Last updated on: March 19, 2015 11:29 IST

 

‘You cannot survive without coal. 2/3rds of our electricity comes from coal. Coal is the most important in our energy basket. Without coal there is no energy security for India’

‘We need to value energy and the only way we can value energy is if we pay the price for it. We do not value energy today because we are not paying the price for it. So if actually energy costs rise, we will use energy efficiently.’

‘One thing we must understand is that in India most power pricing policy is actually distorted. Domestic consumers pay less and industrial commercial consumers pay more. Globally it is the exact opposite.’

In the second and final part of this interview, energy and coal industry expert Sunjoy Joshi tells Sheela Bhatt/Rediff.com that we need to take a comprehensive view of the entire energy sector and how piecemeal reform won’t take us very far.

Part 1: 'Our whole concept of coal mine allocations is wrong'

Is India’s energy scene going to improve after the e-auction of coal mines?

We have to see the evidence of it improving. We have to get out of this quotas and allocations. The ‘captive blocks’ is a system of allocation of quotas. You are not allowing the actual use of a resource which determine its best use and value in an economy. You are not allowing it to happen. You are actually going back to licensing systems. If you are talking of reforms, you have to move away from these licensing systems.

Union Power and Coal Minister Piyush Goyal has said that India will stop importing thermal coal in three years.

I will believe the statement when the industry, Coal India, makes it. I cannot believe a statement if it is made by a minister.

Why?

Because the minister won’t do the mining. The mining will be done by entities who are involved in mining operations. And they are the ones who must come forward and say these are the right policies. The statement will have meaning only if the industries come forward and say, yes with these policies we would be able to ramp up production.

Once this e-auction process is over, how long will it practically take for India to use coal mines, coal reserves at the optimum level?

That’s a very big question because now India is also coming under increasing pressure, on the climate front and reducing coal use rather than expanding it. The point is we have not been able to utilise our coal reserves so far.

We say we still have a hundred years of coal reserves, someone will say we have 200 years of coal reserves. The point is, again, the same question, that those reserves are useless until we can mine them, produce them, use them.

The window within which we can use them and mine them is getting smaller year by year. The longer we take, the more difficult it will get to justify internationally our burning coal, say, 20 or 30 years from now.

Now the point is, when you are setting up a coal power plant today means someone is investing in that, he is investing over a 30-35 year cycle. Both the coal miner and the power plant operator are investing in the future.

If coal is only going to be available for the next five years, then there is no point in making that kind of an investment. He is not going to make any money but rather lose money in the short term. So we do not want any stranded assets left there again in the absence of coal. So we need a far more long term vision.

How long does it take to get an operation started?

In coal mining, the gestation period need not be too long. You can start coal mining after two years. Gestation period here rises majorly because you get into problems of land acquisition, you get problems of environmental clearances, then you get into the problem of whether you have a rail link, how are you going to transfer the coal out and where will you take it.

Rail, where are the tracks, where is the infrastructure to evacuate the coal. Many of the coal mines are without evacuation facilities. So all these things only add to the gestation period.

So in that case I would presume Adani’s idea of importing coal, of getting the mine and now getting the money for the operations from Indian banks, make sense.

It does make sense. See, you are not able to produce coal within the country in a short time, and you see a huge demand for coal within the country, so what else do you do?

What is the demand-supply gap?

Last year we imported 180 million tonnes. We do not know how it shapes up this year. But you know coal imports are steadily rising because of rising demand and because our coal production has stagnated over the past few years. It is sheer incompetence.

Now that e-auction is in place, do you think it is very imperative to have a coal regulatory bill?

Provided we understand what regulation means. Unfortunately in this country, the dividing lines between administration, regulation and policy making are not very clear. And that is not a problem in just coal, it is a problem across sectors. It is a problem we’re facing in aviation, in telecom, across the whole energy industry.

Let us first be very clear in our head as to which direction we are going in this long-term vision of coal and power business. Long term meaning, I’m not even talking of 30-40 years. Let us have a clear vision of what we are doing for the next 10-15 years.

In India’s energy basket, how important is coal?

You cannot survive without coal. Two-thirds of our electricity comes from coal. Coal is the most important in our energy basket. Without coal there is no energy security for India. You can keep talking about everything else. But until you wean the country away and move into diversifying the energy basket, coal will be important. And diversification is really, really far away -- the problem that exists in coal, exists in many other sectors of the energy industry.

So you do not have primary fuel availability. It is only coal that you have in plenty and hence have a huge capacity which is based on coal.

Now that internationally climate change and sensitivity for environment issues are so high, what will be India’s position over coal use?

India needs to negotiate very carefully on this front. Basically we have been lagging in developing our coal reserves. Our per capita consumption is still very low compared to international standards.

China did the very opposite. When the Rio declarations came, China used those 20 years to grab as much carbon space as it could. So it went on a mining spree extracting as much coal as it could. And then putting as many power plants as it could, forget the right technology, inefficient power plants etc...

And it was just a grab of carbon space that China did. China then reached there and now it has started talking about efficiency, cutting down emissions and moving onto a different cycle. We have missed that bus.

So we have lost about 20-25 years in the development cycle which has actually deprived our country of a cheap energy source at a time we needed it the most. There is a high economic cost to it in terms of the development of the country. So the people of this country have been deprived of a cheap energy source. Now the price of that energy resource is on the rise and it is going to be borne by the people of this country -- the consumer.

Tell me the dos and don’ts to do things faster.

If you want to enhance coal production, then you need to get professional mining into the operations. That is the first thing. You have to sort out your land acquisition laws, you need to sort out the issues of environmental clearances which are all the bottom lines that are occurring.

You need to allot more on getting infrastructure in. Hopefully with a new railway minister there will be more dynamism and we’ll start getting investments flowing into the system because the railways are absolutely vital for moving not just coal but everything. But they become absolutely vital for coal because reserves are concentrated in particular pockets. So they need to be transported around.

But don’t you think one of the dos should be that India should, increasingly, in the coming years, lessen dependence on coal?

India simultaneously needs to diversify its fuel basket.

But what I’m seeing is that for next 20 years you cannot run away from coal. No matter how hard you try. You can keep talking of renewables, it makes a lot of sense to go to international fora and talk of the number of solar power plants you are going to put in.

But eventually, if you look at the bigger energy picture, the bulk of your electricity will continue to come from fossil fuels. You will be adding capacities in solar and wind. But first of all you must remember that five megawatt capacity put up, say, in solar or wind is equal to one megawatt capacity put in coal. That’s the difference due to plant load factors. So if you’re seeking the same generation, forget about base load and everything.

If you’re looking at the same generation from renewables, you’re investing five times in capacity than you would be investing in fossil fuels. India’s energy demand is not at peak as yet and if you see an expansion, then you will definitely see coal capacities rising, not falling. Renewables will rise very fast as well. But as I said, they need to run five times faster.

Recently we heard from Adani and Tata about the demand for energy. On one side India wants to increase coal production, on the other India will be importing coal which will be a little costlier than local coal. So in view of that, what will happen to the consumer? They will keep paying more, right?

The consumer cannot run away from the prices of primary fuel. If the price of primary fuel rises, someone will have to pay the bill. Eventually even if you‘re thinking of moving away from coal, consumers need to understand that energy is only going to get expensive.

We need to value energy and the only way we can value energy is if we pay the price for it. We do not value energy today because we are not paying the price for it. So if actually energy costs rise, we will use energy efficiently, you will also see greater incentive for renewables.

Today if coal prices suddenly start dropping, renewables lose. Who is going to invest in renewables where the costs are going to be far higher? So you’re knocking renewables out of the market.

Today we talk the other way -- that if you want renewables to come in, you should be taxing conventional energy like coal. So raise prices. Yes, resources are expensive and energy is expensive. And we need to use less of it, use it more efficiently and we will probably do it when we pay more of it.

On the political front, the Narendra Modi government, before the next election comes in 2019, will try very hard to separate the grid for commercial use and domestic use. India will aim to have 100 per cent electricity connections in homes. So do you think it is a feasible target as it has happened in Gujarat?

See, separation is essential also for other reasons -- for differential pricing, etc. One thing we must understand that in India most power pricing policy is actually distorted. Domestic consumers pay less and industrial commercial consumers pay more. Globally it is the exact opposite.

You want to make India a manufacturing hub. How are you going to compete with people manufacturing abroad? Find out the prices in global markets. Your entire dream of turning India into a manufacturing hub with these kinds of distorted pricing policies, will not go very far.

Is it possible for Modi to go to the next polls giving maximum number of houses power through a separate grid? Is that an achievable goal?

First of all, is electricity going to be available? Are people going to be on the grid across the country? Some parts of the country are so distant that they are better of not being on the grid. For them it is going to be very expensive. And it might be cheaper for them to stick to renewable, biomass energy.

So there are different models which can be proposed and which I’m sure any rational government would think of optimising the cost when you’re supplying modern electricity and fuels to the bulk of the population. The statement should be written in context of the larger picture.

Do you think the political target is achievable on this issue?

If you’re talking about the grid then it is not possible. If you want to get the grid into the remotest village then it is a tall order and it is not even a wise decision. And when they say getting grid into every household, to every person’s house, there are limitations to it. And those limitations, within the political system, should limit them.

In balance, as of today, the way things stand on the issue of coal mining, the demand of power and the issue of tariffs for the consumer, are you optimistic about India’s coal scene?

No, I’m not.

Why?

We have a long way to go and it is a tough task and there are strong legacy issues. And till those legacy issues are hit head on, these are issues where jugaad is not going to take you very far. You are stuck with certain cancelled coal blocks which have come through the Supreme Court, and you have the coal nationalisation act, you bring in an ordinance and then you continue with the system of allocating coal to the end-users. This is all changing through jugaad, move this here, push this out of the way.

So we need to use a lot of rethinking on how we envision our grid, we should be maybe go in for distributed power generation using various other kinds of fuels. We should be going in for reforms that allow peak time tariffs, so that at peak times you have higher rates of tariffs, that conserve energy which also make sure that alternate fuels like natural gas and all can kick into the grid at the right time.

So the weight is taken off coal which you do not have enough of at the moment. A lot of balancing needs to be done. So unless we take a comprehensive view of the entire energy sector, this piecemeal reform, doesn’t take you very far.

'We are only saying don't eat what we consider sacred'

'Muslims and Christians should understand that the cow is sacred to us. It is not good for health. They should eat something else.'

'Our mission is cow development. We want to produce rivers of milk. The cow should be sacred among people. It should be the national animal.'

The BJP's cow protection crusader Mayankeshwar Singh speaks to A Ganesh Nadar/Rediff.com

Mayankeshwar Singh is the national convenor of the Bharatiya Janata Party's cow development cell.

Last August he led a delegation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking national legislation against cattle slaughter.

Singh, below, left, spoke to A Ganesh Nadar/Rediff.com about his crusade to save the "sacred" cow.

When most states were not slaughtering cows but only bulls and oxen, why are you insisting on banning the slaughter of bulls and oxen too? Hindus don't worship bulls and oxen.

We are protecting cows. We want to protect nature and the environment. We are interested in the progress of villages and employment in villages. You get milk and dairy products from cows.

Cow urine and dung can be used for so many purposes. They are a solution to many problems.

Cow protection is our aim. We have said it in our election slogans.

Why have you left out the water buffalo then? Why is there no ban on buffalo meat?

The cow is sacred, the buffalo is not.

The BJP is the only political party that supports cow development.

When you say cow dung is required for bio-gas, is buffalo dung not useful for the same bio-gas?

Yes, it can be used. But my mission is cow development. We want to produce rivers of milk.

The cow should be sacred among people. It should be the national animal.

There is a Rashtriya Gokul Mission Yojana. Rs 500 crore (Rs 5 billion) is being spent to take care of cows at the block level.

What about exports? Why are we not banning the export of beef?

Is it not wrong that you are depriving beef to Indians and killing the animals for export?

We are banning only cow slaughter. There should be no cow meat in beef exports.

It is the government's policy to allow beef exports and we are not objecting.

We are sending cattle to Bangladesh, but cows will not be allowed. We have all drunk cow's milk, we cannot kill it.

How can the State decide what people eat and what they should not eat?

We are only saying don't eat what we consider sacred. Millions of people believe this. The cow eats grass and gives us milk. People are drinking liquor and not milk.

Some of your supporters claim that pig slaughter is not allowed in Pakistan and therefore cow, ox and bull slaughter must not be allowed in India. We are a secular nation. How can you ban something which Muslims and Christians eat?

We are all human beings, Muslims and Christians included. They should understand that the cow is sacred to us. It is not good for health. They should eat something else.

With a ban on beef, don't you think other meat products like goat and chicken will become expensive and so will vegetables?

How do you plan to control inflation because there are a large number of people who eat beef and when you stop the sale of beef, those people will demand other meat items. What is the BJP doing about that?

'Muslims and Christians should understand that the cow is sacred to us. It is not good for health. They should eat something else.'

'Our mission is cow development. We want to produce rivers of milk. The cow should be sacred among people. It should be the national animal.'

The BJP's cow protection crusader Mayankeshwar Singh speaks to A Ganesh Nadar/Rediff.com

Mayankeshwar Singh is the national convenor of the Bharatiya Janata Party's cow development cell.

Last August he led a delegation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking national legislation against cattle slaughter.

Singh, below, left, spoke to A Ganesh Nadar/Rediff.com about his crusade to save the "sacred" cow.

When most states were not slaughtering cows but only bulls and oxen, why are you insisting on banning the slaughter of bulls and oxen too? Hindus don't worship bulls and oxen.

We are protecting cows. We want to protect nature and the environment. We are interested in the progress of villages and employment in villages. You get milk and dairy products from cows.

Cow urine and dung can be used for so many purposes. They are a solution to many problems.

Cow protection is our aim. We have said it in our election slogans.

Why have you left out the water buffalo then? Why is there no ban on buffalo meat?

The cow is sacred, the buffalo is not.

The BJP is the only political party that supports cow development.

When you say cow dung is required for bio-gas, is buffalo dung not useful for the same bio-gas?

Yes, it can be used. But my mission is cow development. We want to produce rivers of milk.

The cow should be sacred among people. It should be the national animal.

There is a Rashtriya Gokul Mission Yojana. Rs 500 crore (Rs 5 billion) is being spent to take care of cows at the block level.

What about exports? Why are we not banning the export of beef?

Is it not wrong that you are depriving beef to Indians and killing the animals for export?

We are banning only cow slaughter. There should be no cow meat in beef exports.

It is the government's policy to allow beef exports and we are not objecting.

We are sending cattle to Bangladesh, but cows will not be allowed. We have all drunk cow's milk, we cannot kill it.

How can the State decide what people eat and what they should not eat?

We are only saying don't eat what we consider sacred. Millions of people believe this. The cow eats grass and gives us milk. People are drinking liquor and not milk.

Some of your supporters claim that pig slaughter is not allowed in Pakistan and therefore cow, ox and bull slaughter must not be allowed in India. We are a secular nation. How can you ban something which Muslims and Christians eat?

We are all human beings, Muslims and Christians included. They should understand that the cow is sacred to us. It is not good for health. They should eat something else.

With a ban on beef, don't you think other meat products like goat and chicken will become expensive and so will vegetables?

How do you plan to control inflation because there are a large number of people who eat beef and when you stop the sale of beef, those people will demand other meat items. What is the BJP doing about that?

When Hindus ate beef, India was NEVER conquered

'There is a remarkable link between the eating of beef (or at the very least, tolerating the eating of beef) and India being a superpower.'

'In India, whenever an empire was strong, religion took a back seat.'

'Alternatively, whenever religion asserted itself, the main empire of India crumbled...'

'By seeking to ban beef in every state that it rules, the BJP may well be taking India on the route to becoming a weakling,' warns Amberish K Diwanji.

The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in Maharashtra has chosen to ban beef derived from oxen.

Many are up in arms against the move, saying it is aimed at harassing the Muslims and Christians, in particular, and against all non-vegetarians in general (including Hindus) since the cost of other meat will go up with the non-availability of beef in the market. Similar steps have been taken by BJP governments in other states.

For the BJP, banning the slaughter of bulls and oxen (the killing of cows was banned decades ago by the Congress) is part of its aim to assert the nation's Hindu identity.

But the BJP also styles itself as a nationalist government committed to turning India into a superpower. It often recalls a glorious Hindu past, harking back to the likes of Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Chandragupta and Samudragupta, and Harshvardhan. This was in the millennium before Muslims hordes entered India (though Arabs had captured Sind in the 8th century).

The problem is that there is a remarkable link between the eating of beef (or at the very least, tolerating the eating of beef) and India being a superpower. Put another way: In India, whenever an empire was strong, religion took a back seat.

Alternatively, whenever religion asserted itself, the main empire of India crumbled and was soon destroyed by another power, either from within India or from outside India.

Today, by seeking to ban beef in every state that it rules and across India, the BJP may well be taking India on the route to becoming a weakling.

In ancient India, killing and consuming animals was part and parcel of life of all. Hindus then were overwhelmingly non-vegetarian. There are historians who have pointed out that back then Hindus ate beef. And back then, India was never conquered. Never!

Even the mighty Alexander (hailed as 'the Great' by Western historians) merely conquered the Punjab; his troops, fearful of facing the might of Magadha, preferred to return home. It was a Russian historian or military officer (regretfully I can't recall his name) who pointed out that rather than mutiny, as claimed by Western historians, Alexander's troops might have simply refused to fight Magadha after the bruising victory over Porus. The homesickness myth was merely created to explain away this embarrassing retreat across the Indus.

The Magadha Empire was followed by the Gupta Empire, and later that of Harshvardhan, all before or during the first millennium of the Common Era (CE), a time when, historians tell us, Hindus ate not just meat but also beef. Meat eating then was common practice (and caste was based on profession, not birth).

The very fact that Buddhism, which was born and blossomed in north India circa 200-300 BCE (Before CE), places absolutely no restriction on eating beef shows that back then, there was no restriction on eating beef among the Hindus, which practice Buddhism followed.

By contrast, Sikhism, born more than 1,500 years later in northwest India, accepted the then prevailing practice of not consuming beef (even as Sikhs devour other meat).

In contrast, Jainism, born around the same time as Buddhism, banned the killing of all animals, thus forever restricting itself to a narrow fringe of followers such as traders.

But do note, when consuming meat and beef was common practice, it was Hindu emperors who ruled over this huge subcontinent. Similarly, at the cusp of the first and second millennia CE, the Chola Empire, with meat-eating kings and soldiers, achieved unmatched glory in creating a maritime empire as far as Indonesia.

A later legatee of this empire, a Hindu based in Southeast Asia, would create the world's largest temple in faraway Angkor Wat of Kampuchea (Cambodia).

Towards the end of the first millennium CE, some changes took place in India. Buddhism waned and Hinduism, with a system of caste based on birth, reasserted itself. The revival was led by Adi Sankaracharya. Somewhere around this time, some castes chose to distinguish themselves from the Hindu masses by resorting to vegetarianism.

Brahmins, who had overcome the challenge of Buddhism, increasingly became vegetarian, along with the Banias (who were strongly influenced by the Jains). Why this happened is not yet very clear.

Simultaneously, there was born the ridiculous myth of vegetarian diet being 'superior' to the non-vegetarian diet, if only to help the Brahmin assert his own superiority over the other castes.

Now the coincidence: As vegetarianism spread among the influential sections of the Hindus, they suffered repeated defeats. Through the second millennium CE, Hindus would never rule over the larger part of India (till 1947), and would be subjugated to empires that were created by Turks, Afghans, Mughals, Portuguese, and lastly the British.

All of them meat eaters, all of them beef eaters. The only Hindus who came close to ruling India were the Marathas (who love their mutton!).

A professor of comparative religions, Arvind Sharma, has argued that Hindus turning away from beef actually happened after Hindus lost political power to the Muslims. Not killing the cow became a mark of identity and faith.

The theory is that Hindus stopped eating beef as a cultural assertion and reaction to the presence of Muslims in their midst, similar to Brahmins turning completely vegetarian to stand out among fellow Hindus.

There is merit in this argument: One tends to assert one's identity when feeling threatened. Just see how Indians abroad behave!

The rise and fall of empires is much more than just diet. When a Rajput defeated a fellow Rajput, they both shared similar diets, as did the different Muslims kings who fought each other (Turks, Afghans, Mughals), and later when the Portuguese and British faced each other.

Many, many factors go into the rise and fall of empires (it is an entire subject by itself). The better known reasons include politics, population, economic power, and military prowess.

There are also other reasons such as the role of religion (usually negative), social factors, and technological advancement (which, in itself, is a reflection of society).

But what is undeniable about the history of India is that those who ruled India for most of the first and second millennia, regardless of religion, ate meat. And beef. Let us ponder that thought as we go about banning various forms of beef.

Yet, eating or not eating beef is not really the issue. It is merely a reflection of the tolerance that the ruling class shows for the people and their faiths. What is undeniable in India is the inverse link between a strong State and secularism (howsoever defined).

In India, whenever religion has asserted itself, the State (empire or kingdom) has crumbled (sooner or later).

Alternatively, whenever a ruler kept religion (and religious practices howsoever important for the followers of that faith) at bay, that kingdom became an empire, and the empire in turn prospered.

Thus, Asoka's turn to Buddhism led to his empire ending within years of his demise. Akbar's secularism saw him create a strong Mughal empire, one of the mightiest in the world then (exactly what we aspire for India today), but with a few decades of his death, Aurangzeb's religious policies saw the Mughal empire crumble from within.

Less well known is that the Peshwas's increased religiosity is probably what stopped the Marathas from replacing the Mughals.

For instance, before the Third Battle of Panipat, the Marathas had in tow some 30,000 pilgrims keen to visit the temple towns of north India. Pilgrims accompanying an army! Then, when cholera broke out in the enemy camp and the best strategy would have been to attack (in the December 1760-January 1761 period), religious considerations about an auspicious time meant the Marathas waited till the day of Makar Sankranti.

How can religion decide battle tactics? A far cry from the time when Shivaji decided his battle plans based on intelligence, not religion. The Portuguese failed to build an empire because they were too busy converting people to Christianity, and turning the general public against them.

By contrast, the East India Company kept religion at bay even as its plunder activities turned to empire building.

In that context, the increasing Hinduisation of India, the determination of some politicians to assert the Hindu religion within India, is the recipe for the weakening of India. If that should happen it is just a matter of time before India weakens internally.

THE EXAMPLE OF GUJARAT

Gujaratis are perceived as being overwhelmingly vegetarian. They are not; but the dominant castes, such as the Jains, Banias, Brahmins, and Patidars are vegetarian. When under British rule, as the trading class of Gujaratis (vegetarian) set up trading post across India and the world, they gave the impression of a vegetarian Gujarat.

M K Gandhi, a Modh Bania, and Vallabhbhai Patel, a Patidar, further cemented the notion of Gujaratis as vegetarian. It is true that many Gujaratis are vegetarian. But not all! And no one can deny that Gujaratis are one of India's most successful communities in the commercial world.

While the Gujaratis's commercial success is undeniable, their military history is marked with failure. Gujarat (or what is now Gujarat) is one of India's most conquered states, having come under the Rajputs, Turks, Afghans, Mughals, Marathas, and finally the British. Excluding the British, the others over time became a part of the state.

While Gujarati society makes a virtue of being vegetarian, it has not helped fend off invaders.

There is nothing wrong in being vegetarian. It is every person's personal choice. There is, however, everything wrong in believing, and propagating, howsoever latently, the notion that vegetarian societies or people are superior. Or that a country is better for it.

The history of India, and Gujarat, shows that those not tolerating beef or meat, sooner or later, come under the rule of invaders. Let those who seek to ban beef realise that behind great powers have been meat consumers.

How black money finds its way out of India, and how it comes back as white

 In February 2008, R Prasad, the then chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), led a team of tax sleuths to Port Louis, the capital city of Mauritius.

Backed by a team from the ministry of external affairs, Prasad made an attempt to convince Mauritius officials to re-negotiate the double tax avoidance agreement (DTAA), which was resulting in massive tax losses to India

Prasad's attempt was unsuccessful, but what he discovered in the process was startling: a handful of persons acted as directors for about 30,000 companies located in that island nation. Also, companies there exist only on paper, as addresses of many of those begin with a mere post box number.

"Mauritius and many other tax havens act as buffers to bring back India's black money as white.

And the challenge before the investigators is to establish the criminality of those involved in such activities," says Prasad, who retired as CBDT chairman six years ago.

Now, the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black money wants such tax treaties to be re-drafted, a move that will put the government in a spot.

Only this week, a reluctant government had to hand over to the apex court a complete list of 627 Indians who have accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva.

"The debate so far has been what comes first: investment or tax? Is India ready to sacrifice investments worth billions of dollars for the sake of some tax gain? So far as Mauritius is concerned, any retreat from India's side will allow China to woo the island nation," says a finance ministry official who did not want to be named, explaining why New Delhi hasn't been assertive with Mauritius, a nation where Indian defence forces harbour strategic interests.

In Black and White

While tax havens like Mauritius will help black money come back into the country as white, Indians continue to send illicit money abroad.

This is done through various methods, hawala transactions — where money is transferred abroad without any real movement of funds — being one of them although, according to a finance ministry white paper on black money released two years ago, hawala transactions have actually dwindled over the past decade.

"In recent years, after the 9/11 incident in the US, due to intense scrutiny of banking transactions, enhanced security checks at airports and ports and relaxation of exchange controls, transfer of money through hawala has reduced significantly," says the report. "...increasing pressure on financial operators and banks to report cash transactions has also helped in curbing hawala transactions."

However, there are other methods to siphon black money out of the country, two of which are manipulation of export invoices and setting up of trusts abroad.

Two income-tax officials told ET Magazine that a large number of the accounts of the 627 names based on data stolen by an employee of HSBC, Geneva, would be of such trusts. The modus operandi adopted here is as follows: black money moves abroad through routes like hawala.

Then a trust is formed in, let's assume, the Netherlands. The trustees in this case will be Dutch nationals, but the beneficiaries will be relatives of an Indian back home who put in the initial corpus.

"But we can initiate a probe only when money gets reflected in the accounts of the beneficiaries," explains one of the tax officials.

As the incometax department and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now work under SIT, one can expect more urgency in the mission to bring back unaccounted money. Yet, genuine hurdles may come in the way of that endeavour.

The classic example of such a hurdle is seen in the case of Pune-based stud farm-owner Hasan Ali Khan, who was raided by the I-T department seven years ago. Documents and data in his laptop established that he had a Swiss bank account with a whopping $8 billion (roughly Rs 48,000 crore) in deposits. Ali was sent to jail, but the ED that probes money laundering cases found out from the Swiss authorities that Ali's accounts had been emptied.

The multi-billion dollar question then: how many of the 627 whose names exist in a sealed cover would have done the same?

How a two-year-old firm is hitting a daily turnover of Rs 4,000 crore today

If the lives of start-up founders are about sweat, blood and tears, no one told the trio at Mumbai-based discount broking firm RKSV.

"To be honest, we have had a considerably smooth ride," says Raghu Kumar, one of the three promoters, briefly describing in a matter-of-fact tone their two-year journey as entrepreneurs. He means it.

Rather, he prefers to let the numbers speak. Within two years of starting operations and largely operating in a dull market, RKSV is now clocking daily turnover of Rs 4,000 crore.

That's about 1.3 per cent of total turnover of NSE, in a business where even the leaders are at 5-6 per cent. For the US-bred trio — Raghu, brother Ravi and their friend Shrinivas Viswanath — it was a move by the Indian capital market regulator to allow algorithmic trading that encouraged them to dip their toes in Indian waters.

And when the Securities and Exchange Board of India allowed the direct market access (DMA) facility in April 2008, which gives investors direct access to a stock exchange's trading system, they decided to put in both their feet.

Prior to 2009, their only connection with India was the occasional visit to meet relatives. "DMA was the reason we came to India. We saw a lot of opportunities and wanted to explore them," says Raghu, a University of Illinois graduate in actuarial science and finance.

The concept of algorithmic, or high frequency, trading was not alien to them. Before coming to India, the brothers were active in the US foreign exchange markets between 2006 and 2008.

But, in October 2008, they had to wind up after the global financial markets imploded; trading opportunities had dried up, liquidity had shrunk and spreads had widened enough. By then, however, they made a killing of about $2 million, giving them the self-belief — and the capital — to explore other business ideas.

Against The Tide

In 2009, Raghu and Ravi, along with Viswanath, a computer engineer in New York, shifted base to India. Although the Indian markets were alien to them, funding a venture was never a problem.

Raghu and Ravi spent the first two years trading with their own money, which helped them gauge the pulse of the market here. Meanwhile, they secured a membership to the Bombay Stock Exchange, which had slashed its fees significantly to rope in more members.

After making good money in the two years in proprietary trading, they saw stockbroking as a natural progression. But to set up shop in India, at the time they did, was a contrarian call.

Disappointed by the previous government's tardy attitude towards business and economic policies, business confidence in India had hit its nadir. Foreign investors were wary and several nonresident Indians (NRIs) were returning to countries where they held passports. The broking industry was bleeding too. While competition in institutional broking business was fierce, retail investors had deserted the markets.

But there was still a segment of market participants that was underserved: traders, for whom high brokerage costs was making it difficult to make money. "We realised there were many traders who did not have cheaper options to trade," says Kumar. "What shocked us was the number of branches that retail brokerages had, which is not the case in the US."

It did not take too much time for RKSV's business to pick up as its relatively-older rival Zerodha had taken the plunge by then. Although there was little that RKSV could do to hold an edge in terms of technology, it managed to attract clients by launching the 'unlimited trading model', where traders can transact for as many times at a fixed cost.

Currently, RKSV has about 20,000 clients. They are serviced by about 50 employees from its office in Mumbai's emerging financial services hub, Bandra-Kurla Complex. Raghu said the firm is looking to double its client base to about 40,000 in 2014-15. That's not bad for a two-year-old, first-generation firm.

STARTED: 2012 (retail trading)

FOUNDERS: Raghu Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Shrinivas Viswanath

CLIENTS: 20,000

DAILY TRADING TURNOVER: Rs 4,000 crore

REVENUES: Not disclosed

EMPLOYEES: 50