Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2009 21:49

He said "fabricate" not one that will work.

That is what he is claiming for S1 too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 21:52

NRao wrote:He said "fabricate" not one that will work.

That is what he is claiming for S1 too.

It's all been fabricated. Brilliant stuff. The man's wicked sense of humor is devastating.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2009 21:58

Consistent too.

Truth-fullness and consistency are two extremely good qualities to have in a man.

Reliability should follow.

But, for blue-ribbon panels India needs outsiders.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 22:12

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Because we "can"

----

Sorry couldn't resist
No this is true. We can. But they must produce fusion neutrons to be called Neutron bombs. I was just wondering whether Mr Santhanam had a temporary delusional belief in India's ability to produce high energy neutrons. As an insider he clearly knew that no fusion or very little fusion occurred in May 1998 - so his statement of 1998 seems to contradict his 2009 position.

Which is correct?

S1 device not working is not the same as not being able to make a fusion weapon and consequently a neutron weapon.

This is as true for RC saying "yes we can" as for Santy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 22:15

harbans wrote:.............

Indeed thats what the PIB press release from GOI says. He was not privy.

Dr. Chidambaram wondered how without the knowledge of the design, the nature of fission-fusion break-up and quantity of thermo-nuclear material, Mr. Iyengar could calculate the efficiency the fuel burnt as 10%. He said, “no one outside the design team had the data to calculate fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn”.
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813

PKI says some fusion took place while the official position is it was as designed. And since one doesnt know what the design was they (ones who deduce) are not correct.
Those who design such systems in past (PKI) would be able to make deductions which support their conclusions. Its not like a history prof making a deduction on stellar astronomy. Its a nuke physcist making deductions on the a physics package.

If the red statment is de-constructed then the case falls apart. For the site signatures can all be understood.
Most likely those isotopes were from the pry itself. and that is the crux of the problem. For crediblity of the TN capability the result has to be what was stated.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Oct 2009 22:18

shiv wrote: Which is correct?

Two possibilities:

- He was still part of the establishment and hence speculating on the "potential" capabilities, regardless of his own assessment of the failure of S1. Meaning, he was being a good soldier, who made his objections known, a decision was made and life moved on, till he was firmly out, nothing more to loose personally but felt

- He had no clue of what he was talking about, when he made the statement in 98 and did not have clue on the S1 design. He was out of the loop and as usual he was being a "maverick" by saying things like India can fabricate a neutron bomb...

Take your pick.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Oct 2009 22:34

Sanku wrote:
harbans wrote: He should point out why he still supports some international experts on the Seismic part of the tests, when Sikka has given a technical rebuttal.
As I understand, the game had long ago moved away from the use of support of international experts from KS end. He is now clearly talking of the establishment data itself and wants a third party (within country) inquiry.

However we did discuss on BRF that the seismic part of test can not be proven or dis-proven without the access to the constants and measurements for various parameters of equations that are used.

As I understand the biggest flaw in the Sikka papers etc is that they do not use data from Pokharan but use internationally published data for other Seismic regions. This is justified in the name of preserving secrecy of tests (I dont know what secrecy dont ask me )

Thus both the Indian and the firangi papers use data which is from outside India. It then becomes whom to believe.

Basically the papers do not completely quash the open question.

On radiology there are many issues

1) KS says that the paper that Sikka et al have put does not show enough data to make the claim that the paper makes
2) Arun_S reviewed the paper and laid various issues with it
3) Shiv and others (including NPA) have said that the radiological method in the paper is not THE method which is the most accurate but some other method of questionable accuracy.

The word used for the paper (not mine) has been Shitty science. Issues have been raised about the quality of journals in which these peer reviewed papers have been posted as well.

Complicated aint it.

I'm unsure about the actual meaning of Gopalkrishnan's statement, but "international experts" could/might very well mean INTERNATIONAL-CLASS experts (or WORLD-CLASS EXPERTS) from India. Surely, nobody in their right senses (and with Gopalkrishnan's experience) would:

1. Suggest that Indian data be reviewed by non-Indians, or Indians with interests outside India.
2. Label RC, SKS, APJK,.... as international-class experts.

Perhaps this might clear up the matter for some people.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Oct 2009 22:50

ramana wrote:
harbans wrote:.............

Indeed thats what the PIB press release from GOI says. He was not privy.

quote]Dr. Chidambaram wondered how without the knowledge of the design, the nature of fission-fusion break-up and quantity of thermo-nuclear material, Mr. Iyengar could calculate the efficiency the fuel burnt as 10%. He said, “no one outside the design team had the data to calculate fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn”. /quote]
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print ... elid=52813
PKI says some fusion took place while the official position is it was as designed. And since one doesnt know what the design was they (ones who deduce) are not correct.
Those who design such systems in past (PKI) would be able to make deductions which support their conclusions. Its not like a history prof making a deduction on stellar astronomy. Its a nuke physcist making deductions on the a physics package.

If the red statment is de-constructed then the case falls apart. For the site signatures can all be understood.
Most likely those isotopes were from the pry itself. and that is the crux of the problem. For credibility of the TN capability the result has to be what was stated.

I would emphasize that the pry in question was FBF with ~1/5 part of the yield from fusion. RC's isotope statement thus make no sense.

Secondly it is very likely that Santhanam has data from close in sacrificial (X-ray) sensor that will unambiguously show fusion versus fission yield, not to mention CORRTEX data that unambiguously provide measure of total yield.

I think time will tell (sooner rather than later). Advantage of being with truth is that one does not have to peddle hard (the river of truth carries one forward), while those who are peddling against the current of truth, can peddle as hard as they can (on after burner) yet with time will succumb.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 01 Oct 2009 23:00

Just out of curiosity, who are the international-class experts in nuclear weapon design in India? What is the criterion to identify them? It seems like publication in top refereed journals might not be a good criterion since unlike scientists in civilian institutions, those involved in weapons research or even in sensitive civilian technologies rarely publish in refereed journals. So how do we identify such experts?

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 01 Oct 2009 23:47

Arun_S wrote:I'm unsure about the actual meaning of Gopalkrishnan's statement, but "international experts" could/might very well mean INTERNATIONAL-CLASS experts (or WORLD-CLASS EXPERTS) from India. Surely, nobody in their right senses (and with Gopalkrishnan's experience) would:

1. Suggest that Indian data be reviewed by non-Indians, or Indians with interests outside India.
2. Label RC, SKS, APJK,.... as international-class experts.

Perhaps this might clear up the matter for some people.

Arun you are right. Till now india very well hid our strengths and weakness in nuclear program. That ambiguity gave us a lot of advantage. Once we bring international experts or INTERNATIONAL-CLASS experts with interests outside India our nuclear program will be an open book.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 Oct 2009 23:55

Sridhar wrote:Just out of curiosity, who are the international-class experts in nuclear weapon design in India? What is the criterion to identify them? It seems like publication in top refereed journals might not be a good criterion since unlike scientists in civilian institutions, those involved in weapons research or even in sensitive civilian technologies rarely publish in refereed journals. So how do we identify such experts?

If one has to go outside of BARC to comprise the team, then it has to be from a broad range of disciplines, nuclear physics, metallurgy, seismologists and DRDO specialists from outside the weapons programs. Each will have to review aspects which touch upon their individual expertise and a consensus arrived at. It will be a voice vote again or something like that.

But then what about the levels of clearance to be given to these individuals. How it can impact their lives. Can they collaborate with institutions outside of India freely ? There is a whole host of questions which gets murky when dug deeper. Lot of the tifr, sinp types have professional connections world wide.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 01:13

I feel the first thing that needs to happen is that both side (and, there are two sides) need to cool it + media IN PARTICULAR needs to stop words like "trash", "rubbish", "hits out", etc (it is just too childish and does not contribute to the discussion). That other shoe to fall in three week (now two I assume), should NOT fall in public for the time being.

On a blue-ribbon panel. Sridhar has a very valid point. There is no way that the details of this topic can be made public in any way. And, based on the protocols of ANY country, even Sethana and PKI are "public". Granted they may not be a security risk, but that does not mean that they have automatic access to very sensitive information. It DOES mean that they can be granted access to this "very sensitive information". But, I really do not see that happening and there is really no use clamoring for it. The more noise that is made the harder it will be for them to be considered for access to thsi very sensitive information - specially if it is done via the media (op-ed, etc). No country works that way. And, GoI is well within protocol to do whatever is they see fit (I am not a big fan of MMS or GoI).

Now, how do we resolve this issue? Outside of a blue-ribbon panel or testing (this time with the entire world scicom as a referee), I do not think there is an option - AT ALL.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2009 01:13

may be the scientist(s) must have a passport, and must have visited at least one international destination and reviewed something similar.

./sorry. there is an ulterior motivation in mentioning that I word.

or it could be just a ddmities virus with h1n1 variant (remember our desi culture as this "export" quality marks).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 01:15

El-Baradei was in New Delhi getting an award from GOI for the NSG waiver etc.

dhu wrote:
So now the "debate" is being framed as CTBT versus NPT!!!

Do not expect India to sign NPT in present form: ElBaradei

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammad ElBaradei has said that he does not expect India to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, but feels the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty could be more "acceptable".

"I do not expect India to sign the NPT in its present form...Maybe the CTBT would be more acceptable," he told in an interview to a television news channel.

His remarks assume significance in the wake of the United Nations Security Council adopting a resolution asking all non-NPT states, including India, to sign the NPT.

India has made it clear that it will not sign the pact as a non-weapon state as atomic arsenals are integral to its security.

The IAEA chief said India has to lead efforts for complete nuclear disarmament, an idea it first mooted as far back as in 1948.

ElBaradei, who received the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, said the world was looking to India for the future of nuclear energy research and development, according to a press release issued by the news channel.

On reports of Iran ..

So see the recent outbursts from this POV. There is pressure on the CTBT. A guest getting an award from GOI is saying this!

If GOI says the POKII were enough then the corollary is why do you need to keep option open?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 01:20

NRao as I see it the psot-shot paper will be the next to get scrutiny. Its the only leg.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 01:24

ramana wrote:NRao as I see it the psot-shot paper will be the next to get scrutiny. Its the only leg.

Scrutiny by whom?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 01:25

NRao wrote:
ramana wrote:NRao as I see it the psot-shot paper will be the next to get scrutiny. Its the only leg.
Scrutiny by whom?

By those who want to understand what went on.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 01:27

So it (rebuttal) will come out in Current Science, which is a bi-monthly. Hence the 2-3 week wait ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2009 01:28

by the International experts!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 01:31

Gee, if the NASA moon experts could publish in Curr.Sc. the first detailed papers about their payloads, sure the international experts can also publish their rebuttals there.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 01:37

ramana wrote:
NRao wrote:
Scrutiny by whom?
By those who want to understand what went on.

Just to be clear - that is outside the "international expert" group? (I hope.)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 01:43

Read Chapter 17 & 18 of this book and page 291 for timepass

US-UK Nuclear Cooperation 50 years

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2009 01:50

I was wondering going by this peer review logic and rebuttal demand isn't it incumbent upon Dr. KS ji to first publish a paper on the findings from DRDO measurements and establish his case ?

Also from whatever little I could understand and grasp from the post shot radio-chem paper it no where claims to be a comprehensive and 'stand alone' proof of the measured yield.

Here to quote some nuggets

Recently, radiochemical measurements were carried out at BARC on the samples extracted from the thermonuclear test site at Pokhran, and the result of these measurements also proved that the yield of the thermonuclear device was 50 ± 10kT, which is in close proximity to the estimated value of 45kT.

Several measurement strategies involving estimation of fission and fusion reactants, different fission and activation products and their daughter products are used to estimate the yield. It is also essential that a large number of samples be analysed to obtain the pattern of the distribution of these activities and, wherever necessary, evolve a method of integration to obtain the overall activity produced since any small sample taken in this puddle can hardly be expected to be a true representative of concentrations which can be related to the yield. What is reported here is one such methodology.

For instance:Is it only me for I don't see the Fig .4 and Fig. 5 graphs with any graduations on the 'x' and the 'y' axis which definitely must not have been the case when the actual readings were taken; I wonder what sort of scrutiny can such data be subjected to .

Infact if folks here would remember when NPAs got hold of this radio-chem paper they were frustrated for they knew that they could get hold of nothing in the paper to make any attempt to challenge the yield.

All in all it appears that all the papers published in public domain by BARC on S-1 were published on 'need to know' basis only not for a scrutiny by nobel committee or International Nuclear fraternity , the details were never divulged and I am not at all surprised.Even most fancy papers which I managed to google up (even from Lawrence livermore et al ) on nuclear tests clearly obfuscate the 'critical' details of the experiment.

Lastly the paper concludes with

The possible sources of error in the measurement of fission yield are : assay of radioactivity (5-7%); nuclear data such as half life, gamma-ray branching intensity and fission yields (8%); and the error in integration which arises mainly due to the error in Rc (15%). In the assessment of fusion yield, the sources of errors are uncertainty in the elemental composition of the surrounding rock and its effect on the neutron spectrum used in the Monte Carlo simulations of the activity. The propagation of these errors leads to an overall error on the measured yield which is around 20%. Thus it is concluded that the total yield of the thermonuclear device is 50 + 10 kT.

Now is it too hard to understand that this '20%' figure for overall error% can actually account for all the discrepancies which people might find in the paper (which itself will be a prety hard thing to do given the lack of key 'data').

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 02:07

Negi saar, you understood the essence of the obfuscation of unneeded details using a scientific argument of estimation of errors. That section is very well written. Need to read the whole thing sometime.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 02:10

nuclear data such as half life, gamma-ray branching intensity and fission yields (8%);

This is the ultimate constraint isn't it ? How can one beat physics in improving the yield calculation any better than 8-10%, if individual factorial contributions themselves have similar uncertainty estimates. So a 20% error is not bad at all.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2009 02:16

Bade guru

To be honest not the rigorous error analysis itself but yes I appreciate the difference between papers which are presented for academic purposes and the one's which are published for an outsider to take a peek at the inside stuff.

As for Physics I am yet to solve the problem posted by Amber ji in Physics thread (which afaik is +2 level).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 02:17

negi wrote: All in all it appears that all the papers published in public domain by BARC on S-1 were published on 'need to know' basis only not for a scrutiny by nobel committee or International Nuclear fraternity , the details were never divulged and I am not at all surprised.Even most fancy papers which I managed to google up (even from Lawrence livermore et al ) on nuclear tests clearly obfuscate the 'critical' details of the experiment.

That is my point. This entire field is so explosive (note that AK/RC mentioned "proliferation"), not to even state competitive, that to think data on significance would be in the public domain for any of us to make even inferential conclusions is too much.

Now is it too hard to understand that this '20%' figure for overall error% can actually account for all the discrepancies which people might find in the paper (which itself will be a prety hard thing to do given the lack of key 'data').

I do not think it will be hard to compute the error, but two items of interest: 1) it will be based on what is presented in the paper (as you point out), and 2) the confidence level may be an issue that could be discussed to death and even a voice vote will not resolve the issue. Hmmmmmmmmm..........

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 02:29

But this 8-10% figure is giving me ...ok let me calm down

bum1 yield is 100kt+/-10kt
bum1 yield is 200kt+/-20kt
bum2 yield is 500Kt+/-50kt
bum3 yield is 1Mt+/- 100kt

what where did the equivalent yield of one useful type-bum1 go when it exploded over peking duck ?

There are still a few standing peking far suburbs after that one went kaboom ...it was a fizzle onlee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 02:37

Bade ji,

Unless you are going to hand deliver it, there is an error in the delivery system to consider too. Looks like an error has just entered the Chicom's delivery system (3rd stage). However, reduce that confidence level and everything will explode over the right place and the right height.

Which is why I like to stick to "deterrence" - that is +/-100%. You either sleep well or you do not. Nothing in between.

Anyways, that was fun..............................

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 02 Oct 2009 03:26

Interesting info on our friend KS from ajay shukla :

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... ofile.html

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Oct 2009 03:39

Check this joker

Anonymous said...
“A couple of 20-kiloton bombs over Beijing are never, never, never going to bring China to its knees.”

I have a question for Dr.Santhanam with regards to his above statement. "Doc you are saying a 20 Kn nuke is not enough?!! Which country in the world can shrug off even a 1Kn nuke falling on any of it's neighbourhoods? Talk sense old man! I think we have enough deterrent already."

01 OCTOBER 2009 16:28

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 03:51

OK. How about 10 20 Kt over Beijing.

Or 5 over Hong Kong and 5 over their bread basket?

India is supposed to have around 70-100 nukes. Assuming ALL of them are 20 Kt and India unloads 50% of them, still that 35 * 20 Kt.

Would China accept that as a deterrent?

As an ex-RAW person I respect what Santhanam has stated.

But, I do feel that that is enough as a deterrence.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 02 Oct 2009 04:34

And ofcourse, if you find a post that you think is crossing boundaries. Use the Report

function. Let the non participating mods do their jobs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 05:11

Acharya,

Did some very, very crude calcs based on the KT/population_density/death/injured @ Hiroshima.

WRT Beijing:
@ 15 Kt (about the size of Little Boy) you can expect 600,000+ deaths and an equal amount injured.
@ 25 Kt you can expect 1 mil death and 1 mil injured per nuke.

(Simple ratios and straight line extrapolation.)

Assuming India can get ALL her nukes out and they ALL work, that is about 35 mil dead and another 35 mil injured. With the entire area that is nuked out for about 5-10 years (depends).

Now, I am not sure what Santhanam means by "bring China to its knees". The question i would have for him is does he think that these kind of projections would PREVENT china from using her nukes (of course, again, the assumption is that India can successfully retaliate).

??????????????????

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 05:26

NRao wrote: Which is why I like to stick to "deterrence" - that is +/-100%. You either sleep well or you do not. Nothing in between.

I see what you are saying, that there is 100% implied confidence if there is no intention to use them. But then again if all parties in this game of chicken, have the same or similar inefficiencies, then one can know for sure then there still remains deterrence, right ? The 10% contribution to the design inefficiency is because the nuclear fizzicists could not measure things accurately enough which makes the core of the weapon design uncertain for all parties.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 05:47

Bade ji,

As I see it there are three things/topic of interest:

1) The TN itself, specially WRT what Santhanam stated,
2) The %error for ALL (not just TN) Indian nukes (and actually missiles too), and
3) Deterrence.

I tried my best WRT #1 (crater, depth, etc, etc, etc). Jury is still out I feel and will never get resolved. It cannot IMHO. even with a blue-ribbon panel. It just cannot. But, I am willing to see what KS has after his three week hibernation.

#2 is open season. One can cut this cake in which ever way they want to assign a error to every piece and have fun. Stats is always fun. IF I were a politician I would reduce that confidence level and say anything I want and statistically it would be correct. And, of course get elected too.

#3 - to me - is rather simple. It is what I need to do to make SURE that the other guy does not start fireworks (send his nukes). That is it. It does not depend on Kt/Mt/number of nukes/missiles/etc. IF China is willing to accept X millions killed, Y million injured and 1/4 of the nation unusable for 20 years (ALL assumptions) then India has no deterrence. What I am saying is that China will not and cannot expect even a single missile from going through. India will be a glass parking lot - for sure, but that does not matter (as someone was saying the injured envy the dead). I honestly feel that nuclear war is OK to talk about and all, but I very much doubt that the P-5 and India would start one. Someone else may ...............

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 02 Oct 2009 05:48

Bade wrote: Current Science has low impact, maybe because it is not read and quoted much elsewhere. Though personally I do not see much issue with its quality. But then IIT system also has low impact till some of their products are chiseled at better impact institutions around the world. But do we condemn its utility entirely ? No, similarly we should encourage and not run down an indigenous (how I hate that word) effort to have a place for putting our flag. Anyway, I do not agree with either 1) or 2) you listed there.

bade bhai, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that when it comes to publishing their work, they will publish in the best journal possible. Science has no boundaries. In this case, CS was chosen, not for nationalistic reasons, but because either the science was "shitty", or that they did not want to disclose "classified" info, without which the article would have holes, or not be compelling enough for a good journal. Think about it, a nuclear FBF type explosion is unique data, it could have been accepted by a good journal such as Nature or Science. Mr.Chidambaram, has on many occasions published in higher ranked International Journals/Book Series, so it is not that he publishes in CS for nationalistic reasons. If you want to be charitable, maybe they did not want to disclose the details of their experiments.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 05:59

Guddu wrote:any scientist worth his salt will tell you that when it comes to publishing their work, they will publish in the best journal possible. Science has no boundaries. In this case, CS was chosen, not for nationalistic reasons, but because either the science was "shitty", or that they did not want to disclose "classified" info, without which the article would have holes, or not be compelling enough for a good journal. Think about it, a nuclear FBF type explosion is unique data, it could have been accepted by a good journal such as Nature or Science. Mr.Chidambaram, has on many occasions published in higher ranked International Journals/Book Series, so it is not that he publishes in CS for nationalistic reasons. If you want to be charitable, maybe they did not want to disclose the details of their experiments.

No problem there with what you say, except the term in quotes with an 'S'. It is classified information and hence will not be disclosed is the fundamental argument. Extrapolation from there that the data or the analysis is insufficient for standards expected of best journals are irrelevant. So why even argue along those lines.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Oct 2009 06:00

NRao wrote:Acharya,

Did some very, very crude calcs based on the KT/population_density/death/injured @ Hiroshima.

Assuming India can get ALL her nukes out and they ALL work, that is about 35 mil dead and another 35 mil injured. With the entire area that is nuked out for about 5-10 years (depends).

Now, I am not sure what Santhanam means by "bring China to its knees". The question i would have for him is does he think that these kind of projections would PREVENT china from using her nukes (of course, again, the assumption is that India can successfully retaliate).

It is not about these numbers but about the perception inside the mind of the Chinese elite. They have been known to agree to sacrifice 100s of millions of chinese citizens to further their goals.
Any indication of lack of credibility or smaller size of the yield in their eyes will bring down the deterrence value. Chinese Han homogeneous social group have their own hubris which looks down on other cultures. Other societies are considered weak societies. Military capability is the only perception

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 06:02

Guddu wrote: Science has no boundaries. .

A small quibble here. Fact is that marginally good work will get into great journals based on personal contacts, I have had my own paper ages ago - see list of authors re-ordered and accepted in a top journal after a WASP to WASP phone call. With my name in front - the paper wasn't going anywhere. It is another matter that my life does not follow a publish or perish paradigm - so no skin off my nose.

I think part of the brainwashing we have all received is the faith that science has no boundaries. It has racial boundaries alright.

Indians are the only people who do not consider peer validation from India good enough and demand peer validation from outside India. This IMO is a national disease. There are two castes of "peers" in any speciality - the "High table peers" who are foreign/international and the "low caste peers" who are wholly Indian.