Srikrishna speaks to Karna in Udyoga Parvam of Mahabharatam

Srikrishna speaks to Karna in Udyoga Parvam of Mahabharatam
Karanam Ramakumar

In Udyoga Parvam of Mahabharatam, Srikrishna goes to Hastinapura as representative of Pandavas, who, after thirteen years of vanavasam, wanted that Dhritarashtra part their share of kingdom back to them. All the persuasions of Srikrishna come to nought. On his return journey, Srikrishna urges Karna to accompany him for a while. Srikrishna reveals to Karna that he is not Radheya but the eldest of kaunteyas, in fact elder to Yudhistir also. What follows is a beautiful exposition of Srikrishna's entreaties to Karna soliciting his return to Pandava clan and accept his rightful place to become emperor of Kuru dynasty.

There is one dialogue of Srikrishna unto Karna that attracted extensive discussion and  debate among the scholars. Towards the end of his entreaties, Srikrishna says to Karna:

राजन्या  राजकन्याश्चाप्यानयन्त्वाभिषेचनम् 

षष्टे च त्वां तथा काले द्रौपद्युपगमिष्ग्यति 

The above text is taken from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's website (Maharishi university of management, Vedic literature collection). With a view to having as authentic Sanskrit text as possible, I accessed different editions of Mahabharata published previously. These include

• Mahabharata with Bhavadipa commentary of Nilakantha, published by Gopal Narayan and Co., Bombay, 1901. According to the publishers this edition is dated to 17th century. Subsequent editions of Mahabharata both from North and South India did refer to this edition.
• Sriman Mahabharatam, a new edition, mainly based on the Southern Indian Texts, with footnotes and readings, published by T.R. Krishnacharya, proprietor, Madhva Vilas Book Depot, Kumbakonam, printed by R.V. Shedge for the proprietor at the Nirnayasagar Press, 28 Kolbhat Lane, Bombay (1914)
• The Mahabharata (Southern Recension), critically edited by P.P.S. Sastri, B.A. (Oxon), M.A., published by Vavilla Ramaswamy Sastrulu and Sons, Madras (1931-1933).
• Critical Edition of Mahabharata: Electronic text of Mahabharata (Critical Edition) available from Dr. Muneo Tokunaga and Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) and Dr. John Smith

In addition to the above texts, I also accessed 4 editions of Andhra Mahabharatam: published by Vavilla Ramaswamy pantulu and Sons, Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy, Osmania University, and Tirumala Tirupati Devastanamulu (this one through discussion with my brother Sampath Kumar).

Further, I referred to The Mahabharata KRISHNA-DWAIPAYANA VYASA: VOL IV: VIRATA and UDYOGA PARVA, Translated into English prose from the original Sanskrit Text By PRATAP CHANDRA ROY, C. I. E., ORIENTAL PUBLISHING CO., 11D, ARPULI LANE, CALCUTTA-12 and Published by Dhirendra Nath Bote, 38A, Motijheel Avenue, Calcutta-28. This book is very similar to another book The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa, Translated into English Prose from the Original Sanskrit Text by Kisari Mohan Ganguli [1883-1896].

Besides, I had the fortune of listening to many erudite scholars who delivered their pravachanas in Telugu.

The text from BORI edition is same as that of Maharishi University of management. In the remaining Sanskrit editions, there is a minor variation in the second line as compared to the Maharishi's text.

राजन्या  राजकन्याश्चाप्यानयन्त्वाभिषेचनम् 

षष्टे त्वां च तथा काले द्रौपद्युपगमिष्ग्यति 

I could not locate any previous reference in Mahabharatam to whether Srikrishna had prior knowledge of Karana's birth that he is the son of Kunti, Pandavas' mother. During swayamvara of Droupadi, Srikrishna recognises Pandavas sitting among Brahmins incognito and points out to Balarama. But the first meeting between Srikrishna and Pandavas takes place immediately after Arjuna wins over Droupadi (Krishna, daughter of Drupada) when Srikrishna goes to the place where Pandavas are staying. He pays respects to Kunti and Yudhishtir. We infer from this that Srikrishna is younger to Yudhishtir. Obviously he has to be younger than Karna. Srikrishna being God Almighty, we take it that He knows everything. 

Divergent interpretations have been put forward to explain the “real meaning” of the text in line 2 of the above sloka. The main reason stems from the fact that King Drupada's daughter Krishna is married to Pandavas who are 5 in number. The words “षष्टे", and "तथा काले" have been interpreted differently by different scholars. For example, Kisari Mohana Ganguli and Pratap Chandra Roy in their translation say “During the sixth period, droupadi also will come to thee (as a wife)”. “षष्टे", and
"तथा काले" are translated as sixth period. But the most intriguing in this translation is “droupadi also will come to thee (as a wife)”. Two questions crop up immediately: What is this sixth period? And how could Srikrishna mentions that Droupadi become of wife of Karna? The very fact that the words “as a wife” are bracketed, shows the dilemma of the translators.

In Andhra Mahabharatam, Kavi Brahma Tikkana Somayaji, taking into consideration the prevailing customs during his time that continue even to this day, translated the second line into Telugu as (roughly translated into English), “you (Karna), being the eldest of Pandavas (who are husbands of Krishna), could also be considered to become her sixth husband.” Thus Tikkana invoked the prevailing tradition among Andhras to explain away the word “षष्टे". At the same time, note the subtle difference here. Tikkana did not say that Droupadi would marry Karna. His translation simply says he could be the sixth husband of Droupadi.

During discussions with many people, I was apprised of another interpretation purportedly by Brahmasri Malladi Chandrasekhara sastry. Sastry garu apparently took recourse to astrological auspicious timings to avoid the interpretation of “षष्टे" as “6th husband”. It seems after dividing the time interval between sunrise and sunset into eight parts, coronation of kings normally is carried out during the sixth part. Thus the word “षष्टे" became the astrological sixth period during which time coronation functions take place. “During that sixth period, Droupadi reaches you.” (May be the sixth period in the English translation is this astrological sixth period!)

Thus different scholars explained away the meaning of “षष्टे". Before I give my own interpretation of the sloka, let us go back in Mahabharata and list out certain events such as Droupadi's past births and the reasons why Droupadi had to have only five husbands. 

• The first reference is from Sage Vyasa himself. When Pandavas decided to move to  Panchala province ruled by King Drupada to be in time for Droupadi's swayamvaram, Vyasa maharshi meets with them and recounts the story of a pious and chaste woman who does penance for seeking a husband. Lord Sankara blesses her with five husbands in her next birth. Vyasa Maharshi mentions that that woman has taken birth as Droupadi. And he blesses the Pandavas.

• Arjuna wins over Droupadi and the Pandavas are invited by King Drupada. There Yudhishtir informs him that all five would marry Droupadi. Again Vyasa maharshi convinces the king by saying that Droupadi is destined to have five husbands by recounting elaborately the past birth of Droupadi. He further tells the king that not only Lord Sankara but even Srimaha Vishnu blessed this.

Now naturally a question arises. How could Vyasa maharshi knowing very well that Droupadi should have only five husbands, propose through Srikrishna that she could have Karna as the sixth husband? Vyasa maharshi is a master story teller. In his entire magnum opus, he maintains immaculately the sequence of events depicting each character befitting his role. It is entirely inconceivable that Lord Srikrishna could entice Karna with the “6th husband” dangle. His role in Udyogaparvam as representative of Pandavas, even though it is a failed mission, is one of the best depictions by the sage. That is the reason why so many different interpretations were doled out to explain away the “षष्टे". Without going into discussion as to which interpretation can be accepted, I wish rewrite the second line in the following way:

च तथा काले षष्टे त्वां द्रौपद्युपगमिष्ग्यति 

I venture to add my own interpretation. 

Let me confess right at the beginning. I am not a scholar nor do I proclaim to have read and understood our great epics, Itihasas or Puranas. I also know that Sanskrit is the most advanced language in days of yore and even now in this computer age. The greatness of the language is its brevity, syntax and the elaborate meanings embedded in the briefest of the words.

We all know that “Dasarathi” refers to Sri Rama. “Son of Dasaratha” is how the word “Dasarathi” is described. Now Dasaratha has four sons. Besides Sri Rama, we have Bharata, Lakshmana and Satrugna. I have been curious to know whether the word “Dasarathi” can also be used to refer to the other three sons of Dasaratha. From the description of the word, I feel we can use the word to refer to all the sons of Dasaratha. Perhaps since time immemorial the word has been used to address Sri Rama, the word “Dasarathi” is taken for granted to mean only Sri Rama.

Now if Dasaratha were to have a daughter, by what generic name she could have been referred to? Can the word “Dasarathi” also be used to refer to female offspring of Dasartha? (There is one reference to Santa, the adopted daughter of King Romapada as having born to King Dasaratha and Queen Kausalya) 

King Janaka's daughter Sita is also called Janaki meaning Janaka's daughter. By this logic of “Janaki”, we may say that perhaps “Dasarathi” may also be used to refer to daughter of Dasaratha. Or “Janaki” may be used to address son of Janaka if he were to have one.

Now let us extend this argument a little further. Kind Drupada has a son and a daughter. Drustadyumna and Krishna are their names. Krishna is also called “droupadi” meaning daughter of Drupada.

Now my question is whether I can refer Drushtadyumna also as “droupadi”? Notwithstanding the generic usage since time immemorial, I venture to put forth that, keeping in mind the brevity of Sanskrit language, and taking into consideration of the stree pratyayas (and absence of them), these are generic words and may also be used for both the siblings (daughters and sons). I seek the indulgence of the readers to present the following interpretation to the sloka: 

“And at that time (coronation ceremony function), with all the six (5 Pandavas and Krishna, their spouse), Drustadymna (Droupadi) will reach you”. I treated “षष्टे" as a cardinal number in dative case (Tritiya vibhakti) and “त्वां" in accusative case (Dwitiya vibhakti).

Drustadyumna is expected to be the Commander-in-Chief of Pandavas. It is entirely in the fitness of the occasion that he should be bringing the dignitaries to the coronation ceremony. It is the tradition that the commander-in-chief ushers the dignitaries during the coronation of kings and emperors. For me, the very thought of Droupadi, the most dignified character of Mahabharata and an about-to-become queen, reaching Karna all alone on her own for his coronation during the sixth period or to have him as her sixth husband, is inconceivable.

One may point out that Srikrishna already refers to Pandavas in earlier slokas during his conversation with Karna. It is thus superfluous to bring in them again. My justification is that initially Srikrishna tells Karna what would happen in the event his birth is known to all.

पादौ तव ग्रहीष्यन्ति भ्रातरः पञ्च  पाण्डवाः 

द्रौपदेयास्तथा पन्चसौभद्रस्चापराजितः 

राजानो राजपुताश्च पाण्डवार्थे समागताः 

पादौ तव ग्रहीष्यन्ति सर्वे चान्धकवृष्णायः  

“O sire, let the Pandavas know thee as a son of Kunti born before Yudhishthira. The brothers, the five Pandavas, the son of droupadi, and the invincible son of Subhadra. will all embrace thy feet. All the kings and princes, again, that have been assembled for the Pandavacause, and all the Andhakas and Vrishnis, will also embrace thy feet.”

The subsequent slokas describe the coronation function and what is expected during such function. Another query that could be raised is how could Srikrishna foresee that Drustadymna is the commander-in-chief? But I am sure the discerning readers can easily find answer to this.

R&D In India: a Paradoxical Situation
Karanam Ramakumar

If we assess the stature of different nations over the past millennium, some interesting trends emerge. 

About 150 years ago, the United States, after the civil war of 1860s, started picking up threads of development. The industrial revolution and the speed with which it was adopted by the United States contributed significantly. Particularly due to the then upcoming industries like railroads, steel and oil, the US economy grew and the 20th century belonged to the United States.

Before that due to colonisation of Asia by the British from 1700s, it had been a British century. This mainly came out of their complete hold on Asian countries and also the industrial revolution. 

What about India? Was there any period in the past which belonged to India? 

It is a historical fact that by 300 B.C., the Maurya Empire united most of the Indian subcontinent. The Oxford historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, in his acclaimed book Millennium: A History of Our Last Thousand Years, mentions: “A history of the first millennium of our era would have to give India enormous weight: the subcontinent housed a single civilisation, characterised by elements of common culture, coterminous with its geographical limits; the achievements it produced in art, science, literature and philosophy were exported, with a moulding impact, to China and Islam; and it was a civilisation in expansion, creating its own colonial New World in south-east Asia.” The reasons for the state of affairs are well known. The political unity and military security allowed for a common economic system and enhanced trade and commerce, with increased agricultural productivity. It had a developed banking system and vigorous merchant capital, with a network of agents, brokers and middlemen. For the next 2000 years, India was estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world controlling almost 25 to 30% of the world's trade.

Colonisation of India by the British ruined the Indian economy. British used to buy raw materials from India at cheaper rates and finished goods were sold at higher than normal price in Indian markets. During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods. And while Europe and the US benefited from the Industrial Revolution, India’s economy stayed stagnant for 90 years. Reasons for the country’s stagnation include Britain's establishment of an agricultural base in India, thereby providing cheap raw materials to England at the cost of local citizens. During this phase India's share of world income declined from 22.3% in 1700 AD to 3.8% in 1952. Starting from late 1980s, India's economy started picking up momentum. Despite being the second fastest growing economy just behind China and expected to surpass China by 2040, India is still called a developing country by world economy forum. 

India thus had enjoyed a glorious past. What about its knowledge base? 

There are many articles by educationists and research scientists on this topic both from India and abroad (e.g., Nature and Thomson Reuters). Let me take a snapshot of their findings before I put forward my own views.

The Global Research report on India published by Thomson Reuters has the following to say about India: “The tradition of science in India, of course, extends back millennia, with Aryabhatta, Bhaskara, Brahmagupta, and others still celebrated for their foundational contributions to the fields of mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry.” India’s knowledge, skill and scientific tradition dates back to some 3,000 BC. Twenty-six centuries ago, much prior to the advent of modern medical science, an Indian physician, Sushruta mended the severed nose of his patient. This revolutionary step, considered the world’s first plastic-surgery, was a great milestone in the history of medical science, since the rest of the world knew little about the human anatomy. From the introduction of zero, to exploring the wonders of astronomy, chemistry, medicines, mathematics and physics, Indian scientists have left their footprints in every sphere of science. Famous universities like Nalanda, Vikramashila, Pushpagiri imparted quality education by eminent masters in wide variety of science and philosophy subjects to disciples including from abroad. 

Even during the latter half of 19th and the beginning of 20th centuries, India did have stellar scientific contributions. Jagadish Chandra Bose made innovations in wireless signalling; Praful Chandra Sen pioneered the discipline of chemical sciences; Meghnad Saha developed an ionisation formula for hot gases that has a central role in stellar astrophysics; Satyendra Nath Bose’s theoretical work in quantum statistics led to Bose–Einstein statistics; Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman did Nobel-prize winning work on light scattering; and in mathematics, the contributions of Srinivasa Ramanujam were equally pioneering. 
 
In the modern era also, science and technology have been central to India’s development efforts. In 1943, Archibald Vivian Hill, one of the secretaries of the Royal Society of Britain, was invited by the Government of India to design a plan for scientific and industrial research post-World War II in India. In his report, he described the role of universities, the need to establish centres for research (such as AIIMS and CSIR). He also outlined some lacunae in the system. Primary among them were lack of skilled faculty, understaffed colleges, attitude to think on research problems, innovation and independent and rational research. 

But since 1947, there has not been a single Nobel-prize winning scientific or technological discovery, despite India’s successes in space, radio astronomy, biology and pharmaceuticals and the worldwide reputation of its information technology (IT) industry. (Who would forget India's prolific expertise and acumen in addressing the Y2K issue?) Granted, three other Indian-born scientists  (not considering other Indian Nobel laureates Rabindranath Tagore (literature), Mother Theresa (Peace), Amartya Sen (economics), R.K. Pachauri (peace), and Kailash Satyarthi (peace)) have won a Nobel prize — biochemist Har Gobind Khorana (in 1968), astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (in 1983) and molecular biologist Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (in 2009) — but for work done entirely outside India. Two mathematicians; Manjul Bhargava won the 2014 Fields Medal and Subhash Khot won the 2014 Nevanlinna Prize, again for the work done outside India. The only exception is Prof. Ashoke Sen, particle physicist from Harish-Chandra Research Institute winning the Fundamental Physics Prize, the world's most lucrative academic award for the monumental work he carried out in string theory.

What does it indicate?  

Despite having the recognition as cradle of scientific accomplishments in the past and also in the early part of 20th century during pre-independence days, India could not keep up this tradition of excellence in science in the post-independence. But it should also be recognised that our scientists are brilliant and second to none in the world as mentioned above by their contributions elsewhere abroad. 

At the same time we should also take note of “in-house” achievements. Through government directives such as the Scientific Policy Resolution (1958), the Technology Policy Statement (1983), and Science and Technology Policy (2003), the nation has also achieved notable scientific successes. These include self-sufficiency in food grain production; a space program that has enabled satellite launches, our own geographic navigation  satellites- cluster, moon and Mars missions; full mastery in the entire atomic energy programme; indigenously developed missiles and aircraft; and exports in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and information-technology services. The DST’s web site lists about 600 and odd Government or Government funded research institutions in the country carrying out research in wide variety of disciplines. In addition, India does have very fruitful and significant mega science international collaborations such as CERN, ITER. 

But going back to the general observation of India lagging behind in science and technology, introspection is in order. Speaking in general terms, it should be mentioned that our postdoctoral fellows and scientists are among the best in the world. They are highly professional, very competitive and impressive. However, the credibility of research laboratories, educational institutions labs or institutions leaves much to desire. Internationally also they are not considered as competitive. It is indeed a paradox that our professionals are held in high esteem and not our institutions, universities or research institutions barring a very few. And Indian institutes and universities do not feature in the world’s top 200 higher-education institutions.  Further, to a large extent, research is still done mostly by small teams working in isolation rather than through collaboration.

Some of Hill's observations, made almost 70 years back, seem valid even today in the Indian research and development scenario. Recently, the Science Advisory Council (SAC) to the Prime Minister of India said the country could be among top five science-faring countries in next 10-15 years, with good leadership and policies. But at the same time, the report warns that the present situation is "not altogether encouraging" as there are many areas of science where India has fallen behind even small countries. "In most cases of Science & Technology there are only a few real experts and there is a leadership crisis at a time when there is increasing competition from some Asian neighbours."  That said, the stagnation afflicting Indian science is as much administrative, and structural as it is financial. India's emergence as a global leader in Science & Technology would require unstinted support for basic research and judicious choice of main Research & Development areas and massive effort to solve pressing national problems.

Thus there has been a growing realisation among scholars, policy makers, and other observers that India lags behind other key countries and some of its BRIC partners in research investment and output. The government has made concerted efforts to invest in education by creating facilities such as the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, dedicated to the highest international standards of scientific research and science education. But this alone does not bring out the expected turn-around.

How do we realise this?

First and foremost, the way we go about identifying research topics and prospective research students need to be looked into. 

Before dwelling on this issue, let us examine what constitutes research?

In the annals of science, there are number of instances when a certain need is felt by the practitioners of the discipline for an effective tool or gadget to understand and interpret the observed phenomena. I consider, among many examples, periodic table of elements and Mosley’s law linking atomic number to the emission frequency belong to this category.

And equally, there are instances when a scientific curiosity resulted in the invention of a powerful and exotic tool, which later on led to the foundations and evolution of a broader scientific thought. X-ray diffraction and spectroscopy fall in this category.

There is yet another class of scientific discoveries which are outcome of serendipity and perspicacity borne out of incredible and inevitable conclusion of purely a theoretical interpretation. Discovery of positron by Dirac way back in the early part of last century is one such phenomenon.

There is a fourth and predominant category. More often than not, the cotemporary research “verifies” or “confirms” the results obtained and stops there!

Thus challenges in research are aplenty. What about a typical researcher? What are his identification marks?

A motivated researcher is like a truth seeker totally committed to bring in tangibles to the society. The attributes or the hall mark of the motivated researcher may be explained by referring to an acronym “QUEST”. He should question or query the on-going activities, understand the basic principles, engage in out-of-box thinking to identify the new directions of research, seek-out the ultimate solution to the problem, and finally triumph by making it available to the world. Let me elaborate the concept of QUEST by taking the profile of Stefan Hell of Germany who shared Nobel Prize in Chemistry with two other scientists from USA.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2014 was awarded jointly to Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell and William E. Moerner "for the development of super-resolved fluorescence microscopy". The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences came out with an engrossing pen picture of Stefan Hell and his Nobel Prize winning scientific pursuits, which elegantly capture the essence of QUEST. 

Let us recall the subject of optical microscopy a little. For a long time optical microscopy was held back by a physical restriction as to what size of structures are possible to resolve. In 1873, the microscopist Ernst Abbe published an equation demonstrating how microscope resolution is limited by, among other things, the wavelength of the light. For the greater part of the 20th century this led scientists to believe that, in optical microscopes, they would never be able to observe things smaller than roughly half the wavelength of light, i.e., 0.2 micrometres, the diffraction limit arrived at by Abbe. This limit is small compared to most biological cells (1 μm to 100 μm), but large compared to viruses (100nm), proteins (10nm) and less complex molecules (1nm). To increase the resolution, shorter wavelengths can be used such as UV and
X-ray microscopes. These techniques offer better resolution but are expensive, suffer from lack of contrast in biological samples and may damage the sample. 

Question/Query: 
Ever since getting his Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg in 1990, Stefan Hell had been looking for a way to bypass the limitation that Ernst Abbe had defined more than a century earlier. The thought of challenging such an established principle was tantalising. But senior scientists in Germany had met his enthusiasm with scepticism. He had to move to Finland for further research. He did not lose hope.

Understand: 
 But Stefan Hell was convinced that there had to be a way of circumventing Abbe’s diffraction limit. He began his quest to understand fully all aspects of microscopy. 

Engage: 
When he read the words stimulated emission in the book on Quantum Optics in a student apartment in South-western Finland in 1993, a new line of thought took shape in his mind. When Stefan Hell read about stimulated emission, he realized that it should be possible to devise a kind of nano-flashlight that could sweep along the sample, a nanometre at a time. “At that moment, it dawned on me. I had finally found a concrete concept to pursue – a real thread.”

Complete out-of-box-thinking!

Seek-out:  
In 1994, Stefan Hell published an article outlining his ideas. In the proposed method, so-called stimulated emission depletion (STED), a light pulse excites all the fluorescent molecules, while another light pulse quenches fluorescence from all molecules except those in a nanometre-sized volume in the middle. Only this volume is then registered. By sweeping along the sample and continuously measuring light levels, it is possible to get a comprehensive image. The smaller the volume allowed to fluoresce at a single moment, the higher the resolution of the final image. Hence, there is, in principle, no longer any limit to the resolution of optical microscopes. 

Triumph: 
Stefan Hell’s theoretical article did not create any immediate commotion, but was interesting enough for Stefan Hell to be offered a position at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen. In the following years he brought his ideas to fruition; he developed a STED microscope. In 2000 he was able to demonstrate that his ideas actually work in practice, by, among other things, imaging an E. coli bacterium at a resolution never before achieved in an optical microscope.

In 2014 it culminated in Stefan Hell getting the ultimate reward any scientist would aspire. His is only typical example to illustrate the excellence in scientific pursuits, and unwavering belief in one’s intuition. There are any number of such examples. 

Secondly, it may be desirable to have a central agency to maintain a research project database featuring all research projects sanctioned by different granting institutions. Such a database could help avoid duplication of research projects, decide thrust areas and translate promising findings of one group to another to advance discoveries. The cross-talk between agencies could help them prioritise objectives, mission and awards. The improved system would increase the efficiency of the staff at the agencies and move things faster.

Thirdly, we should take a serious look into the findings of the global competitive report for 2013-14 namely innovation is lacking in the country and research undertaken by institutions whether public or private are not turning out to into commercial ventures in a significant way, and despite being ranked ahead of other peers when it came to market knowledge, technology
and creativity, the country ranked poorly when it came to other metrics such as institutional support, human resources, research infrastructure and business sophistication. This has to be addressed at different levels; both within the Government, public and private institutions. Other competitive international models available need to be studied for a holistic approach to solution.
 
Fourthly, we may learn from the experience of IT industry. It may be desirable to draw the private sector into major research programmes. Industry at present contributes about 30% of India’s total spend on R&D, most of it devoted to improving productivity and reducing cost and energy consumption, rather than product development. As of now it is essentially shut out of basic research. There should be a cross-talk between industries, universities and other public research institutions for synergy. 

Lastly a thought comes to my mind. It is indeed a paradoxical situation that is prevailing in India as far as scientific research is concerned. The world acknowledges that India produces brilliant students worthy of carrying out post-doctoral research, but has no brilliant teachers or no world class institutions. But paradoxically these ‘brilliant students’ do come out of the so-called mundane institutions. Whether they are inherently brilliant while studying in India or discover their brilliance while pursuing their higher studies or research abroad is a mute question. What is the parameter which motivates them abroad but not in India? This is something one should look into. Perhaps this is a worthy topic for doctoral thesis!

Finally, R.C. Levin, the then president of Yale University, while speaking at a function organised by Tsinghua University, China, in 2001 made a powerful observation: “universities can be an essential source of national economic competitiveness and, ultimately, a wellspring of worldwide growth and prosperity.” He went on to add that research is widely believed to be essential to the country’s economic growth, and the innovations derived from basic and applied research provide enormous benefits to society. UGC-DAE- Consortium for Scientific Research
is an ideal platform for providing specialized training and advanced facilities for university researchers. I am sure all the four centres in Indore, Kalpakkam, Kolkata, and Mumbai would take up this challenge, become power houses for R&D and contribute to Nation’s development.   

Any funding for R&D programmes is a long term investment. It has been well accepted that public funding will play a major role in this direction. The funding agencies and the Government should have patience to reap the benefits of this long term investment for the benefits to society.

In conclusion, let me refer to Bhartrihari, who gave us wisdom through his Subhashitas. 

There are worthy and beautiful references to the attributes of single minded pursuit in our Bhartrihari Subhashitas. Let me quote two of them. During Amrit manthan, the deities were neither satisfied with the evolution of pearls and other exotic things, nor were they put down by the emission of Halahala poison. They continued their untiring efforts until they realised their goal namely Amrit. The hall mark and attributes of a committed person are: he neither bothers if he sleeps on rocky floor, or on a flower bed, if he has only the leaves for food or full course feast, wears rags or covered with silk robes; if he is in comfort or in distress. He is only focussed on the ultimate goal. 

What India is looking forward is such dedicated and committed personalities.

Jai Hind!

Analysis of information released by DOE on Possible Use of “Reactor Grade” Plutonium in Nuclear Weapons

Analysis of information released by DOE on Possible Use of

“Reactor Grade” Plutonium in Nuclear Weapons

Karanam .L. Ramakumar

Karanam.ramakumar@gmail.com

Abstract: Information released by Department of Energy (DOE) on Possible Use of “Reactor Grade” Plutonium in Nuclear Weapons has been critically analysed. The analysis is based on published scientific literature and the information released by the Government Agencies. The primary aim of the analysis is to estimate the Pu-240 content in the plutonium used in the devise exploded in 1962. From the available literature, it was possible to conclude that Pu used in the 1962 device contained about less than 20% Pu-240 (in the range 15 to 18%). Possibility of using non-weapons grade plutonium in the nuclear weapons is also explored.

Keywords: nuclear weapons; plutonium; reactor grade; fuel grade; Calder Hall nuclear reactor; DOE database on nuclear explosions

Introduction

The US government had announced in 1994[1] that a nuclear weapons test using 'reactor grade' plutonium was carried out at the Nevada Test Site in 1962. The information was declassified in July 1977 but additional information was provided in 1994. The yield of the blast was less than 20 kilotons. According to DOE, extensive nuclear test database and predictive capabilities maintained by US and the low yield test revealed that weapons can be constructed with reactor-grade plutonium. The plutonium was provided by the United Kingdom under the 1958 United States/United Kingdom Mutual Defence Agreement. Various documents on this subject are available from different sources on the Internet. Based on the downloaded documents an analysis has been carried out to review the information released by the DOE. It may be mentioned that the analysis is based on scientific publications and the information released by Government Agencies. The primary aim of the analysis is to estimate the Pu-240 content in the plutonium used in the devise exploded in 1962. Possibility of using non-weapons grade plutonium in the nuclear weapons is also explored.

Analysis of information provided by DOE

Details of nuclear test with “reactor grade” plutonium: About 1149 nuclear tests/detonations were carried out by the USA between 1945 and 1992[2]. Ninety-six of them were carried out in 1962. Two of these 96 tests used plutonium supplied by UK. The details are given below:

Test No.	Test	Date (mm/dd/yyyy)	Sponsor	Location	Hole
215	Pampas Accidental release of radioactivity detected offsite	03/01/1962	LANL/UK	NTS	U3al
299	Tendrac	12/07/1962	LANL/UK	NTS	U3ba

Test No.	Time (GMT)	Latitude (degrees)	Longitude (degrees)	Surface Elevation (meters)	Type	Purpose	Yield Range
215	19:10:00.09	37.041	-116.030	1196	Shaft	Joint US-UK	9.5 kt
299	19:00:00.10	37.052	-116.030	1202	Shaft	Joint US-UK	Low

The DOE Fact sheet[1] mentioned that the yield was low (< 20 kt).  It is therefore surmised that the test no. 299 could have used “reactor grade” plutonium.

Nomenclature on different plutonium grades

The DOE fact sheet merely mentioned that reactor grade Plutonium was used in 1962 test. The exact isotopic composition of the plutonium remains classified. It may be noted that until 1976, DOE had designated three different grades of plutonium[3]. These are:

• Super weapons grade, less than 3% Pu-240
• Weapons grade, less than 7% Pu-240
• Reactor grade, 7% or more Pu-240

The DOE definition of reactor grade plutonium changed in 1976. The revised grades are:

• Super weapons grade, less than 3% Pu-240
• Weapons grade, less than 7% Pu-240
• Fuel grade, ≥ 7% and < 19% Pu-240
• Reactor grade, ≥ 19% Pu-240

The US nuclear weapons test in 1962

As the first de-classification on using reactor grade Pu in nuclear weapons testing by DOE was in 1977, some lingering uncertainty with regard to “reactor grade” nomenclature existed. Added to this, which definition or designation, that of the old or new scheme applies to the 1962 reactor grade plutonium weapon test, has not been officially disclosed. 

There was, however, consensus that UK plutonium came from Calder Hall nuclear power reactors during late 1960s as at that time only Calder hall and Chapelcross nuclear power reactors were operating. Primary purpose of these reactors was for production of weapons grade plutonium and intermittently for electricity generation. Brief particulars of Calder Hall reactor[4] relevant to the present context are:

                                   Table-1. Relevant data for Calder Hall reactor

Electrical output (gross)	46 MWe
Thermal output (gross)	182 MWt
Efficiency	23 %
Material	Natural uranium metal
Mass of uranium per reactor	120 tonnes

Different interpretations were put forward to identify the grade of plutonium used in the test. As the production and isotopic composition of plutonium depends on burnup, it would be interesting to deduce the burnup of the Calder Hall fuel during the period of interest. From the available literature it is seen that in case of MAGNOX type reactors, the cross-over from fuel-grade (Pu-240 ≤ 18%) to reactor-grade plutonium (Pu-240 > 18%) occurs at a burnup of around 3500 MWd/t [5]. Thus, estimating burnup of the MAGNOX fuel which was reprocessed for separating Pu for shipment to the USA is desirable to possibly identify the quality of plutonium used in the 1962 nuclear weapon test.

Burnup of the fuel could be estimated from the data given in the Table-1.  Assuming the reactor was continuously operating for 300 days,

Burnup (MWD/T) = (182 (MWt) x 300 (days))/120 (tonnes) = 455 MWD/T

However, for electricity production the reactors need to be operated at higher burnups. This would also result in increased Pu-240 content in the fuel. Hinton[6] mentions that at its peak, the station generated 196 MW — four times as much power as it did when it opened. This is very close to the figure given by McCrickard[7]. Then the thermal power is estimated to be 784 MWt and assuming that the reactors operated again continuously for 300 days, the burn up would be 1950 MWD/T.  For producing plutonium with > 18% Pu-240, at least some of the fuel elements in these reactors should have been irradiated to more than 3500 MWD/T burnup and the reactors continuously operated for extended periods of time. For this purpose, literature [8-11] was studied.  Following observations could be made:

(a)      Due to some systematic faults in the fuel, Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors operated at        somewhat lower burnups than 2000 MWD/t during initial periods of operation[8].

(b)      Later, MAGNOX civil reactor fuel elements and also some Calder Hall and Chapelcross test fuel elements fabricated with modified specifications to address the causes of failure were subjected to test irradiation in Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors and had undergone higher irradiations (channel average burnup of more than 3000 MWD/t) resulting in higher Pu-240 content (> 18%)[9].

(c)       The IAEA publication [10] gives average and maximum core burnup of Calder Hall fuel as 2700 and 3900 MWD/t respectively for the year 1962. As the test was carried out in July 1962, it is reasonable to assume that the fuel might have been discharged during January 1962 for reprocessing to separate plutonium for shipment to the USA. It is therefore necessary to estimate the average and maximum core burnup at the time of discharge in January 1962 for deducing Pu-240 content.

(d)      Stewart in his publication[11] gives details of irradiation history of fuel elements in Calder Hall reactors. Some of the fuel elements loaded in 1958 were still undergoing irradiation trials as of August 1963 and these fuel elements did see burnup exceeding 3000 MWD/Te as of August 1963. Suppose some of these fuel elements were selectively removed for reprocessing to separate plutonium for shipment to the US for the 1962 test. As the 1962 test was carried out in July 1962, it is reasonable to assume that about six months was needed to complete the process of the discharge the fuel elements, reprocessing followed by shipment of the separated plutonium to the US for assembling the devise. It would of interest to deduce burnup of these elements as on January 1962.

What could be the Pu-240 content in the plutonium used in the 1962 device?

As mentioned earlier, the DOE fact sheet merely mentioned that reactor grade Plutonium was used in 1962 test. At that time according to DOE, plutonium with more than 7% Pu-240 was designated as reactor grade.  Subsequently DOE modified its nomenclature and defined plutonium with more than 19% Pu-240 as reactor grade. Plutonium with Pu-240 content in the range between 7 and 19% was designated as fuel grade. It would be of interest to deduce Pu-240 content in the plutonium used in 1962 test to know if it was fuel grade (Pu-240 content < 19%) or reactor grade (Pu-240 content > 19%). One may not get the accurate figure but a reasonable accurate band may be enough for discussion.

Isotopic composition of plutonium produced in a nuclear reactor, among other things depends on the burnup. Very low burnups are needed to produce weapon-grade plutonium with Pu-240 content less than 7%. Higher burnups result in more and more Pu-240 production. A knowledge of burnup the fuel was irradiated to would be useful in this regard.

The IAEA publication [5] gives average and maximum core burnup of Calder Hall fuel as 2700 and 3900 MWD/t respectively for the year 1962. As the test was carried out in July 1962, it is reasonable to assume that the fuel might have been discharged during January 1962 for reprocessing to separate plutonium for shipment to the USA. It is therefore necessary to estimate the average and maximum core burnup at the time of discharge in January 1962 for deducing Pu-240 content. The maximum core burnup at the end of 1961 was shown to be about 3000 MWD/te.

Further, It should be mentioned that average burnup of a channel and an individual fuel pin within the channel could be much higher than the core values.

Papers published by Steward in 1963 and 1964 listed channel average and individual pin burnup values. Some relevant 1963 values given in Table 5 of the publication are reproduced in the Table below:

High irradiation experience with natural uranium MAGNOX fuel in Calder Hall (CR) reactors

Description of fuel element	Reactor	Date loaded	Irradiation position at August 1963
			Number of channels	Irradiation MWD/te
				Mean channel	Peak fuel element
Calder Hall Mk. 1A fuel element with coarse- grained cans	CR.1	September 1958	8	3440	4500
	CR.3	June 1958	205 16 32	2600 4180 1900	3400 5150 2500

These values are as on August 1963. Thus, it is seen that channel average and individual pin burnup values are indeed much higher than the core values.

As the test was carried out in July 1962, it is reasonable to assume that some of the pins might have been discharged during January 1962 for reprocessing to separate plutonium for shipment to the USA. It is therefore necessary to estimate the channel average burnup and peak fuel element burnup at the time of discharge in January 1962. For deducing Pu-240 content.

Estimating channel average burnup and peak fuel element burnup in January 1962
Hardy and Lawton[12] listed the fuel rating values for the inner zone configuration for Calder hall reactor core. Maximum fuel rating was 3.48 MW/te and the average value for the channel when computed is 2.66 MW/te. At 3.48 MW/te fuel rating the burnup of the element for one year irradiation is calculated as 1270 MWD/te. Calculating back the peak fuel element burnup at the time of discharge in January 1962 comes to about 3000 MWD/te. At this value Pu-240 content in the plutonium may not be more than 18%.

It should also be mentioned that even though the maximum fuel rating of 3.48 MWD/te was mentioned, it seems the fuel did not actually see this level of fuel rating. Otherwise the peak fuel element burnup should have been more than 6000 MWD/te instead of 5150 MWD/te as given in the Table 5 of Stewart. Noting that the fuel elements were loaded in June, 1958, the peak fuel element burnup of 5150 MWD/te would reach after 5 years at 3.48 MWD/te fuel rating for 300 days of operation every year or 2.8 MWD/te fuel rating for the whole year of 365 days. Either way, at the time of discharge in January 1962, the burnup could have been about 3400 MWD/te.

On the other hand, if it is assumed that full channel was discharged for reprocessing in January 1962, then the channel average burnup in January 1962 would be about 2850 MWD/te.

Thus, we have three values of burnup at the beginning of 1962: 2850, 3000 and 3400 MWD/te. Pu-240 content in plutonium at these burnup values range between 15 and 18%.

Thus, it may be assumed that Pu-240 content in the plutonium used in the 1962 US nuclear weapon test might be in the range between 15 and 18%.

Reactor- or fuel- grade plutonium in DOE test

Thus, it is seen from the published literature that the highest burnup of Calder hall fuel during the period under consideration (1956–1962) ranged between 2850 MWD/t and 3400 MWD/t with Pu-240 content between 15 and 18%. It was reactor grade plutonium as per pre-1976 definition or fuel grade Plutonium as per post-1976 definition of Plutonium grades. Clinching proof to this estimate comes from none other than another US DOE Publication. The DOE’s publication of 1996 [13] clearly mentions that “under the Mutual Defence Agreement with the United Kingdom from 1959 to 1980, the United States acquired a total of 5.4 MT of plutonium (5360 kilograms) in exchange for 6.7 kilograms of tritium and 7.5 MT of highly enriched uranium”. The report further says that this plutonium was of “primarily fuel grade” plutonium. That means Pu-240 content in the material used was between 7% and 19%. In all probability, the 0.4T of plutonium received from other countries was reactor grade. One may refer to the Table 7 on page 44 of the report. It would be very clear why it had to be reactor grade. The quality of plutonium could be undoubtedly reactor grade and also the period of Pu receipt is also way beyond 1962. Surprisingly there was no reference to this statement in the DOE publication of 1996 by any analyst/interpreter.

A note about using plutonium with more than 7% Pu-240 in nuclear weapons

Typically, nuclear weapons are designed so that a pulse of neutrons will start the nuclear chain reaction at the optimum moment for maximum yield; background neutrons from plutonium-240 can set off the reaction prematurely, and with reactor-grade plutonium the probability of such "pre-initiation" is large. Pre-initiation [14] can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases the energy. If pre-initiation occurs just at the moment when the material first becomes compressed enough to sustain a chain reaction, the explosive yield would be of the order of one or a few kilotons. Historically this yield is referred to as the "fizzle yield". The term “Fizzle” had become synonymous to failure of a nuclear weapons test. Treating neutron kinetics in a typical explosion device as purely deterministic in nature, it has been shown[15] that the energy yield of a nuclear explosive decreases by one and two orders of magnitude if the ²⁴⁰Pu content increases from 5 (nearly weapons-grade plutonium) to 15 and 25%, respectively. Thus in typical nuclear weapon with an expected yield of 20 kT with 5% Pu-240 device, the yield would reduce to 2 KT and 0.2 KT for 15% 240-Pu  and 25% 240-Pu devices respectively. These are “fizzle yields” according to conventional nomenclature but are by no means fizzle. During 1958, the USA conducted series of nuclear weapons tests at different locations at Pacific Proving Grounds [16]. In the nuclear test with code name Juniper, it was indicated that a minimum threshold yield of 0.2 KT for a boosted primary is required for a successful test. The test device had a diameter of ~37 cm, and a length of ~38 cm. It weighed ~76 Kg and resulted in 65 kT yield. With optimum design configuration supported by theoretical calculations, even with up to 25% Pu-240 containing plutonium device, it is possible to realise this yield.

Observations on the information released by DOE

According to DOE

1. It was a successful test

2. The yield was less than 20 kilotons

3. The United States maintains an extensive nuclear test data base and predictive capabilities. This information, combined with the results of this low yield test, reveals that weapons can be constructed with reactor-grade plutonium.

The information released by the DOE is cryptic and many questions arise.

What were the criteria followed by the DOE to declare a test is successful or not?

Was the process of testing a success? Was the design of the weapon a success? Was the DOE’s predictive capability a success?

The reason why the DOE did not give the yield figure is also very intriguing. There are many instances where the DOE did publish the actual yield figures including very low values (less than 10 kiloton). DOE had no hesitation to give these figures for weapons grade plutonium. Bur for “reactor-grade” plutonium despite the fact that “Reactor-grade plutonium is significantly more radioactive which complicates the design, manufacture and stockpiling of weapons”, DOE felt otherwise. Another question that comes to mind is how low was this figure? Finally, one is tempted to interpret the last point again in different ways. Did the DOE indeed predict very low yield in this test? Or were the results of very low yield, formed the basis for reassessing the predictive capabilities? Or did this test prompt the DOE to revisit the classification terminology for plutonium grades to include fuel-grade in between weapons-grade and reactor-grade? Could it be also the reason why the DOE declared that the plutonium received from other countries including United Kingdom was primarily fuel-grade? One never knows. But the analysis given above indicates that the plutonium used in the test could be fuel-grade with Pu-240 content in the range 12 to 16%. One may give any name to the grade of plutonium used in the 1962 test. It is immaterial whether it was reactor grade or fuel grade.  What is pertinent is the Pu-240 content. Treating neutron kinetics in a typical explosion device as purely deterministic in nature, it has been shown [15] that the energy yield of a nuclear explosive decreases by one and two orders of magnitude if the ²⁴⁰Pu content increases from 5 (nearly weapons-grade plutonium) to 15 and 25%, respectively. Thus, in typical nuclear weapon with an expected yield of 20 kT with a 5% Pu-240 device, the yield would reduce to 2 KT and 0,2 KT for a 15% 240-Pu and 25% 240-Pu devices respectively. These are “fizzle yields” according to conventional nomenclature but are by no means fizzle. One should have no doubt about nuclear weapons built with reactor grade plutonium. 1962 test was the first test with RG plutonium and there is no way to say with confidence that the Pu-240 content was between 20-23%. Safe statement could be Pu-240 was more than 12% as at that time this plutonium was indeed reactor grade.

Sahin’s work shows how the yield of a weapon could change depending on the Pu-240 content. This is where knowledge of actual yield value becomes important and crucial. On both the counts the test would be deemed to be successful.

Conclusions

The purpose of this analysis in not intended to address the use of reactor- or fuel- grade plutonium in nuclear weapons. In the current context of the spectre of nuclear terrorism and the possibility of radiation dispersion devices, it is always safe to secure any plutonium irrespective of its isotopic content. No purpose is served by proving or disproving of the use of “reactor grade” or “fuel grade” plutonium in nuclear weapons. Plutonium being plutonium it has to be treated with respect. The IAEA is absolutely right in declaring any plutonium (except that with more than 80% Pu-238 content) to be brought under safeguards and securing. It is also mandatory on the part of the countries having Plutonium containing more than 80% Pu-238 to secure to prevent any malicious and terrorist activities.

References

1.         DOE Fact Sheet: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms.jsp?formurl=document/press/pc29.html#ZZ0 (US Department of Energy, 1994)

2.         United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 1992, DOE/NV--209-REV 15, DOE (2000) and https://www.nnss.gov/docs/docs_LibraryPublications/DOE_NV-209_Rev16.pdf

3.         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium

4.         Description of the Magnox Type of Gas Cooled Reactor (MAGNOX), S. E. Jensen and E. Nonbol, Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark NKS-2 (1998) https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/052/30052480.pdf

5.         David Albright, Frans Berkhout and William Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Oxford university press, New York (1997)

6.         Lord Christopher Hinton, Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station, http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=778

7.         J. McCrickard, The Development of Calder Hall and Chapelcross as Base Load Nuclear Power Stations, in Proceedings of the Conference on Operating Experience With Power Reactors, Vol. I,  IAEA, Vienna, 4-8 June 1963 pp. 407-423 https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/44/064/44064225.pdf

8.         A Johnson, “Magnox Fuel Cycles,” Operating Experience with Power Reactors, Volume II, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1963

9.         The Development of Uranium-Magnox Fuel Elements for an Average Irradiation Life of 3000 MWD/te, H. K. Hardy et al., The Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society, Volume 2, 1963 (January 1963)

10.      Operating experience with nuclear power stations in member states until end 1970 https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/02/014/2014309.pdf.

11.      J. C. C. Stewart, C.B.E., B.Sc., Development and Manufacture of Magnox Fuel, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt I No 9 (227-240)

12.      Hardy HK, Lawton H (1958) the assessment and testing of fuel elements, Second United Nations international Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, a/conf.15/p/3o6 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4283557

13.      Plutonium: The First 50 Years, DOE/DP-0137, DOE (1996)  http://fissilematerials.org/library/doe96.pdf

14.      https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys280/sp2012/archive/Reactor-Grade%20and%20Weapons-Grade%20Plutonium%20in%20Nuclear%20Explosives.pdf

15.      Siimer Sahin, Reply to "Remarks on the Plutonium-240 Induced Pre-Ignition Problem in a Nuclear Device", Nuclear Technology, 54, 431-432 (1981)

16.      http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Hardtack1.html