An Unpopular, Untimely, and Necessary Counterpoint

"Indian nuclear planst have stood the test in the past."

Manmohan Singh

Prime Minister of India

It is not my intention to make light of a horrific situation, nor is it my opinion that the catastrophic events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should be downplayed by the pro-nuclear community. The aftermath of the earthquake and the tsunami has already claimed thousands of lives, and experts around the world have noted that this sudden occurrence will further set back an economy that has been stagnating for decades. The President of American University, Dr Cornelius Kerwin, sent out a professional yet touching memo, affirming the support of the AU community to our foreign students from Japan, and assured the AU community that all AU students currently in Japan are safe and unharmed. A close friend studying in Tokyo observed that conditions in the Japanese capital city remain relatively normal, aside from the panic induced by the situation in the north.

I did not wish to write this entry, but the senseless posting of a BBC article on my wall has compelled me to offer this trifle amid the panic and the madness. At least 75% of this blog's followers are aware that last semester I held a position in the European Atomic Forum, a trade association and lobby that represents the entire nuclear industry within the European Union. After that brief but enriching experience, my position on nuclear energy is, I claim, slightly better informed, which is sadly much more than that most can claim. Nuclear energy, because of its association with its evil weaponized counterpart, has become an increasingly polarized debate, one that will have direct repercussions within the next several decades. Though I cannot claim to be pro-nuclear, I believe that my current stance is indeed more toward favoring the inclusion of nuclear energy in our national policy. That debate, however, is one on which I have already expressed my views, and the purpose of this entry is rapidly losing its focus.

I did not intend to express my own opinions, but rather to bring to the reader's attention one concise article entitled "Lessons to Learn," under the heading: "A Thought For Today" that appeared in yesterday's Times of India. For your convenience, I have personally retyped the text below. For anyone wishing to learn a considerable amount about nuclear energy and the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, there is an excellent blog by a man named Rod Adams that I have been following for the past several months. His blog can be found here. Below is the article.

Let's avoid knee-jerk responses to Japan's nuclear crisis 

Given the rapidity with which events are unfolding, it's impossible to predict how the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will play out. To a watching world, the situation serves as a sobering reminder of the possible hazards of the use of nuclear power. The crisis has caused soul-searching among governments and the public at large about the safety of nuclear installations. This is understandable. But any such debate must be carried out with a clear head, and that requires us to guard against knee-jerk reactions such as denouncing nuclear power in toto and demanding that plants be shut down. If anything, there's much we should learn from Japan's nuclear crisis regarding the need to frame far more stringent guidelines for the operation of nuclear power plants worldwide. 

There are raised voices against nuclear power both in civil society and among politicians around the world. In India, existing frictions over the proposed Jaitapur nuclear power plant has been exacerbated with opposition becoming more strident. Nuclear disarmament hawks have stepped up as well. But, as the prime minister out, India's safety record should be kept in mind as also the fact that the Kakrapar atomic power station withstood the Bhuj earthquake of 2002 while the Madras station came through the 2004 tsunami safely. Former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar too has vouched for the safety of our nuclear installations. Nor can we deny the economic necessity of nuclear power as part of a diversified energy basket-including renewable and conventional energy-for sustaining India's growth. 

Like China, we have big plans on nuclear power, hoping to push up generation to 63,000 megwatts by 2032. It's therfore all the more necessary that we revisit safety issues. Safety measures at today's plants are constantly being upgraded, making them orders of magnitude safer than earlier installations. This should not make us complacent. Here and globally, there'll be greater focus now on plugging every possible chink in safety assessments, and on choosing building sites more carefully and strengthening the structural integrity of installations and reactor designs with better materials and technological inputs. This can only be good for the nuclear energy sector. The other positive is that countries are likely to focus more on renewables.

 What happened in Japan was freakish: the most powerful earthquake in its history followed by a tsunami that was the main cause of the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi. The right lesson to be drawn from events unfolding there is that even the freakish must be planned for where nuclear energy is concerned. The wrong lesson would be to impose an indefinite moratorium on nuclear power.  

To Hegemony and Beyond

"We have, I fear, confused power with greatness."

Stewart L Udall

US Politician, Secretary of the Interior under John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson

The degree of heat in the outside air is stifling. I have not yet traveled 100 meters, and already I am drenched in sweat. Walking home after five consecutive hours of class, two-wheelers and auto-rickshaws maneuver expertly between air-conditioned sedans and overloaded goods carriers, and on either side of Fergusson College Road vendors take blissful refuge in the shade of thin canopies stretched tightly over bamboo supports. Women walk by with their heads covered in scarves, not from modesty, but rather to protect themselves from the pollution and dust that rises from the ground like gunpowder. Students pause briefly for cold coffee, pani puri or coconut water, and the sound of engines revving and horns blaring blend together in an imperfect, disorienting symphony. Where sidewalks exist the gutters are filled with discarded litter, and in many places the sidewalk is interrupted by piles of stones being used to fill in the gaps. Buses pull up along the curb without stopping, and men and women jump on and off while the bus is still moving. In the afternoon heat some of the shopkeepers take a siesta, yet FC Road remains a thriving, lively avenue for all who venture along the bustling shops, cafes, libraries, and universities. This is the setting along which I walk and experience everyday. 

Classes are over for the day, and with the majority of papers behind us it is only a week and a half before our weeklong vacation. As the heat intensifies, absences have increased, and more and more students have complained of exhaustion, nausea, and a substantial reduction in sleep. Lectures seem to go on for hours, and the relentless sun seems to burn brighter everyday. We are nearing the endpoint of our courses, for once we return from our recess we begin our internships or directed research projects, and only two classes will continue to meet. 

Today in Issues in Political and Economic Development we discussed the prospects of India as a superpower. The noticeable rise in Indian economic performance, measured mainly by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is often cited as an indication that India, a nation whose growth is nearly 9% per annum, will ultimately establish itself as a global hegemonic power. The emergence of a global multipolarity (a system of global relations in which there are multiple centers, or poles, of power), would fundamentally alter the nature of international relations, as the United States, no longer the sole dominant hegemony, would be joined by one or more peers equal in economic prowess if not military capability. 

Such a positive trend of economic growth has been observed in India since the early 1990's. During that time, Manmohan Singh (then the Finance Minister and now the Prime Minister) dismantled what was known as the License Raj, a protectionist series of tariff and non tariff barriers that prevented foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) from directly investing in India. This was done to safeguard fledgling domestic industries in order to ensure their competitiveness in the global economic system. The License Raj also mandated compliance to a plethora of bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Government of India, and consequently made investment and the management of business unnecessarily complex. 

Beginning in 1991, Singh began to lessen the stringent requirements of the License Raj, and along with a reduction in bureaucratic restrictions came economic liberalization with external investors. At this time, India experienced tremendous economic growth, a trend that is still continuing to this day. Because of the robust economy, observers worldwide have become increasingly fascinated by India, whose growth is second only to the People's Republic of China. While the Chinese economy still remains larger and is currently growing at a faster rate relative to India's, scholars, and students (such as a certain Chhatrapati Lukeji) have hypothesized that such growth is artificial and unsustainable in the long term. Following this line of thought, China, a de jure Communist state with a de facto capitalist market, is a politically authoritarian state that remains largely opaque to international observers. In contrast, India is, according to its Constitution, is a Sovereign Secular Socialist Democratic Republic. What this translates into in practice is a mixed economy with a nationalized financial sector that is otherwise basically liberalized. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI, or the investment of external actors typically from the private sector in factors of production, i.e., factories, equipment), was initially limited, and there are several prominent MNCs that have tried (and failed) to open up new markets in India (example: Walmart). While a country  whose market could potentially consist of 1.1 billion consumers and whose government remains on increasingly favorable terms with the United States is inconceivably desirable to many MNCs, it is important to note that the current Indian economy is not yet fully mature, but is undeniably in a stage of exceptional economic expansion. 

And so it was that today we discussed the ramifications of India attaining the status of a global economic superpower. It is firstly important to recognize that the term "superpower" itself can have varying definitions. For the purposes of our discussion, we recognized that such status required unparalleled military capability, but has recently shifted toward a greater emphasis on economic influence. Perception is critical for a superpower, as it has visible effects on the behavior of other countries engaging in diplomatic relations with the perceived superpower. In the case of India, we introduced the idea that no country should aspire to become a superpower for the sake of the label, but should rather focus on improving domestic infrastructure and standards of living. In doing so, the intrinsic benefits of such initiatives may lead to that country attaining the status of a global hegemony, but the implicit goal of becoming a superpower is in itself arbitrary and narrowly focused. 

The United States became the global hegemony around the same time as the British Empire became a Commonwealth. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States was at the peak of its economic industrial output. In addition, the Old Guard of European nations had been decimated by the madman dictator Hitler, and countries in Africa, South Asia, and East Asia were in the midst of struggles for sovereignty. Furthermore, at the time the US was the sole country in the world that held nuclear capabilities. Though the US is still perceived as a hegemony today (some historians argue that the contemporary influence of the US is greater than the Roman Empire was during its zenith), according to Saint Luc's (Chhatrapati Lukeji's European based alter ego) professor in Brussels, at no point in the past or present has US power rivaled that of the immediate postwar period. 

This is not to assert that India is free of its own challenges. Even if it were universally prosperous and fully saturated, India would still have to experience a 400% expansion of its economy to exceed that of its dragon neighbor China, and over 1000% to approach that of the United States. This is overlooking the obvious problems that 35% of the nation remains illiterate, and some 42% of all children suffering from malnutrition can be found in India alone. A sizable and widening gap remains between the wealthy and the poor (an illustration of Gunnar Myrdal's concentration of wealth concept to which I alluded in my response to Miss Chhatrapati Lukeji several weeks ago), and corruption rocks the government all across the board. 

The presentation today featured a graphic depiction of Uncle Sam as a beggar, with the words "former superpower" written as a caption. My objection to this depiction is nothing to do with patriotism, but rather with the inherent fallacy in such a notion. A common thread in the world in international development appears to believe that the minute that one country's economy overtakes another the country with a now lower GDP will either vanish from the international scene or descend into poverty and oblivion. This notion is wrong. If and when the United States GDP is surpassed, the US will still remain a leading global economic influence. Furthermore, given that both of the current challengers to the US are China and India, the standard of living in the US will remain far higher than in either China or India. Status as a global hegemony does not correlate to a higher standard of living, as such countries as Denmark and its Scandinavian counterparts will suggest (the aforementioned countries are perceived to have the highest standards of living in the world, as well as the happiest citizens). I was once conversing with a Hamburger (resident of the German city of Hamburg) about this very topic. He told me to consider Germany (this may be a poor example, as Germany is its undisputed regional power). Though Germany did experience a brief period as the global hegemony, it later declined. Yet today, life is good in Deutschland, and though it is not a global superpower it remains a country with both a high standard of living and robust economic performance. as the Greeks have duly noted. 

India may surpass both China and the United States. Perhaps it will find a way to address the large social divide that it currently faces. Maybe it will become the most economically influential nation in the world. But whatever the case may be, India should not proceed along this train of thought. It should not pursue hegemony for the sake of global dominance, but rather for the welfare of its citizenry. Students should not be encouraged to go into engineering or medicine simply because they are the most lucrative careers; rather they should be encouraged to discover that which most profoundly interests them. It may sound pretentious or patronizing, but India, in my mind, represents the best opportunity of humanity to rethink development and to create a new model that reflects human realities rather than abstract statistics. As India rises, as Gandhian ideas and traditional values disintegrate, my hope for such direction may already be lost. But maybe India will implement radical new ideas that change the narrative of development for the better. Maybe India will find a new system that works at the lowest levels of society as well as the middle. If so, India will prove to the world that for all the figures, strategies, and statistics, the best focus is the people themselves. Though existing quantitative measurements have direct application in economic policy, it is humanity itself that ultimately reflects the true success of economic development. 

Kimo's Hawaiian Rules

Never judge a day by the weather
The best things in life aren't things
Tell the truth - there's less to remember
Speak softly and wear a loud shirt
Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses
He who dies with the most toys - still dies
Age is relative - when you're over the hill, you pick up speed
There are two ways to be rich - make more or desire less
Beauty is internal - looks mean nothing
No Rain - No Rainbows 


[Thanks to my awesome Godfather for the submission]

Much Ado About Nothing

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's...wait a minute, it actually is a plane. 

[An Unrelated Digression Before A Purposeless Entry: Chhatrapati Lukeji has upgraded his mock portfolio, One Thousand One, to a Transaction Portfolio. Since its inception on 20 August 2010, the total gains from the three stocks in the portfolio have added up to a 20% increase in assets. Chhatrapati Lukeji will be continuing a long position on Tata Motors Ltd., Sumitomo Chemicals, and The Vice Fund. One Thousand One FTW!]

The First Part: Tubes With Wings

Yesterday the Economist ran an article focused on new designs for passenger aircraft. I had read a related article sometime last year in Popular Science that arrived at a similar conclusion. That conclusion, my friends, is that the current flying machines that we rely on to get to such faraway places as, say, India, have reached a crucial stage in their design where the marginal benefits from technological advances in the various components of an aircraft are outweighed by radical changes in the design of the aircraft itself. Thought this may appear a far-fetched idea, the reality is that the surprise comes less from the nature of the new designs and more from the lack of awareness that our current fleet, consisting of a bunch of giant tubes with wings, is neither a natural nor practical design for human air travel. 

Some time ago I briefly and quietly celebrated the launch (pardon the pun) of Boeing's sexy new 747-800. Fully aware that such sentiments contradict this very entry, I must clarify my position on aviation design to anyone who cares (read: no one). While I do think that the new 747 is a gorgeous and impressive aircraft, that is not to say that the progression of all future aircraft designs should follow this pattern. How might the future flying machines of humanity differ from our current tubes with wings? Maybe something along the lines of this:

AWW COOL!

Or this:

SWEET!

It should be noted that, from the above renderings, these conceptual aircraft are not so dissimilar from our current winged tubes. The Chhatrapati apologizes. The photo that I was looking for (an aircraft resembling a giant triangle) is nowhere to be found (yes I classify aircraft by shape-let's call the second one an "arrowhead"). 

[Side Note: It is around 20 minutes past 800 here in Pune, and from somewhere outside my window a group of men with drums is having what sounds like a very spirited Pow Wow. If not for the fact that I was already awake (during this past week I lost quite a bit of sleep and my sleep schedule has been altered), this would either be a fantastic alarm clock or a perplexing and painful early morning wake up on the first day of the past week in which I have slept past 630.]

The Economist notes that improvements have indeed been made. The original Boeing 737 carried a maximum of 100 passengers. Current models carry twice that number, twice the distance, using 23% less fuel (Economist). 

The article in Popular Science featured passenger aircraft that bear a mild resemblance to the B2 Spirit bomber of the United States Air Force. The Spirit, interestingly enough, was designed to give USAF the capability to win a war with a single mission (true statement). The seating for the Arrowhead was multi-leveled, and there was even room for a spacious bar at the front of the second floor. Conceded, this sort of idea is what is referred to as a "fifth generation" concept, meaning that I will probably not live to see it. The main problem is that such aircraft are massive, even compared to the 747. Runways would have to be widened and substantially elongated, and docking stations would have to be spaced further apart. Even if such aircraft become feasible, the adoption of the new design will necessarily be accompanied by large scale remodeling of existing airport facilities. 

The Second Part: Not My Cup of Tea

Enough of planes. My relating this article is due both to my interest in aviation and my disinterest in our most recent discussion in Issues in Political and Economic Development (IPED). It was a discussion that made me very uncomfortable. It was a discussion that will live in infamy. I am referring, of course, to feminism. But not just any feminism. AU induced feminism. The worst kind. 

Am I a hater of the fairer sex? No no, nothing could be further from the truth. To be candidly honest, I am a great admirer of women. Casual politically incorrect/semi sexist jokes aside, it is not women or feminists that bother me, but rather the confines of my perilous and unwanted status in any discussion of the subject. Being a male is not ideal when discussing feminism. There are two basic paths that we can take. The first path, i.e., the right path, is the path of wisdom. It goes like this: if you have a Y chromosome, you say nothing. Smile and nod, charmingly, when a particularly poignant point is produced. But remember, silence is the best policy. Path number two is similar to the first. The British and the French did it at the beginning of World War II. It's called "Appeasement." Appeasement gets a 8/10 rating, because it accomplishes the same goals as the first strategy, while even allowing the male to participate in the discussion. The drawback of this tactic is that it may require the degradation of his dignity, which can be regained by playing football, tuning the engine of his Kawasaki Ninja motorcycle, drinking a pint of beer, or slipping into ostrich skin spandex and dancing to Kelly Clarkson's "Since You Been Gone." (Note: one of those does not belong with the others). 

Surely I jest. But it is also true that such a topic in general makes heterosexual males uncomfortable, to say the least. Of our class of around 20, less than one quarter were males. We had no personal anecdotes to relate to the conversation, and any attempt to play devil's advocate would be inevitably interpreted as male chauvinism. Let's face it. Feminism is not our strongest suit, and we do not like talking about it in the same way that many a female has experienced annoyance when her male counterpart talks about sports. This is a generalization, and I feel I may need to delete this entry should I ever aspire to public office (unlikely), but after the frustration of an entire 90 minute class in which I was unable to say anything I think this a better course of action than many alternatives. 

My mother always alleges that a world in which female empowerment was more well developed would likely be a more peaceful and just world. I agree. Such economic initiatives as the Grameen Foundation literally bank on the higher efficacy of women in repaying loans and providing for their families. There is no doubt in my mind that a world in which women had a greater policy-making role would be a fundamentally freer and fairer world. I would even go as far to say that I support such current initiatives in the Government of India to create a reservation of 33% of the seats at the Central level exclusively for women. The difference is that I refuse to argue about it. I will not engage in debate on the subject. I will not share my views. Though I will listen to others for a limited amount of time, I do not feel inclined to respond. (This is gradually becoming true for most subjects, not just feminism). The topic exhausts me. The debate frustrates me. Regarding the subject as a whole, I feel I am gradually shifting into what I have termed the Douglas Adam's Perception of Reality. But that is something that I will leave for another entry. 

A Tale of Two Cities

"It is our choices...that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

J K Rowling

From the smooth stone benches of Marine Drive thousands of onlookers watch as the sun sets under an orange and purple sky. Entire families, young couples, street vendors, and tourists all come together to witness the slow, majestic spectacle of the Earth’s rotation. Gentle waves break onto the rocky shoreline below, and across the bay the city lights of Mumbai gradually appear as the dusk grows darker. Behind us, commuters zoom along the avenue, ignoring the natural tranquility amid the urban frenzy. To the South lies Nariman Point, and to the North is Chowpatty Beach. From our comfortable perch between the two, dusk becomes night, and a city of millions assumes its nocturnal activities under a crimson turned dark blue, glimmering sky.

I am standing along the same boulevard that Gregory David Roberts, author of Shantaram, stood many times. While he contemplated his lost past, his uncertain future, love, suicide, and the dynamic nature of humanity, I thought of only of purpose. Home to an estimated 14 million inhabitants from all over India and the world, Mumbai is undoubtedly India’s greatest city. Encompassing palatial new high-rise apartments, overcrowded and filthy slums, global financial institutions, stadiums, malls, markets, universities, and anything else, Mumbai holds its own place as a world class city. I have heard it said by a local of Pune that Mumbai is to Pune what the United States is to Canada, and from my own limited observations his sentiment is true; while Pune is a comfortable, colorful city with a deep cultural and intellectual legacy, Mumbai is everything that India has to offer and more. The size of its population alone is incomprehensible even when compared to the great cities of the West, and in terms of its cosmopolitan ambience Pune is no competition to its gargantuan neighbor.  Gothic Revival and Art Deco style architecture provide subtle reminders of the British Raj, and lend a unique character to a city that simultaneously straddles the 19^th and 21^st centuries. 

My thoughts in that moment were of purpose. After concentrating my academic studies on India, I expected to find Mumbai exhilarating and incredible. To some extent I did. Mumbai ranks as an Alpha city, along with my own beloved Chicago, and it is undeniable that it is an eclectic and profound collage of distinctive cultures, ethnicities, languages, and traditions. Mumbai is home to some of the world’s richest individuals, and is and will continue to be the powerful financial and entertainment center of respective Indian enterprise and culture. Yet, despite all of these remarkable credentials, I was perhaps more divided than anything else in what I saw as an impressive but incomplete city.

The fundamental problem rests entirely within myself. Having studied Mumbai and India from the other side of the world for the past year, the city that I constructed in my mind was an idyllic and heavily romanticized conceptualization of the urban metropolis. Such ideas were reinforced through the brilliant and lyrical writing of Gregory David Roberts, whose own words are far more eloquent and captivating than mine. Though I suspected some delusions of grandeur within his enthralling novel, his flowing descriptions and entrancing prose gave Mumbai the status of an earthly paradise, and the city that I had constructed became even more surreal.

This is not to assert contempt for Mumbai-it is a wonderful city. But having now walked through the streets of Fort and Colaba and observed firsthand the real essence of life in Mumbai, the idealized portraits of this city are lost to the pages of a novel, and the photographs that I have taken, which represent the real Mumbai, are indeed worth a thousand words.  Though not my intention to sound pretentious, I have not, generally speaking, found Indian cities to be beautiful. It is the people who define India, and their daily activities that give India her pulse. All of that which is Mumbai is carried in the essence of her people, those 14 million souls who perform their daily tasks like an orchestra performing a symphony. I now find myself re-examining my commitment to India, specifically when to include it in my life repertoire of places in which I may someday reside.  Regardless, my maiden voyage through southern Mumbai was a satisfying endeavor, and one that answered no small number of important questions.

On to a lighter subject matter. Our visit to Mumbai began last Wednesday, when we boarded a 7:15 train to Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, a station that is named after the Maharathra Emperor who valiantly fought against the Mughals and after whom my Blogger ego is named. We arrived in time for a lunch at a Parsi restaurant that turned into a two-hour affair. We proceeded onto the Mumbai residence of Mohandas Gandhi, which now functions as a museum, and arrived back at the hotel for two back-to-back sessions, the first with a prominent Mumbaiker journalist and the second with an Indian architect. Both women focused primarily on the Dharavi slum, which we then visited the next day.

The slum visit was not at all what I expected (photos will be uploaded to a later entry). Prepared for heartbreaking scenes of abject poverty and beggars ready to pounce on camera-wielding tourists, I was confronted with well-maintained, colorful bungalows that were densely but comfortably arranged. The entire slum was laid out in a well-planned manner, and the bungalows themselves usually had clean, shiny tile floors. Children in the slum spoke Basic English, and although some of the residents seemed genuinely surprised at 24 white and 3 brown US students wandering through their complex, at no instances did beggars approach us. We met with the head of the Dharavi slum at one of the local primary schools for a brief but informative question and answer session, in which he scoffed at the initiatives of the central government to provide universal, quality access to education, proudly cited the community advances in healthcare, and expressed his enjoyment and hope in having such discussions with foreign students interested in one day working toward a solution.

After Dharavi we paused for a quick lunch and then visited the Bombay High Court. We sat in on several cases, though it was difficult to hear exactly what was being contested. One of these sessions was presided over by the chief justice, and in the late afternoon we had another Q&A session with two of the members of the High Court. The following day, we spent the morning at St. Xavier’s College, in which we interacted with the students. Our focus was on students who are visually challenged, and we were able to witness the methods by which students with varying levels of visual impairment compensate for such inabilities. Our program concluded with a visit to the Currency Museum, which was about as interesting as it sounds.

Although our schedule was over, the majority of students opted to remain in Mumbai for the weekend. For those of us who stayed, we spent two happy days exploring Colaba and soaking in the sunsets along Marine Drive. Many of them expressed regret that our program was not located in Mumbai, a sentiment that I share, to some extent. For those unfamiliar with either city, Pune is much quieter and less populated. Despite its smaller size and population, roads in Pune are busier than those of Mumbai, as Mumbai is a much better planned city. This has the effect of making such tasks as crossing the street a challenge, which was not the case in Mumbai. Pollution in both cities is a problem, though I have read that it is actually worse in Pune.

There is no comparison between the two cities. I have spoken to many Indians who prefer Pune to Mumbai, but such comparison would be akin to comparing Boston to New York City. Mumbai is far more cosmopolitan, and in addition to its inclusion of the whole of India it also boasts a museum area in Colaba that even features a collection of European art (a component that boosts its score in the opinion of Chhatrapati Lukeji). Could I live there? Yes. But would I? And if so, for what period of time? These questions are yet unanswered.