Chidambaram had all the scientific ingredients to present a convincing case, including informative slides to punctuate his claims. Yet, if anything he added confusion to the already confused scenario.

Essentially, the declared yields of the May 11 and May 13 blasts in the Rajasthan desert came in for some question from detracting scientists both from home and abroad. The case centered round Chidambaram's own claims made in a scientific paper in Vienna along with Dr RajaRamanna in the wake of the Pokharan-I blasts.

The calculation of yields then was based on terrain constants and the seismic shock recorded. In that paper, the duo had placed the seismic yield as a result of the blast at 5.1 on the exponential Richter scale. Taking into account the constants associated with the terrain, it was concluded that the yield of the blast was between 12 to 15 kt. After, Pokharan-II, Dr Anil Kakodkar and Sikka, in a paper showed that taking the seismic reading at 5.2, the yields were calculated to be at 60 kt. Given the negligible change of terrain-associated constants between Pokharan-I and Pokharan-II, the question was asked whether, even at the exponential scale, a change of 0.1 in the seismic reading could record a change of 45 kt while calculating the yields.

Chidambaram sought to set the criticism at rest. He sought to show that several studies freshly conducted by a team of scientists established the projections of the nuclear tests without any ambiguity. Whether one tookthe seismic analysis, or the wave analysis, or radiation analysis, the figure of 60 kt stood vindicated. However, in the slides he demonstrated relating to the seismic analysis, the reading of the Pokharan-I blast was shown to be 4.9 and that of Pokharan-II 5.4, creating a differential of 0.5 in the exponential scale, which according to Chidambaram confirmed the yields of both the explosions.

A scientist contacted by The Indian Express laughed at the change in the seismic value recorded. "Chidambaram's scientific Vienna document claimed that the seismic yield was 5.1. How come it has now changed to 4.9? Seismic readings recorded at the time of the blast cannot be changed. Similarly, Pokharan-II seismic yield was officially placed at 5.1 and this was confirmed by the paper written by Kakodkar and Sikka after the blast. This has now been altered to 5.4. Is this not fudging of figures," the scientist asked. The scientist for obvious reasons did not want to be named.

Given this background, Chidambaram couldwell find that the new figures he is now propagating will be a target of heated debate in days to come. However, the scientist was in his elements when projecting his pet thesis regarding nuclear power.

One of the major points Chidambaram made was the international acceptance of the nuclear power reactors indigenously developed. According to him, the Canadians, who were pioneers in the fields of heavy water reactors, had acknowledged that the Indian clones were far more efficient than the original Canadian predecessors.

Chidambaram also made a strong plea for developing scientific talent in the country and proposed that scientific talent should be nurtured by the government by guaranteeing pay scales at IAS officers' level. He noted that expenditure for nuclear R&D currently at 1% of the GNP should be raised to at least 2 %. Only then the velocity of R & D could be accelerated to come to par with international standards.

For the rest, Chidambaram elaborated on his pet concept of the yardsticks to judgethe prosperity of nations: per capita electricity consumption and level of female literacy.

S Ramamoorthi, chairman, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Maharashtra branch, introduced Chidambaram to the audience in the presence of S G Kale, of the Y. C. Pratisthan.