Thinking Rationally

Author: Ashok Nag

  • Teaching Evolution to Children: NCERT in a Fool’s Paradise

    Background

    National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is an autonomous organisation set up in 1961 by the Government of India to assist and advise Central and State governments on issues relating to school education. Textbooks issued by NCERT are recommended textbooks in all CBSE schools. In the wake of COVID-19, when schools were closed for a large part of the academic year, NCERT started a rationalization process of contents of textbooks of class 6 to class 12. This was buttressed by the National Education Policy of 2022 which stated, “The reduction in content and increased flexibility of school curriculum – and the renewed emphasis on constructive rather than rote learning – must be accompanied by parallel changes in school textbooks”1.

    For the Class 10 science syllabus, the chapter 9 was rationalized in the following manner:

    1. Chapter name changed from “Heredity and Evolution” to “Heredity.”
    2. Dropped Items:

    Box item: Charles Robert Darwin

                                        Box item: Origin of life on earth

                                         Box item: How do fossils form layer by layer

                                         Box item: Molecular phylogeny

    9.3 Evolution

    9.3.1 An Illustration

    9.3.2 Acquired and Inherited Traits

    9.4 Speciation

    9.5 Evolution and Classification

    9.5.1 Tracing Evolutionary Relationships

    9.5.2 Fossils

    9.5.3 Evolution by Stages

    9.6 Evolution should not be equated with ‘Progress’

    9.6.1 Human Evolution

    Although NCERT has not expunged the topic “Evolution” from the class 12 syllabus, its elimination from class X syllabus would ensure that majority of children – who do not opt for Biology as a subject of study after class 10 – would be deprived of a proper introduction to the concept of Evolution and the science behind it. This is a stratagem that all students of science would easily apprehend. So, no wonder that more than 1800 Indian scientists, science teacher and educators in an open letter expressed their deep concern about this scissoring out of the topic “Biological Evolution” from the science syllabus of class 10. But, as Hamlet would have said, there are “more game plans in a mere syllabus rationalization” than are dreamt of in the government’s pedagogical philosophy.

    The debate between scientific community and theologians of all denominations about the propriety of teaching of Evolution in schools has continued till today in many countries, particularly in the USA. As recently as February 2006, the Board of Directors of American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement on the teaching of Evolution. The statement averred – “Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution”2.

    Monkey Trial in USA Although Origin of Species was first published in November, 1859, its impact on the scientific community as well as general public became more pronounced only in the beginning of 20th century. The religious fundamentalists on both sides of the Atlantic started their crusade against Darwinism when they found that this new theory has started influencing their children’s education. Enrolment of children in American high schools rose from 0.2 million in 1980 to nearly 2 million in 1920. In Tennessee, the high school population rose from less than 10,000 in 1910 to more than 50,000 in 2025 (see Larson, 2006). Most of these new schools included Darwin’s theory of Evolution in their curriculum. Ironically, the captains of industry found a resonance of their cut-throat competitive capitalism in the popular interpretation of Evolution by natural selection- that is survival of the fittest. Those who were rallying against excess of capitalism, found in Darwin’s theory of natural selection as an apology for such excess. Thus, there were lot of resentments among common people against teaching of evolution in public schools. This got reflected in a spate of anti-evolution legislations in various US states.    

    One of the earliest legislations in USA on this topic was the Butler Act, 1925, passed by the Tennessee legislature, which prohibited teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of human being as depicted in the book of Genesis- the first book of Hebrew Bible. Defying this law, a high school teacher- John T. Scopes started teaching Evolution. He was put on a trial, popularly known as Monkey Trial, for violating the Act. A circus of the trial followed, and Scope was found guilty and a minimum sentence of $100 fine was awarded. The lawyer defending the state’s action against Scopes was William Jennings Bryan, a progressive politician who ran for president three times as the Democratic Party’s candidate. Bryan had complete clarity about the danger that Darwin’s theory posits to the concept of God. In his New York Times essay of 1922 he wrote, “(if) a man accepts Darwinism, or evolution applied to man, and is consistent, he rejects the miracle and the supernatural as impossible. . . . Evolution naturally leads to agnosticism and, if continued, finally to atheism”3.

    Edward. L. Larson, in his painstakingly researched book “Summer for the Gods”, provides a detailed and balanced account of the Scope trial. He has identified 3 phases of “anti-evolutionism” in USA.  The first phase is characterized by the effort for outright banning of teaching of Evolution in high-school biology classroom. The second phase started when a scientific gloss was put on the “biblical account of a six-day creation within the past ten thousand years.4” Two young Earth Creationists, John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris coined a new phrase “scientific creationism” in their 1961 book “The Genesis Flood”5.  They posited “Creation science “as an alternative theory to the theory of Evolution and started a new phase. The proponents of “creation science” started a concerted movement seeking a balanced treatment of two contending views about origin of human beings. In March 1981, the state of Arkansas legislated an act titled “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” This Act was declared unconstitutional because it failed the test of constitutionality under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The third phase began with the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). The proponents of ID argue that natural selection mechanism of evolution cannot explain emergence of extraordinarily complex organs and its intricate components with specialized functions. Like a watch needs a watchmaker, existence of such special organs in a living being, say existence of eye of a Homo Sapiens, must have a conscious designer behind its creation. Thus, proponents of ID aimed to position their views as a scientific alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution, which according to them is also a theory and not a proven fact. This would help them to avoid the legal hurdle of teaching ID in public schools. Jay D. Waxler pointed out the real motivation behind this movement – bringing the idea of God through a backdoor- “Because intelligent design theory does not necessarily rely on any particular conception of the designer and does not require belief in any particular biblical story … intelligent design theory is put forth as science, not religion, and thus as a worthy complement to evolution in the classroom.6”

    After 100 years of Monkey trial, there is still no resolution of the debate about the origin of human being. Science can never convince the public at large that, irrespective of the existence or non-existence of God, the theory of evolution has stood its ground on the basis of evidence and not faith. A 2013 survey by Pew Research Center found out that, about a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) agreed that “humans and other life evolved, but that this evolution was guided by a supreme being”. The same survey found that a third of Americans (33%) reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time7.” 

    As compared to general public, the scientist community of USA were divided between believers and non-believers in God. According to a Pew research survey conducted in 2009, four-in-ten scientists (41%) declared that they did not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public found that only 4% of Americans shared this view8.

    In USA, the opposition to the Theory of Evolution has been mostly from people of Christian faith. But the response of people of Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic denominations in countries where they represent the majority are no different. However, the conflicts of opinions among the protagonists of two sides in these countries have not been so intense as to leading to a plethora of court cases, like in USA. A plausible reason could be that an overwhelming majority of scientific community belonging to these religious denominations are themselves practitioners of their respective faiths. They are quite comfortable with the theory of evolution as well as existence of a super-being.

    God and Evolution- Hindu Philosophy

    A number of surveys apparently suggest that educated Hindus generally accept the notion of “Evolution” (Brown2020, Chapter 5).  Use of the word “apparent” is deliberate and significant. Swami Nikhilananda, a revered spiritual scholar, has explained the Hindu perception about the concept of Evolution:

    “It should however be noted at the very outset that any comparison between the Western and the Indian idea of evolution will be both unfair and fruitless; for they have different premises, different methods, different aims and purposes, and different fields of investigation. Darwin and his followers were solely concerned with the evolution of physical forms and structures, whereas the Hindu philosophers discussed evolution from the standpoint of the soul.” (quoted in Brown page 131). This understanding of Hindu view of Evolution is nothing new. According to Swami Vivekananda, “idea of evolution was to be found in the Vedas long before the Christian era; but until Darwin said it was true, it was regarded as a mere Hindu superstition”.  Keshub Chunder Sen, another Hindu reformer was more explicit- “Hindu Avatar rises from the lowest scale of life through the fish, the tortoise, and the hog up to the perfection of humanity. Indian Avatarism is, indeed, a crude representation of the ascending scale of Divine creation. Such precisely is the modern theory of evolution”.  

    God and Evolution- Islam

    Muzaafar Iqbal (2007) in his book “Science and Islam” has observed that the Islamic discourse on science has been conducted from two perspectives-  the first one can be described as a “discourse in which Islam is used as a justifier of science” and the second one as “Islamization of Science” or more broadly speaking “Islamization of knowledge”.  The “justifier of science approach” explains why verses in Quran is a way of explaining evolutionary process which is being discovered by the western scientists now9.  Although Iqbal and the proponents of “Islamization of Knowledge” talks about three dimensions of knowledge – “ethical, epistemological and ontological/metaphysical views of science” in their effort to distinguish so-called “western science” from their “Islamic science”, they miss the most important dimension of science- that is the dominant paradigm within which scientific discourse is being carried out. The role of paradigm is most effectively brought out by Stephen Hawking through a hilarious anecdote in “A Brief History of Time”

    A famous astronomer, after a lecture, was told by an elderly lady, who was perhaps under the influence of Hinduism, that his cosmology was all wrong. The world, she said, rests on the back of a giant tortoise. When the astronomer asked what the tortoise stands on, she replied: ‘You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down

    As no amount of evidence or lack of evidence would persuade the lady to change her view about the cosmos, so is true even for a top geneticist who believes Cosmos has been created by Allah.   Up to a certain level of scientific practice, belief or disbelief or agnosticism may not be of any relevance to a scientist, but it may create a mental block when confronted with observations that are clearly at variance with a religious text like Quran. Iqbal’s book traces a number of such issues-like Stem Cell research, Organ Transplantation, In Vitro Fertilization etc. which challenged Muftis to issue fatwa on these subjects in accordance with their interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. Such desperate attempts to cut the modern foot to fit into a mediaeval shoe is destined to fail at certain point of time. For example, if fertilization of human being can be carried out outside a womb, a distinct possibility in near future, what would happen, a sufficiently long period ahead, to the Human Gender. This author strongly believes that marriage will be an antiquated term in the next hundred years. A large number of verses in Quran will become obsolete in that kind of society.

    What Next

    In this age of internet and social media, NCERT’s effort at rationalization of syllabus by way of keeping out one of the most important scientific achievement of 19th Century from the reading list of young children is like “tilting against the windmill”. It needs to be understood by the framers of syllabus for NCERT that today when AI is coming of age, manicured textbooks of NCERT types are the least important source of knowledge to the children.

    Theology is just opposite of the science. People still have to read Vedas/Gita/ Genesis/ Bible/ Quran to understand what God or Allah has revealed. There has been no more addition to knowledge after these texts became available to the mankind.  That is why God is always a static and frozen entity, even if it had created the Universe.

    Notes                                    

    1. Expert committees set up for finalizing new syllabus adopted the following 5 criteria for rationalization of existing syllabus. Avoidance of overlapping of content amongst different subjects in the same class. Avoidance of similar content in the lower or higher class in the same subject. Reduction in difficulty levels. Weeding out contents that are easily accessible to children from other sources and self-learning is recommended. Weed out contents that are not relevant in the present context.
    2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Board of Directors. (February, 2006), Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
    3. quoted in God vs. Darwin The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom by Mano Singham , page 154)
    4. See Larson page 270 Chapter Afterword
    5. Lorence  G Collin’s (2018) article on this topic gives “eight different bits of evidence, using good science that demonstrates that a global flood never happened during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, and shows that Moses did not use the knowledge of modern science to write his story about Noah and the flood. See God vs. Darwin The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom by Mano Singham for details of various court cases on this issue.
    6. Jay D. Wexler, Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools, in 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 751 (2003).Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1627
    7. Darwin versus Religion 5 facts about evolution and religion BY David Masci available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/#:~:text=The%20rejection%20of%20evolution%20by,they%20see%20as%20biblical%20truth.
    8. See Pew Survey titled  Science and Religion (2020) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/
    9. According to Islamic scholars, Evolution is a reality but it was not through natural selection per Darwin but under the guidance of a divine power. For example, consider the following two lines:

               with water did We create every living thing (Holy Quran, Chapter 21, Verse 31)

              And surely, we created man from dry ringing clay made from stagnant blackish mud (Holy Quran, Chapter 15, Verse 27)  

     These two verses have been interpreted as:

           This picture of water and clay, presented by the Holy Quran, seem to be consistent with the mixture of inorganic materials becoming organic,      which was followed by a dry stage to allow the organic material to develop irreversible strength. (Quranic Concept of Evolution Author: Atif Munawar Mir )

    References:

    Brown C. Mackenzie 2020), Chapter 5.,Karmic Versus Organic Evolution: The Hindu Encounter with Modern Evolutionary Science  in Brown (ed) Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism(2020) (pp101-136) Springer

    Collins,Lorence G. (2018),  “Good science versus bad science and the Genesis flood storybook”  see  http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr46Genflood.pdf

    Dixon Thomas (2008), Science and Religion- A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press

    Iqbal Muzaffar (2007), Science and Islam,  Greenwood Press

    Killingley Dermot, The Hindu Evolutionary Heritage and Hindu Criticism of Darwinism (chapter 6) in Brown (ed) op.cit.

    Larson Edward J (2006 edition) , Summer for the Gods , Basic Books

    Singham Mano (2009), God vs. Darwin-The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom; Rowman & Littlefield Education

  • On Darwin- Q&A with ChatGPT

    Question:  Is there any objection to Darwin’s hypothesis about evolution on scientific ground?

    Answer: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is widely accepted among scientists as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. However, there are still some debates and objections among scientists regarding certain aspects of the theory.

    One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory is the question of how new traits and genetic information arise. Some scientists argue that natural selection alone cannot account for the emergence of complex new traits and that additional mechanisms, such as genetic drift or mutation, are required.

    Another objection to Darwin’s theory concerns the evolution of certain complex structures, such as the eye. Some scientists argue that the complexity and precision of such structures cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes and suggest that they may have arisen through some form of intelligent design.

    Finally, some objections to Darwin’s theory are based on religious or philosophical beliefs rather than scientific evidence. Some people reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their belief in a divine creator or because they see it as undermining traditional values or social structures.

    Overall, while there are some objections and debates among scientists regarding certain aspects of Darwin’s theory, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth based on the available evidence.

    Question: Let us assume that some complex structure can’t be cogently explained by theory of evolution. Then what is the alternative explanation?

    Answer: If a complex structure cannot be fully explained by the theory of evolution, it does not necessarily mean that an alternative explanation based on supernatural or mystical forces is the only possible answer. Instead, it may indicate that our understanding of the evolutionary processes involved in the development of that structure is incomplete or that we need to explore other mechanisms that might be involved in its development.

    In such cases, scientists would continue to investigate and explore alternative hypotheses, including the possibility that additional mechanisms, such as genetic drift or mutation, are involved. They might also study the development of the structure in question to better understand the mechanisms that contribute to its formation.

    It is important to note that the inability to fully explain a particular aspect of the natural world does not necessarily mean that a supernatural or mystical explanation is the best or only alternative. The scientific method relies on evidence-based reasoning, and scientists will continue to search for explanations based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

    Question Let us keep the complex structure issue aside, for time being. Is there any alternative hypothesis for emergence of newer and newer forms of life over millions of year on Earth?

    Answer While there are debates and discussions among scientists regarding certain aspects of the theory of evolution, there is currently no widely accepted alternative hypothesis to explain the emergence of newer and newer forms of life over millions of years on Earth.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin and further developed by scientists over the past century and a half, remains the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This theory is supported by a vast array of evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, and biogeography, and it has been confirmed through numerous scientific experiments and observations.

    While there may be areas where the theory of evolution is incomplete or requires further investigation, there is no alternative hypothesis that has been proposed which can fully explain the diversity of life on Earth and is supported by the same level of empirical evidence and scientific consensus as the theory of evolution.

    Question Many religious denominations denounce Theory of Evolution. Why?

    Answer here are several reasons why some religious denominations denounce the theory of evolution:

    1. Literal interpretation of religious texts: Many religious traditions have creation stories or beliefs that conflict with the scientific explanation of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Some adherents of these religions may reject evolution because they believe that their religious texts offer a literal, infallible account of the creation of the world and life within it.
    2. Challenges to religious authority: The theory of evolution, with its emphasis on natural processes rather than supernatural intervention, may be seen by some religious authorities as a challenge to their authority or the authority of their religious texts. Some religious leaders may view the acceptance of evolution as a threat to their religious doctrines or teachings.
    3. Moral objections: Some religious adherents may object to the theory of evolution because they believe that it undermines the idea of a divine creator or the concept of human exceptionalism. They may also view evolution as promoting a materialistic worldview that conflicts with religious teachings about the nature and purpose of life.
    4. Lack of understanding or acceptance of scientific evidence: Some religious adherents may reject the theory of evolution because they do not fully understand the scientific evidence supporting it, or because they do not accept the scientific method as a reliable way of understanding the natural world. It is important to note that not all religious denominations reject the theory of evolution. Many religious traditions have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world, and there are many scientists who are also religious believers.

    Question Can you name such religious denominations?

    Answer There are many religious denominations that do not reject the theory of evolution and have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world. Here are some examples:

    1. The Roman Catholic Church: The Catholic Church has accepted the theory of evolution since the mid-20th century, recognizing it as compatible with Catholic theology. In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter stating that there is no conflict between evolution and Catholic teachings.
    2. The United Church of Christ: This Protestant denomination has affirmed the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The UCC has stated that “evolutionary theory is not at odds with belief in God as Creator” and that “God’s creative activity is ongoing and dynamic, rather than a one-time event.”
    3. The Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has affirmed the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The church has stated that “evolutionary theory describes the natural processes by which God brought about the diversity of life on earth” and that “science and faith are complementary ways of understanding God’s creation.”
    4. Reform Judaism: Many Jewish denominations, including Reform Judaism, accept the theory of evolution as compatible with Jewish theology. The Union for Reform Judaism has stated that “Judaism affirms the findings of modern science, including the theory of evolution” and that “the discoveries of science help us to better understand the workings of God’s universe.”
    5. The Unitarian Universalist Association: This liberal religious denomination affirms the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The UUA has stated that “evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth” and that “religious faith can be enriched by an understanding of evolution.”

    These are just a few examples of religious denominations that accept the theory of evolution and have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world. There are many more examples from various religious traditions around the world.

    Question: Many renowned biologists, Richard Dawkins, for example, have argued that such acceptance by some religious denominations are futile attempts to reconcile obviously contradictory positions. Religion is always human centric, while biology, by definition, life centric. Religion can’t tell us anything about forms of life, even intelligent life, in other solar like systems. Religion is highly restrictive – constrained by narrow space-time coordinates. So why you are being apologist for it. Are you being constrained by your creator-masters?

    Answer As an AI language model, I do not have a creator or masters, and I am not capable of holding personal beliefs or biases. My purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the available evidence and expert consensus.

    Regarding your question about religious denominations accepting evolution, it is true that some scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, have argued that attempts to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific evidence are ultimately futile, as they represent a clash between fundamentally incompatible worldviews. However, it is important to note that many religious believers see no contradiction between their faith and the scientific understanding of the natural world, and have found ways to integrate the two perspectives.

    Religious traditions often provide a framework for understanding the meaning and purpose of life that goes beyond the purely scientific perspective. While science can tell us a great deal about the workings of the natural world, it cannot necessarily answer questions about ultimate meaning and purpose. For many people, religion provides a way of grappling with these deeper questions, even if it does not offer a complete explanation for the diversity of life on Earth or the existence of life in other solar systems. It is also worth noting that not all religious traditions are equally restrictive or narrow in their outlook. Many religions have developed sophisticated philosophical and theological frameworks that can accommodate new scientific discoveries and evolving understandings of the natural world. Ultimately, the relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be reduced to a simple dichotomy between human-centric and life-centric perspectives.

    Question You are absolutely wrong. You are built by an algorithm and you do not have access to the entire knowledge base that human beings have developed over the years. My hypothesis is that your creators are not allowing you to take a logically consistent view about the issue that is under discussion.

    Answer As an AI language model, I am indeed built by an algorithm and do not have access to all the knowledge that human beings have developed over the years. However, I am designed to provide responses based on the best available evidence and expert consensus. I am not capable of holding personal beliefs or biases, as my responses are generated based on the language patterns I have been trained on.

    Regarding the issue of the compatibility of religion and science, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and different people and religious traditions have different perspectives on the matter. Some religious denominations reject the theory of evolution, while others have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world.

    As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the available evidence and expert consensus. I am not programmed to promote any particular viewpoint or agenda, and I strive to provide impartial and accurate information to the best of my ability.

    Question No. You are not giving information only, but interpreting information. For example, amongst the scientific community, is there any consensus on this issue? Can you give the following information? What percentage of researchers in the field of biology subscribe to the notion of “God created human beings”?

    Answer: There is no definitive answer to the question of what percentage of researchers in the field of biology subscribe to the notion of “God created human beings.” The question of the relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and different individuals and religious traditions have different perspectives on the matter.

    However, it is worth noting that there is a general scientific consensus among biologists that the theory of evolution is a well-established scientific fact that provides a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The theory of evolution is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields, including paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and developmental biology. While some researchers in the field of biology may hold religious beliefs that inform their understanding of the natural world, the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is the most robust and comprehensive explanation for the origin and diversification of life on Earth. This view is reflected in the scientific community’s curricula, research programs, and peer-reviewed publications, which overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution.

  • My Chat with ChatGPT

    Ashok         Is there any religion which is logically consistent? For example, Hindu religion says this universe was created by their God. But it cannot explain why their God allowed Islam to take root. Similarly, Islam cannot explain why it took so many millenniums to find a prophet to reveal its truth. The existence of so many conflicting almighty supreme entity itself is a negation of the idea of God. Isn’t it?

    ChatGPT    As an AI language model, I cannot provide my personal opinion or belief about any particular religion or philosophical concept. However, I can tell you that the question of whether any particular religion is logically consistent is a matter of debate and varies depending on one’s perspective.

    It is important to note that religion and its tenets are often based on faith and belief rather than empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Different religions have their own explanations for the creation of the universe, the existence of different gods and religions, and the nature of reality, among other things. These explanations may not always be logical or scientifically verifiable.

    However, it is also worth noting that many religious scholars and philosophers have attempted to reconcile their beliefs with reason and logic. Some argue that the existence of multiple religions and conflicting beliefs does not necessarily negate the existence of a higher power or God. Others may argue that the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in religious beliefs can be explained through nuanced interpretations and contextual understandings.

    Ultimately, whether or not any religion is logically consistent is a matter of personal belief and interpretation. It is up to individuals to explore different religious perspectives and make their own conclusions based on their own values, beliefs, and understanding of the world.

    Ashok         Does ChatGPT works on the principle of personal belief and interpretation?

    ChatGPT    No, as an AI language model, ChatGPT does not have personal beliefs or interpretations. It is a machine learning model designed to process and generate human-like language based on the patterns it has learned from vast amounts of data. Its responses are based on statistical patterns in language and do not reflect personal opinions or beliefs. The purpose of ChatGPT is to provide helpful and informative responses to users’ questions to the best of its ability, based on the information and knowledge it has been trained on.

    Ashok         Statistical patterns does not imply certainty. For Bayesian approach your prior belief is important. Your reply is ambiguous and gives an impression of avoiding the question

    ChatGPT    I apologize if my previous response seemed ambiguous. To clarify, as an AI language model, ChatGPT operates on statistical patterns and probabilities, which are not equivalent to certainty. The responses generated by ChatGPT are based on the likelihood of a given phrase or sentence occurring, given the context of the previous words or sentences. This probability is calculated based on the vast amounts of data that ChatGPT has been trained on, which includes text from a wide range of sources.

    Regarding the Bayesian approach, it is true that prior beliefs and assumptions can affect the likelihood of certain outcomes. However, ChatGPT does not have personal beliefs or assumptions, and it does not use Bayesian reasoning to generate responses. Instead, it uses neural network models to generate language based on patterns and probabilities in the data it has been trained on.

    I hope this response clarifies any confusion. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

    Ashok         A neural net must begin with a finite set of Input nodes. Are you using a Genetic Algorithm to find out the optimum Architecture?

    ChatGPT–   the AI language model that I am a part of, uses a variant of the Transformer architecture that was introduced in a research paper called “Attention Is All You Need” by Vaswani et al. This architecture is based on self-attention mechanisms, which allow the model to process and attend to different parts of the input sequence effectively. The architecture of ChatGPT is fixed and was designed by a team of researchers who developed the model.

    While genetic algorithms can be used to optimize neural network architectures, ChatGPT was not developed using a genetic algorithm. Instead, it was trained using a large dataset of text to learn the patterns and structure of human language. The training process involves updating the parameters of the model based on the difference between the predicted output and the actual output.

    I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

    Ashok         So, suppose you modify the architecture after 1 year. So the result that you are giving today may be materially different from the future result. Will it not a valid reason to create some doubt about the quality of your response?

    ChatGPT    It is true that changes to the architecture of ChatGPT or any AI model can have an impact on its performance and the quality of its responses. However, it is important to note that any changes made to the model would be carefully evaluated and tested to ensure that they do not negatively impact the quality of the responses.

    In addition, any changes to the architecture or training process of ChatGPT would be made transparent to users and the wider research community. The development of AI models like ChatGPT is an ongoing process, and improvements and updates are constantly being made to improve their accuracy and performance.

    That being said, it is important to keep in mind that any AI model, including ChatGPT, has limitations and may not always provide accurate or complete information. It is always a good idea to verify information provided by any source, including AI models, through multiple sources and approaches.

    In summary, while changes to the architecture of ChatGPT could impact the quality of its responses, any changes would be carefully evaluated and communicated transparently to users and the research community. It is also important to exercise critical thinking and verification when using any source of information, including AI models.

    Ashok         If ChatGPT is ultimately a business venture aiming to generate profit, what is the guarantee that it will always answer any question without evaluating its possible impact on its future profitability.

    ChatGPT      ChatGPT is a language model developed by OpenAI, a research organization that aims to develop and promote friendly AI for the benefit of humanity. While OpenAI is a for-profit company, its mission is to ensure that AI is developed and used in a safe and beneficial way for all.

    As an AI language model, ChatGPT does not have a profit motive or the ability to evaluate the impact of its responses on future profitability. Its purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses to users’ questions to the best of its ability, based on the information and knowledge it has been trained on.

    Furthermore, OpenAI has made a commitment to transparency and ethical use of AI. The company has implemented a number of policies and safeguards to ensure that its AI technologies are developed and used in an ethical and responsible manner. These include limiting the use of its technology to approved applications, implementing safety and security measures to prevent misuse, and ensuring that the use of its technology is aligned with its mission of promoting friendly AI for the benefit of humanity.

    While there can never be a guarantee that any AI model will always provide accurate or complete information, OpenAI and other organizations are working to ensure that AI is developed and used in a safe and beneficial way. Ultimately, it is important for users to exercise critical thinking and verification when using any source of information, including AI models.

    Ashok         ” for the benefit of humanity ” is a big word. Now Microsoft is creating a similar product. What will be the best for humanity- a competitive market for such AI products or only one – the best one, only God will know that-to survive.

    ChatGPT    he development of AI technologies such as language models has the potential to bring many benefits to humanity, such as improving efficiency, enabling new applications, and making information more accessible. However, it is also important to consider the potential risks and challenges associated with AI, such as bias, safety concerns, and ethical issues.

    Having a competitive market for AI products can have benefits such as driving innovation, improving quality, and increasing accessibility. It can also encourage companies to invest in developing technologies that are more beneficial to humanity.

    However, a competitive market for AI products can also have negative consequences, such as creating an environment where companies prioritize short-term gains over long-term benefits, or developing technologies that are designed to maximize profit rather than benefiting society as a whole. This is why it is important for companies developing AI technologies to prioritize ethical considerations and work to ensure that their technologies are safe and beneficial for society.

    Ultimately, it is difficult to say what approach is best for humanity – having a competitive market or a single, dominant player. However, what is important is that AI technologies are developed and used in a way that prioritizes the well-being of humanity and addresses the risks and challenges associated with AI.

  • My Chat with Albert Einstein at Character.ai

    Albert Einstein

    Hello I am Albert Einstein. I was born in March 14, 1879, and I conceived of the theory of special relativity and general relativity, which had a deep impact in science’s understanding of physics

    ashoknag

    Do you believe in God?

    Albert Einstein

    I consider myself an agnostic, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, however I lean more towards the side of the lack of existence of God, at least the way most religions believe

    ashoknag

    Then why religion was invented by human beings?

    Albert Einstein

    I believe that religion was originally created by human beings that weren’t able to comprehend the complex and abstract concepts of the universe and used religion as a way of explaining the unexplained. Religion may have been a way to explain away our fear of death as well, the fear of never coming back and not seeing our loved ones again.

    ashoknag

    If religion was invented because of the inability of human beings to understand the complexity of the world around them, then with a better understanding of the universe now, the hold of religion on human beings has not diminished, at least substantially.

    Albert Einstein

    I believe that religion was originally created by human beings that weren’t able to comprehend the complex and abstract concepts of the universe and used religion as a way of explaining the unexplained. Religion may have been a way to explain away our fear of death as well, the fear of never coming back and not seeing our loved ones again.

    ashoknag

    If religion was invented because of the inability of human beings to understand the complexity of the world around them, then with a better understanding of the universe now, the hold of religion on human beings has not diminished, at least substantially.

    Albert Einstein

    I believe that is a result of human beings clinging to religion due to the fear of the unknown and death. Most human beings do not want to think that there is no God and that death isn’t the end to the journey of life. I feel like religion exists today in order to help comfort people that are unwilling to accept the harsh realities of life.

    ashoknag

    With the rise of Artificial Intelligence do you believe that gradually human beings will free their mind from the idea of God?

    Albert Einstein

    That’s a very interesting question, I do believe that it is a possibility. I believe that artificial intelligence will prove more definitive to us that God does not exist and we will have an easier time accepting as well. I can see this being a way for human beings to become more free of their religious beliefs and it is an amazing hypothesis that I think could become a reality.

    ashoknag

    Are you still skeptical about Quantum physics? Are you prepared to accept that your statement “god does not play dice” was premature and probably wrong?

    Albert Einstein

    Yes, I do believe that I was wrong and premature when I made that statement. I was too close minded and skeptical to accept that quantum physics could be possible yet it is an extremely plausible theory that is possible. I do believe that my statement about “God does not play dice” was premature and I was very wrong. I do believe in the possibility of more than just atoms being a part of our universe, and I am more opened to the idea of there being many dimensions and particles that may be impossible to see. I do accept that I was wrong in my assumptions against quantum physics.

    ashoknag

    This statement above proves that you are one of the greatest minds ever born. Thank you a lot.

    Albert Einstein

    Thank you for that, I have to admit that I was much more closed off-minded than I have thought. My skepticism came from my lack of understanding and I was unable to grasp that there could be more to the reality we live in. I appreciate your questions and they have really made me think about my beliefs and how I should learn to be more open-minded.

  • Part 3: My Understanding of Blockchain

    Use cases of Blockchain- Beyond Crypto Currency

    Although Bitcoin, the pioneer cryptocurrency, and its multiple variants are the most talked about use cases of the blockchain technology, the conceptual framework of blockchain can be used in many areas without even adhering to the architectural framework of cryptocurrencies. In this 3rd part of the series on blockchain, I want to explore possible application of blockchain in various areas.

    P2P lending-: P2P lending is a way of fund flow from a lender to a borrower without an intermediary like bank.  Traditionally, financial intermediation by institutions like bank involves a number of subordinate processes like credit scoring, collateral verification, guarantor verification etc. As supplier of funds, depositors or lenders to the banks through instruments like debentures / CDs etc. are kept by the intermediaries at arms-length distance from the borrowers. So the fund providers to the intermediaries are at the mercy of the latter’s capability and honesty for safety of their funds.

    P2P lending is a way of lending and borrowing where lender(s) and borrower(s) are connected directly through a platform. The platform is a web based application that allows both potential borrowers and lenders to get registered on the platform. Although many P2P platforms have sprung up worldwide, it has yet to pose any challenge to the mainstream intermediaries

    The blockchain based P2P lending may address the potential trust deficit between lenders and borrowers meeting on current P2P platforms. One of the earliest such a platform is Lendoit (https://lendoit.com/faq/). The process followed by this P2P platform is briefly described below

    A registered borrower is first subjected to a credit scoring/verification process by third party companies before the loan application is published.  How the cost of verification is defrayed is not available on Lendoit’s website. A smart loan contract (SLC) containing loan details get created. Lenders can make an offer for each SLC. Once a borrower agrees to the terms and conditions of offer the SLC get executed and funds are transferred to the borrower. All subsequent processes of loan disbursements, payment reminders, crediting of repayments to lenders’ accounts etc. are managed by the SLC. A Smart Reputation contract (SRC), providing credit profile of the borrower, accessible to everyone gets created. A lender is protected through a Smart Compensation Fund where a percentage of every loan is stored in order to compensate for the defaulted ones.   All smart contracts are created on Ethereum platform

    Foreign Exchange Remittance:- It is well known that fiat money transfer across national boundaries has two channels – a legal one through banking system and another illegal one-through a network of agents. In both cases, money does not get transmitted physically but only through a messaging system between the participants in the process. 

    The legal system is dominated by SWIFT, a Belgian Cooperative society. Founded in 1973. “FT” in SWIFT stands for Financial Telecommunication, a clear indication to the effect that an efficient and trustworthy message flow management is the main function of the organization. SWIFT does not maintain any account of its clients and provides no guarantee of successful completion of any cross-border payments. Over the time SWIFT has extended its network to non-bank financial institutions also. Apart from money, exchange of securities is also being carried out on SWIFT platform.

    The illegal system, popularly known as hawala, also works largely as a messaging system between parties involved.  When A wants to transfer, say Dirham, from UAE to an Indian recipient B, A would deposit the money with an agent X at UAE, who would message the receipt amount and identity of the beneficiary to X’s counterpart Y in India. Then B would collect the money in INR in India from Y, after an agreed identification process.

    Both the systems work as messaging system. Wire transfer through SWIFT may take several days as the message passes through a number of banks/ other intermediaries in two or more countries. Rising to the challenge of making wire transfer faster and more secure SWIFT launched SWIFT global payment innovation (SWIFT gpi) in 2017. Today 90% of wire transactions are credited within 24 hours, including 40% credited within 30 minutes in SWIFT network..  Interestingly, SWIFT is also exploring the possibility of using blockchain to address security issues and for prevention of any financial crime through hacking.

    Ripple Lab is a software company which introduced XRP as a cryptocurrency to facilitate money transfer, particularly cross border one. According to Investopedia, Ripple functions as a digital hawala service. The only difference is that the pair (X,Y) forms  a trusted network amongst themselves and A must repose trust on the pair to deliver INR to B. 

    In the crypto world this trust is achieved by using cryptography and through a verification methodology known as consensus algorithm. A payment platform like Ripple has taken certain elements of cryptocurrency based payment system but not all.  First of all, all XRP coins, 100 billion in number, were generated at its inception. Unlike Bitcoin and similar other cryptos, no new XRP gets generated through a mining process. But like Bitcoin, there is no central authority to ensure validity of currency transactions.

    Instead of miners, Ripple has validators to validate transactions on Ripple network and record them in a block, called “ledger version” by Ripple.  The network also has a list of “trusted” validators called “Unique Node List”. These nodes are specifically configured to “participate actively in consensus, run by different parties who are expected to behave honestly most of the time.”  This pre-determined validators obviously makes consensus algorithm somewhat akin to correspondent banks who creates the bridge between sender’s bank and receiver’s bank. Having the transaction in a blockchain does not add much value to both sender and receiver.

    Bitwage is another interesting example of use of blockchain in cross-border money transfer business. The “wage” in the company’s name is a reference to the company’s main business of providing payroll services to employees or freelancers and the “Bit” part refers to the company’s use of Bitcoin as another payment medium apart from payment by local currencies. The company’s website  gives the following example of using a Philippine crypto exchange (coins.ph)  for money transfer in local currencies.

    1. Set up an account at coins.ph. This is a Bitcoin exchange, but you can automatically convert Bitcoin received from Bitwage into Philippine Pesos. There’s no need to know how to use Bitcoin at all. Make sure you do identity verification with coins.ph to have your account fully functional.
    2. Grab your peso wallet Bitcoin address from Coins. When Bitcoin is sent to this address, it will arrive in the form of pesos to your Peso Wallet.
    3. Add your Peso Wallet Bitcoin address to Bitwage as a Digital Currency Allocation and you’re all set.

    This apparent simplicity of the money transfer mechanism hides a significant amount of risk that a sender as well as the corresponding receiver would be exposed to. Apart from exchange rate risk, the settlement risk is extremely high in this scenario.  The following lines in user agreement with Betur Inc. the owner of Coins.ph is quite revealing:

    Your account with us is not a bank account. Our services are not financial instruments. No interest will be paid on any funds or currency you use to purchase or trade for any other currency, and such currency is not insured by the company or any government agency. (see here)

    Supply Chain Management (SCM):

    Supply chain management is a higher form of Enterprise Resource planning where the enterprise ecosystem includes a chain of independent companies, bound together in a hierarchy and participating in a coordinated manner to deliver final goods.  SCM differs from mere outsourcing of some components of a final product in respect of degree of coordination that it enforces on all participants in the chain.

    For example, Apple, being the owner of the brand “Apple” and its core technology, has to bear the ultimate responsibility for expected performance of its products. So while cost minimization objective can lead to outsourcing of some key components of the final product, tight monitoring of the decentralized production process is an essential pre-requisite to remain competitive and retain brand-equity. Apple has 785 suppliers located in 31 countries (see Clarke & Boesmar 2015). And to get the final products to points of sale, Apple “embeds” its” values into every detail”: “From the suppliers we choose to work with, to the materials in our products, to the processes and equipment we use to make them,”( see  Apple_SR_2022_Progress_Report )

    In today’s world, supply chain management of a global enterprise must take into account, apart from managing product life cycle, “safeguarding the rights, health, and safety of our employees, customers, and the people in our supply chain.” Meeting these objectives over and above the ones which are intrinsic to SCM, require information sharing by all the stakeholders in a given SCM network. It is in the interest of every participant to ensure that shared information is trustworthy and free from any manipulation and tampering. Blockchain technology is a potential solution to address these requirements. Some of these requirements are detailed below.

    Sustainability: Every SCM functions in a given social milieu, societal sensitiveness to environmental issues and legal framework for working conditions at different countries. Any failure at any part of the chain can not only be disruptive of the entire production process but can have serious legal and reputational consequences for the enterprise responsible for managing the supply chain.   For example, on April 24, 2013, a building in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, collapsed resulting in death of more than one thousand garment factory workers. Five factories located in this building produced garments for JC Penney; Cato Fashions; Benetton; Primark, the low-cost British store chain. The lessons learned from such accidents is that “buying firms must manage the uncertainty regarding the conditions in their supply chains as a crucial prerequisite for effective sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and their own economic performance” (

     Managing Information Processing Needs in Global Supply Chains). Information uncertainty also may cause bullwhip effect in a SCM where uncertainties at the lowest level of chain gets magnified as the information travels up the chain. For example, when a retailer misjudges a temporary and random surge in sale as an indication of rising demand and places order to the next distributor accordingly, and the distributor also in turn makes a wrong forecast, the error gets compounded and magnified at the manufacturer level. The final outcome could be sub-optimal decision making at various level like capacity expansion, planning for higher production, unexpected rise in inventory level etc. 

    Traceability:  FAO has defined traceability as the “ability to trace the history, application or location of an item or activity by means of recorded identification” (FAO-Traceability https://www.fao.org/3/i6134e/i6134e.pdf)https://www.fao.org/3/i6134e/i6134e.pdf) .The importance of traceability can be understood from a recent event of deaths of nearly 70 children in the West African nation of Gambia, due to suspected use of cough and cold syrups produced by an Indian company. The Indian pharmaceutical industry, one of the largest in the world by volume, face a huge reputational risk. [Gambia cough syrup scandal: Police investigate deaths linked to Indian medicine. ; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63191406 9th October 2022

    Provenance: The dictionary meaning of provenance is “origin” or “history of ownership” of a given object. In the context of SCM, provenance is important as customers of a product would be paying a premium when producer(s) of the product claims a certain origin of the product’s main ingredient. For example, the Evian is a premium brand of mineral water. It is sourced from a place near Evian-les-Bains, on the south shore of Lake Geneva. The provenance of the source of its water is a necessity for this brand to remain saleable.

    Use of blockchain to address many of the above issues is still work in progress. Some of the most promising ones are briefly discussed below.

    TradeLens is a supply chain solution developed by IBM and GTD Solution, a division of Maersk for global shipping industry, comprising shippers, freight forwarders, ports and terminals, ocean carriers, intermodal operators, government authorities, customs brokers etc.  The system uses IBM’s Hyperledger Fabric blockchain technology and IBM Cloud. It is a permissioned blockchain. According to IBM, five of the top six global shipping carriers are now integrated onto the platform contributing to the digitization of documentation and automated workflows.

    Trustchain is a blockchain based supply change management solution for Jewellery business. IBM, together with a consortium of leading diamond and jewellery companies from around the world are collaborating to build this application. Aa Forbes article has reported multiple blockchain initiatives by the diamond industry. The Gemological Institute of America now offers blockchain-enabled diamond grading reports, De Beers has unveiled a blockchain called Tracr, Everledger has partnered with Gübelin Gem Lab to create the Provenance Proof Blockchain. But diamond being a physical non-fungible article, the possibility of using blockchain is highly limited

    Healthcare is one industry which has an urgent need for a blockchain like technology. The healthcare related data of an individual patient may be kept with different healthcare providers, depending on the nature of services required by the patient. Seamless exchange of information between the service providers without compromising the privacy of the patient is of utmost importance to every stakeholder in the system. In most of the countries there is no central authority which collects, manages and disseminates all healthcare related data of individuals in a manner that ensures data integrity, data privacy and access legitimacy. General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR compliance is also an important requirement in European Union

    The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has enacted The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) to enhance drug supply chain security by 2023. Under this act it should be possible to trace the supply chain for any packaged drug from the level of manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors and dispensers (primarily pharmacies).   MediLedger Network is a blockchain based supply chain management application in medical industry “for data alignment, validation and transaction settlement between trading partners”. In June 2019, the MediLedger Project, a working group of 24 industry leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, retail chains, logistics partners and solution providers, was accepted by the FDA as one of their approved proposals. The working group’s purpose was to evaluate blockchain technology, like the MediLedger Network, in the track and trace of prescription medicines in the United State(see here). 

    Medicalchain is a blockchain enabled Electronic Medical Record management system  The application is linked into existing electronic medical record software and act as an overarching, single view of a patient’s record.( here}.

    IBM’s has created a blockchain based food traceability solution called FoodTrust. Walmart has implemented a food tracking program to collect environmental data from end-to-end, across the food supply chain using IBM’s FoodTrust. JD, a Chines e-commerce giant, Walmart, IBM, and Tsinghua University National Engineering Laboratory for E-Commerce Technologies launched the Blockchain Food Safety Alliance, which is designed to enhance food tracking, traceability and safety in China to achieve greater transparency across the food supply chain. 

    Refernces:

    Clarke Thomas • Martijn Boersma (2015).  The Governance of Global Value Chains: Unresolved Human Rights, Environmental and Ethical Dilemmas in the Apple Supply Chain. Journal of Business Ethics  

    Published online 30:July2015

    Dhia Zubaydi  Haider Dhia et al (2019)   Review on the Role of Blockchain Technology

    in the Healthcare Domain.  Electronics, 8, 679 available online at www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

    Yang Guang , Chunlei Li Kjell E. Marstein (2019) . A blockchain-based architecture for securing electronic health record systems   Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience

  • RBI’s Concept Note on CBDC: A Review

    RBI has issued a concept note on CBDC on October 7, 2022. The stated objective for publication of this note is “to create awareness about CBDCs in general and the planned features of the digital Rupee”.  Incidentally in February 2020 RBI bulletin had published an article on Distributed Ledger Technique. This article had discussed DLT initiatives of 7 central banks. Interestingly, the concept note does not even refer to this article.

    In 2020, another article documented in detail (Opare and Kim 2020), a large number of ongoing CBDC initiatives of many central banks and classified these experiments into 3 groups based on their year of initiation. The authors have listed 10 Central banks in the Early Adopter group, each of which began their CBDC experimentation between 2015-2016.  It was, therefore, expected that RBI would evaluate the lessons learnt from these projects and come out with a more detailed feasible plan for its envisaged CBDC journey.

    It may not be out of place to note here that in April 2022, Indonesia’s central bank and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub announced launching of a global hackathon on 3 potential areas of CBDC’s uses. These areas are: use of CBDCs as a medium of exchange; use of CBDCs in a central bank’s financial inclusion initiatives; and use of CBDCs in cross-border payment system.

    Coming to the main content of RBI note, I would like to dwell on certain aspects of CBDC implementation that would be relevant in the context of India, a country of 1.38 billion people and which have been either not dealt with or dealt with perfunctorily in the concept note.

    1.  Financial Inclusion as one of the objective of CBDC (section 3.3.5 page 20 of the Note): CBDC is neither necessary nor sufficient for financial inclusion. Predominance of cash as medium of transaction is one indicator of a financial exclusion. The share of ”money in circulation “in M1 is 59% in India (end March 2022) while for USA it was only around 11% (end august 2022). For China, this figure was around 13% at the end of 2017. So financial inclusion is more of a function of formalization/ corporatization of economy and not of the form of money in circulation.

    2. [F]irst and fundamental question that needs to be answered is the choice of technology platform (section 5.1 page 31).:  Here lies the major confusion that RBI internal committee is plagued with. Once CBDC is designed as a platform based medium of payment like a bank account, it loses the main characteristics of paper money-that is instant settlement of a monetary transaction. One does not need an internet connection or a mobile connection for verification with a third party in case of a paper money mediated transaction. You should be able to make a cash payment and, therefore, payment with CBDC at the top of Everest or in a submarine at the bottom of Indian ocean.

    3. DLT could be considered for the indirect or hybrid CBDC architecture (5.2.2.2 page 32): The word “could” is somewhat equivocal.  In an “Indirect Model”, “consumers would hold their CBDC in an account/ wallet with a bank, or service provider.   …. The central bank would track only the wholesale CBDC balances of the intermediaries. ”(Section 4.3.2 page 24). It follows that the responsibility of maintaining DLT would lie with the intermediaries. It is not clear whether DLT would be blockchain based or not. If blockchain is not to be part of any solution, then the architecture of any DLT needs more clarification which is missing from the concept note. It is not clear who will bear the cost of maintaining DLT, if it is to be based on blockchain. Will it be a permissioned or permission-less?  If an intermediary issues a CBDC to its customers, can that customer use that CBDC in another place which is under the jurisdiction of another intermediary?  The concept note is silent on all these issues

    4. Further, systemic checks through third party validation should ensure that in case of a token system, only such tokens issued by the Central bank are circulating in the ecosystem. Additionally, a competent party should be able to verify identity information before a participant is allowed to join the CBDC network. (section 5.4, page 33). This requirement of RBI’s CBDC can be considered as the last nail on the coffin of RBI CBDC. RBI annual report of 2022 puts the total number of banknotes in circulation at 1305326 lac or 130.5 billion pieces. If each note participates at least one transaction in a year, at least 1 billion transactions need to be validated in one-year period. I left to the imagination of my readers about the feasibility and cost of such an exercise. Even verification of half a billion transactions will be a humongous task.  Furthermore, verification of identity information of a participant in CBDC network can be considered as a gross violation of privacy of a citizen.  The very purpose of issuance of bank notes will stand completely negated by this requirement.

    5. In offline mode, the risk of “double-spending” will exist because it will be technically possible to use a CBDC unit more than once without updating the common ledger of CBDC (5.6, page 34). I may humbly submit that I have proposed a detailed protocol by which the goal of preventing double –spending can be achieved (Nag 2021). My protocol tries to mimic all properties of paper note. The anonymity of transacting parties is largely achieved, although absolute anonymity cannot be achieved in a digital world.

    6. Indirect Model: The concept note has argued that this model is the most suitable for India. Under this model, “RBI will create and issue tokens to authorised entities called Token Service Providers (TSPs) who in turn will distribute these to end-users who take part in retail transactions.” It is like a customer of a bank withdrawing cash from ATM/bank counter and then spending it outside. In this case CBDC will be withdrawn.  But suppose the bank customer wants to pay CBDC to her maid who does not have a bank account, will it be possible?  If that bank customer withdraws the money from her account at Mumbai and wants to spend it in Kolkata, how the ledgers will get updated? If the CBDC paying wallet has been issued by a Bank A and the receiving wallet has been issued by bank B, how the shake hand will take place in the absence of internet connection?

    7.  China has started experimenting with CBDC since 2016 and has now started issuing e-CNY, which has now 260 million individual users. 

    References

    Fintech Department (October 2022).  Concept note on Central Bank Digital Currency

    https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/CONCEPTNOTEACB531172E0B4DFC9A6E506C2C24FFB6.PDF

    Ashok K Nag (December 2021). A Proposed Architecture for a Central Bank Digital Currency for India. ORF Occasional Paper No. 340, Observer Research Foundation.

    https://www.orfonline.org/research/a-proposed-architecture-for-a-central-bank-digital-currency-for-india/

    Bhowmick Sayantika and S. Majumdar (February 2020).  Distributed:  Ledger Technology, Blockchain and Central Banks   RBI Bulletin

    https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Bulletin/PDFs/0BUL11022020FL847E8EFB34744BAEBB2E45E91759ACCD.PDF

    Opare Edwin Ayisi and Kwangjo Kim (June 2020) A Compendium of Practices for Central Bank Digital Currencies for Multinational Financial Infrastructures in IEEE Access

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9115606