This essay covers the Nuclear Energy
debates in India. Kudankulam is picked up as case study to discuss the debates.
The issue of safety, right to livelihood, right to life, right to development
will be discussed in this essay.
Energy is the most fundamental
requirement of every society or nation as it progresses through the ladder of development.
Of course, once it reaches a relative degree of development, the energy demand
becomes more stable. There is a correlation between the energy consumption and
income of a nation each reinforcing the other. Every step into progress comes
with an addition of demand for energy cars, ships and aircraft to move,
hospitals to give quality healthcare, education, as it follows the model of
e-connectivity, production of more and better goods, irrigation for better
farming. In fact, every element of our lives is increasingly going to become
energy intensive that is a necessary prerequisite for development. India finds
itself going through a phase of rapid ascent in economic empowerment.
Industries are evolving at a significantly higher rate since liberalization.
Our focus for this decade will be on the development of key infrastructure and
the uplifting of the 600,000 villages where 750 million people live, as vibrant
engines of the economy. It is predicted that the total electricity demand will
grow from the current 150,000 MW to at least over 950,000 MW by the year 20301.
Currently India has huge power deficit which is over 12,000MW during the peak
season and southern region was the worst affected2. India is
exploring various avenues to plug in demand supply gap. India is considering
Nuclear energy which is considered to be the clean energy and cheap energy as
safe bet to plug in the gap. The Government of India intends to draw
twenty-five per cent of its energy from nuclear power by 2050. This plan
includes 20,000 MW of installed capacity from nuclear energy by 2020, and
63,000 MW by 20323. India has developed its own indigenous
technology as other nations were reluctant to transfer civil nuclear technology
to India as India is a non signatory of Non Proliferation Treaty.
Traditionally India has relied on thermal and hydro power plants. Jawaharlal Nehru once said that dams are
the modern temples of the society so that people would voluntarily accept dams
and would not hinder process of securing India’s energy needs. Nuclear power
also was endorsed after Independence. India was assisted by Canada to build
nuclear power plants. But after the 1974 phokran-1 test Canada has withdrawn its support. As a reaction to the India’s nuclear test an export cartel group
named, Nuclear Suppliers Group was formed. The mission of NSG is to apply to
nuclear transfers for peaceful purposes to help ensure that such transfers
would not be diverted to unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle or nuclear explosive
activities. Under this guideline an embargo was issued to restrict export
nuclear technology or materials to India. So as a result India was insulated
from the nuclear technology which was swaying the globe. It was until the
Phokran-2 no one took India seriously. The test has angered United States and
led to sanctions on India though they were lifted soon. The Immediate aftermath
of the Blasts was U.S lifted the high technology transfers ban to India4(Jayaraman 2006). U.S has amended its domestic law to
create an exception in its 123 agreement under which U.S promoted Non
Proliferation treaty (NPT). But by doing
this U.S restricted India to not perform any further nuclear tests and made
India to agree to separate its civilian and military reactors. Under this the
International Atomic Energy Association(IAEA) can inspect the civilian reactors to
inspect the safeguards and prevent India from misusing the technology to
enhance its military nuclear capabilities. India has performed its Phokran-2 bring U.S to
the negotiation table on nuclear technology 4(Jayaraman 2006). The Hydes act was passed and one time
exception in the NSG has diluted the significance of Non- Proliferation Treaty
which was passed to restrict nations other than the then 5 nuclear nations
develop nuclear weapons. Immediately after the NSG exception, to import nuclear
minerals the pioneers of clean energy envisaged India as a golden goose to
market their technology. Multiple deals were signed and lands were acquired and
handed to develop nuclear power projects with different countries. The Nuclear
Liability Bill and Fukushima incidents have brought back the safety issues on
to the agenda and triggered the discourse of right to life once again. Apart
from Safety the livelihood of villages that are being affected are brought upon
to the agenda.
The story of Kudankulam dates back to
1988, when then the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signed and intergovernmental
contract between Russia and India to build two nuclear reactors. The downfall
of Soviet and the unipolar world dominated by U.S kept the project to stay in
limbo till 2001 citing the 1992 NSG agreement. The construction started in 2001
and in the sway of nuclear deals made after the NSG waiver to India Russia and
India negotiated to build 4 more reactors. The construction went on unopposed
and was at full swing till tsunami hit at Fukushima. The Fukushima disaster
followed by nuclear leakage has triggered mass protests across the globe to
rethink on nuclear energy. Countries like Germany went a step ahead and
declared to wind up few existing nuclear power plants and has proposed a new
energy security road map which reduces the dependency on nuclear energy. Protest took off at nuclear power plants
across India. Kudankulam has gathered a critical mass support and has the
social movement and protest at the plant disrupting construction work at the
plant has drawn the countries focus to this small fishing town.
Kundankulam nuclear debates go beyond the safety of projects. The organizers have gathered critical mass from fishermen community across the coast citing the impact of the nuclear power plant on their livelihood. Green peace activists argue that the hot water released from the plants at 37 degrees can potentially wipe of the marine fish in the costal belt. Fear is also rising in the fishing traders that catch from the Kudankulam coast can have ‘poisoned’ fishes which might be denied by U.S and European countries citing radioactive contamination. The livelihood of people is here threatened. The protestors have successfully identified the issue and have pushed their agenda when they had a trigger event “Fukishima”. Supreme Court in its past judgments have prioritized livelihood of citizens over the development agenda. In Olga Tellis case Supreme Court has favored the pavement settlers against Bombay Municipal Corporation which was trying to relocate the pavement dwellers citing congestion on the city pavements. Even in the Vedanata mining case recently the Supreme Court has ruled that the indigenous people have rights on their resources. The Dongria Kondh community, whose identity is fully dependent on these hills, has been fighting for the survival of their way of life for a decade. The mining licences would have resulted in violation of their rights as indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to water, food, health, work amongst others. We can compare both Vendata project and kudankulam project on the grounds that both are projected as potential threats to livelihood of the inhabitants who have be intergenerationally depending on the resources in these areas for their livelihood and these projects can potentially wipe out the resources. But the irony is in the recent judgment on Kudankulam the Supreme Court has ignored the fact of impact on livelihood. Supreme Court even did not consider it worth to be mentioned as a passing comment or to give any directives to the regulatory bodies to take necessary steps to protect the interests for fishing communities. Supreme Court has mentioned that citizens have accepted Minor inconveniences for a greater good. One cannot understand how minor inconveniences can be handled by fishing communities when Kondh tribe cannot handle them. Isn’t it double standards when one community is given freedom to decide on project affecting the livelihood to go ahead or not while other hasn’t?
One has to look at the power play of
politics here. In the Vedanata case Orissa Mining Corporataion(OMC) a state
Public Sector Unit controlled Orissa
government led by Navin Patnaik which is opposition to the central
government is a stake holder. Opposition
from center was received from the initial stages of projects citing
environmental clearance issues. Though prime minister asked ministry of
environment to relax the norm on major projects like Orissa its nothing but a
mere eye wash. Whereas Kudankulam power
plant is being managed by Nuclear Power Corporation of India, which is controlled
by department of atomic energy, which in turn reports to the prime mister
office strangely did not face any environmental clearance issues even though
there is a serious threat to marine life. The Nuclear Power Plant is being
commissioned without any legal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a fact
admitted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests in a sworn affidavit fi
led in the Madras High Court. According to this affidavit, environmental
clearance for Units 1 and 2 was given ‘as early as 9 May 1989’ and renewed on 6
September 2001. Since EIA notification under Environmental Protection Act came
into existence only on 27 January 1994 and provision for public hearing was
introduced only on 10 April 1997 there was no need for KKNPP to go through
these critical processes8. The madras high court also gave a go
ahead to load the fission material into the reactors .
The suppression of protests at the
project reminded us the period of emergency in India. 144 sections were brought
into force at the plant site later it was extended to 7 km radius of the plant
where people cannot gather in groups. The entire protest was spear headed by
P.Udaya Kumar from village Idinthakarai which acted as the ground zero for the
protest. The government turned hostile to the protest. It has nearly slapped
6,000 cases slapped cases of sedition and waging war against country on people
who were involved in the protest. The irony is despite of having a medical
documentation of being mentally challenged an individual was taken into custody
for waging war against state. The concerns of their safety are genuine and they
had every right to protest peacefully (without arms) against the state.
Suppressing the movement by curbing freedom of speech and misuse of anti-sedition
law are clear misuse of power and violation of constitutional provisions. After
the Fukushima disaster fear took over the villages around the power plant.
People living near the nuclear plant have expressed concern over the safety
measures adopted by the NPCIL. They allege that no training has been conducted
in the eventuality of emergencies considering the area is densely populated
with nearly 70,000 people living within a five km radius of the plant. There is
fear of radiation among people living within a 30-km radius. Denial of
information on the liability clause contained in the Indo-Russian agreement has
added to their fears9 (Senthalir 2012). The government also tried various approaches
to strangle the movement by cutting of Idinthakarai from the world. Transportation
was withdrawn; supplies like milk, frequent power cuts the government tried
turning every stone to suppress the movement. There is one more concern which
was not addressed, displacement of people affected by the project. The project
authorities continue to violate their own preconditions for setting up a
nuclear power project. For instance, in the five km radius around the project
that should be a “sterilised zone”, there are three settlements, including
Idinthakarai where the protests were held. In the 16 km radius where the
population should not exceed 10,000, there are presently 70,000 people. The
inevitable displacement of this population has added another layer of concern10(“Unclear
over Nuclear” 2011).
Strangling the movement on one hand
government has fielded its investment close to Rs 15,000 crores by garnering
support from nuclear scientists like former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Kalam
has made substantial efforts to convince people that nuclear power is clean and
the only way for economic prosperity. He also addressed the concerns are
illogical as chances of a nuclear accident is very rare and even if an nuclear
disaster happens the damages would be minimal, not as projected as the
anti-nuke protestors. He also fielded nuclear energy is a sustainable energy
and India has to bank on the thorium resources it has to secure its future energy productions as the
coal and petroleum reserves might deplete very soon and there are ballooning the
fiscal deficit11. Prime Minister also tried to invoke the patriotism
and said the anti-nuclear movements are being funded by foreign NGO to create
political turmoil. 3 NGO licenses were also revoked stating they have routed
the funds to anti-nuclear energy movements. The protests were diluted and were
given a death blow with Supreme Court giving a nod to the nuclear plant in May
6, 2013.
In its judgment the Supreme Court has
stressed that Kudankulam plant is safe and secure and it is necessary for
larger public interest and economic growth of the country. It also mentioned
While setting up a project of this nature, we have to have an overall view of
larger public interest rather than smaller violation of right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. The court also noted that
public money running into crores and crores of rupees has already been spent
for the development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the
people and, hence, we have to put up with such minor inconveniences, minor
radiological detriments and minor environmental detriments. The Court laid down
15 directions as conditions to be fulfilled as part of operating the plant. Specifically,
it has asked the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), the Atomic
Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and
the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to fi le a report pertaining to safety
and environmental impact before commissioning the reactor. The Court also
called for the withdrawal of all criminal cases fi led against those pros-
testing the plant, albeit in a guarded fashion. The Court directed NPCIL, AERB
and the government to take steps “at the earliest” to comply with all the 17
recommendations made by the AERB following the Fukushima accidents12.
(“National
Interest Trumps Human Safety” 2013)
The question is on the debate of
right to development vs right to live kicks in. The government commitment to
plug the power deficit by choosing nuclear energy over others has turned
government hostile to the anti nuke protestors. Government cannot think of any
other alternative other than nuclear energy as thermal power plants are
polluting and the import of coal is widening the trade deficit. Both solar and
wind energy are unreliable as they output is depended on the weather
conditions. More over the electricity produced from solar energy is relatively
exorbitant when compared to that on nuclear energy. The government cannot rely
on hydro power plants as they have serious environmental impacts and are
displacing millions of people. Dams are equally as dangerous as nuclear power
plants as and dam failure can flood and wipe out hundreds of villages and
thousands of inhabitants of those villages. The failure of Banqiao Reservoir Dam in china has claimed
200,000 people. According to official estimates, the flooding killed
26,000 people and another 145,000 died of disease and famine13.
Thermal power Plants are a also a bad bet to place for our energy security as
they are serious environment polluters and are releasing huge quantities green
house gases. This is leads to global warming which leads to rise of sea levels
and climate changes. So considering all
the options nuclear seems to the only safe bet as rest of the options are not
competent enough or equally disastrous as nuclear plants. The growing demand
for electricity ultimately forces us to pick up one to generate more energy to
quench the nations thirst. No one has right to subjugate the demands of the
anti nuke poster boys but the fact which they should also realize is life is
miserable without energy. Even the protestors need electricity to charge their
phones for their communication. So are these protestors ready to give up their
electricity consumption share as compensation for winding up nuclear power plants?
The answer would be big no. So what is the way out? People have issues with
dams, nuclear power plants, thermal power plants and the rest renewable
sources, with current technology cannot alone supplement the power. So what is
the way out? Should we stop expanding our power sources to plug in the demand
supply gap to fuel growth of economy and wellbeing of people or should we
respect safety of few or violate right to development of millions of people. One
agrees that perception varies. But the chances of nuclear disaster happening is
very rare. In the entire history of nuclear energy only 3 major accidents
happened. We have learned from them and have advanced our safety measures.
I would like to conclude that in the near
future nuclear energy is only option that India can pursue to meet its energy
crisis. Once the solar energy becomes commercially viable and we can tap energy
that can power the entire nations we can slowly phase out the nuclear power
plants as Germany is doing now. Till then it’s a risk worth taking. One should
also note that risk here doesn’t mean to jeopardize safety of individuals. I would totally concur with Supreme Court’s
Judgment that nuclear power can be taken chosen with full safety measures and
to be managed with utmost care so that lives of few individuals will not be jeopardized.
I also feel the government should have been much more accommodative and should
have not opted to the coercive way to suppress the movement. Ultimately
fundamentals of our republic boils down to democracy and if voices of people
are not being head and issues are not addressed that would be death of
democracy. Government is not bound to give in to every lobby it meets but it
has to consider their concerns and try to address them if they can’t it has to
propose alternatives. In case the
alternatives are weighed out it then has to take sides which benefit the
majoritarians without harming minorities. As Supreme Court mentioned in its judgments
issues like this have to be delicately balanced. The policy formulation has to always consider
other stake holders. The policy principles have to be widely accepted. The
government before investing huge money into projects like this should interact
with the all the stake holders which include the people who are going to be
impacted from the project and consider their reservations on the project. The government can potentially avoid protests like these by making all stakeholders to feel that the
government is being transparent and accommodative.
References
2. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-14/news/38529356_1_peak-power-deficit-power-shortage-central-electricity-authority
4.Jayaraman, T. 2006. “Journey from Pokhran-II to
Hyde Act.” Economic and Political Weekly (December 23).
http://www.epw.in/commentary/journey-pokhran-ii-hyde-act.html.
8. Jayaraman, T. 2006. “Journey from Pokhran-II to
Hyde Act.” Economic and Political Weekly (December 23).
http://www.epw.in/commentary/journey-pokhran-ii-hyde-act.html.
9.Senthalir, S.
2012. “Silent Emergency in Koodankulam.” Economic and Political Weekly
47 (31) (July 27): 23–26.
10. Unclear over Nuclear.” 2011. Economic and Political Weekly
(October 1). http://www.epw.in/editorials/unclear-over-nuclear.html.
12. ““National Interest Trumps Human Safety.” 2013.
Economic and Political Weekly 48 (20) (May 11): 7–8.
No comments:
Post a Comment