Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and ex-officio Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, one of the drafters of the Bill is guilty of ignoring the consequences of possible nuclear disaster because his text has privatized profits and made liabilities public. Mamohan Singh who is in-charge of Department of Atomic Energy appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty as well. The Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests chaired by T Subbirami Reddy reveals their culpability quite categorically. This report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 18th August, 2010. Report attached What else can explain their indifference towards other concerned ministries like health, agriculture, labour, water resources etc. Aren’t they relevant? What can explain the lack of consensus among the committee members even in matters of national interest?
India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 is meant to pave the way for India to sign International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, 1997. The question that stares citizens in the face is: whether or not the proposed liability Bill and the pre-existing IAEA’s compensation treaty in the supreme interest of present and future generation of Indians? If India decides to join the CSC, it will be an exercise in surrendering its sovereignty to a conflict of interest ridden regime like IAEA which is both the promoter and regulator of nuclear commerce. Like IAEA, Indian the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is dependent on the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) whose mandate is charged with promoting nuclear power in India.
The Parliamentary Committee enquired from Nirupama Rao , the Foreign Secretary that “whether there are other considerations apart from the legal requirements that necessitated the Bill.” She informed that “since the Government is operating within the ambit of international agreements and on the basis of certain principles the nation should have provisions of the nuclear liability Bill.”
This is further corroborated by two members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee namely, Saman Pathak and Barun Mukherji. Both have observed categorically that the provisions of the Bill will unduly favour the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment and it is being done to make the provisions compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). Like all Indians both these members are not convinced with the rationale of India joining the CSC because this legislation on civil nuclear liability does not “keep the interests of the Indian people, who may be affected in a nuclear accident, as its core concern’.
In its 25 page report on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests observes, “When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz. Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc. replied in the negative. The Committee is of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even distantly related to any provision of the legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that in future Government should consult all such Ministries/ Departments which are even remotely concerned with the provisions of a proposed legislation.”
It is noteworthy that the 25-member working group on civil nuclear energy-2009 constituted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) under the chairmanship of Dr S K Jain, chairman and managing director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited came out with a 57-page report with the format of the proposed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Dr Jain was present during the testimony of the experts and citizens to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests. The government of India has an ambitious target “to increase our installed capacity more than seven fold to 35,000 MWe by the year 2022, and to 60,000 MWe by 2032.” Established in pre-independent India in 1927, FICCI is the largest and oldest apex business organization of the country. It claims to be a “non-government, not-for-profit organisation”. FICCI has direct membership from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 83,000 companies from regional chambers of commerce. As part of its corporate lobbying, “FICCI works closely with the government on policy issues, enhancing efficiency, competitiveness and expanding business opportunities for industry through a range of specialised services and global linkages. It also provides a platform for sector specific consensus building and networking.” In such conflict of interest ridden circumstances, Dr Jain claimed that the health hazards from Chernobyl nuclear disaster is no more visible. Therefore, he implied that the questions of intergenerational adverse effects do not arise. Are his claims factual and trustworthy?
Under the influence of FICCI and US nuclear industry, Dr.T. Subbarami Reddy, Dr Mammohan Singh and Dr Srikumar Banerjee have chosen not learn from the mistakes of US firms who embarked on a nuclear power strategy under the assumption that the radioactive waste management problem was not difficult and would be solved relatively quickly. Subsequent events have proved otherwise because radioactive waste management efforts are quite different from industrial and municipal waste management.
Observations of G K Pillai, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs illustrate how Banerjee has not been rigorous in the drafting of the Bill. While commenting on the conditions in which the operator of a nuclear power plant, who could be made liable for nuclear damage, Pillai stated that the Bill contains such terms as armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an act of terrorism that have wide meanings but have not been defined in the present Bill. Therefore there is a need for inserting meanings of these terms from other laws, in Section 2 of this Bill. Such vagueness in connotations can make the operators negligent in observing security procedures and can create situations of disputes between the operator and the central government.
It is frightening to know that any nuclear incident may induce radioactive contaminations in surface, ground water bodies, and other water resources. U N Panjiar, the Secretary, Water resources was of the opinion that the Ministry does not have any facility for testing water quality, from point of view of nuclear contamination because this work has been done by the Department of Atomic Energy. The efficiency of Department of Atomic Energy gets routinely revealed in issues ranging from radioactive steel, ship breaking industry, Mayapuri scrap market, Kaiga incident etc. Didn’t AERB reveal its incompetence when it declared Mayapuri scrap market radiation free when it was proven later that the radiation still existed in the area? Didn’t it do the same after inspecting the obsolete ship Blue Lady?
While Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy responded by saying that Ministry of Water Resources has not been involved in checking and monitoring the quality of water because this job is done by the Environmental Survey Laboratories of the Department of Atomic Energy, the fact remains the Bill should have been sent to the Water Resources Ministry as well because Department of Atomic Energy deals with point source of radioactive pollution and not with non-point source of pollution. It is saddening that Ministry of Water Resources conceded that since expertise is available in DAE alone, the Ministry need not be consulted. Panjiar rightly stressed upon the need to study the impact of nuclear contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops. The Bill does not make any provision for such efforts.
In such a context it is germane to recollect that more than 51 years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s assembly voted into force an agreement with the IAEA, a UN agency that prevented the WHO from investigating, warning and revealing the dangers of nuclear radiation on health. The agreement is attached.
Coincidentally, K Sujata Rao, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare while deposing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests mentioned that “while drafting the Bill the Dept. of Atomic Energy did not consult them. Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. She also mentioned that in the entire Bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of such radiation. She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout.” She confessed that her Ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies. Present and future generation of India would slaute Sujatha Rao for her exemplary conduct to safeguard her compatriots.
Clearly, objectives of Health Ministry and Department of Atomic Energy are at loggerheads in the same way as objectives of WHO and IAEA are. The former is dedicated to promoting health and the latter exists to promote nuclear commerce. Under the agreement between WHO and IAEA, the two agencies must “keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties”. Notably, probe into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 was taken over by IAEA and dissenting voices were suppressed. The health effects of the nuclear accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev, Ukrain in 2001. The full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished. The programme and conclusions of the Kiev Conference is attached. The Kiev conference was organised by WHO Association of “Physicians of Chernobyl” in co-operation with UN agencies. There is no evidence to suggest that our Department of Atomic Energy or the Parliamentary Standing Committee had accessed the documents of these conferences and drew lessons from it.
IAEA’s International Conference on Chernobyl – Looking Back to Go Forwards Towards a United Nations Consensus on the Effects of the Accident and the Future, Vienna, September, 2005 was a public relations exercise by the nuclear industry that promoted such risk models for nuclear radiation that understated the true hazards. Chris Busby, the scientific secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) and visiting professor at the University of Ulster’s school of biomedical sciences observes, “The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO’s independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings.”
Disregarding lessons from 26 years of Bhopal disaster, even in the 24th anniversary year of the Chernobyl disaster the WHO-IAEA Agreement is yet to be abandoned. ECRR has called for its abandonment. India too should call for freeing WHO from hiding facts about health effect from nuclear hazards due to the agreement.
Amidst public relations blitzkrieg of nuclear companies, it is not surprising that Banerjee, Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy expressed his touching faith in the nuclear power companies of all ilk and informed the Parliamentary Committee that the “Reactor at Chernobyl did not have a containment, while old reactors in India have containments and, therefore, Chernobyl type incident can never take place in India.” Is it because of such divine belief in the nuclear technology that he was starkly negligent in choosing not to consult revenant ministries while drafting the Bill? Is it for this very reason that doctrine of “absolute liability” for the operator, supplier, builder and owner has been subverted? Business enterprises are “strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability,” as per Supreme Court’s order. The liability of the operator should be made “absolute” to ensure that there are no exceptions.
The Bill ignores the fact that Union Carbide Corporation was also in the business of nuclear power and its current owner The Dow Chemicals Company (since February 6, 2001) too offers a range of nuclear grade resins that are designed and manufactured to meet the requirements of the nuclear power industry. As part of its `policy perspectives’ for `Accelerate Development of Alternatives and Renewable Energy’, Dow calls for “An increased reliance on safe nuclear power and technologies for effectively managing nuclear waste”. Radioactive waste is not a single “thing” that can be isolated and dealt with.
Reddy, Singh and Banerjee should have recommended more openness, increased public access to information so that no agency hides problems to be solved by the future generations. Current draft of the Bill is leaving the nuclear waste problems for future generations.
This is illustrated by what Alka Sirohi, Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee , while explaining the functioning of her Ministry, she emphasized the ill-effects of nuclear radiation on food items and its subsequent repercussions on human health and safeguards to be taken to prevent nuclear contamination of food during radiological accidents. She further mentioned although radiological damage to food items may fall within the generic definition of the property as mentioned in Clause 2f (ii) of the Bill, it would be better if the said Clause could provide a separate definition food grains along with of storage of foodgrains. Additionally she also mentioned that safety norms, distance, location and operating procedure, which should be defined in the Bill during the construction of the warehouses for foodgrains storage to be followed, near a nuclear facility. She also mentioned about the establishment of laboratories for the standard testing of food articles to ascertain radiation levels. Sirohi merits appreciation for her considered submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The Bill remains silent on the grave issues raised by Prabeer Kumar Basu, Secretary, Agriculture who mentioned before the Committee that the disaster management structure in the country is oriented in such a manner that emergencies arising out of floods, earthquakes and droughts could be managed in an efficient manner. However, on the other hand, unfortunately the disaster management structure in the country, as per his opinion, is not well tailored in meeting radiological fall out and more unfortunate to mention that even educated section of the people is not well aware about the implications of a serious nuclear disaster. He therefore, felt that more public awareness needs to be built in respect of nuclear disaster and its hair-raising impact on biological population. He further pointed out that as a consequence of a nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl type, it is quite possible that agricultural crops around 30 to 100 kms. from the site of the incident could be wiped out total. This may affect seriously the biodiversity of the crops in the radiation area and the farmer may loose their traditional variety of crops. In this connection he mentioned that the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and Gene Bank in the country who are keeping a sample of each variety of crops can preserve these varieties which could be planted for further production if a variety of crops is entirely lost due to radiological emergency. He however, mentioned that there should be suitable rules, regulations and guidelines and compensation model for agricultural damage that could be inserted at an appropriate place in the legislation which may work after a radiological eventuality takes place.
Further revealing the criminal negligence of the drafters of the Bill, Prabhat C Chatirvedi, Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment while referring to Clause 5 (1)(i) which provides for non-liability of operator for any nuclear damage arising out of a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character pointed out that grave natural disaster should not include earthquakes or floods. He advised the Committee that if nuclear plant is placed in a seismic zone, it should be properly designed to withstand earthquake of severe character. The word natural disaster is too general. He further mentioned that concept of absolute liability of the operator in case of a nuclear damage whether it is on worker or someone else should be invoked in the Bill. The Secretary, while referring to Clause 39 (1) of the Bill, drew the attention of the Committee that no specific monetary quantum has been mentioned in regard to the fine to be imposed under the chapter on offenses and penalties. He therefore, suggested that specific quantum of fine in monetary terms should be defined in the Bill. Chaturvedi merits plaudits for his considered submission before the committee.
In compliance of the suggestion of Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee Science & Technology, Environment & Forests during my testimony on 3rd August, 2010 and pursuant to my written submission dated 7th July, 2010, Toxicswatch Alliance (TWA) had specifically drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Standing Committee with regard to the narrow definition of the word “installation” and conflict of interest ridden existence of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). In a letter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee dated August 12, 2010, TWA has highlighted the backdrop of the deliberations on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Meera Shankar, Indian Ambassador to the US, and William Burns , the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States signed the Agreement on Arrangements and Procedures for Reprocessing on July 30, 2010 in pursuance to Article 6(iii) of the Agreement for Cooperation concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between India and the US. TWA has questioned the merit of centralised power stations like nuclear given 35-40 percent transmission and distribution loss from power grids.
R.Gopalan, Secretary, Financial Services submitted before the Parliamentary Committee that “any increase in premium of insurance will lead to increase in the cost of production of electricity for nuclear power. It is argued that higher the liability limit higher will be the insurance premium and subsequently higher will be the cost of electricity production.” Unmindful of such concerns its business as usual for the US nuclear companies and FICCI. A press release from the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC noted, “The historic bilateral cooperation agreement for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the 123 Agreement that we signed two years back provided for reprocessing of US obligated nuclear material in an Indian national facility under IAEA safeguards.”
It observes, “The government of India has already designated two sites for nuclear power plants to be established in cooperation with the US and the companies of the two countries are now engaged in discussions” as a follow up of the last month’s Strategic Dialogue and the meeting of the CEO’s Forum prior to the visit of President Barack Obama to India in November 2010.
Reddy, Dr Singh and Banerjee have failed to discourage nuclear power companies to locate “sinks” like deep waters of ocean, sea, rivers, air and landfills etc in which it could dump, flush, or vent radioactive waste products. They have skirted the issue of India’s radioactive waste management and it should desist from NIMBY-ism. NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard”. The US state of Nevada is fighting a classic NIMBY battle against the Yucca Mountain facility. In India too communities should be empowered and not harassed for asserting their right to safe environment and the rights of future generations. It was once argued that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was another important waste management strategy although the act of reprocessing still generated volatile waste products which exacerbated the waste management problem even as it reduced the overall volume of radioactive waste material but it only made radioactive waste problem a long-term disposal option. Notably, US itself has stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel during the late 1970s by order of President Jimmy Carter.
Reddy, Singh and Banerjee do not realize that the difficulties with radioactive waste cannot be dealt with by imposing a legislative fix on a problem that has not been clearly defined or fully understood. Such legislative fixes are hardly a solution as became evident from US Nuclear Waste Repository Act of 1982 and a 1987 Congressional amendment to the Act which mandated consideration of only one location, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository leading to major litigation as well as significant opposition from people in the US state of Nevada. Nuclear power cannot and should not expand in India as is the case with the US until the problem of where to dispose of radioactive waste is solved.
P Umashankar, Secretary, Ministry of Power apprised the Committee about the Clause 3 of the Bill, wherein the notification regarding the occurrence of a nuclear incident is to be issued within 15 days by the AERB. According to him, “the nuclear power station incharge/ director will immediately declare nuclear emergency, and forthwith the disaster management plan will start, without waiting for the publication of the notification and the 15 days time-period also needs to be reduced. ” This is quite sensible but it appears that Department of Atomic Energy did not consult even the Power Ministry.
Testimony after testimony before the Committee had asked for deletion of the word terrorism from the Bill but the same is not reflected in the Committee’ s report despite the fact that Pradeep Kumar, the Defence Secretary, who also appeared before the Committee categorically stated, “under different layers of protection, nuclear assets including nuclear installations are being protected through Defence. However he admitted that absolute and fool proof protection cannot be guaranteed for any nuclear or other assets in the country during peace or war.” Exceptions for acts of terrorism can easily be used by the supplier and the operator to wash their hands off any nuclear disaster.
In view of the above observations, there is a very urgent need for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (sans conflict of interest) to probe and examine the current liability regime in general and nuclear liability regime in particular in the developed countries besides a High Powered Trans-disciplinary Independent Experts Committee to study the status of adverse enviro-occupational hazards world over. Human cost of industrial disasters have created a compelling logic to do away with the idea of limited liability to companies, the proposed Companies Bill should make a beginning in order to make these legal-artificial persons accountable to our legislature.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Email-krishna2777@gmail.com, Mb: 9818089660, Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
People are deeply rooted to the native place where they have been living for generations in harmony with nature. Every aspect of their social structure is delicately intertwined with the structure and function of the ecosystem in a unique manner that has been learnt by every new generation for hundreds of years. This system of learning is natural or traditional which has accumulated over time.
When an ecosystem is disturbed repeatedly beyond its capacity to recover then its structure and function is affected which in turn directly affect the people living in the proximity. This is obviously because of the dwindling ecosystem services on which they had heavily depended. As a result they are forcefully displaced to a new place.
Climate change is the most potent source of disturbance at present that has already shown its effect in various parts of the planet in form of increased instances of extreme events. The consequences may be in form of melting of glaciers, increased sea level, desertification of land, heavy rainfall, salinization of drinking water, ocean acidification, powerful cyclones, drying up of rain fed rivers and loss of biodiversity.
People are driven out either slowly or suddenly at a time depending on the type of calamity. Displacement of people creates a huge vacuum in the social structure of the particular community due to the depletion of traditional and natural knowledge based system which accumulated over hundreds of years. This leads not only to large scale unemployment but drastically changes their lifestyle from a less resource intensive and sustainable pattern to a more resource intensive unsustainable pattern of development. In order to sustain their livelihood they resort to haphazard and indiscriminate resource exploitation from the new system which soon become disturbed. It may further lead to antisocial and Naxalite activities.
The year 2009 was the hottest year in the decade and consequently India suffered prolonged dry spells throughout thus crippling the nations backbone i.e. agriculture. Jharkhand the state to which I belong was among the worst hit receiving less than 47% of the rainfall in the year 2009. Ranchi the capital of Jharkhand is situated in the Chhotanagpur plateau at a height of 2,140ft above the sea level. Forests in Jharkhand spread over an area of 23605 square kilometers, which constitutes about 29.61% of the total area of Jharkhand. Moreover, out of the 23605 square kilometers of forests, 82% of area falls under the protected forests, whereas 17.5% of the land falls under reserve forests. The forests are rich source of biodiversity on which the tribal population in the forest depends heavily. The State is also abundantly rich in minerals- Copper, Coal, Iron, Manganese, Mica, Chromite, Bauxite, etc. Reserves of Gold and Silver have also been found in the State.
Huge number of unregulated and unsustainable developmental activities has resulted in rampant destruction of the state’s fragile ecosystems. Forests along the rivers(Damodar and Subarnarekha) have been cleared at an alarming rate thus threatening the source of fresh water for the people.
This problem has been compounded by Climate change which has already shown its effect and will perhaps intensify in the coming days if the coming trend continues.
Earlier the summer temperature in Ranchi used to vary from 20.6ºC to a maximum of 37.2ºC but in recent years the maximum temperature has gone up to 42 ºC. The span of winter season has decreased. Rainfall has become erratic. In 2005 and 2006 the state received excessive rainfall. In 2007 heavy rainfall was accompanied with unusual hailstorm in the month of February and March. 2008 and 2009 was marked by extreme dry spells which had ravaged the paddy cultivation in the state. The Jharkhand government had declared the districts Chatra, Latehar, Palamu and Garhwa districts as drought hit. Scanty rains had made these districts drought-hit for the second consecutive year.
The effects:
1) Direct effect may be in form of injuries due to heat stroke, dust storms, and thunder bolts and due to flash floods in the river basins.
2) Indirect effects are the cause of long term socioeconomic problems.
- Dwindling ground water level due to poor rainfall, high summer temperature, deforestation and increased water demands due to urbanization. Most of the perennial water streams and waterfalls dry up during the drier seasons almost completely. This is because the aquifers are not sufficiently recharged.
- Due to failure of agriculture food security has become a big issues for the poor people of Jharkhand.
- Spread of vector borne diseases due to warmer climate like malaria and lymphatic filiarisis.
- Spread of water borne diseases like cholera, hepatitis and other dirrhoeal disease has shown an increasing trend.
- Sensitive ecosystems may are being severely damaged resulting in the loss of large number of animal and plants many of which are already threatened. A study shows change in pattern of distribution of plants along the hill slope due to warmer climate. The plants in the top of the hill are threatened the most because they can no more shift to higher altitudes. Many of these plants have immense medicinal value while others are still to be explored.
- The tribes are among the worst hit by the adverse affects of the climate change primarily because of their dependence on forest resources and agriculture. Recent years have seen mass migration of tribal population from their native villages in the forest to the urban areas in search of occupation and better lifestyle. Climate change will further aggravate the situation forcing more and more people out of their native place.
- This may further lead to depletion of traditional knowledge which has been gained by close association of people with nature.
- A fraction of the people resort to violent methods to seek justice and tend to defy the existing system of law and order.
- Anti social activities has also increased in the recent years.
- Several NGOs are working to conserve the remaining forests, water bodies, to replenish the ground water and to promote sustainable lifestyles by promoting the use of solar energy and geothermal energy instead of fossil fuel.
The future of our state depends on judicial blend of natural resource exploitation and adequate conservation measures.
For several decades, Mahasweta Devi has worked for the welfare of tribal communities. She has involved herself in the development work for the Lodha, Khedia and Shabar tribes in West Bengal and Jharkhand, but she is circumspect about her alleged ‘closeness with Maoists.’ On being asked to give her opinion on the Naxal problem the country faces, she has said time and again, “Why am I only told to write on this issue? I don’t know any Maoist.” Moreover, while discussing this issue, she made it clear that she didn’t approve of the killings in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada by Maoists and that she is completely against such violence. She called on the central government to start a dialogue with the Maoists immediately and stop Operation Green Hunt as it would not solve the Naxal problem. It would victimise the tribal people, and this she didn’t want.
Independent writers, intellectuals and NGOs from West Bengal and across the nation who sympathise with the pain and suffering of the tribal communities are being castigated, directly or indirectly. Today, it has become customary to consider Maoists activities and tribal revolts by the same standards, as if they are complementary to each other. One can clearly see the effects of the warnings on Mahasweta Devi’s exclusive writing for Delhi Press on the Maoist issue.
Here is her opinion:
Today is 23 April. Delhi Press wants me to write on the growing violence, especially the Naxal violence. As far as Maoism is concerned, I accept that until today I have not met any Maoist, nor have I had an opportunity to talk to anyone. For us (who have closely watched the Naxal movement), their violence is the result of continuous injustice meted out to the common man, especially the tribal people.
The statement of Jairam Ramesh, Indian Environment & Forest Minister is clearly depressing with no sign of hope. With every passing day it is becoming clear that Cancun is also going to end up as a “tea party” with lot of tamasha.
Now one thing is going to be pretty clear that the symbolic activism promoted by civil society in the North which claims itself to be international has failed and failed on a large scale. Forming numbers, switching off lights, dancing in public places, commemorating days is not the way to ask for radical action. Something more need to be done. Blame will also go to our prominent “activists” based in India & developing south, who talk about Gandhi but leave his lifestyle for others to follow. Many from the same lobby have a lot to say about Marxism and plight of proletariat class but prefer to live in bourgeois houses. The carbon footprint of “Messiahs or Saviours” of planet earth is also very high & similar to that of an American from high income group.
The words of Sheikh Farid (Sufi Saint) “Farida Je Tun Akal Latif Hain/ Kaale Lekh Na Lekh/Apnane Gireban Mein/Sir Nevan Kar Dekh” are very much relevant for all the “environmentalists” & those who call themselves as “climate activists.” It is the high time to seek retrospection; bring the real voices out instead of taking old stinking hypocrites as leaders, if we want something worth while in Mexico.
The issue of Climate Change will be hard to digest in the coming future. As Mr. Dunu Roy (of Hazard Center) rightly points out that we the people from the urban middle class are the most vulnerable species on earth. Forget about “cute” polar bears or “mighty” Bengal tigers, now even our future is at stake. It is for us to now take rigorous course of action which calls for change and pressurize world leaders to do something. We have enough time, Mexico is faraway, lets brainstorm and figure out alternatives which includes the interests and well being of all those who are going to suffer with the worst of the climate emergency.
Cancun should not merely end up as conference of “parties,” but instead a call for all Davids to take on Goliaths!
To escape their crippling debt, thousands of farmers across the country have decided to exercise their last option – end their own lives – though it does not make much news. People in the cities do not come out on the streets asking why so many farmers have committed suicide in the last fifteen years. Ministers of the state and central government do not acknowledge their mistakes or policy failures and resign from office. Newspapers and television channels do not scream for help and demand immediate bailouts. There is so much brouhaha over the global financial crisis in India, but hardly anyone seems bothered about the agrarian crisis which has killed, on an average, one farmer every half hour in 2007 alone. After all, it is not the Sensex, banks or companies whose survival is threatened. It is a question of survival for merely half the population of our country. The population which remains invisible in the villages, mandis and fields. The population which feeds the country but is uncertain of its own future.
We, at Perspectives, started thinking about agriculture when we were struggling with our earlier work – development and displacement. The forced acquisition of agricultural land along with lack of alternative employment opportunities for those displaced made us think about the plight of those dependent on this sector. In our opinion, no meaningful development of the economy is possible without the growth and development of the agricultural sector.
In June 2007, a Perspectives team went to Mansa and Patiala districts of Punjab. The myth of the unending prosperity of Green Revolution was busted. The misery of farmers in one of the richest states of our country convinced us that this was a matter worth investigating and understanding.
In May 2008, a team of seventeen people from Perspectives visited the Pandharkawada tehsil of Yavatmal district, one of the suicide-hit districts of Maharashtra. We interviewed farmers in 15 villages, some families where members had committed suicides, and the peasant leaders of the region.
The desolation and hopelessness of Vidarbha farmers continued to haunt us. The grim situation in Vidarbha galvanised us to understand the complex causes of the larger crisis in Indian agriculture. Suicides are only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The agrarian crisis in India has been deliberately engineered by the state, to serve profit-seeking interests and to pursue the urban-centric, growth-obsessed model of development. Credit to agriculture, public investment, irrigation, subsidies, costs of inputs, minimum support, public procurement, technology, trade-related international agreements – the list of areas where governments could have acted in the interest of our farmers, but chose to do the contrary, goes on and on. During the course of our work, we have realised how much the rulers of this country have neglected the agricultural sector, especially in the period of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, and made it possible for transnational corporations of the developed countries to earn profits from this sector. They have ensured that the occupation of agriculture loses all dignity and respect, becomes unviable and unsustainable, and leaves the farmer with no option but to seek ways – including suicide – to get out of his profession. Continue reading »
The Run Up
The draft Bill which had been approved by the Union Cabinet on November 20 20091 was eventually listed for tabling in the Lok Sabha on March 15 20102, the penultimate day of the first half of the Budget Session of the Parliament, after a lapse of almost 4 months.
In fact, the Bill was in the offing for quite some time by then, since the successful clinching of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, on October 10 20083.
The Deal has, it may be pertinent to recall, opened up for India the doors to the global nuclear market, thereby making the tag ‘Indo-US’ somewhat of a misnomer in so far as the tag conveys the impression of strict bilaterality4. The market had remained out of bounds since the first (“peaceful”) nuclear explosion carried out by India way back on May 18 1974 with the plutonium obtained from the spent fuel rods of the nuclear reactor CIRUS supplied by Canada5 to mentor India onto the path of developing capabilities to generate nuclear power (only) for “peaceful” purposes. The nuclear explosion, despite the disingenuous tag, “peaceful”, was looked upon by the rest of the world as a clear breach of faith, if not worse. The reactions were strong and almost instantaneous. India was, as a consequence, practically shooed out of the global nuclear market. With passage of time the barriers went further up and up. And, more so, after the second round of five blasts, on May 11 and 13 1998, declaring itself openly as a nuclear weapon power and attracting strong condemnations from the rest of the world6. Things became even tougher.
But if the US had earlier taken the lead to impose sanctions in response to Indian blasts, under George Bush, it took a unilateral initiative to radically reverse the situation in 2005. The contours of that move were duly captured in a joint statement issued on July 18 by George Bush and Manmohan Singh from Washington DC. After traversing a long and tortuous path marked by cajolements, mainly by India, and muscle flexing by the US, the international community was sort of coerced into accepting India back as a legitimate partner in (civilian) nuclear trade. The 45-member Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) on September 6 2008 at the end of two rounds of stormy sessions granted a unique waiver to India, completely disregarding Pakistan’s shrill cry for a similar, and even-handed, treatment. The grand reward for the grossly aberrant India stood out in sharp contrast also with the harsh treatment being meted out to Iran, a signatory to the NPT, on the ground of its presumed intention to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of working towards nuclear power despite repeated denials and access granted to IAEA inspections of its facilities7.
This Bill is generally being looked upon as a continuum of that process, allegedly, in order to ensure a “level playing field” for the American enterprises – to let them have a significant share of the cake8, the Indian nuclear market – a part payback for the American generosity bestowed upon India, for its very own reasons though. The move had, however, been first conceived by the then NDA government way back in 19999.
When the US Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton, visited India in July 200910, there were talks of the Bill getting passed by the Indian Parliament. But nothing of that sort happened. Again in late November 2009, when Singh was to meet Obama in Washington DC11, there was talk of getting the Bill enacted. Even then, it did not happen. The Union Cabinet had dutifully approved the Bill just on the eve of the visit though. With Manmohan Singh to visit the US to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, called by President Barack Obama, slated to be held on April 12-13112, the government was again trying to push it through. Never mind the considerable cooling off of Indo-US relations in the meanwhile as compared to the George Bush days13.
It is of course quite another matter altogether that the Bill could not eventually be tabled on account of the shift in relationship of forces within the Parliament caused by the introduction, and its passage in the Upper House, of the much lauded and controversial Women’s reservation Bill14. And now, given the realignment of forces, whatever be the intentions of the government, no easy or early passage is on the cards. But that does in no way mitigate the salience of the Bill and its serious implications. In any case, Barack Obama is scheduled to visit India later this year15. So the pressure will persist.
The Bill
Since the Bill was approved by the Union Cabinet on November 20 2009, at least three significant changes have been made. One, the name has been changed from ‘The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009’ to ‘The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010’16. Two, in clause 6. (2), the quantum of “liability of an operator for each nuclear incident” has been revised upwards from “rupees three hundred crores” to “rupees five hundred crores”. Three, a new “Chapter”, ‘Offences and Penalties’ with 4 clauses, has been added. Also, the Chapter IV, ‘Claims and Awards’, has been somewhat restructured and expanded.
The Bill, in the present form, is contained in 28 (26 + ii) pages. It has 7 Chapters constituted of 49 clauses and also ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ with ‘Notes on clauses’ following plus two memoranda. Continue reading »
The goverment decision to defer the bill makes sense. It may not be out of place during the pause to go over some aspects of the whole story.
In a democracy where ruling combines keep changing, international commitments ought to be made with the consent of most sections of the House, as also approval, at least informal, of the people. By that yardstick the 123 deal made with the approval of a razor thin majority cobbled up on eve of a general election suffered from democratic deficit. The govt. also glossed over the fact that US approval of the same was subjected to their Hyde Act. The first hurdle (still unresolved) in the implementation was the expected controversy regarding reprocessing of the spent fuel.
The condition of limited liability now sought to be imposed by Obama amounts to an important amendment of the deal. Let us refer to this proposal as MO (Manmohan-Obama) deal. This new proposal should be treated as an opportunity to correct the earlier wrong. The leadership of all political parties need to clearly bear in their minds (may be they already do so) that in the intervening period, the country has moved on. It has passed through a tough phase during the fight against Bt. Brinjal before achieving ‘informed’ success. It has also disapproved the manner of the constitution of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), as also of the conduct of the GEAC. Looked at somewhat differently, it has strengthened the govt. enabling it to resist the pressure of a powerful MNC.
It is important in the current context to understand the magnitude of the nuclear reactor hazard. Continue reading »
