India puts lives ahead of nuclear energy

People’s life and livelihood versus nuclear power for industry JOHN DAYAL It is the life and the livelihood of the poorest of the poor versus a nation’s ambitions in nuclear energy for industry and super-powerdom in Koodankulam in south India. A lakh of men, women and children demonstrated earlier this month at the, several of them launching a ten daylong hunger-strike, demanding a stop to the Russia-assisted construction of a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant which has triggered a nagging controversy both on its physical safety, following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, and its impact on the environment affecting the livelihood of several million boatmen and fisher-folks along the Coromandel coast. It made international news was the presence of a large number of Catholic Priests and Nuns, many of them born in the area and umblically connected with the people whose cause they so openly espoused. Catholics and other Christian denominations form a significant part of the coastal population of Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, and of neighbouring maritime states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala, most of them subsisting on fishing and prawn farming, both sensitive to a warming of sea currents because of unchecked waste water discharge. According to a UCAN report , the people came from 20 Catholic villages and a dozen others around Koodankulam from the districts of Kanyakumari, Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli. The agency interviewed some of the demonstrators.“Russian nuclear technology has failed in Chernobyl. Why should we use it here to endanger our lives,” said Bishop Yuvon Ambroise of Tuticorin and chairperson of the Office for Justice, Peace and Development (JPD) at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India. Bishop Ambroise said the country should look to Europe and Japan as an example.“India should follow Germany and Japan, who recently announced that they are giving up their nuclear facilities after the Fukushima disaster.” “Our lives are in danger because of the nuclear plant,” said Bishop Peter Remigius of Kottar. “We want the facilities to be used for useful purposes.” Medha Patkar, who mothered the Narbada Bachao movement against big damns said questions remained over why the government had approved the facility in an inhabited area despite environmental concerns. After more than a week, the agitation was called off when the Union government and the administrations of Puducherry and Tamil Nadu, the two affected States, called a temporary halt to work on the nuclear plant and promised talks with the local people. The Tamil Nadu Cabinet of chief minister J Jayalalitha is to pass a formal resolution and send it over to the Union Government. Prime minister Manmohan Singh will have to take a call on the issue after he returns from New York where is attending the General Assembly of the United nations. It remains a moot question if the government will indeed halt further work and eventually shut down the existing units of the plant. Fears are it will not. Nuclear energy, for war and for peace, remains locked in a fierce stranglehold of hyper nationalism and the needs of the growing economy in a country whose people aspire to be a global superpower in the not too distant future. This nationalism has made real debate on safety and security issues all but taboo in the country, with just a handful of activists and academics involved in any genuine debate. Years of nuclear isolation, when its only technological support was from the then Soviet Union, accentuated India’s paranoia that the world wanted to keep it away from cheap power for its growth. A clandestine nuclear military experiment exploded India into the Big Power club when the regime of the late prime minister Indira Gandhi carried out an underground blast in the early 1980s in the desert sands of Rajasthan. Two decades later, the government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, leading a National Democratic alliance collation headed by his own Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, carried out a series of explosions in the same testing grounds. Pakistan, neighbour and traditional enemy, followed suit with its own nuclear experiments. Both countries today have an estimated more than two hundred strategic nuclear warheads mounted on ground and air-borne missiles, and possibly also on warships. This show of might, and an end of the soft military alliance with Russia, has helped India reach pacts in nuclear material with the US and Europe who look on the expanding Indian market with deep interest. Electricity for industry and homes remains a critical need for India, which does not have great reserves of oil, and only limited reserves of high grade coal for hydrocarbon-fuelled thermal power plants. With most of its northern rivers flowing through unstable seismic regions prone to earthquakes, the safety of existing hydel power plants has been called into question. The collapse of the tunnels in the Teesta river project in the north eastern state of Sikkim in the recent earthquake had revived the paranoia first evoked when a quake hit the Koyna dam in Maharashtra some years ago. Jawaharlal Nehru and his scientific advisers thought succour lay in clean nuclear energy. In 1962 Homi Bhabha, the father of atomic energy in India, projected 20,000 mw in nuclear generation capacity by 1987 based on imported reactors. The target, and future targets, could never rally be achieved. The Department of Atomic Energy which owns the largely indigenous nuclear power program now has a target of 20,000 MWe for 2020 and expects to have 63,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2032. It aims to supply 25 per cent of electricity from nuclear power by 2050. Because India is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty due to its weapons program, it was for 34 years largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, which has hampered its development of civil nuclear energy until 2009. Due to these trade bans and lack of indigenous uranium, India has uniquely been developing a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium. Its current energy derived from nuclear plans is 5,000 mw. According to the government’s own assessments, quoted in the media, electricity demand in the country is increasing rapidly, and the 830 billion kilowatt hours produced in 2008 was triple the 1990 output, though still represented only some 700 kWh per capita for the year. Because of the massive transmission line losses, this resulted in only 591 billion kWh consumption. Coal provides 68 per cent of the electricity at present, natural gas 8 per cent, hydro-electric units giving 14 percent more The per capita electricity consumption figure is expected to double by 2020, with 6.3% annual growth, and reach 5000-6000 kWh by 2050. By the way, there are many who blame coal based units for pollution and question the security and safety, even the displacement potential, of dams meant for irrigation and power. The crippling of the Fukusima plant in Japan in the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 has for once brought the safety debate into the public domain. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s global expert fact-finding group has in its June report said “there were insufficient defence for tsunami hazards” the likes of which devastated the Coromandel coast of India, as also Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka, some years ago. The Nuclear Power Corp. of India has undertaken safety evaluation of 20 operating power plants and nuclear power plants under construction, suggesting a series of safety procedures, specially for plants along the coastline. The nuclear power lobby says the Russian VVER reactors of 1000 MWe are considered to be quite safe, unlike the Chernobyl graphite RBMK reactors. They have many safety features built in to them, and have an operating life of 40 years. The reactors at Koodankulam have an added “passive cooling” system for additional safety. The more advanced VVER 1200 reactors, with more safety features, are being built in Russia, and would be available for the future expansion of Koodankulam. While 30 VVER-1000 reactors have been built, 19 more are planned or are under construction. China has built two such reactors at the Tainwan nuclear power plant and is constructing six more. The VVER 1000 built in China has 94 per cent of its systems automated, i.e. the plant can control itself under most situations. The IDEA has referred to the Tainwan station as the “safest nuclear power plant in the world”. The lobby says the Koodankulam reactors can be considered to be adequate from the safety standpoint. “There would be no rational reason for stopping the project at this stage, when it is over 95 per cent completed.” The plant is far from major seismic activity, it is said, and therefore the risks are manageable. This is challenged by anti Nuclear activists such as the pioneering journalist Praful Bidwai who has carried out a safety campaign for more than twenty years. The environment impact on the ocean is a more urgent issue. The Koodankulam thermal power plant will require large amounts of cooling water, an estimated 70 cubic metres per second, which will be heated up while going through the coils of the nuclear power plant and will be discharged into the sea. The impact of this warm water on the marine environment is said to be difficult to assess, and would depend on the sea depth, flow rates, and ecology. There have also been some allegations of the health effects of radiation on people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants elsewhere in India. But India has clearly indicated it will not abandon the quest for nuclear energy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is emphatic about the future of India’s nuclear energy programme, saying “there would be no looking back on nuclear energy,: and in fact proposing expanding India’s civil nuclear energy with adequate safety measures. Indian civil society is not convinced if the measures will really be adequate to prevent a future disaster. Koodankulam and the fishermen in its neighbourhood remain apprehensive.

KILL BILL -- The turbulent course of the Communal Violence Prevention draft Bill in the National Integration Council meeting

JOHN DAYAL I must begin with a Disclaimer: I was a member of the Working Group of the Mrs Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council which drafted the Prevention of Communal Violence [Access to Justice and Reparations] Bill 2011. I am also a member of the National Integration Council. In the council’s belated meeting on 10th September 2011 in the magnificent Vigyan Bhawan, I was the solitary Christian Member – of the other two, St Stephens College principal Dr. Valson Thampu did not attend, and Delhi Archbishop Vincent Concessao was away in Rome – to speak and support the enactment of such a Bill, which otherwise came in for a brutal drubbing at the hands of Bharatiya Janata party’s parliamentary leaders Mrs Shushma Swaraj of the Lok Sabha and Mr Arun Jaitely of the Rajya Sabha, and the party’s chief ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, leaders of most major non Congress parties and even the bosses of some Satellite TV channels. My views in this article may, therefore, be somewhat biased, and if they are, it is despite my trying hard to be absolutely neutral. I may also point out that during the framing of this draft Bill, I, together with jurists Vrinda Grover and Usha Ramanathan and activist Shabnam Hashmi, have been a critic of many a provision relating to a feared erosion of the federal character of our governance and possible allusions to “disturbed areas” which are anathema to many of us in the civil liberties movement. The NAC accepted over 57 objections before publishing its draft Bill. Having said that, I fear that there has been a possible attempt in some official quarters to kill this Bill even before it has formally seen the light of the day by being send to the Cabinet, then introduced in Parliament, discussed in select committees and then debate openly on the floor of the Rajya Sabha [where an apparition of a 2005 Bill still lives] before being passed and signed into law. The manner in which it was allowed to be mauled in the open meeting of the National Integration Council – just four of us really supported it, three being social activists – put a huge question mark on why the Bill was so prematurely put before political opponents for their views, and why no one from the government or from the Congress Party spoke, or was allowed to speak, in defence of either the Bill or the rational for coming up with suitable legislation to save religious minorities of all sorts from targetted violence. The Bill came into being from the group experiences of the anti Muslim pogroms of Gujarat in 2002, the attempted annihilation of Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa in 2007-2008, the haunting memories of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and other cities, together with attacks on Dalits and Tribals over the past few decades. The government had come up with a Bill in 2005, but when it presented its version in the Rajya Sabha, it was clear that the administration was empowering governments and police rather than protecting and defending the victims. It took five years of hard labour by civil society and specially by the Muslim groups, led by the likes of former Chief Justice Ahmadi and several retired high court judges, before the government agreed there was need to revise the Bill thoroughly. The National Integration Council took upon itself the task of drafting the proposed new Bill, together with other social legislation it was working on including the Right to Food. It set up a working group with members Harsh Mander and Farah Naqvi as coordinators and experts and activists representing the minorities, legal luminaries and others on the team. It took close to a year before the Bill took some share, seeing bitter and prolonged discussions between members to balance the needs of the minorities and reconciling it with constitutional provisions and the Indian penal Code. It was quite clear from the beginning that there was a felt need to identify and punish targetted violence, define who will be identified as victims and when, and how action would be taken to end impunity, enforce command responsibility, set up some mechanism to trigger state action. It was also clear that we did not want to repeat the experiments of the National Human Rights commission and the national Commission for Minorities which were either toothless, or as themselves as defenders of national honour by defending the government, or were toothless. It was also clear to us that the federal character of the state could not be trifled with. And above all, many of us were absolutely adamant that there be no reference to disturbed areas on the pattern of Jammu and Kashmir and the north eastern States which gave unfettered powers to the Armed Forces. Although most of the members had worked with the victims of communal violence, and therefore wanted some universal principles and equality to be introduced both in justice and in reparations and relief and rehabilitation, we did not want fears to be expressed about possible overthrow of state governmetns by the Centre and the introduction of President’s Rule. Therefore it was only the second part of Article 355 which was seen as an entry point for the Central government to encourage state governmetns to act swiftly when communal violence went out of hand, as had happed in Gujarat and Kandhamal. In defining groups, it was also clear to us that most groups could be in a minority in some state or the other, and in certain circumstances. Though Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians were the national minorities, even Hindus were a minority in as many as seven of the 35 States and Union territories of India. Other issues covered in the Bill in detail were Dereliction of Duty by public servants which was recognised both in omission and commission. The definition said public servants who act or omit to exercise authority vested in them and fail to prevent or offences or protect victims or act in a malafide or predicted manner will be guilty of punishable offences. They had of course first to identify the violence as targetted. The monitoring and grievance redressal, the bill said, shall be with the National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation (NACHJR) and corresponding State authorities (SACHJR). The monitoring mechanism of national and state authorities will also provide the “paper trail” to ensure robust accountability of public officials in a court of law. The critical clauses related to the identification of targetted and communal violence. The Indian Penal Code contains most offences committed during episodes of communal violence. These have been appended in a schedule to the Bill and shall be considered offences when they cross a threshold of being knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of a minority group. Brutal forms of sexual offence as seen in Gujarat and Kandhamal have also been included in the bill, as is hate campaign and propaganda leading to alienation and targetted violence. Just to make it doubly sure that the Bill passed muster, the draft said advisories and recommendations of the NACHJR were not binding on State governments. All powers and duties of investigation, prosecution and trial remained with the State governments. The draft Bill, after being put in a legislative format by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jai Singh [she did only the formatting, not the actual drafting, it must be made clear] the draft was put on the Internet by the National Advisory Council to garner public opinion which would be sent to the Central government together with the suggestions came. In due course, the ministries were supposed to clear it before the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister adopted a final version for introducing in parliament. That is why the developments in the NIC meeting surprised us. The government had not formally intimated its position on the Bill nor had it formally sent it to the opposition parties and the state governmetns for their official opinion and suggestions other than the NAC putting it on its website. The agenda formulation too made it seem that those who were to speak had either to accept it or reject it, rather than to critique and analyse it. As the formal NIC note put it, the agenda of the meeting was “measures to curb communalism and communal violence, approach to the Communal Violence Bill, measures to promote communal harmony and measures to end discrimination, specially against minorities, and finally, how to prevent radicalisation of youth”. Unfortunately, barring the preliminary remarks of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the discussion, along political divides, focussed on just the Draft NAC Bill. The tone was set by Sushma Swaraj who slammed the Bill and said it did not consider people as Indian citizens but divided them on line of religion or ethnicity and language. Her party, she said, would formally oppose the Bill. Arun Jaitely followed suit, saying the federal structure would be hit. In saying so, they almost verbatim followed the propaganda that had been let loose for weeks earlier by the RSS and its wings, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad whose leadership threatened a nationwide agitation to ensure that the bill, which they aid stigmatised the Hindu community, did not bring law. It was mostly the BJP chief ministers who were present in force barring Narendra Modi of Gujarat. They all opposed the Bill in the language similar to the Bajrang Dal and RSS. Nitish Kumar, Jayalalitha and Mayawati had stayed away, but the text they circulated criticised the Bill for infringing on the rights of the states. The CPM – and both Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury spoke, also had grave apprehensions about the federal motives of the NAC. BJP’s allies at one time or the other, the Akali Dal and the Biju Janata Dal, also toed the line. What surprised observers was the stance of the UPA ally Trinamul Congress of Mamta Bannerjee which made common cause with other state governments in the issue of the rights of the states. Scholar Zoya Hasan and some media stalwarts also spoke against the Bill for a verity of reasons, but essentially implying that existing laws were more than sufficient. There were very few supporters. Ministers do not speak at NIC meetings as a matter of form. But other Congressmen do. They refrained this time from supporting a draft emerging out of a council headed by party president Sonia Gandhi.. The support came from Muslim members Navid Hamid and Asghar Ali Engineer and a few others. The Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, Wajahat Habibullah, repeatedly asked for permission to speak, but in the end could not. In an interview later, he said he wanted to stress issues of Rehabilitation, Accountability and the plight of Internally Displaced persons, which in fact was added on NCM’s recommendation following Kandhamal, Ahmedabad and the situation in Tribal areas of Tripura. He also referred to the agenda item on youth, mentioning the victimisation of Muslim youth arrested In the Mecca Masjid bomb blast case and the governmetns” arresting them under laws on criminal conspiracy and sedition and so on. The matter of course is not over. The debate continues even among those of us who were members of the NAC Working group. Many have called for an urgent meeting of the Working group to revisit the issues of federalism and possible encroachment of the powers of the States. There is a feeling that even if the objections have been political, there is need to make the Bill go through parliament with consensus and dialogue, and therefore there is a need to engage with the states governmetns and with various political parties. There is a definite agreement, articulated by eminent law teacher Upendra Buxi that there is need for a law to prevent targetted and communal violence. Vrinda Grover said “we must also pay heed that criticism or anxiety is being expressed from across the board and not just the usual suspects.” Vrinda and Usha Ramanathan were among the first in the Working group to flag problematic provisions. “There is some merit in reconsidering some legal propositions presented in the final NAC draft of the CV Bill, 2011,” she says. “I am afraid the apprehension that this law is a device for the Union to usurp the power and role of the States and intrude at will, lingers on. The ill advised Clause 20 of the penultimate NAC Bill, still haunts public memory, with some reason. Despite Clause 20 having been dropped no corresponding change has been made the powers and functions of the National Authority. It is this that has invited the wrath of many regional, Left, 'secular' parties who would have otherwise been our allies and advocates of this Bill. Most of us agree with Vrinda when she says “tampering with the federal structure will not yield anything for those constituencies who need the protection of the CV law. It will however alienate critical allies, without whose support, it is unlikely that this Bill will ever translate into law, as the numbers will simply not add up.” All eyes are now on the NAC and the Union Government, though the hopethat the Bill would be placed before Parliament, possibly as government amendments to the Bill of 2005, are fading fast.

Justice issues of Kandhamal, Dalit Christian demands raised at meeting of National Integration Council

[The following is an abridged version of the points raised by Dr John Dayal, Secretary General, All India Christian Council, at the meeting of the National Integration Council at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi on Saturday, 10th September 2011. The Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, chaired the meeting moderated by Union Home Minister Mr. P Chidambaram. Mr. L K Advani, BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitely, Defence minister A K Anthony, chief ministers of Orissa and other States, leaders of the Congress and other parties, leading industrialists were among the Members of the NIC present.]

“Mr. Prime Minister, Honourable Union Ministers, Honourable Chief Ministers, distinguished Members

I bring you greetings from the Christian community in India, proud to be Indians, and proud of the fact that our country has rule of law under a Constitution that guarantees us Freedom of Faith as a vital component of our Secular, Socialist Democracy.

At the outset, may I express our community’s strong condemnation of the recent bomb blast outside the Delhi High court, and express our solidarity with the victims and our fellow citizens. Terror has no place in Indian society. There is no cause big enough to merit mindless violence that targets innocent men, women and children. As people of Peace, we pray for the dead as we also pray for the speedy recovery of the injured. Above all, we pray eternal peace and prosperity for India, our motherland.

We ourselves are victims of a different sort of socio-political terror, the terror of communalism. Our data shows we are targetted across the country with at least one incident a day of hate-motivated violence at some town or village, in one state or the other. Some states are worse than others. Among the worst are Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, and districts such as Udaipur in Rajasthan. In many states, the local police and administration are complicit. Often their actions and impunity blatantly encourage local violent elements. In Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh for instance, local police and administrative coercion and threatening of prayer services in homes, or house churches as they are called, almost immediately leads to acts of physical violence. Not every church has to be a large Cathedral. Jesus said “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there”. That is the basis of house churches, small Christian communities and Basic Christian Communities as they are called in the Evangelical, Episcopal and Catholic denominations respectively.

Such targetting, intolerance and officially conducted so-called “surveys” and demands for “registration” of churches must end forthwith. It does not happen with believers of other faiths, and it must Not happen with Christians.
Hate campaigns must also end. We have identified, as I am sure the governmetns' intelligence agencies must also have identified, the origin of such hate from the headquarters of certain political groups who want India to be rid of its religious minorities, or wants them to live as second rate citizens. We are first class citizens, much as everyone else, and seek our rights, the first of which is security so that we can enjoy that other right – freedom of faith and worship. Government must take urgent steps to train its police and administrative personnel in the principles of secularism, and sensitize them on the needs of all minorities, and the Christian minority in particular.

The Targetted and Communal violence [prevention, reparation and justice] Bill 2011 drafted by the National Advisory Council seeks to ensure this. We still feel the Bill needs some fine-tuning on issues of protecting India’s federalism and the autonomy of States.. We also specifically seek Christian representation in the structures it envisages. We commend its early adoption by government and its enactment as law after checking the Constitutionality of every clause and sub clause.

It may come as a surprise to some, but our community also has its share and more of the poor and the deprived. The Dalit Christians are one such group. They must be restored their constitutional rights at the earliest as recommended by the Justice Rangnath Misra Commission. Other poor, specially among the tribals and the rural landless and fishermen, must be identified and receive the assistance of the Government’s many schemes. For this it is important they first be identified. We have repeatedly demanded a Prime Minister’s Committee, on the pattern of the Justice Sachchar Committee set up for the Muslims, to look into the socio economic and developmental status of the Christian community across the country. Such a survey will help the Church generate its own development strategies. And it will help the government implement its secular agenda of development.
There must also not be any confrontation and conflict between the educational rights guarantees for minorities in the Constitution, and the new Right to Education Act. Across the country, our educational sector is facing harassment in recent months with local authorities trying to intimidate school managements.

In the drafting of the 12th plan, we have suggested several measures for the uplift of those of my brothers and sisters who are deprived, in education, hostel facilities, employment and self employment. I commend those recommendations made to the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Planning Commission. They must form part of government policy and must be implemented.

I close with reflecting on the many lapses that have taken place in ensuring justice, rehabilitation and reparation to the Christians of Kandhamal district in Orissa. Kandhamal saw an anti Christian pogrom in August, September and October 2008 and it seemed that the Connotation of India was not operative in that distant plateau in the centre of Odisha. Over 56,000 people were rendered homeless, over 5,600 housed destroyed, almost 300 churches torched, nuns raped. There was other and significant gender violence. According to our count, and the government differs, more than 90 persons lost their lives. Men and women lost livelihood and homes, jobs and fields. Children lost opportunities of education. Many villages banned the entry of Christians if they did not convert to Hinduism. Three years on, justice in the real terms remains a dream despite two Fast Track Courts which are known for witnessing the terrorizing of witnesses. Government aid for reconstruction was timid and small. The church helped out. But even then more than 2,000 houses remain unbuilt. It is shocking but many people have not been able to return home. Education, jobs, agriculture opportunities are missing. Even in the cases of murder, there has been no punishment in over 20 cases because the witnesses were scared or paid off. Sometimes their terrorizing took place in court, as I have witnessed personally.

Justice must be done, Dear Prime Minister and Dear Chief minister of Odisha. We look to you for justice.
I thank you for this opportunity to address the National Integration Council.”