8/3/2019 Nuclear EPw

1/1

EDITORIALS

october 1, 2011 vol xlvI no 40 EPW Economic & Political Weekly8

Unclear over Nuclear

Will the protests against the Koodankulam project force the government to pause and rethink its nuclear power plans?

At a time when information is freely available through

innumerable sources, governments and politicians should

not express surprise when people ask uncomfortable

questions. Yet, whenever there is a peoples protest, the response

is always surprise and suspicion at the suddenness of the protest.

Why now? is the inevitable question asked by the authorities.

So too with the protests against the Koodankulam Nuclear

Power Project in Tamil Nadu. In the recent protests, away from

the media glare, 127 people fasted for over 11 days and tens of

thousands of people gathered to register their opposition to

the project. The initial reaction from both the state government

and the centre was one of disbelief, even though the project has

faced opposition from local people almost from its inception.

Formalised in 1988 through an agreement between India and the

then Soviet Union, the Koodankulam project nally got off the

ground only in 1997. In 2005, the Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (NPCIL) received clearance to set up two Russian-designed, water-cooled and water-moderated VVER-1000 reac-

tors. Shortly thereafter, NPCIL revealed its intent to set up four

more reactors, making this one of the largest nuclear projects in

India. Reactors one and two are almost ready, the former slated

to be commissioned in December.

Between the rst agreement and today, several signicant

developments have occurred. In 2004, the Asian tsunami hit the

very coastline where the reactors are to be located. In the light of

the earthquake and tsunami in March this year in Japan, when

pictures of the crippled nuclear power station at Fukushima

ashed around the world, it is hardly surprising that the fears of

the local population have grown sharply. The proponents of the

project have done little to allay these concerns, leave alone listen

to them. A typical example of the lack of transparency and openness

was the public hearing conducted in February 2007 outside

Tirunelveli town for people from Kanyakumari, Tuticorin and

Tirunelveli districts. The hearing turned into a mockery of

what public hearings are supposed to be. The district authorities

truncated the hearing, not allowing people who had travelled

long distances from all the three districts to express their opposi-

tion to the project and raise legitimate concerns. Furthermore, the

minutes of the public hearing, obtained only after a Right to In-

formation application was led, did not reect any of the dissentvoiced. Little wonder then that the affected communities con-

cluded that they had no option but to organise and protest.

The opposition to the project has gathered steam in the last

few years precisely because the NPCIL has not addressed peoples

concerns. Take the shing community. The three districts affected

by the project account for 70% of Tamil Nadus sh catch. The sh-

ing community has yet to be assured that the inevitable discharge

of hot water from these reactors will not raise water temperature

to the point that their sh breeding grounds are destroyed. This

has also raised environmental concerns as the project is close to

one of the worlds richest marine biosphere reserves in the Gulf

of Mannar. Another concern is about fresh water. Despite the

7.6 million litres per day desalination plant, there is an apprehension

that fresh water resources will be diverted to the project once all

six reactors are functional. And nally there is the looming pros-

pect of displacement. The project authorities continue to violate

their own preconditions for setting up a nuclear power project.

For instance, in the ve km radius around the project that should

be a sterilised zone, there are three settlements, includingIdinthakarai 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 concern.

What nally worked in favour of the protestors are the compul-

sions of Tamil Nadu politics. If Vijayakanths Desiya Murpokku

Dravida Kazhagam had not declared its support to the protest on

18 September, it is entirely possible that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister

J Jayalalithaa would not have changed her stance of supporting

the project to one where she too has questioned it. In turn, her

involvement prompted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to act

and send his emissary who loftily declared that people are more

important than power. Political stances and rhetoric are all very

well but will Koodankulam lead to some serious rethinking on

the future of Indias nuclear programme? At every site where

nuclear reactors are being planned in Haryana, Andhra Pradesh,

Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra there is a ground-

swell of local opposition. These growing and genuine worries of

people who have to live in the shadow of these behemoths cannot

be swept aside as something drummed up by anti-nuclear activists.

With so much information on nuclear power in the public realm,

ordinary people are learning and asking questions. How the

centre responds to these questions will reveal whether it plansto bludgeon its way through with its nuclear programme, or

whether it will pause and reconsider.

second 109bn bailout, with as many as seven of the Eurozones

17 members arguing for private creditors to take a bigger share in

write-down on their Greek bond holdings, needs to be juxtaposed

against the German parliaments recent approval of the expansion

of the bailout fund for heavily indebted European countries.

The scenario as of now looks quite chaotic. In the days to come,

whether the centre will hold or things will start to fall apart in

the Eurozone will be closely watched. In all the pan-European

political wrangling over an expanded and modied EFSF, private

sector involvement in restructuring, recapitalisation of European

banks, exposure of the nancial institutions to downgraded

sovereign debt, and the clamour for scal prudence (read, in-

creased taxation and reduced social expenditure), the travails of

the affected people have become a casualty.