By Neeraj Jain interviewed by B. Skanthakumar, Links International
Journal of Socialist Renewal, October 5, 2012
More than 20,000 villagers protest at the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant on September 9, 2012. Credit: Countercurrents. |
The anti-nuclear peoples’ movement in India has been
gathering momentum in recent years. The courageous struggle of women, men and
children of Idinthakarai village in South India, who are resisting the
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, and are under siege by state security forces –
with more than 56,000 of whom have been falsely charged, including 6000 for the
offence of “sedition”, and 53 imprisoned – has highlighted the people’s
movement against nuclear energy.
Neeraj
Jain is the convenor of Lokayat, a social activist group in Pune, Maharashtra,
that is part of the all-India National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements
(NAAM). Jain, who trained in electrical engineering, is the author of Nuclear
Energy: Technology from Hell (Aakar Books, Delhi 2012). He was interviewed by B.
Skanthakumar in Bangkok on September 5, 2012, before the confrontation a few
days later during fuel-loading of the Koodankulam nuclear reactor, in which one
fisher was shot dead and dozens were injured, sparking strikes and agitations
across Tamil Nadu, including in Chennai, Coimbatore, Erode and Thootukudi.
* * *
What
is the background to the upsurge of peoples’ movements against nuclear energy
in India today?
The
Indian National Congress-led government is going for nuclear energy in a big
way, claiming that it is cheap, clean and safe, and the solution to the country’s
energy needs.
This
expansion of nuclear energy is a follow-up to the Indo-US nuclear deal [in
2008]. The Indian government agreed to buy US$150 billion worth of nuclear
reactors, equipment and other materials from the United States of America in
return for the US inking the agreement. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
special envoy, Shyam Saran, also promised that US companies would benefit for
decades from Indian orders for military equipment. The quid pro quo was for the
US to modify its laws and allow India to engage in nuclear commerce, from which
it had been blocked after its nuclear tests in 1974.
The
US also lobbied with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) – which is an
association of 45 countries that export uranium and nuclear technology – to
grant India the waiver to engage in civilian nuclear trade, despite not having
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In return, the Indian
government promised the NSG countries that their companies would receive
lucrative contracts in India. This was candidly admitted in an article in a
leading newspaper of Maharashtra by the former chief of India’s Department of
Atomic Energy, Anil Kakodkar.
This
is the real reason behind the Indian government opening its doors to Western
nuclear energy companies. After putting the country on sale, it is now
strutting about claiming that it has become a "nuclear superpower",
in addition to its claim to having become an "economic superpower".
The
government of India is setting up two kinds of nuclear plants.
One
group consists of those that are being established all along the coastline with
imported reactors, which will be among the biggest plants in the world. These
so-called "nuclear parks" are in Gujarat (Mithivirdi), in Maharashtra
(Jaitapur), in Tamil Nadu (Koodankulam) and in Andhra Pradesh (Kovvada). There
was another plant proposed in West Bengal but a powerful peoples’ movement has
halted it – temporarily at least – and possibly for good. There are also plans
to build a nuclear plant at Markandi (Pati Sonapur) in Orissa.
Ironically,
despite the free market rhetoric of the Indian elite, there has been no
competitive bidding for any of these plants. Instead, the government has
allotted these plants to different foreign companies; even before the terms of
the reactor contracts have been negotiated and the price finalised!
In
Jaitapur – where the French company Areva is setting up the plant – 940
hectares of land has been acquired from 2300 families. The people who owned the
lands refused to sell it, and so the government stepped in and forcibly
acquired it, invoking British colonial-era laws that allow acquisition of land
for "public purposes". When the Indian prime minister was asked the
price of the reactors, he replied that pricing issues are still “subject
matters of negotiations”! These extraordinary procedures give rise to suspicion
of underhand deals. The plants in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are to be built by
US companies GE Hitachi and Westinghouse; while the Koodankulam plant in Tamil
Nadu is being built by a Russian company, Atomstroyexport.
The
other group of plants are the indigenous projects that are being set up by the
Indian government in the interior of the country in places such as Gorakhpur
(Haryana state), where four small reactors will be constructed – India only has
the capacity to independently build small-scale plants – and in Chutka (Madhya
Pradesh state).
The
nuclear reactors to be set up at the four nuclear parks along the coast are
giant sized and will produce between 1000 and 1600 megawatts each. The Jaitapur
plant, where six reactors of 1650 megawatts each are to be built, is going to
be the biggest nuclear plant in the world. The EPR reactors being set-up here
are of unproven design and are not in operation anywhere in the world.
Nuclear
energy is not a new source of energy in India though, so what accounts for the
size and spread of the anti-nuclear energy movement recently?
India
has for sometime had nuclear energy power plants: 20 small-scale plants, mostly
of 220 megawatts each, at six different locations in the country. The first
Indian plant was set up in 1969 in Tarapur near Mumbai (formerly known as
Bombay).
The
anti-nuclear movement in India is very old. The movement was especially strong
in Kerala state, where no plants have ever been constructed because of the
strength of opposition. The people of Kerala have forced the cancellation of
the two plants proposed to be set up there. The construction of many other
plants also saw powerful movements in opposition to them, in which protesters
have died because of police violence. However, in the pre-internet age, and
when the Indian media (radio and television) was under the control of the
state, there was little information about these struggles. It is only receiving
attention nationally and internationally now, thanks to advances in information
and communications technology, as well as due to the growing strength of the
movement through greater awareness of the dangers of nuclear energy among the
people.
The
present anti-nuclear movement should therefore be seen as a continuation of
these older struggles. Many of the leading activists in the current movement,
such as the nuclear scientist Dr Surendra Gadekar and Dr S.P. Udayakumar of the
Peoples’ Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), have been active for the last
10 or 20 years, and have been involved in the past agitations against nuclear
plants.
Additionally,
there are several new factors that are contributing to the growing intensity of
the anti-nuclear movement all over the country. These include the scale of the
proposed plants along the Indian coast, which are massive even by international
standards, and where the reactors are five to eight times larger than current
Indian reactors; the controversial nature of the foreign companies concerned,
such as Areva; and the safety record of those companies.
For
example, even pro-nuclear countries such as Britain and the United States have
expressed serious reservations about the design of Areva's EPR reactor, and
have not given it clearance to construct such reactors in their countries. The
Russian VVER-1000 reactors being constructed in Koodankulam are no better. Even
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is a cheerleader for the
nuclear industry, has expressed concerns that these reactors don't meet Western
safety standards (which is not to say that Western standards are very good).
Due to the huge size of these reactors, they are far more dangerous; and the
consequence of a nuclear accident would be devastating and of unimaginable
proportions. Obviously, this has contributed to the intensity of the current
struggles.
Furthermore,
over the years, more and more information has been disseminated to the people
on the dangers of nuclear energy. The effects of nuclear energy on communities
near the uranium mines and existing plants is also becoming better known,
including through independent surveys whose findings are now public knowledge.
There is a large increase in cancer deaths and in births of deformed babies,
and other health problems caused due to radiation: like diseases of old age in
the young, fertility problems, spontaneous abortions, and so on.
Fishing
communities are devastated: in Tarapur where once there were 700 boats, now
only 20 remain. People agitating against the new nuclear plants have visited
these older plants, for example the people of Jaitapur region have visited the
people of villages around the Tarapur plant. And so they are aware of the
health effects of nuclear plants. Consequently, there are larger numbers of
people, and in different parts of the country, participating in these
agitations.
Finally,
the Fukushima disaster [in Japan on March 11, 2011] has had a major impact on
the anti-nuclear sentiment of the people, and has strengthened the arguments of
the movement. Even before the tragedy at Fukushima, the anti-nuclear energy
movement in India had been quoting prominent nuclear scientists and saying that
another accident at a nuclear reactor somewhere around the world would only be
a matter of time, as nuclear plants are inherently prone to accidents.
The
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant is only 250 kilometres from Sri Lanka, but even
after Fukushima, the director of Sri Lanka’s Atomic Energy Authority insisted
that “nuclear power plants are the cheapest and the safest mode of generating
electricity ... and [that] the probability of a nuclear accident is very rare”.
One
of the most powerful propaganda arguments being given by the nuclear industry
is that nuclear energy is the solution to the problems of global warming. Apart
from the fact that nuclear energy is neither cheap nor safe, the reality is
that it is not green too. It is true that a nuclear plant in itself does not
produce greenhouse gases; however, the nuclear reactor cannot be viewed in
isolation. The production of electricity by fissioning uranium depends upon a
vast and complex process known as the nuclear fuel cycle, of which the nuclear
reactor is only a part. The fact is large quantities of fossil fuels are
utilised during all the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The
nuclear fuel cycle starts from the mining of uranium ore; the ore is then taken
to the mill to extract uranium from the ore; next, the uranium is enriched; the
enriched uranium is then fissioned in the nuclear plant; the plant generates
huge quantities of radioactive waste which has to be safely stored for
thousands of years; and finally the reactor has to be decommissioned after it
has completed its lifespan of between 40 and up to 60 years.
All
these processes are highly energy consuming, in which huge amounts of fossil
fuels are burned. For instance, building the reactor itself requires huge
amounts of cement and steel; and the manufacturing process of steel and cement
releases large quantities of greenhouse gases. The worst part is that the
nuclear waste generated in the reactor has to be stored for thousands of years,
that is, for so long as it continues to emit significant amounts of radiation.
Obviously, the safe storage of the waste is going to consume large amounts of
energy – no one knows how much.
The
pro-nuclear propaganda conveniently forgets the whole nuclear cycle and only
focuses on the functioning of the nuclear reactor itself. Therefore, neither is
nuclear energy green, nor is it the solution for the global warming crisis.
The
most critical issue is that nuclear energy is not safe at all. During the
process of making electricity from uranium, that is, during the entire nuclear
fuel cycle – in the mining of uranium, followed by purification and enrichment,
and then in the reactor itself – radiation is released at every stage into the
atmosphere. The impact of this radiation on human beings is deathly: it causes
cancer, mutates the reproductive genes so that children are born deformed, and
also causes many other diseases.
Let
us consider the nuclear reactor itself. The process of splitting uranium in
nuclear reactors creates more than 200 new, radioactive elements that didn’t
exist earlier in nature. The resulting uranium fuel is a billion times more
radioactive than its original radioactive inventory. A regular 1000 megawatt
nuclear power plant contains an amount of radiation equivalent to that released
by the explosion of 1000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
These
radioactive elements created in the reactor have half-lives of varying length
from a few seconds to thousands and tens of thousands of years. Despite all the
safeguards that are in place, it is impossible to prevent leakage of some
amount of these radioactive elements into the atmosphere. Some of them
inevitably leak out. They leak out in gaseous form and they leak out along with
the steam discharged by the reactor. In fact, nuclear power plants are
officially allowed to emit a defined ("permissible") amount of
radiation.
These
elements are dispersed into the environment and will keep releasing radiation
for hundreds and thousands of years. They will contaminate the water and soil,
and will inevitably enter the food chain.
Now,
the nuclear plant will be decommissioned after around 40 to a maximum of 60
years; but because these radioactive elements can remain in the ecosystem for
thousands of years, countless generations of people living in its vicinity will
be poisoned by radiation, long after all trace of the power plant itself has
gone.
It
should be emphasised that this process cannot be undone; because radiation will
be present in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we cultivate
for our food. There is no known means of decontaminating our ecosystem. The
only option for human beings is to flee from those areas and abandon them
altogether.
Turning
to the issue of nuclear waste: a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant produces 30
tonnes of radioactive waste in a year. So, for example, the 10,000-megawatt
Jaitapur plant will produce 18,000 tonnes of waste over its maximum life of six
decades. This waste is the most toxic substance known to humankind. For
instance, 1 per cent of it is plutonium, which has a half life of 24,000 years,
and so will remain radioactive for 200,000 years. It is so carcinogenic that
less than one-millionth of a gram, if inhaled, will cause lung cancer. The
nuclear waste is so radioactive that humans cannot approach or handle it – it
has to be removed by robots.
Now,
how do you store this nuclear waste in such a way that humans do not come into
contact with it? How do you store something that is so corrosive, that is at
such high temperature, and emitting such intense radiation? How do you store
nuclear waste safely for even 200 years, leave alone 200,000? How can you
guarantee that the container in which the waste is stored will survive even 200
years? Material science is only 100 years old, and if you make such a container
which you claim will last 200 years, how do you know that it will?
That
is why around the world the current practice is to store the waste in temporary
storage sites near the reactors, either in huge cooling pools or in dry storage
casks. And everywhere these storage facilities are leaking; to contaminate the
environment for innumerable generations. Of course, with time, as the volume of
leakage increases, so does the level of radiation.
Finally,
let us consider the possibility of a major nuclear accident. Nuclear plants are
inherently prone to accidents. Many nuclear scientists have emphatically stated
that with nuclear technology, you can't guarantee that accidents will not take
place. The event of a nuclear accident is a singular catastrophe because it
affects tens of thousands of people (at the minimum) and, remember, for
thousands of years. So, even one such accident cannot be afforded by humanity.
The
Chernobyl nuclear accident [on April 26, 1986 in present Ukraine] affected half
of the globe. A study published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009
estimates that 1,000,000 (1 million) people have died worldwide over the period
1986-2004 due to diseases caused by radiation releases from this disaster. And
this number will keep increasing in the years to come.
In
the case of Fukushima, a greater tragedy was averted because much of the
radiation was dispersed over the sea. Even then, recent studies in Tokyo, which
is around 240 kilometres from the site of the nuclear accident, have shown that
radiation from Fukushima has contaminated that city and the millions who live
and work in it. Independent scientists from Europe and the US have estimated
that there will be at least a million cancers in Japan over the next 30 years
as a direct result of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Radiation has spread from Japan to around the world; traces have been detected
as far away as in Switzerland and the US.
India,
which is far more populous than the former Soviet Union and Japan, has not even
been able to cope with the Bhopal gas disaster [the leak of methyl isocyanate
gas on December 2-3, 1984, in Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh state believed to have
caused at least 20,000 deaths and injury to around 570,000], and the
rehabilitation needs of those affected. How can India, or for that matter Sri
Lanka, cope with a nuclear accident?
Clearly,
the Indian National Congress and its electoral allies in central government
promote nuclear energy, but where do other political parties, and particularly
left parties, stand on this question?
In
general, most political actors from the left through to Congress and the Hindutva
right, are singing from the same song book: that nuclear energy is perfectly
safe, and can be a solution to India’s energy crisis through generation of
electricity.
In
some states, such as Haryana, opposition political parties have joined the
campaign against nuclear energy but in my view, this is only for opportunistic
and electoral considerations; and is not on the basis of any principled
opposition to nuclear energy. If these parties come to power, they would most
likely perform a somersault and become advocates for nuclear energy.
In
Jaitapur, the Shiv Sena [‘'Army of Shiv"], which is a Hindu-supremacist
force opposes the nuclear power plant; whereas the Hindu communalist Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) supports it. It is not that the Shiv Sena opposes nuclear
energy. However, electoral considerations stemming from the strength of the
local anti-nuclear energy movement lead it to oppose this particular plant and
the repression of the anti-nuclear energy peoples’ movement in Jaitapur.
Anyway, this stance of opposition is only the current position of the Shiv Sena,
which could easily change to one of support later; as it did in the case of the
controversial Enron (Dabhol) power project also in Maharashtra state in the
1990s.
The
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI M) has a peculiar position. It is
formally supporting the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, which has the backing
of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayaram Jayalalithaa, whom it considers a
political ally and with whose party it has a seat-sharing agreement in state
elections. At the same time, it denounces the severity of the repression of the
anti-Koodankulam nuclear movement. However, no CPI M delegation has to date
visited the peoples’ movement there and expressed its solidarity with them.
On
the other hand, the same CPI M that supports the Koodankulam plant, opposes the
Jaitapur nuclear power plant! It argues that Areva’s technology is unsafe!
Therefore, the CPI M does not oppose nuclear energy – but rather individual
plants which it believes would be dangerous.
So,
the question we raised with the CPI M is: “Are you supporting the Koodankulam
plant because the agreement was signed during the existence of the Soviet Union
making it a ‘Communist’ reactor, whereas because the Jaitapur reactor is from
France, it should be opposed as a ‘capitalist’ reactor?!” The CPI M seems to
believe that "communist" reactors are inherently safer than those
from the capitalist West. When the CPI M governed West Bengal state [until
2011], it supported the construction of a nuclear plant in the coastal village
of Haripur, which too was being set up by the Russians. This plant has since
been scrapped following the change of state government.
The
Communist Party of India (CPI) has sent its parliamentarians to visit and show
solidarity with the peoples’ agitation against the Koodankulam plant. However,
its position too is that it is supportive of nuclear energy in general;
although similar to the CPI M, it too objects to the Jaitapur nuclear power
plant.
As
far as the Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist (Liberation) is concerned,
that party has been supportive of the anti-nuclear peoples’ movement across the
country. Sometime ago, their stance on the question of nuclear energy was more
ambiguous. However, recently following debates and dialogues with their
leadership, the CPI-ML (Liberation) has clarified and firmed up its position to
one of outright opposition to nuclear energy.
Coming
back to the "push" for mega nuclear energy power plants, how does
this relate to India’s economic growth paradigm and its assertiveness in
foreign policy, including the campaign for permanent membership of the UN
Security Council?
The
essence of the propaganda of "India Shining", which is the
catchphrase of the new Indian elite to describe their vision for the country,
is to freely allow Western multinationals to access the Indian market; and hand
over thousands of hectares of land to them to set up projects like mines,
refineries, airports, shopping malls, expressways, etc., while dispossessing
people from their mineral-rich lands in rural areas, and demolishing slums in
urban areas.
Take
the case of Mumbai in Maharashtra state, where the state government has
declared its intention to make that city into another "Shanghai" with
soaring skyscrapers and glittering shopping malls, expressways and flyovers.
Now, where is the land for these projects to come from? The homes and
properties of the rich cannot be touched; and so, because half of all land in
Mumbai is occupied by the poor, their homes must be bulldozed. All legal norms
are violated. When the poor go to the courts, the judges side with the
government ("in the public good"). Consequently, hundreds upon
hundreds of thousands of people in Mumbai have lost their homes.
Or,
take the case of Delhi, where for the staging of the Commonwealth Games in
2010, stadiums and housing for athletes was constructed through forced
evictions of the poor from their own homes and lands. Even where land was not
needed for the games, it was acquired in the name of "beautification"
of the city. Those who were made homeless were detained, loaded onto trucks and
dumped on the outskirts of the city out of view of the visitors and
participants to the games.
India
is one of the most unequal societies in the world: a handful of families
account for half of its economic wealth. The Indian super-rich are taking
ostentation and opulence to a new level through their conspicuous consumption,
with one of their number having recently built a 27-storey home in downtown Mumbai
valued at US$1 billion! India has the dubious honour of being the country with
one of the fastest growing number of billionaires in the world.
On
the other hand, a whopping 70 per cent or even more of the people are living in
dire poverty. The government of India claims that statistics show the reduction
of poverty. It does this by the simple trick of lowering India's already
shamefully low poverty line. If the poverty line keeps being lowered, such that
those who were previously on or below it are now no longer defined as
"poor" – despite no change in their material conditions and
circumstances – then the numbers of the poor will obviously fall!
So,
one has to look at other indicators and results from other official surveys,
which reveal that half of all children under the age of three are malnourished;
which in turn means that their mothers are malnourished and their families live
in hunger. Another official survey estimates that 87 per cent of the rural
population cannot access the minimum 2400 calories per day for sustenance;
while 65 per cent of the population in cities and towns cannot access the urban
norm of 2100 calories per day.
The
peoples’ movement in Koodankulam is under severe repression but continues to
inspire anti-nuclear struggles in the rest of India and around the world.
The
anti-Koodankulam struggle is probably one of India’s largest social movements
in recent years. Between 60,000 to 70,000 people have so far participated in
this agitation. It is a Gandhian non-violent movement of resistance. The people
mobilised are extremely well informed of the hazards of nuclear energy. The
activism and bravery of the women, in particular, has been the subject of many
short films and media reports.
The
villagers living around Koodankulam are well aware of the issues because there
is an existing nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu state (in Kalpakkam). They
know the health impact of the Kalpakkam nuclear plant on the people living in
the nearby villages. So, the dangers and the consequences are understood. They
know that pro-nuclear energy scientists are lying to them because the claims
that they make for nuclear power are so absurd.
The
nuclear energy lobby refuses to engage in debate with its opponents, which
causes people to believe that it has something to hide. It refuses to release
scientific reports on the safety of the plants; it refuses to release the site
evaluation report; it refuses to conduct environmental impact assessment on the
flimsy argument that the Koodankulam plant had been approved in 1988, when the
law providing for environmental assessment for large projects was not in force.
Yet, they claim that the plant is safe. So, how can the people in the area
believe them?
The
Indian government has stated that in accordance with an agreement with Russia,
the Russian company building the reactor will not be liable for any accident in
the reactor, implying that the Indian government will bear the health and
environmental costs. If the plant is so safe, people ask, then why do the
manufacturers want to indemnify themselves from liability for accidents?
Unfortunately,
the massive propaganda campaign in the rest of Tamil Nadu (which is badly
affected by power shortages), including deploying former Indian president and
missile scientist A.P.J Abdul Kalam, has succeeded in convincing people living
in areas far away from the plant that nuclear power energy is feasible and
desirable.
The
government has engaged in a smear campaign to discredit the Peoples Movement
Against Nuclear Energy in Koodankulam, describing it as funded by Western
non-governmental organisations; and emphasising the Christian faith of the
fisherpeople at the forefront of the movement, as well as the participation of
the local Catholic clergy.
The
government has clamped down heavily on the protesters against the Koodankulam
plant. The main site of the agitation is the village of Idinthakarai, which is
six kilometres from the power plant. The protesters have been virtually
encircled by the police, who have blocked the access roads into their village,
and created bunkers using sand-bags to fortify their positions. False cases
under the Indian Penal Code have been filed against more than 56,000
protesters; the charges include "sedition" and "waging war
against the state". The leaders of the movement have not left the village
in months, because they expect to be arrested by the police if they do so. The
leaders are surrounded by several thousands who are protecting them from any
attempt by the police to arrest or otherwise harm them.
The
only region in the world where nuclear power plants are presently being
constructed is in Asia. New plants are proposed or are under construction in
China, South Korea, Bangladesh, Pakistan and, of course, India. Therefore,
there is a strong need for Asian people to come together to support each other.
We need to block companies in our countries that are producing components or
supplying materials for the construction of nuclear plants in other countries:
for instance, Japanese and South Korean companies are engaged in nuclear
commerce with other Asian countries.
We
also need to link up with activists in Western countries. Australian people
should demand that the uranium mined there not be exported for nuclear energy.
We also want anti-nuclear activists from Western countries, especially
scientists and legislators, to come to India and link up with the movement
here. Their solidarity can be used to counter the pro-nuclear propaganda in the
mainstream media.
Nuclear
energy is not a national issue – it is a global issue; because radiation and
the effects of nuclear accidents do not respect state boundaries. A nuclear
accident can radioactively contaminate half the globe.
The people protesting in Koodankulam are not only fighting for
their health and livelihoods; they are not only fighting for the peoples’ of
India; they are fighting for the right to life of the peoples’ of the entire
world, and for the healthy lives of our unborn generations. It is the duty of
all conscious human beings, wherever they are, to join the struggle against
nuclear energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment