Preamble + 1000 Characters Only

Recently, the new Modi administration has taken to taken to conjuring tricks and spinning illusions. With a magician's hat, a waving wand, and a beaming smile, the public are kept entranced, engrossed and constantly applauding with flight to Mars, furor of 'Make in India', and a shiny, squeaky, benevolent India saving its Kashmiri brethren from the very wrath of heavens!!

 Meanwhile, behind the scenes, there is a rampage of real action - with stage hands running, sets changing, pulleys cranking; nuclear deals are secretly signed, forests are marked, tribals trivialized, and the entire natural environment under direct threat to the newly energized mantra of growth and development, in which the rich are always promised a continued supply of many golden eggs. An already centralized democracy is being silently squeezed by an executive autocratic authority - while we grin, bemused, ear-to-ear.

Three days back, accidentally, I learnt that the administration, no longer needy of parliamentary approval or sanction,  had set up on 29th Aug 2014, a high level committee to review five key environmental laws of the nation -  including the Environment Protection Act, Air Act, Water Act, Forest Conservation Act and the Wildlife Protection Act.  The purposes of this committee is to recommend amendments in each of these acts to ' bring these Acts in line with the current requirements (of who, by who, for who??) to meet (what, and whose??) objectives'.

The public had till Sept  29th, 2014 -i.e. a month, to contribute to this 'democratic' process - online, on the MoEF site - using less than 1000 characters; commendable in India characterized by a majority of educated, alert and internet accessed citizenship.

In Bangalore, a public notice was issued on 20th Sept 2014, for a consultation meeting on 27th Sept 2014, between noon and 1:30pm to 'offer views, comments, opinions,...hand over memorandum or have dialogue'  with the high level committee, amply demonstrating the seriousness of intent in a comprehensive public dialogue and feedback.

I have decided to contribute my 1000 characters concisely and publicly:

The high level committee set up to review India's five primary environmental Acts appears to be adhoc with vagueness of purpose and ill-defined ToR. The committee members are ill qualified to review or amend these environmental  acts. The public feedback sought is minimal and prejudiced towards opinions of the comfortable, least-to-lose class; large vulnerable population dependent on natural environment are excluded entirely from the process. The mandate of MoEF is the protection of India's natural environment and social justice for those indigenous/rural communities, dependent on it. MoEF therefore needs to clearly specify the lacunas and failures of the current acts that necessitate the simultaneous review of all five acts together. This process cannot be hurried and public participation cannot be reduced to mere tokenism, but must be decentralized, consultative, and rigorously participatory, especially of the effected communities, so as to inspire public confidence and trust in the democratic process.

Listed

It was two days after the IB secret document was leaked that a friend alerted me that I was Listed. This was unexpected, but not unduly surprising in view of my open position against India's entire nuclear program, particularly that at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP). I believed then, as I do now, that survival of any democracy depends on availability of public space for divergent and dissenting viewpoints and scope to express these openly, to persuade public opinion and thus to collectively influence decisions serving our combined destiny.

Far worse has already happened at KKNPP, way before this IB report. At the height of the anti-Kudankulam agitation, peaceful protesters were harassed, beaten, jailed for opposing an energy project that could endanger their lives  and that of their progeny; would jeopardise health, and seriously damage local livelihoods and ecology. Thousands of FIRs were lodged against protesters, young and old, women and children, on grave charges of being seditious and for waging war against the state.  Yet, protests continued and spread far beyond the KKNPP zone, to other states and metros.

Bogey and myths of foreign funded(FF) NGOs were conjured by the state way back in 2012, by our PM himself (see here)to derail  increasingly serious public discussions that protesters against the KKNPP had succeeded in bringing to media's attention and in open forums. The debate was not merely about running KKNPP from within a thriving and independent community of fisher folks and subjugating them, but increasingly on the topic of rights. For the first time the image of the protester radicalized - from voiceless, downtrodden destitute, to strident communities with women alongside men, young children and very old, who were fully informed on the project and also their rights; they had the temerity to challenge the establishment; they were loud, articulate, engaging, debating and very determined. The State, refusing to engage on either the necessity of KKNPP, or the issue of people's democratic rights, had no option but to attack the questioners with an elaborate fiction. The leaked IB report just substantiates and perpetuates an old lie - with many more lies, more names, and utterly ridiculous figures, without any supporting arithmetic, for the net national fiscal loss due to these anti-national FF NGOs.

KKNPP 1 is commissioned and is now producing at full capacity. Yet, the orgy of repression is not stemmed; there continue to be those who are inconvenient, who think and dare question, the dangerous ones - these have been identified and blacklisted because thinking, speaking, having a different viewpoint hurts our democratic nation. Others, like me have been listed, as merely supporting these anti-nationals.

One thing that leaking this secret report does: it has made state's position very clear; dissent is anti-national and unpatriotic. Right to complain, legitimately, has expired. Those wronged must accept in grace that their sacrifice is mandatory for a larger national good - forget that the rich always benefit  and never get to make sacrifices or be patriots. New lows in democratic standards have been set in this largest democracy where might is not just right, but also rich and corporatized.

But India's public, its civil society, will not stomach this. We will continue to challenge set notions, ideologies, and politics of globalized development. We recognize that to convert legitimate, peoples movements into an elaborate web of ill-conceived lies is just that - a huge charade - and we laugh. People are waking and the state is nervous!

Global Colonization

I have been thinking...what creates wealth? I am forced into this consideration during this sojourn to France by the visible, widespread and wanton displays of wealth and consumption. I am unable to ignore questioning what attributes make this nation so wealthy, its people so unmindful/indifferent of their privileges and so careless in their squandering.  Experience has taught me that the situation is not fundamentally different in any of the other industrialized nations of plenty, with plenty for their all, or among the more privileges classes of the economically weaker nations.

 I am now putting down my purely subjective opinion based on my recent thoughts on the subject, knowing that this act of writing often clarifies thoughts and crystallizes a personal opinion

If by wealth we mean currency, or units by which we keep a track of a bartering system for trade, then origin or creation of wealth boils down to trade of fundamental resources - natural or human. In fact, saying that (supposedly) mankind no longer barters or participates in human trade, wealth originates only from trade able natural resources - capturing it with presence (or via creation) of a market where it can be exchanged, as commodity, for other types of resources or services.

Complex human societies and their economies are just derivatives of this basic system via the many complex steps by which wealth is then redistributed from those who initially  possess it, by ownership of  natural resources or its products, to those who have some other product/commodity or service with which they can purchase this.  Social structures with their political systems and cultural/religious ideologies, determine the hierarchy of human position and privileges within communitiesand societies, and these govern the processes of redistribution or economic structure of that social system. Resources possessed directly via prospecting, mining, logging, or derived/harvested from nature, like agriculture, form the first tier of wealth creation. While the amount of this wealth depends directly on the quantity of resource under control, it also strongly depends on the availability of markets that need/desire these products - and are also capable of paying for it via some other products or services.For example, while diamond companies are currently extremely wealthy, this wealth could disappear without markets driving their desirability. Therefore, the value of natural resources, other than those needed for human survival like food, air, water, shelter, depend on creation of real and imagined need and desirability of a commodity.

Earliest colonisation featured nations, with strong and aggressive armed forces, capturing territories of high resources (plentiful and cheap natural products and human services required for exploiting this).  There is a story frequently told in India that when the British East India Company first arrived, they possessed no products for barter - their ships were weighed down by mud and guns.  Forcefully capturing/harvesting resources from less militarised regions of the globe, for commercial and/or national interests was essence of the early history of western colonisation.

If one were to consider national wealth to also include national resources, it is likely that global distribution of wealth might look a little different. Yet, in the developing world, these rapidly depleting and exploited resources are for a large part already lost to their regions and people, being misdirected by corrupt states into hands of greedy global corporations -i.e. a lot of the natural resources no longer remain national assets. Global colonisation now continues under a slightly different ruse. Without laying direct territorial claims, globalised and large Multi National Corporations (MNCs), with primary memberships from the wealthy industrialised nations, hold large sections of globe and its resources captive. Global character of this colonisation comes from the spread of their tentacles across nations of their resource bank and also the partnering of nations across globe in a particular area or type of resource diversion.

Under the guise of a free market route to development and progress, these MNCs buy valuable basic resources, cheap, from economically weaker nations and then recycle them back after processing  into the same poorer nations by creating markets of need and a desirability of emulating the western lives and lifestyles. There is coercive pressure at both ends, to first open up national resources for external exploitation, openly and freely to global commercial interests, and also to open the markets of these nations to globalised consumer products, irrespective of any cultural preference or need. Nations and markets of resource rich, and exploitable developing nations are thus captured and governed by globally structured systems with historical proclivity for colonial greed - and in the post Reagen era, this is morally acceptable, for greed is good. Global colonisation, as is now openly acknowledged, is about the preservation of extravagant lifestyles of the few who have - at the enormous expense of many who have-not, and this will be protected all cost - or any human cost.

Hunger

I have been involved with issues related to human rights, for sometime now. I am aware that the world is a hungry place.  A few years back I had been invited to Taj for  conference on abolishing world hunger. Needless to say I did not go.

Today my sister alerted me on the news of adivasi elders dying of hunger in Thane.  I also read about it here, here and here.  I also forced myself to stare at the horrific, violent google images of the 'starving' and face the world that also is - a world of primarily human making. Apparently only 8% of starvation deaths are a result of some natural calamity - we, the human race, can take a collective responsibility for causing the rest.

The point is not - did I personally create this inhuman hunger,  terrible misery? will anything happen if I eat less? I do believe that by eating less, less than I need, I will microscopically experience what it feels like - the gnawing pains of hunger pangs, and this might sensitize me to imagine, how this must be like, if this were not by choice, if eating was not just less, but just not possible at all, for days on end, till one lay ones self down and dies - quietly, without a choice.

 The point is, can I do something, even a tiny bit about it? Can I, as a grown up responsible person, make this a part of my choice? to not avert my eyes - have their starvation penetrate the consciousness of my future actions? Can I cling on to a hope that change is possible, but only with a determined will and lots of hard work? Can I? Will I?

Will You?

Leaking Liability Strategically

The issue of India's Civil Nuclear Liability has been a contentious one, with charged reactions from all sides. The principal points of the law, as it now stands, are a maximum liability cap of Rs. 2500 crores, in event of a disaster, to the operator, which in this case would be Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd(NPCIL) and GoI, plus a clause that allows NPCIL to subsequently sue the nuclear supplier for damages. It is this tiny clause that has deterred foreign commercial interests from venturing into nuclear trade with India - especially in a post Fukushima world.

The Indian state, with its nuclear establishment, under international and US pressure, is pushing for a dilution of India's liability clause to open up India's nuclear energy sector for commercialisation;  the foreign suppliers  are also keenly eyeing investment opportunities with India's ambitious goals of expanding its civil nuclear facilities, but can only afford to risk business ventures if the nuclear opportunity is offered risk-free - i.e. without the baggage of an eventual supplier liability - even if they were responsible by providing defective technology that caused a nuclear disaster.

Such a dilution was staunchly opposed by anti-nuclear activists, especially in pockets around the upcoming nuclear facilities, since this could potentially lead to a weakening of quality controls from a non-liable supplier and thus pose an increased risk of future calamity. Also, sections of India's civil society voiced their opposition based on the horrific human tragedy and fiasco, played out in the aftermath of the Bhopal chemical disaster; they were unwilling to let the Indian tax payers take full financial responsibility for any future and potentially a more dangerous nuclear disaster caused by a liability-shielded supplier's negligence and failure. The dilution issue also faced partisan reactions with nationalistic jingoism from right to expressed opposition from the left [See a recent mix of reactions here].

It is important to note that the recent unfolding of corruption charges against Zio Podolsk for supplying substandard equipment to nuclear facilities - both Russian and foreign - is part of the same larger concern of what can and will play out without a strictest liability clause that force adherence to quality control. Agreement for Units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam, between India and Russia, predated our Civil Nuclear Liability and was therefore exempt from it. One might argue that a better system of checks and monitoring, mandated if Russia were functioning within a tight nuclear liability clause, would have probably lead to a less compromised system with fewer substandard parts than were probably supplied to Kudankulam.

Now, this was the current state of affairs - or so I thought. Behind the scenes, however, a whole different drama had already played out. I chanced upon this script from WikiLeaks.

There are many serious and grave revelations:

1) It appears that Indian officials are willing to compromise the liability issue and facilitate free nuclear commerce with the US provided they receive strategic cooperation on the issues of reprocessing and enrichment. India would then ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear damage(CSC), despite this not being a recommended choice for the nation. India's signing the Safeguard Agreement with IAEA also was conditional to progress on nuclear reprocessing and enrichment.

2)The officials reiterated their commitment to the letter of intent, already been signed with the US, for two nuclear parks with a combined capacity of 10,000 MW. The site explorations were concluded although the sites not finalised.

3)There was a strong push to encourage participation of private sector in power generation and management and also for partnerships between Indian firms and  US suppliers - to keep the cost of nuclear energy competitive.

The need for concern is strong. The civil nuclear liability issue, that provides a safety net for Indian citizens, in case of a nuclear event, is being used as a bartering chip for so called 'more important' strategic goals. That this happens behind closed doors, and with far fetched ambitions for the nuclear energy sector - without media participation and far from public eye, is a cause for further worry. That private Indian vendors and public-private-partnerships are encouraged, takes the exercise even further away from the realm of safe-and-secure, with increased difficulty for any vigilant monitoring or supervision of quality control - necessary for the complex and risky nuclear industry. And thus to systematically derail national interest and safety of its citizens by weakening the issue of liability,  under such circumstances, is just sheer madness. Beware!

Supremely Courting Disaster at Koodankulam

In a bizarre, but not so recent development, India's Supreme Court has taken to ruling on cases, based not on applications of laws, nor readdressing of petitions or pleas, but via self-appointed mandates and grandiose generalities that pertain little to law and less to justice.  
It is an attempt by the court to act supreme without bothering with any inconvenient truths or harsh realities.

I am referring to the Supreme Court's justifying the hanging of Afzal Guru for "satisfying the collective conscience of the nation", or the recent SC approval of the Koodankulam nuclear plant (KKNPP), since "a balance has to be struck between the right to life and sustainable development". 

The Koodankulam ruling was based, not on the legitimate and serious safety concerns, which STILL remain, but on Court's perception of national developmental goals vis-a-vis constitutionally sacred, right to life of all - including the predominantly marginalised communities in the neighborhood of the plant. The court took this untenable position without realising that the very notion of development and how this nation should go about it, is not part of this or any other Court's mandate - whereas right to life is. Unashamed and non-apologetic the Supreme Court ruled that this right-to-life could be compromised, since the nation's need for energy is greater.  It bought the rhetoric of the nuclear establishment without demanding rigorous compliance of safety standards, and  in a direct conflict of interest,  delegated the assurance of the plant's safety to the very same authorities charged with commissioning the plant and who have been crying themselves hoarse " All is Well" - despite allegations of complicity  in a series of omissions, violations and compromises for a hasty commissioning.  

Instead of a soppy “Nobody on the earth can predict what would happen in future and to a larger extent we have to leave it to the destiny…", the supreme court could have made history if it had realised that while  destiny is not in man's hand,  uncompromising attention and rigor in implementation of safety standards is - and this needs to be assured, independently, before operation of any giant, complex technology which is potentially very risky to humans and environment.

Death-ly Competition: Choosing between Nuclear and Fossil Fuels

Yesterday, the world mourned on the 27th anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster - and things are still not 'normal' in the disaster effected zone. In fact,  many things will never get fixed, or normal, or reverted to prior-to-accident-state - some 30,000 sq. kms which will remain contaminated actively radiating till 2090 - polluting soil, air, water, and all living things and also killing them.

In this context, the efforts of nuclear lobby took an absurd and macabre turn with this recently published paper. The authors calculated deaths prevented by production of nuclear power, instead of power from fossil fuels - which would generate sufficient air pollution to choke 1.8 million people to death. This estimate is a cumulative of nuclear power generated throughout history and strongly advocates its future expansion, despite the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, to  prevent a purported 7 million deaths by mid-century. It is curious that the authors compared two hazardously polluting thermal technologies, run on nuclear and fossil fuels, to declare nuclear power a winner - and this dubious win is also a suspect. It is more surprising that a journal like Environmental Science & Technology decided to publish this article, since competing two flawed and inviable technologies cannot be used to promote scientific merits of either.

However, if one were to indulge in such a bizzare exercise of account keeping deaths, it is also necessary to track all dead, or dying and generations yet to be born who will die, unnaturally, because their ancestors, in the distant past, were exposed in nuclear disasters. Between 1986-2004, an estimated 985,000 died mostly due to cancer from Chernobyl exposure. By 2011, this number had risen to 1.5 million. Yes.. it is true that these estimates are statistical , but these are now statistics of large numbers and well above average mortality expectations (for example the cancer rates in cleaning crew is three times higher than rest of the population). Remember that for every death due to radiation exposure there are at least twice as many cases of cancer - with their untold misery, pain and suffering. And, all this before we reach the half life of 137Cesium which is 30 years.  It takes three decades for half of the radioactive 137 Cesium to have decayed and harmed everything in its path...and between five to seven such half lives before the radioactive effects become sufficiently small. Thus the radioactive contamination of 137 Cesium will continue decaying and damaging ad infinitum, as will also the other radioactive isotopes of Strontium and Plutonium.


While it might be too early yet to observe the health damage in the exposed population in Japan, recent studies seem to indicate that the Cesium levels from Fukushima disaster could be as much as 20-30 times higher, and might contribute to a thousand times more deaths than predicted. In fact, the effect of irradiating the food chain will contribute and build radiation poisoning in all species. Thus, the total future death toll from Fukushima disaster should also be subtracted from the estimated  'lives saved' in this paper.

A question for the authors is : when a single major nuclear accident, like Chernobyl, can wipe off the canvassed advantage of the historically-compounded nuclear power, over coal, are they sure of their conclusion - of saving lives with nuclear energy, and further advocating a global nuclear future? Especially when the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima will continue to increase on time scale much much longer than our lifetimes, or of these authors writing this ludicrous paper.

Also, the authors calculate that IAEA's projected increase in nuclear energy capacity till 2050 will save a further maximum of 7 million lives, forgetting to scale alongside the direct additional risk of serious future nuclear accidents. Are ready to risk four times as many Chernobyls and Fukushima, with their un-countable future deaths and health impacts and the vast irreversible environmental costs, to allow a future nuclear race? Can we, as a human race sustain or even survive this?

Don't get me wrong - I am definitely not arguing in favor of highly polluting, hazardous, huge GHG emitting fossil fuelled thermal power plants. But I staunchly oppose the pitching one disastrous technology against another to proclaim, unethically, a winner. For this is what the authors do - use incomplete calculations to make strong and wrong inferences, to lobby for the future of nuclear energy, forgetting, that nuclear accidents are inseparable components of such complex and unsafe technology and there can only be losers in such  "death-ly competition".

EWS Evictions: The Aftermath

The demolitions at the EWS quarters in Ejipura started on 18th Jan 2013. In a matter of a few days, a thriving bustling community of about 1500 homes was razed to the ground. There have been a variety of efforts by various volunteer groups to reach out to the victims by providing water, food and assistance with finding alternate shelters and providing some financial aid to cover part of its costs. 

As of yesterday, on part of one perimeter directly outside the original demolished site there were 34 families who were braving out with their young and old under harsh sun and nowhere to go. The reasons range from not having any identification to avail of some financial assistance, to not having enough money to meet the rest of the required rent deposit before they could move into some other home. 

All this time, the state has provided several assurances of help to those evicted while remaining unbudging on the issue of actually holding off from further eviction drives - now from the streets and footpaths around the razed area.  Even as I type this note, I have heard that police are forcing remaining families out of the area. It is reported that one woman has poured kerosene over herself and tried to commit suicide. 

The photos below were taken yesterday afternoon. They tell their own stories. Can the state do this to its own people? And where can the poor go?

Sun over Water & Energy Potential

First of all, let me make myself very clear. Anytime I start talking about energy, electricity, power etc. I am doing it in an absolute and firm context of my well researched, well considered and therefore a deep and entrenched opposition to nuclear - energy, weapons - you name it.

A pilot program in Gujarat, from last year, had completely escaped my attention. The project was to generate 1 MW of electrical energy by covering 1 km Narmada canal with solar panel; additional benefits include saving on canal water evaporation, and eliminating need for additional land and avoiding displacement. Even though this idea has emerge from the Modi state, I still like it.  And, the idea appears to have been picked up by Karnataka -BJP Gujarat's sister-state .Karnataka has 1 lakh kilometers of irrigation canals and with 1 MW per kilometer potential, you work out the math.

The idea has been particularly endorsed by the Renewable Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah for replication in the Damodar valley, especially since, as he says, the cost of solar energy generation has dropped to Rs.7/unit from Rs.18/unit.

Now, with a good idea like this, can we get rid of all big, bad ideas that are expensive, dangerous to life, hazardous to health, polluting of environment, irrational, and unnecessary, like nuclear, thermal, large dams etc etc.