Stop scapegoating innocent civilians!!!

My letter on Koodankulam Nuclear power plant in The Hindu (09-03-2012)    

The Fukushima accident serves as a glaring reminder for the Kudankulam anti-nuclear plant activists that states do not have solutions for serious social, economic and ecological crises of our time (March 8). On the contrary, governments are making disasters, not unmaking them, risking our collective future for their own short-term gains. The legacy of Chernobyl or Fukushima proves that nuclear power is not without enormous risk. Though the government is fond of nuclear power because it has already invested crores in the industry, we are ill-prepared for the coming of nuclear power. A nuclear plant gives us 40-50 years of cheap, clean energy, followed by 1,00,000 years of waste management. The government can also think of an alternative way to promoting renewable energy.

In response to the article “How Fukushima is relevant to Kudankulam” in the Hindu (08-03-2012)

The disaster in Japan revealed many risks that were earlier unknown; it is important to assess the risks in India in a transparent manner and explain which are worth taking.

The nuclear plant accident at Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011 exemplifies the prescient remark of nuclear reactor pioneer, the late Alvin Weinberg, that “a nuclear accident somewhere is a nuclear accident everywhere.” After Fukushima, many countries initiated a reconsideration of the role of nuclear power in their current and future energy portfolios and checks of their safety features at operating plants. Public demonstrations for halting ongoing construction of new plants and eliminating nuclear power altogether from energy portfolios also followed. Social demonstrations against the construction of any new nuclear power projects in India and a bringing on stream of the nearly complete Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu are parts of this phenomenon.

The Central government's attempts to assure the public of the safety of the Kudankulam plant failed and the demonstrations continued, leading the Tamil Nadu government to appoint an expert panel of four to assess afresh the safety of the plant. The committee submitted its report on February 27, 2012 which is as yet not released. A member of the panel, former Chairman M.R. Srinivasan of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), is quoted as saying that the Committee was fully satisfied that the plant was safe.

It remains to be seen whether the report is convincing and credible in coming to its conclusion, thus addressing public concerns about Kudankulam and also possibly blunting the threat to India's future nuclear power programme from escalating demonstrations. Concerns of risks of nuclear power, both from possible design faults in plants, their inappropriate location and from natural events such as earthquakes and tsunami have risen since Fukushima. The committee has to address these concerns effectively in a transparent manner in its report for it to serve its purpose of looking at the issues afresh regardless of the prior public positions of any of its members on them. While awaiting the report, we highlight what the Fukushima accident revealed on the previously unknown or underestimated risks and costs of nuclear power for the reason of their possible relevance for evaluating the risks and benefits of the expansion of nuclear power in India and the operation of Kudankulam.

Issues from Fukushima

The following is common knowledge about the Fukushima accident and its aftermath. First, it was triggered by a very rare natural event — the occurrence together of an earthquake of magnitude 9 on the Richter scale and a 15-metre tsunami which completely overwhelmed the plant and its safety systems. This raises the issue whether the probability of the event could or should have been anticipated or was ignored as unlikely by the Japanese regulatory authorities when the plant was designed, built and located at Fukushima.

Second, the analysts exposed the close ties between public regulators and the private plant operators that could have led them to collude and neglect safety and other features that could have been built into the design of the plant and affected responses to the accident and the timing and transparency of information released.

Third, although the physical structure of the Fukushima plant withstood the earthquake, together with the tsunami, the earthquake led to the loss of offsite and onsite power leaving the plant completely dependent on diesel generators and batteries of emergency cooling system for reactors. But adequate emergency power was not available at Fukushima. The consequential build-up of temperature resulted in production of steam and hydrogen that exploded rupturing the containment structure within a matter of hours and eventually led to a partial core meltdown.

Fourth, radiation leaks from the disabled plant spread far beyond what had been deemed likely, affected rice crops, milk and other products for domestic consumption and exports. The leaks and damages beyond the plant emphasised that containment structures have only a limited time-bound ability to mitigate the consequences of releases of radioactivity into the containment by overheated reactors coolant accidents until emergency cooling systems prevent further heating and a core meltdown. At Fukushima, emergency cooling systems failed and led to a partial core meltdown. Just a few hundred metric tonnes of steam could pose a serious threat to the containment's structural integrity of Kudankulam with its VVER-type reactor. It is therefore essential that cooling systems operate reliably and effectively.

A complete analysis of the Fukushima accident is not available yet. From what is available, it is known that radiation leaks affected crops and population and resulted in loss of output from disruptions in power supply. Kudankulam is located in the rice and milk producing, heavily populated and fast growing southern state of Tamil Nadu near Sri Lanka. The deleterious consequences of the Fukushima accident and the risks of their happening at Kudankulam are real. Obviously potential risks and their costs have to be weighed against potential benefits from the plant in a scientific, social cost/benefit analysis in evaluating whether or not to bring Kudankulam on stream and institutionalising such analyses in the nuclear decision-making process.

Fifth, emerging information on actions not taken but considered at Fukushima is disturbing: “in the darkest moments of the nuclear accident last year, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of the damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo [350 km away from Fukushima], even as they played down the risks, an independent investigation into a report has disclosed”. (International Herald Tribune, February 29, 2012)

The panel's report should include estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6 and of tsunamis originating outside India that could threaten the Indian coast. Social cost/benefit analysis of alternative responses to very low probability events, which, were they to occur could inflict large social costs in terms of population loss, damages to structures and long term health consequences is a difficult analytical problem. However, to assure that the Kudankulam plant is “reasonably safe,” the panel should attempt the difficult social cost/benefit analysis and make public its methodology and assumptions. The uncertainties in the data used and in estimation errors induce an “error band” around the average social cost/benefits and these should be made explicit.

Superimposition of estimated probabilities of possible reactor accidents with site specific probabilities of earthquakes and tsunamis highlighted by Fukushima would enable the estimation of probabilities of a Fukushima-like event at Kudankulam.

Regulatory independence

The Fukushima accident highlighted the need for the independence of regulators from plant operators. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has long been criticised for being subservient to DAE, the promoting organisation for nuclear power. After Fukushima, the establishment of a truly independent regulator has been promised. Currently, institutional deficiencies are structurally inbuilt and hard to eliminate. If they remain, the credibility and autonomy of the regulator cannot be ensured. Historically, nuclear policymaking in India was not transparent and involved only a handful of people in the government. The DAE has exploited this arrangement. Unfortunately, the political leadership left the operational aspects of nuclear affairs entirely to DAE without creating any institutional mechanism for independent technical and policy advice on civilian as well as military aspects.

A glaring example of DAE's misuse of the Atomic Energy Act to escape the scrutiny of regulator and courts over public safety concerns came in the wake of the still unpublished 1996 AERB report. The report is believed to have exposed how DAE had turned regulation into a farce because of the cosy arrangement between the regulators and the regulated. In India, all Indian nuclear plants are in the public sector and so are the agencies that exercise regulatory functions and promotional responsibilities. In this situation, conflict of interest between regulation and promotion is inevitable. Their separation and the creation of a statutory body for regulation are essential to win public confidence.

Energy portfolio

Significant shortfalls of India's energy generation relative to estimated energy demand have been longstanding. Many policy failures contributed to the shortfalls and their consequences. Amongst them, the failure to implement the Electricity Reform Act of 2003 ranks high. Legitimate concerns about global warming and energy security have driven the proposed expansion of nuclear power. As a poor country with a growing population with a need for rapid and sustained economic growth to eradicate poverty, India faces the daunting task of increasing its energy supply by a factor of two to three over the next two decades even after factoring in feasible conservation and efficiency improvements. Every possible source of energy (fossil, renewable, and nuclear) has to be considered without any a priori opposition to the use of any source in any credible social cost/benefit analysis of alternative energy portfolios in meeting development goals without pushing their risks beyond socially tolerable levels.

Understandable public concerns post-Fukushima pose enormous challenges for the planned expansion of nuclear electricity generation in India. Neither technological hubris nor shrill anti-nuclear rhetoric is useful in this context. For this reason the panel has to examine critically what Fukushima revealed that was not known before in terms of risks and social costs of a potential accident over a long term and offer its informed assessment of the extent Kudankulam and other future plants are subject to known and potentially new risks. Its assessment and judgment need to be transparent and explain which risks it considers worth taking and why.

We urge that due consideration be given also to issues that human frailties, potential natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis and acts of sabotage pose to the potential failure of well designed but complex engineering systems like a nuclear reactor. No humanly designed system can ensure that it will never fail — thus an option with zero risk does not exist. For this reason, a credible and convincing social cost benefit analysis of risks and benefits of current and available future energy options is essential.

Don't suppress mass movements!!!

My letter to The Hindu (28-02-2012) on Koodankulam Issue

Dr. Singh's remarks are aimed at intimidating civil rights activists and gagging the voice of dissent. It is clear that people in and around Kudankulam are no longer content with the argument that the country's energy security is dependent upon the nuclear option. Hurling baseless charges against civil society activists and creating an emergency-like situation over the issue will not help relieve the tension that is building up in Tamil Nadu. Notwithstanding the assurances given by nuclear energy proponents, the local population's fears are well-founded. The awareness on the issue is good and people pose pertinent questions to the government. Ecological and civilian safety is not something they will compromise on.

In response to the Editorial ‘Engage, don't vilify’ in The Hindu (27-02-2012)

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remarks about foreign-funded NGOs stalling the introduction of genetically modified food and the commissioning of the Kudankulam nuclear power project are bound to be taken seriously by his supporters and detractors alike. For, they do not merely represent an uncharacteristic venture by him into controversial territory, but may indicate his government's growing frustration over its plans running into fierce ideological opposition. When Dr. Singh, who has a reputation for reticence on sensitive subjects, drops dark hints about a foreign hand, it is surely something that needs to be substantiated and, if necessary, followed up with action. As if to bolster his argument, the licences of three NGOs have been cancelled and the foreign remittances received by them are being investigated. Meanwhile, the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, the organisation spearheading the anti-Kudankulam protests, has rejected the charge and demanded the Prime Minister substantiate his remarks. Adding to the mix, Jairam Ramesh has also clarified that his decision as Environment Minister in 2010 to place a moratorium on Bt Brinjal was not influenced by NGOs, but was based on objective factors.

Dr. Singh cannot be faulted for his view that science and technology should serve as instruments for raising the standard of living of the people, and it is entirely understandable that he wants everyone, including his critics, to appreciate the development challenges faced by India and its energy requirements. At a time when agriculture badly needs infusion of technology and when a chronic power shortage is crippling economic activity in States such as Tamil Nadu, it is hardly surprising that the government looks at all opposition to genetic engineering and nuclear power as suspect. However, the idea that NGOs with ‘foreign' links are fuelling the protests seems more expedient than convincing. The charge is also, at some level, quite irrelevant. For what it's worth, tens of thousands of ordinary Indians around Kudankulam, Jaitapur and other areas where reactors will be sited are apprehensive about what the placement of large nuclear installations in their backyard might mean for their health, environment and livelihood. The government needs to engage with them in a transparent and constructive manner and allay their fears with facts and arguments rather than innuendo and slander. The same is true for those sections of the farming and scientific communities who want a careful review of the consequences of genetic engineering before its indiscriminate adoption in the country. Their concerns are best answered by science and reason, not the implied threat of a midnight knock.

Caste in India

My letter to The Hindu (22-02-2012)

The article downplays the social reality that caste is an unalterable feature of our society and coaxes us to distort the bitter truth that caste is India's destiny. The media do not spread an illusion that ours is a caste society, as the article blatantly claims, but rather, they faithfully represent the worse social realities in a caste-ridden society like ours. Our emerging middle class would say that caste is no longer there. Though in many respects caste is diminishing, it is still a part of society as it dictates much of what happens in life.

In response to the article ‘India's destiny not caste in stone’ by André Béteille in The Hindu (21-02-2012)

Those who try to keep up with discussions on current affairs in the newspapers and on television may be forgiven if they conclude that caste is India's destiny. If there is one thing the experts in the media who comment on political matters have in common, it is their preoccupation with caste and the part it plays in electoral politics.

Many are now coming to believe that, despite the undeniable demographic, technological and economic changes taking place in the country, the division into castes and communities remains the ineluctable and ineradicable feature of Indian society. They also believe that to ignore those divisions or to draw attention to other divisions such as those of income, education and occupation is to turn our backs on the ground reality. The more radical among them add that ignoring those realities amounts to an evasion of the political responsibility of redistributing the benefits and burdens of society in a more just and equitable manner.

Does nothing change in India? A great many things have in fact changed in the last 60 years both in our political perceptions and in the social reality. The leaders of the nationalist movement who successfully fought for India's freedom from colonial rule believed that India may have been a society of castes and communities in the past but would become a nation of citizens with the adoption of a new republican constitution. They were too optimistic. The Constitution did create rights for the citizen, but it did not eradicate caste from the hearts and minds of the citizens it created. For many Indians, and perhaps the majority, the habits of the heart are still the habits of a hierarchical society.

Inter-dining rules

Universal adult franchise opened up new possibilities for mobilising electoral support on the basis of caste and thus prevented the consciousness of caste from dying down. Democracy was expected to efface the distinctions of caste, but its consequences have been very different from what was expected. Politics is no doubt an important part of a nation's life in a democracy, but it is not the only part of it. There are other areas of life in which the consciousness of caste has been dying down, though not very rapidly or dramatically. The trends of change which I will now examine do not catch the attention of the media because they happen over long stretches of time, in slow motion as it were. They are not noticeable from month to month or even year to year but across two or more generations.

Let us start with the ritual opposition of purity and pollution which was a cornerstone of the hierarchical structure of caste. The rules of purity and pollution served to mark the distinctions and gradations among castes and sub-castes. Characteristic among them were those relating to commensality or inter-dining. They determined who could sit together at a meal with whom, and who could accept food and water from whom. Only castes of equivalent rank could inter-dine with each other. In general people accepted cooked food and water from the hands of their superiors, but not their inferiors.

The ritual rules governing food transactions were rigid and elaborate until a hundred years ago. Nobody can deny that there has been a steady erosion of those rules. Modern conditions of life and work have rendered many of them obsolete. The excesses of the rules of purity and pollution have now come to be treated with ridicule and mockery among educated people in metropolitan cities like Kolkata and Delhi. It is impossible to maintain such rules in a college canteen or an office lunch room. To insist on seating people according to their caste on a public occasion would cause a scandal today.

In the past, restrictions on inter-dining were closely related to restrictions on marriage according to the rules of caste. The restrictions on marriage have not disappeared, but they have eased to some extent. Among Hindus, the law imposed restrictions on inter-caste marriage. The law has changed, but the custom of marrying within the caste is still widely observed. However, what is happening is that other considerations such as those of education and income are also kept in mind in arranging a match. At any rate, it will be difficult to argue that caste consciousness in matrimonial matters has been on the rise in recent decades.

In politics, the media

There continues to be a general association between caste and occupation to the extent that the lowest castes are largely concentrated in the menial and low-paying jobs whereas the higher castes tend to be in the best-paid and most esteemed ones. But the association between caste and occupation is now more flexible than it was in the traditional economy of land and grain. Rapid economic growth and the expansion of the middle class are accompanied by new opportunities for individual mobility which further loosens the association between caste and occupation.

If, in spite of all this, caste is maintaining or even strengthening its hold over the public consciousness, there has to be a reason for it. That reason is to be found in the domain of organised politics. Caste had entered the political arena even before independence, particularly in peninsular India. But the adoption of universal adult franchise after independence altered the character and scope of the involvement of caste in the political process.

The consciousness of caste is brought to the fore at the time of elections. Elections to the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas are now held all the year round. For logistical and other reasons, elections to even the Vidhan Sabhas may be stretched out over several weeks. There are by-elections in addition to the general elections. Election campaigns have become increasingly spectacular and increasingly costly, and they often create the atmosphere of a carnival. The mobilisation of electoral support on the basis of caste is a complex phenomenon whose outcome gives scope for endless speculation.

Even though for the country as a whole the election season never really comes to an end, the individual voter participates in the electoral process only occasionally and sporadically. The average villager devotes far more thought and time to home, work and worship than to electoral matters. It is well known that the voter turnout among urban professional Indians is low. But even when they do not participate in the elections to the extent of visiting their local polling booths, they participate in them vicariously by following on television what happens in the outside world. Television provides a large dose of entertainment along with a modicum of political education.

Private television channels have created a whole world in which their anchors and the experts who are regularly at their disposal vie with each other to bring out the significance of the “caste factor,” meaning the rivalries and alliances among castes, sub-castes and groups of castes by commentators who, for the most part, have little understanding of, or interest in, long-term trends of change in the country. These discussions create the illusion that caste is an unalterable feature of Indian society. It will be a pity if we allow what goes on in the media to reinforce the consciousness of caste and to persuade us that caste is India's destiny.

‘Dalit panchayat chief prevented from hoisting the tricolour’

A National Shame

 A. Kalaimani, a Dalit woman village panchayat president of Karu Vadatheru village panchayat near Vadakadu, was allegedly prevented from hoisting the tricolour on the Republic Day by a group of caste Hindus. The group belonging to the Kallar community, led by Kumar, son of Rangammal, who is the vice-president of the village panchayat, allegedly pushed aside Ms. Kalaimani when she was about to hoist the national flag on the village panchayat office campus.

The village panchayat president told The Hindu on Saturday that she planned to hoist the tricolour at three places – the village panchayat office campus; Raja Kudiyiruppu, a residential colony; and the panchayat union primary school at Kanniyankollai. But, in view of the problem at the village panchayat office, she allowed the group to hoist the flag at the school and cancelled her programme at the residential colony. She has lodged a complaint with the Vadakadu police and submitted petitions to District Collector B. Maheswari and Superintendent of Police R. Tamil Chandran. Ms. Kalaimani said that she had alerted the police a week ago, seeking protection for the smooth conduct of the celebrations. To her surprise, no police personnel were deployed in time. (The Hindu 29-01-2012)

In the 65th year of our Independence, a Dalit woman’s plight that she was not allowed to hoist the tricolour for coming from a Dalit community is very sad and shameful indeed and shocks us if we are truly free. Even after 64 years of becoming independent, certain sections in Indian society continue to suffer from segregation. If the incident of a dalit woman Panchayat chief being prevented from hoisting the national flag couldn't raise ripples in Tamilnadu ruled by Dravidian parties, it clearly exposes the anti-Dalit sentiments of the upper castes and the official machinery. It is the duty of the government to ensure that weaker section is not deprived of their rights to hoist the national flag. Caste Hindus with muscle power and political power should not affect the morale of police.

The continued denial of basic rights to Dalits makes a complete mockery of the Indian state’s much-vaunted claims of being democratic and secular. Thousands of cases of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes are found to be unreported & unregistered due to political clot of the upper castes who exercise money power as well muscle power to nip such cases in the bud. Republic day celebrations have no meaning when a particular section of the society such as the downtrodden are socially & economically segregated from the mainstream.

Panchayat presidents belonging to Dalit communities and women in particular are still being discriminated against. State and district administration should intervene immediately and provide non-discriminatory and atrocity-free political environment for the Dalit chiefs to function independently and effectively. The State Government should ensure legal and administrative safeguards and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution by booking the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST Act, 1989.

Privatization of Water- Question of affordability.

Water Policy draft favours privatization of services and calls for abolition of subsidies to agricultural, domestic sector

The Union government has begun consultations on a new National Water Policy that calls for privatization of water-delivery services and suggests that water be priced so as to “fully recover” the costs of operation and administration of water-resources projects. Recently circulated to water experts for consultations, the 15-page draft National Water Policy suggests that the government withdraw from its role as a service provider in the water sector. Instead, it says, communities and the private sector should be encouraged to play this role. The proposals could mean sharp rises in the cost of water for both rural and urban users — an outcome the policy suggests will help curtail misuse of a precious but scarce resource. The draft policy calls for the abolition of all forms of water subsidies to the agricultural and domestic sectors, but says “subsidies and incentives” should be provided to private industry for recycling and reusing treated effluents. It also proposes that subsidy to agricultural electricity users be curtailed, saying it leads to a “wasteful use of both electricity and water.” (Source: The Hindu 21-01-2012)

Water privatization in India will make things worse for common men if we fail to learn from the nations where water is already privatized. Water privatization will invariably lead to price hikes because there are considerable costs involved in upgrading water harnessing, purification and distribution systems. The private companies will recover their costs and expenses by charging the consumer. Increased consumer fees for water can make safe water unaffordable for the impoverished and vulnerable populations. There is a threat of the unsustainable water mining by the private water corporations in an effort to maximize profits. Once water becomes a marketable commodity and a corporation is given sole rights to a body of water, then it is within corporations' rights to mine as much water as possible. Furthermore in an effort to maximize profits, if the corporation may mine an environmentally unsustainable amount of water and deplete the water body at a rate faster than it is replenished.

Water is synonymous with life. Water corporations through world bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, are influencing third world governments to push privatization and commoditization of water as ‘the chosen’ alternative to manage the growth in water consumption and the severe water scarcity. As the United Nations has recognized access to water as a basic human right, stating that water is a social and cultural good, not merely an economic commodity, public control of water is essential not only because water is necessary for survival and human fulfillment, but also because of the ever worsening water crisis that India is faced with. Water is a natural resource and every citizen deserves it and it is the duty of the government to ensure every citizen access to potable water. If the government thinks handing over it to private sector will bring in efficiency it must rethink about it. If the government implements privatization of water then it will be a betrayal to millions of common men.

Facebook & Google Censored

Facebook, Google face prosecution

 

The Indian government has garnered media attention for prosecuting social networking sites by enforcing censorship of content identified as controversial. Government censorship of content that is considered offensive or may injure a particular audience or materials that present a cultural threat is a welcome step. Government has every right to block such websites if they cause personal discomfort or have the potential to incite conflict between different racial, ethnic, religious, political and gender groups. Indian society is concerned about online victimization of children through websites that aren't specifically designed for children containing sexually-oriented advertisements and links that misdirect users towards pornographic content.

Though censoring the content is a welcome  decision, the government, at times,  is seemingly unaware of significant unintended consequences, such as the blocking of content that was never intended to be blocked. Once a filtering system is in place, the government may be tempted to use it as a tool of political censorship. There is a possibility to use Internet filtering to control the environment of political speech in fundamental opposition to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and free expression. The consequences of political filtering directly impact democratic practices and can be considered a violation of human rights.

No doubt, social networking sites are a relevant part of the everyday lives of people and have impact not only in terms of personal relationships, but also as tools for staying connected in official lives. But like all worthwhile technology, this too comes with pitfalls. It is also the responsibility of the government to take care of its citizens from not accessing a site that may harbor some malicious content. While content such as pornography and hate speech like obvious choices for Internet censorship, it is also necessary to block social networking sites and other Web pages that are causing distraction.

The decision to prosecute websites centers on protecting the morals or cultural standards of the Community. The Internet offers a broad array of information that is readily and freely available, much of which can trigger moral outrage and sometimes fear psychosis in certain viewers. It is natural for the government to seek to protect community standards by removing or blocking access to content they consider detrimental to the culture of their citizens. In many instances, this concern is expressed most acutely with respect to children. Other key topic areas that are targeted for filtering include gambling sites, provocative attire, hate speech etc. The Government may ask the websites to screen the content but without making them victims of political gimmicks.

Open Letter on Mullaperiyar Dam Issue

Mullaperiyar Imbroglio -Question of safety or control?

 

Being lop-sided and thoroughly opinionated, inflammatory articles published by Malayalam media stoke passions against Tamilnadu over the controversial Mullaperiyar Dam by hoodwinking the people of Kerala as well. The Malayalam media has taken a great opportunity to blow the issue beyond the safety, livelihood of the people in two states and turned into a frantic gathering just for vote-bank politics.

The statement that the Mullaperiyar row between Kerala and Tamil Nadu should be settled out of court implies that the Kerala government disregards opinion of the apex court and the points made were unwarranted when matter is sub-judice. As the sovereign owner of the Mullaperiyar, Kerala has a right to dictate what it wants to do with the dam. Yet, on the Tamil Nadu side, the issue is really the proposed breach of a corporate contract – not sovereign right over the dam and its water. Under the long lease agreement on Mullaperiyar, Tamil Nadu not only gets the water, but also the right to operate and maintain the dam – in other words, it controls the dam. While Kerala maintains that the amount of water that Tamil Nadu receives will be maintained, there is obviously a trust deficit. After repeated failures to resolve the issue at the state level necessitated the entry of Union Ministry of Water Resources and the Central Water Commission under it, into the resolution process, the states are now entangled in a legal battle, with Kerala challenging the certification by the Central Water Commission. In February 2006, the Supreme Court passed a judgment based on the CWC’s report that the water level in the dam could be raised to 142 feet. But the Kerala assembly, in a special session, passed a law that it should not exceed 136 feet. Tamil Nadu responded with a suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Kerala’s demand for a new dam defying the SC verdict, disregarding the dam panel technical members’ report underestimate the competence of the supreme technical authority of the country to decide over dam safety and poses a serious threat to interstate relations which are already tainted. If safety is the only issue, there are easy solutions but if Kerala is miffed about losing control of a dam on its soil, the solutions remain remote. Kerala’s adamancy on a new dam is based on perceived threats rather than any real danger. A perceived fear has no scientific basis or theoretical backing. If at all an earthquake above 6.5 on the Richter scale hits Kerala or Tamil Nadu, since South India does not fall on any fault line there are other dams, too, which might develop cracks.  The agitation to rebuild the 100-year-old dam started after some newspapers put out alarmist reports about earthquakes far away in the Indian Ocean. Minor earthquakes of less than 4 on the Richter scale keep happening and a region which has had no earthquakes is quite unlikely to break apart at the prospect of bringing down a 100-year-old dam.

The argument that Tamil Nadu's rights in this case are not riparian rights as in the Cauvery case, but arise out of an agreement is highly prejudiced. The lease between Travancore and Madras presidency was for 999 years, and hence has not expired. If the agreement between Travancore and Madras presidency were invalid, the dam and its catchment area should have been handed over to TN when the new states were created. It was only after the creation of Kerala, in 1956, that the state raised objections that the old agreement had become invalid. Kerala even challenged it in the Supreme Court, but the court ruled that the agreement would hold. With the Kerala government’s threat that Mullaperiyar is not an inter-state river and TN has no right to water from it, it is absurd for TN to believe Kerala’s assurances. TN is unlikely to believe Kerala’s protestations that it will provide the same amount of water to TN after a new dam is built because, in an earlier submission to the Supreme Court, Kerala had said Tamil Nadu has no right to the dam and the water as the catchment area and the dam lie within Kerala.

The argument that ecology is at risk in the downstream areas is also erroneous as people were allowed freely to settle in these eco-sensitive areas. The statement that since the dam  is unsafe, it must be demolished is also fallacious as it doesn’t give attention to the fate that will befall two lakh acres of cultivable land in Tamil Nadu. The article tries to undermine the fact that being a water scarce State with its agriculture crucially dependent on irrigation water, and therefore drought prone, the water issue is a highly emotional issue in Tamil Nadu. If Tamil Nadu farmers and farm workers are dependent on the Kerala market as a dependable and sure outlet for their farm products, Kerala is equally dependent on Tamil Nadu for a significant part of its food requirements. The statement that as the dam is nearing the end of its useful life, it will have to be gradually phased out over a period of time is again bigoted. More than 500 dams in India are too old and have been constructed during the British times and some 115 of them, are more than a century old and all of these dams are still very much in use with the oldest being the Thonnur Tank in Karnataka which dates back to 1000 AD.

It’s clear that there’s a concerted effort on the part of the media, government, politicians and social networks to exaggerate the fears over Mullaperiyar dam. The comparison between Koodankulam  Nuclear power plant issue and Mullaperiyar is totally irrelevant. The tones of all the political parties in Tamil Nadu and Kerala are acrimonious and strident, not giving a very congenial atmosphere for an amicable settlement of the issue. With the Centre’s stoic silence and inaction and failing to rein in Kerala for not honouring the Supreme Court verdict on the Dam issue, the possibility for tri-partite talks is remote and will prove futile. First and foremost, both the Tamils and the Malayalis should stop demonizing each other falling into the traps of politicians with vested interests.    

My Letter to The Hindu dated 04-01-2012

This refers to the report “New dam is the only solution, says Kerala” and the article, “The case for a new Mullaperiyar dam” (Op-ed, Jan. 3). As the owner of Mullaperiyar, Kerala has every right to decide what it wants to do with the dam. But, on the Tamil Nadu side, the issue is the proposed breach of a contract — not the right over the dam and its waters. Under the agreement, Tamil Nadu gets not only water but also the right to operate and maintain the dam. Although Kerala maintains that the quantum of water Tamil Nadu receives will be maintained after a new dam is constructed, there is obviously a trust deficit. Kerala's insistence on a new dam poses a serious threat to inter-State relations, which are already under strain.