My letter to The Hindu on RTE Act (14-04-2012)

The verdict has come at a time when a bleak picture of the RTE landscape reveals that many schools are not compliant with the complete set of RTE infrastructure indicators. The verdict will enable the government to provide free, quality education to bring about the holistic development of the poor and marginalised children and inculcate values in them to turn them into agents of change for the future with a deep sense of commitment to their communities.

The negative responses from private schools clearly indicate that there is a complete lack of will to ensure that the socially and economically backward students get into mainstream schools. In today's world, the main conduit available for these children to move up the social ladder is education. Post-verdict, there is an urgent need for the government to take a more pro-active role in addressing the effective implementation of the RTE Act.

In response to the news brief in The Hindu, “Court upholds RTE Act.”(13-04-2012)

The Supreme Court on Thursday by a majority of 2:1 upheld the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides for free and compulsory education to children between the age of 6 and 14 years and mandates government/aided/and non-minority unaided schools to reserve 25 per cent of the seats for these children.

A Bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice Swatanter Kumar while upholding the law, however, held that it would not be applicable to unaided minority schools. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, gave a dissenting judgment.

The majority judgment said: “We hold that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid and shall apply to a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority; an aided school including aided minority school(s) receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; a school belonging to specified category; and an unaided non-minority school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority.”

The CJI who wrote the judgment said: “It will operate from today. In other words, this will apply from the academic year 2012-13. However, admissions given by unaided minority schools prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall not be reopened. “By judicial decisions, right to education has been read into right to life in Article 21. A child who is denied right to access education is not only deprived of his right to live with dignity, he is also deprived of his right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1) (a). The 2009 Act seeks to remove all those barriers including financial and psychological barriers which a child belonging to the weaker section and disadvantaged group has to face while seeking admission.”

The Bench said: “It is true that, as held in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation as well as the P.A. Inamdar judgments, the right to establish and administer an educational institution is a fundamental right, as long as the activity remains charitable under Article 19(1) (g). However, in the said two decisions the correlation between Articles 21 and 21A, on the one hand, and Article 19(1) (g), on the other, was not under consideration.

Further, the content of Article 21A flows from Article 45 (as it then stood). The 2009 Act has been enacted to give effect to Article 21A. For the above reasons, since the Article 19(1) (g) right is not an absolute right as Article 30(1), the 2009 Act cannot be termed as unreasonable.”

The Bench said: “To put an obligation on the unaided non-minority school to admit 25 per cent children in class I under Section 12(1) (c) cannot be termed as an unreasonable restriction. Such a law cannot be said to transgress any constitutional limitation. The object of the 2009 Act is to remove the barriers faced by a child who seeks admission to class I and not to restrict the freedom under Article 19(1) (g). “From the scheme of Article 21A and the 2009 Act, it is clear that the primary obligation is of the State to provide for free and compulsory education to children between the age of 6 and 14 years and, particularly, to children who are likely to be prevented from pursuing and completing the elementary education due to inability to afford fees or charges.” On reserving 25 per cent seats, the Bench said: “Earmarking of seats for children belonging to a specified category who face financial barrier in the matter of accessing education satisfies the test of classification in Article 14. Further, Section 12(1) (c) provides for level playing field in the matter of right to education to children who are prevented from accessing education because they do not have the means or their parents do not have the means to pay for their fees. Such a condition would come within the principle of reasonableness in Article 19(6).

Stop aggressive tactics!! Tolerate voices of dissent!!  

It is a matter of deep anguish and concern that the government which has the duty to protect citizens in a free society manufactures consent by violence and pressure tactics. It is really disturbing that the government adopts aggressive methods to suppress voices of dissent and those being raised against Kudankulam nuclear plant.Governments, both at the State and the Centre, are obviously too jittery to allow even isolated voices of dissent to be heard in public.Convicting anti-nuclear activists of sedition and treason against the country yet again illustrates the disdain of the state towards its citizens and democracy. The real crime of the anti-nuclear activists in the eyes of the government has been their protest against the nuclear power plant, and their efforts to sensitize the public about the ecological problems of a nuclear plant. It is undemocratic that the state attempts to create a fear psychosis among political and social activists which will only lead to the strengthening of resistance against state repression.

The aggressive and intimidation tactics of the Government against anti nuclear can suppress opposing views for some time, but it cannot hope to suppress the social reality forever. What the nuclear establishment and the political elite have been trying painstakingly to hide from the people and the human misery the nuclear authorities have inflicted globally will certainly come to light. Governments at both the State and Centre, justify pushing anti-people projects blaming all the valid questions raised and opposition, by invoking the tactics of intimidation. The intimidation tactics like foisting false cases and threatening the public of dire consequences are truly a national betrayal and a constitutional aberration in letter and spirit. The high handed methods with which the government resists people in large numbers oppose it quite peacefully and democratically and resorts to violence to coerce people into accepting the project against their wish make our suspicions about the ulterior motives of the nuclear lobby stronger.

The government is now fearful and unsure of the consequences of people's mass movement against nuclear plant and is resorting to strong-arm tactics to suppress people's voice.The police and legal action against anti-nuclear activists who were protesting in a democratic way just exposesthe government’sattitude to silence the voices of reasoning through the use of intimidation.The government shamelessly seeks to create an atmosphere of suspicion which sees anti-nuclear activists as anti-national, anti-scientific and driven by foreign forces.Anti-nuclear activists still argue that the key issues are not technical but rather social, political and economic. Suppression of public and intellectual dissent is a dangerous trend in a democratic nation. In Kudankulam, fundamental dissidence is rare, since activistsare afraid that speaking out would jeopardise their lives. The bogey of foreign hand has been played by post-independent rulers to divert the rising discontent of the masses.It is the need of the hour that the government should re-establish the rule of law and to honour the democratic responsibilities of those who express their dissent in a democratic way.  Activists expressing their democratic dissent against nuclear power are not to be dealt with by police machinery and false cases, but by convincing them with facts and figures about the case for nuclear energy. The State and the Centre should immediately stop the systematic usage of various intimidation laws and charges of sedition against activists to silence all voices of dissent.

My letter to the Editor of The Hindu (07-04-2012)

This refers to the article “Shutting the school doors on the Muslim child” (April 5). It is a national shame that the largest minority in India is denied the fundamental right to just and equal access to school education. A very significant section of Muslims has been marginalised and left out of the development process. The persistence of discriminatory practices in schools is based on many assumptions pertaining to historical prejudices, official apathy and mistaken perceptions of Muslims' learning abilities. Their socio-economic conditions present a dismal picture with the community facing a rising tide of religious discrimination in schools. In ‘secular' India, schools and other educational institutions are systematically Sanskritised to exclude the minorities.

Education should be viewed as a basic human right leading to empowerment and awareness. There is an urgent need for the government to play a proactive role in addressing the concerns of Muslims.

In response to the article in The Hindu titled “Shutting the school doors on the Muslim child” by Hem Borker

That a news report in The Hindu titled “In Delhi's nursery classes, Muslim children are a rarity” (March 19, 2012), found mention in the Rajya Sabha the same day, leading to “heated arguments” and a “verbal duel” in the Upper House, is symptomatic of the polarisation of public discourse on the education of Muslims. Almost any discussion on the subject slides into binaries: religious vs secular, exclusion vs appeasement, rights vs politics, reality vs rhetoric, and conservatism vs systemic discrimination.

A study

In 2009-10, as part of the National CRY Fellowship Programme, I had conducted a series of interviews with 20 Muslim families residing in Zakir Nagar, New Delhi, on the question of what shaped their schooling choices for their children. Unanimously, the parents regarded modern mainstream education as the single most important factor which safeguarded their children's future and clearly articulated a preference for sending their children to reputed private schools. However their narratives echoed the contesting dilemmas many faced on account of “being Muslim”; dilemmas which illustrate the manner in which the increasing communalisation of social space subtly limits choices or renders them non-existent in something as fundamental as education.

“We want schools that do not discriminate against our children.”

This statement highlights the increasing sense of helplessness and exasperation parents feel at the difficulty their children face in gaining admission to private schools. Many talked about their “feeling” that private schools have some sort of a “prefixed quota of just this much and no more Muslims”; some parents cited how the neighbourhood points seemed to have marginal weightage in the case of private schools nearby, while others talked about having to use “ jugaad ” to get their children admitted saying that this was not an option available to the ordinary Muslim.

Respecting minority sentiments

Many talked about consciously opting for Christian schools rather than the Hinduised regular public schools, as, at some level, Christian schools are “good” and respect minority sentiments. They also explained the choice in terms of pragmatism as Christian schools are generally convents, have a better command over the English language, and have a strong emphasis on discipline.

Parents shared experiences of their children being “unnecessarily picked on, classified in front of their peers and harassed by teachers.” In many of the interviews, parents repeatedly made references to derogatory comments made by teachers on the eating and dressing habits (headscarf or extra-long skirts) of Muslim children. This was corroborated by the children when I asked them about things they did not like about school. Many of them talked about how they did not like being singled out (on account of their religion), examples being a teacher adding “ M iyan ” to the child's name while taking attendance (“I don't know why my teacher keeps adding ‘Miyan' to my name ... everyone has started saying that ”) or the cricket coach's insinuating reprimands (“ Isko bouncer mat dena, sar tod dega ... ye sab garam mizaz ke hote hain ”) or as a 10-year-old girl said, “Nobody in school wants to play hide-and-seek with me. Everyone says Muslims cannot be trusted with secrets.”

Parents described themselves as being very “conscious,” “mindful” and “careful” about the choices they were making vis-à-vis their children's education — what the school environment was like, where to send their children to play or for dini talim. The choices available often lay at two ends of the spectrum — “excessively religious” people in the neighbourhood who kept on preaching Islamiyat or the excessively modern who tried to act like “everyone else.”

For many parents the biggest worry was how to straddle these two extremes. Their responses constantly brought up the dichotomy of the “Good Muslim” and the “Bad Muslim” and the difficulty they faced in ensuring that their children are brought up in “Muslim ways” without falling into the “conservative trap.” In fact this concern was shared at various points in the interviews. Parents would juxtapose their own education back home (generally where they were a part of larger families in a more “Muslim milieu”) with that of their children's education (in a nuclear set up in Delhi, where, as parents, they consciously tried to familiarise their children with the culture). Many parents mentioned how in their families, “family values” included orienting their children towards religion and conformity with a certain moral discipline. These situations often put the parents in an awkward position limiting their options to Muslim managed schools which respected their culture but did not provide the secular grounding required for the children not to feel alienated in the future.

Educating the girl

Many parents expressed the difficulties they faced in choosing appropriate schools for their girls. For parents, many of whom aspired to remain true to their native roots located in rural or semi-urban Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, it was difficult to locate schools which ensured that their girls could avail the benefits of a modern secular education that provided some degree of certainty of access to respectable marriages and, if need be, appropriate employment but did not corrupt them into western ways; an institution which was not co-educational , had a modest dress code and was located nearby to ensure that the parents could reach them quickly in case of a “threatening” ( danga-fasad ) eventuality. I noted that in the case of girls, unlike boys, in the event of an absence of a combination of these criteria the parents generally made compromises on the quality of schooling and sent the girls to nearby (often unrecognised) schools within Jamia Nagar which promised girls education (not co-education), held classes in Urdu and sometimes imparting dini talim , and had the salwar kameez as the uniform. But the drawback was that these schools were not necessarily recognised by boards such as the CBSE/ICSE or had classes up till class 12.

While these daily struggles are in no way representative of the Muslim experience of education, they do highlight the vicious nature of the problem. On one side the policy discourse refers to educational backwardness as one of the main causes for real and/or perceived alienation of Muslims and acknowledges inclusive education as a panacea; on the other, these real life situations demonstrate the everyday issues Muslims face in accessing these very opportunities, leading to further isolation, exclusion and excessive reliance on “Muslim managed services and networks.”

Hem Borker is pursuing her D.Phil in Education at the University of Oxford.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar!! Keep silence!! Don’t utter non sense!! Please mind your business!!

My letter to The Hindu dated 30-03-2012

This refers to the editorial “The art of schooling” (March 29). Sri Sri Ravishankar's remark that students from government schools become naxalites and take to violence is irrational and unwarranted, particularly at a time when we need to encourage public schools to end the monopoly of private schools which have become educational shops. Privatisation of education would mean denying the fruits of knowledge to the marginalised sections. Many people occupying some of the highest posts in the country are products of government schools. Moreover, naxalism is not the result of a lack of ideals in public schools; it is the result of exploitation by corporates and governments, leading to the displacement and oppression of the marginalised. The government has a moral responsibility to provide the kind of education one could expect from sophisticated private schools.

In response to the Editorial in The Hindu dated 29-03-2012

The art of schooling

Share

1

A good public education produces citizens who think freely, show initiative and possess a questioning mind. That progressive idea is increasingly under threat from lobbyists for market dominance. But even these campaigners would be surprised at Sri Sri Ravishankar's bizarre logic for privatisation — that students from government schools become naxalites and take to violence. Foolish though they are, such assertions prop up the falsehood that government-funded education is a ghettoised ruin, while private sector institutions uniformly make the cut. Such a proposition is particularly offensive because it strikes at the heart of the belated effort by the Indian state to make tax-funded elementary education free and accessible to all children as a right. The national goal is to rapidly expand quality education on an unprecedented scale and reach out to the remotest parts. There is a role for private schools in the overall scheme, as laid out in the approach paper of the Planning Commission on the Twelfth Plan, but it can only be to top up a sound education system run by the state. Genuine thought leadership must, therefore, dwell on questions such as improving the skills of 600,000 teachers in public schools who are officially described as untrained.

The logic that public education as a system is below par stems from the neoliberal idea that government works less efficiently compared to private entities and even non-governmental organisations. It is unsurprising that Sri Sri Ravishankar's NGO tried to explain away his controversial remarks on Twitter with the argument that it was running 185 free schools in “naxal-affected” areas, and the comments were not directed at all government institutions. Even if that were true, it is no reason to dismantle the government education system in conflict zones. If anything, weaknesses underscore the need to bolster the education infrastructure in these parts, with the active participation of local communities. Also, contrary to the pernicious logic advanced against public education, the beneficiaries of that system work harder to overcome their social disadvantages, compared with well-to-do counterparts in private institutions. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, elite education is oriented more towards preserving the status quo, and emphasises the following of orders, control and discipline. This is antithetical to the concepts of freedom of thought, challenge and inquiry that are the core goals of education. India's public education lacks adequate human resources and infrastructure, and it evidently needs supportive policies to achieve its potential. What it does not need is a sermon on things that it is not.

Mr. Singh! Respect the sentiments of Tamils!!

India should support US resolution on Sri Lanka

In the wake of India’s incapacity today to nudge Sri Lanka in finding a fair, just and equitable solution to the root problem of Tamil alienation, India should estimate its crucial role in supporting the US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka. Riding a wave of Sinhalese chauvinism, Sri Lanka overnight turned its back on the assurances held out to India.  Deepening militarization in the Northern Province has increased the insecurity and political marginalization of Tamils and undermined prospects for inter-ethnic reconciliation. With the Sri Lankan government’s growing authoritarianism, and continued repression of dissent, any devolution will be meaningless and the risks of renewed conflict will increase. As the Sri Lankan government continues to resist any investigation or accounting for mass atrocities in the final months of the war, democratic governance is under sustained assault throughout the island nation.

India shouldn’t repeatedly break its pledges to defend the rights of Tamils and protect their lives. India’s reluctance not to put serious pressure on the Sri Lankan government seems to be condoning the Sri Lankan army's war crimes which is antithetical to India’s multi-cultural, democratic fabric. India’s own democratic values and successes in accommodating ethnic diversity should also reflect in its stance on the US resolution issue, especially as it seeks recognition as a rising global power with hopes of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India’s own restive Tamil population, to which the central government needs to respond, is pressing for stronger action. If India is serious about promoting a stable, all-inclusive and democratic Sri Lanka, India will have to press more consistently and in concert with the US, France, and Norway, should support an independent international investigation into allegations of war crimes even at the risk of sacrificing potentially profitable political deals. If India is genuine in its longstanding interest in a peaceful and politically stable Sri Lanka, it is best served by supporting the US backed resolution on Sri Lanka to end impunity and reverse the democratic decay that undermines the rights of Sri Lankan Tamils.

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.