— Dr MM Kapur Any deal done requires all the parties to have a stake and a hand to play with. The Indo-US nuclear deal is one such case. The deal, which has nuclear spinoffs and consequences, has the common man as a major stakeholder, who is entitled to consultation. His views should have found favour of expression in the final agreement.
I feel in this case the common man is on a journey on a train, the destination of which is being decided by those travelling in Upper/AC Class. The “powers that be” have not considered it necessary to outline and debate this new agenda implicit in the nuclear deal with the common man. Considering that it is his and his children’s fate that is at risk, this oversight can have recurring negative outcomes in the future.
Let us have a look at the investment climate. I learn from reports that Dalberg, an economic advising firm to the IMF and the World Bank has analysed the economic investment potential of nuclear power in India for the next 20 years and has found it less valuable than other alternatives!
The US vendors’ interest would be aided if India caps the third-party liability to protect the US firms from being sued in case of accidents, terrorist acts and acts of sabotage against nuclear plants. It seems the US firms have a right to protect their interests. However, the common man’s interests have no such right of protection.
Looking back, the Parliament debate regrettably lacked depth and the views expressed were horrendously along party lines. The manner of voting left much to be desired and thus failed to convince the common man. In fact, it was imperative to have a longer debate and in fact, there should have been a peoples’ vote giving consent. The nation should have been taken into confidence if this treaty is to succeed and many other Singurs to be avoided.
Additionally, there is the question of fears, regarding, the use of nuclear power and its unwanted outcome. These would be unjustified if we were not already subject to: air, water and food contamination; insecure borders; illegal immigrants; terrorist acts ongoing with near nil convictions; acts of sabotage (economic and other assets) with few convictions, spreading naxalism and nonfunctioning public health and care system.
All the above issues clearly point towards poor governance. The common man needs assurance that better governance will resume and his participation in these decisions will be obligatory, so that he can not only weigh the advantages against the drawbacks but that he be an informed stake holder.
At the end of it all, we arrive at the view that the risk-factor involved is a major drawback if we were to adopt the nuclear agenda. Days later, the terrorists had struck Delhi and its markets. Five separate explosions among teeming shoppers resulted over a score dead and hundreds injured.
The security environment for civilian nuclear energy does not seem encouraging right now or in the near future. It is entirely possible that the “powers that be” can convert their strong resolve to adopt the nuclear agenda to an equal resolve to create a systemic change and improve the security environment to encourage investments and indeed, assure security for the common man.
A debate suggested on above lines will also provide space to discuss the merits of renewable energy alternatives. We, in India are blessed with abundant sunlight. A plan of rooftop installation of photovoltaic solar cells certainly needs consideration on a national scale. A subsidy for research and commercial application would meet the emerging demand.
This onsite production will save on cost of transmission and other losses. The excess energy can be fed into the national grid (pay back to the onsite producer). I am told that wind power already exceeds nuclear power generation. All this can be achieved at 0 carbon cost and no added risk to the common man’s already long list of risks.
The avenue suggested above also elevates our self-reliance and aids our negotiating stance in deals with nuclear powers/agencies. Further, this adds value to the investment potential and confidence level of the common man.
A closer look at the terms of the deal show that India requires to sign an additional Protocol, which will allow a more intrusive IAEA inspection of civilian facilities. In the perception of countries inside and outside the NPT, this protocol brings us closer to the NPT regime. And, even though India has always resisted signing the NPT and has stood for a universal NPT, the present deal blunts this stand.
India also agrees to refrain from further testing (self-imposed moratorium). This self-proclaimed constraint was installed in 1998 by the then Union government within the security environment of that period. The reiteration of this moratorium has recurred afresh in 2008 to obtain the NSG waiver–a fresh commitment in the context perceptions of today and possible scenarios of the foreseeable future.
This commitment is also multi-lateral as it was a commitment to NSG Governments and the commitment of a no-first use renders our deterrence pacific. These commitments cannot but impact the perceptions and policies of our nuclear neighbours. We have to be cautious and keep a lookout on how the future unfolds for us. While the two parties work out the practical contours of the deal, the common man will continue to ponder: Did we need the deal? sourcE: assam tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment