Bomb's Interests vs People's interest's in South Asia
See Report from a Pakistan Peace coalition seminar
Posted on: South Asians Against Nukes Dispatch, May 13, 2008
Posted on: South Asians Against Nukes Dispatch, May 13, 2008
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
[Today 10 year after India's Nuclear tests in Pokharan in Rajasthan, there is no reason for the ordinary people to celebrate. The villagers near the test site who have lived with radioactivity in the desert air and environment hardly matter to the powers that be. After the first nuclear test explosion at Pokhran in 1974, some of the wells in the area were sealed by the DAE. Water samples are reported to have been collected at regular intervals, by the offcials, but villagers have been prevented from using these wells, but without being given any reason. After the second series of experiments in 1998, water from a tube well in a village 7 km south of Pokhran, became jet black. Reduction in yield and fat content of milk was reported from the neighbouring villages. Radioactivity would have certainly penetrated the underground water and ground beneath. The gases and particles vented out during blasts would have been carried away by the desert wind. Not much written that is easily available. In 1999, Kalpana Sharma a well known journalist had written an interesting article - "Khetolai: The forgotten village", The Hindu Survey of Environment 1999. (pp.17-19) . See also Gadekar, S. 2000. The Smile that makes Generations Sick, in Lokayan Bulletin (Exploding Peace: Peaceful Nuclear Tests. 15.1/6 – July-June 1999-2000), New Delhi. (Pg. 91-93); Makhijani, A. 1999. Making the Bomb – Without Consent, With Injury. The Hindu Survey of the Environment 1999. (Pg 21-27)
Posted below are two news reports from today's papers in India -SAPW]
Nuclear history lost on local village
by Siddhartha S. Bose, Hindustan Times
Khetolai (Pokhran), May 11, 2008
Pokhran’s historic moment is lost on the people of Khetolai, the last human habitation near the nuclear blast site of 11 May, 1998. The young in this village vaguely recall the day when the blasts catapulted India into the orbit of countries with nuclear capabilities. The elderly take it with a pinch of salt.
“It took place on our land and made history. But what did it give us?” asks Ramlal, a schoolteacher in the local senior secondary school. Pokhran is 26 km from Khetolai; the 1998 blasts took place just 3 km from the village. A vast stretch of forbidden desert expanse separates the village from the heavily guarded blast site on the other end.
The villagers have lived on promises made to them by the Centre and the state government after the blasts.
Ten years have gone by and the promises still remain unfulfilled! And yet, the 250 odd families that live with a high literacy rate of 80 per cent and have a third of their adult population serving as government teachers, rarely discuss the atomic blasts with their children.
“Our livestock suffered from the radiation during initial days, fissures opened up in every single house in the village after the tremors that followed the blasts. The government made almost a tourist place out of Pokhran but locals suffered,” Ramesh Chand who grew up in Khetolai said. He has moved out of the village to work in nearby Phalodi.
Lt Colonel NN Joshi, army spokesperson based in Jodhpur, said the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were going to celebrate the occasion as National Technology Day. “We have received a recent communication which holds up the day as a symbol of technological empowerment,” he said.
Ramlal says people take pride in the event but are disconnected from it. How would the younger generation relate to the incident, he ponders, adding: “If only the government would have given us a desperately needed hospital in Pokhran and named it Shakti Sthal (name given to the blast site), the children would have known.” Khetolai has a primary health centre but doctors come there rarely, allege villagers. Army doctors don’t cater to the local population.
Far from being obsessed with Pokhran, people here have learnt to live with the army watching over them on three sides. The sandy stretch separates the village from the watchtowers guarding the ’98 blast sites. People are forbidden from wandering into the area. Visitors are allowed till only a km ahead of Shakti Sthal.
----
10 yrs on, Pokhran to have a war museum
by Vimal Bhatia & Prakash Bhandari (Times of India, 11 May 2008)
POKHRAN: Ten years ago, on May 11, 1998, the Buddha smiled once again in the deserts of Rajasthan as the country undertook a series of nuclear tests in the Pokhran field range. The first-ever nuclear test by the country, code named ‘Smiling Buddha’, was also conducted in the same place on May 19, 1974.
The area of the tests is still kept under tight security. There are four gates spread over a 3.5 sq km area. The first is known as Kohinoor Gate and the last, Bhoochal Gate. But soon, footfalls in the sands which saw India’s strategic coming of age could increase as the government goes ahead with plans to set up a war museum in the Pokhran range.
"We are trying to set up a model of the Khetolai village in Pokhran where the blasts took place. A war museum would be set up here and the help of the Army and BSF has been sought to set up the museum," said Ambarish Kumar, district collector, Jaisalmer.
[...].
Posted below are two news reports from today's papers in India -SAPW]
Nuclear history lost on local village
by Siddhartha S. Bose, Hindustan Times
Khetolai (Pokhran), May 11, 2008
Pokhran’s historic moment is lost on the people of Khetolai, the last human habitation near the nuclear blast site of 11 May, 1998. The young in this village vaguely recall the day when the blasts catapulted India into the orbit of countries with nuclear capabilities. The elderly take it with a pinch of salt.
“It took place on our land and made history. But what did it give us?” asks Ramlal, a schoolteacher in the local senior secondary school. Pokhran is 26 km from Khetolai; the 1998 blasts took place just 3 km from the village. A vast stretch of forbidden desert expanse separates the village from the heavily guarded blast site on the other end.
The villagers have lived on promises made to them by the Centre and the state government after the blasts.
Ten years have gone by and the promises still remain unfulfilled! And yet, the 250 odd families that live with a high literacy rate of 80 per cent and have a third of their adult population serving as government teachers, rarely discuss the atomic blasts with their children.
“Our livestock suffered from the radiation during initial days, fissures opened up in every single house in the village after the tremors that followed the blasts. The government made almost a tourist place out of Pokhran but locals suffered,” Ramesh Chand who grew up in Khetolai said. He has moved out of the village to work in nearby Phalodi.
Lt Colonel NN Joshi, army spokesperson based in Jodhpur, said the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were going to celebrate the occasion as National Technology Day. “We have received a recent communication which holds up the day as a symbol of technological empowerment,” he said.
Ramlal says people take pride in the event but are disconnected from it. How would the younger generation relate to the incident, he ponders, adding: “If only the government would have given us a desperately needed hospital in Pokhran and named it Shakti Sthal (name given to the blast site), the children would have known.” Khetolai has a primary health centre but doctors come there rarely, allege villagers. Army doctors don’t cater to the local population.
Far from being obsessed with Pokhran, people here have learnt to live with the army watching over them on three sides. The sandy stretch separates the village from the watchtowers guarding the ’98 blast sites. People are forbidden from wandering into the area. Visitors are allowed till only a km ahead of Shakti Sthal.
----
10 yrs on, Pokhran to have a war museum
by Vimal Bhatia & Prakash Bhandari (Times of India, 11 May 2008)
POKHRAN: Ten years ago, on May 11, 1998, the Buddha smiled once again in the deserts of Rajasthan as the country undertook a series of nuclear tests in the Pokhran field range. The first-ever nuclear test by the country, code named ‘Smiling Buddha’, was also conducted in the same place on May 19, 1974.
The area of the tests is still kept under tight security. There are four gates spread over a 3.5 sq km area. The first is known as Kohinoor Gate and the last, Bhoochal Gate. But soon, footfalls in the sands which saw India’s strategic coming of age could increase as the government goes ahead with plans to set up a war museum in the Pokhran range.
"We are trying to set up a model of the Khetolai village in Pokhran where the blasts took place. A war museum would be set up here and the help of the Army and BSF has been sought to set up the museum," said Ambarish Kumar, district collector, Jaisalmer.
[...].
India and Pakistan give up nuclear weapons - turn the region into a nuke free zone
On the 10th anniversary of India's nuclear tests of May 11, 1998 (and similar such tests by Pakistan 2 weeks later), both India and Pakistan have continued with their efforts to develop and fine tune their weapons of mass destruction, today they are armed to their teeth. Ten years of tit for tat goes on.
Peace activists in India and Pakistan continue to argue for a roll back of the nuclear weapons programme and cuts in defence spending in the two countries (while also demanding global nuclear disarmament). These funds would easily fulfill the needs of the funds starved social sector to develop education, health care and jobs for the poor in the two countries. But the militaro-nuclear lobbies in the two countries, worlds big weapons making firms and their bankers have huge stake in the continued militarisation of the region.
Have a look at this excellent documentary film 'Pakistan and India under the Nuclear Shadow' directed by Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (33 min - 2001, Produced by Eqbal Ahmed Foundation) as it gives some background to the militarist fantasies at work.
Technorati Tags: Nuclear Weapons, India, Pakistan, Nuclear tests
Peace activists in India and Pakistan continue to argue for a roll back of the nuclear weapons programme and cuts in defence spending in the two countries (while also demanding global nuclear disarmament). These funds would easily fulfill the needs of the funds starved social sector to develop education, health care and jobs for the poor in the two countries. But the militaro-nuclear lobbies in the two countries, worlds big weapons making firms and their bankers have huge stake in the continued militarisation of the region.
Have a look at this excellent documentary film 'Pakistan and India under the Nuclear Shadow' directed by Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (33 min - 2001, Produced by Eqbal Ahmed Foundation) as it gives some background to the militarist fantasies at work.
Technorati Tags: Nuclear Weapons, India, Pakistan, Nuclear tests
India and Pakistan continue race to sharpen their weapons to kill
[As the 10th anniversary of Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May of 1998 approaches. They keep up their race to develop their nuclear arms delivery systems. An unending stream of Missile tests has continued. On the 7th May the Indians tested aand not to be left behind the Pakistani tested on the 8th of May 2008. Millions are being spent by the two while an overwhelming majority of their citizens remain live in dire poverty. See news reports from the BBC re the two tests -SAPW]
o o o
BBC News
8 May 2008 07:14 UK
Pakistan tests ballistic missile
Hatf missile
The missile can deliver all types of warheads
Pakistan has carried out a second successful test of a cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons, its military said.
Hatf-VIII (or Raad, "thunder" in Arabic) was first tested last year.
It has a range of 350km (220 miles) and it has been developed exclusively for launch from the air.
On Wednesday, India tested a ballistic missile with a range of over 3000km (1,865 miles). The two neighbours routinely carry out missile tests.
Tension between Pakistan and India has decreased in recent years amid a series of bilateral overtures.
"It (Hatf-VIII) has enabled Pakistan to achieve a greater strategic stand-off capability on land and at sea," a statement from the Pakistan military said.
"The missile test is part of a continuing process of validating the design parameters of the weapon system."
Hatf-VIII was first tested in August last year. Experts say several tests are required before any missile can be deployed.
o o o
BBC News
7 May 2008 07:10 UK
India launches ballistic missile
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Calcutta
Agni III missile on parade in Delhi
India's Agni missiles increase military reach
India has test-fired its longest-range nuclear-capable ballistic missile, Agni-III, officials said.
The surface-to-surface missile was test-fired off the coast of Orissa state in eastern India.
With a range of more than 3,000km (1,865 miles), the missile could hit targets as far off as Beijing and Shanghai, analysts say.
The Agni-III is India's most sophisticated long-range missile. It was successfully test-fired last year.
The first attempt to test the missile in July 2006 failed after it developed a snag during the flight and came crashing down into the Bay of Bengal.
The missile was re-configured for the second launch in April 2007.
Boost capability
Indian defence spokesman Group Captain Ramesh Kumar Das said the latest test was launched from the interim test range at the Wheeler's Island in the Bay of Bengal.
The intermediate range ballistic missile is capable of carrying a 1.5-tonne nuclear payload.
When deployed, it will boost India's second-strike capability as it can be launched from anywhere using a mobile launcher.
It will need a few more tests before it can be inducted into the armed forces, Group Captain Das said.
Possession of the Agni-III will give India deep strike capability because it would have Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai and the US island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean well within its striking range.
The Agni-II missile, already tested and deployed, has a range of 2,000km (1,243 miles).
The Agni-1 has a range of 750km (466 miles).
The Agni (literally "fire" in Hindi and Sanskrit) missile family is believed to be the mainstay of the Indian missile-based strategic nuclear deterrence, Group Captain Das said.
He said the Agni family would continue to expand its stable, providing a breadth of payload and range capabilities.
o o o
BBC News
8 May 2008 07:14 UK
Pakistan tests ballistic missile
Hatf missile
The missile can deliver all types of warheads
Pakistan has carried out a second successful test of a cruise missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons, its military said.
Hatf-VIII (or Raad, "thunder" in Arabic) was first tested last year.
It has a range of 350km (220 miles) and it has been developed exclusively for launch from the air.
On Wednesday, India tested a ballistic missile with a range of over 3000km (1,865 miles). The two neighbours routinely carry out missile tests.
Tension between Pakistan and India has decreased in recent years amid a series of bilateral overtures.
"It (Hatf-VIII) has enabled Pakistan to achieve a greater strategic stand-off capability on land and at sea," a statement from the Pakistan military said.
"The missile test is part of a continuing process of validating the design parameters of the weapon system."
Hatf-VIII was first tested in August last year. Experts say several tests are required before any missile can be deployed.
o o o
BBC News
7 May 2008 07:10 UK
India launches ballistic missile
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Calcutta
Agni III missile on parade in Delhi
India's Agni missiles increase military reach
India has test-fired its longest-range nuclear-capable ballistic missile, Agni-III, officials said.
The surface-to-surface missile was test-fired off the coast of Orissa state in eastern India.
With a range of more than 3,000km (1,865 miles), the missile could hit targets as far off as Beijing and Shanghai, analysts say.
The Agni-III is India's most sophisticated long-range missile. It was successfully test-fired last year.
The first attempt to test the missile in July 2006 failed after it developed a snag during the flight and came crashing down into the Bay of Bengal.
The missile was re-configured for the second launch in April 2007.
Boost capability
Indian defence spokesman Group Captain Ramesh Kumar Das said the latest test was launched from the interim test range at the Wheeler's Island in the Bay of Bengal.
The intermediate range ballistic missile is capable of carrying a 1.5-tonne nuclear payload.
When deployed, it will boost India's second-strike capability as it can be launched from anywhere using a mobile launcher.
It will need a few more tests before it can be inducted into the armed forces, Group Captain Das said.
Possession of the Agni-III will give India deep strike capability because it would have Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai and the US island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean well within its striking range.
The Agni-II missile, already tested and deployed, has a range of 2,000km (1,243 miles).
The Agni-1 has a range of 750km (466 miles).
The Agni (literally "fire" in Hindi and Sanskrit) missile family is believed to be the mainstay of the Indian missile-based strategic nuclear deterrence, Group Captain Das said.
He said the Agni family would continue to expand its stable, providing a breadth of payload and range capabilities.
Pakistan: F-16 in popular culture and imagination
Tags: popularculture, truck art, Pakistan, militarisation
A Nuclear Armed Taj Mahal ? An Illustration on Nuclear Armed India
Image source: Press for Conversion, No 47, March 2002 coat.ncf.ca
Tags: Militarisation, India, Nuclear Weapons
Food or Weapons ? What's in people's interest?
Roti [Bread] or killing machines?
by Dr Farrukh Saleem
[Published in: The News, May 04, 2008]
Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is short on food. Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is food-insecure. Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is managing to subsist on less than 2,350 calories per day. In March 2007, there were 60 million Pakistanis short on food. That number now stands at 77 million; a 28 percent increase in just one year.
According to the World Food Programme (WFP), over the past year, "food prices in Pakistan have risen at least 35 percent, whereas the minimum wage has risen by just 18 percent, leading to a nearly 50 percent decline in the purchasing power of Pakistan's poor…" On March 27, the World Bank warned that "Pakistan must take immediate action to prevent its economy from collapse" and that "painful adjustments" would be needed to prevent a crisis.
All right, one out of every two Pakistanis is going hungry and what do we do. We go out and buy killing machines. Imagine, over the past five years our decision-makers have bought killing machines worth $4.55 billion from the US alone.
All right, Pakistan is now officially more water-stressed than is Ethiopia.
What have we done about it? Well, we have bought 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 1,450 two-thousand-pound bombs, 500 JDAM bomb tail kits and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided bomb kits. The bill: $667 million entirely paid with Pakistani national funds.
All right, UNICEF says that 200,000 Pakistani children die annually because of unsafe drinking water--dysentery, diarrhoea, typhoid, and gastroenteritis. What do we do? We go out and buy 60 midlife update kits for F-16A/B combat aircraft. Total value: $891 million (of which $108 million was paid by the US under its Foreign Military Financing).
All right, we haven't built a major dam in 27 years but we have paid out a colossal $1.43 billion for 18 new F-16C/D Block 50/52 combat aircraft with an option to buy 18 more. Not just that, we have already transferred $298 million to the US treasury for a hundred Harpoon anti-ship missiles (of which 70 have been delivered) and $95 million for 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (of which 300 have been delivered).
What is the US up to? They have provided us $1.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing when they know very well that we actually need food for our undernourished citizenry and clean drinking water for our children.
According to the Pakistan Water Gateway, within the next 15 years at least "one out of every three Pakistanis will face critical shortages of water threatening their very survival." And, how are we preparing for that eventuality? Well, we have four Agosta 90B and three Agosta 70 class submarines. To be certain, an Agosta 90B has a crew of 36 plus five officers, so in effect 164 of our brother Pakistanis will be safe.
According to Gallup Pakistan, "Sixty-six percent of a national sample of respondents from the rural and urban areas of all four provinces say they have lately faced difficulties in obtaining atta (flour) for their daily food consumption." What do we do? We go out and buy six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars for a cool $100 million.
Roti or killing machines? The story doesn't end at $4.55 billion going into the U.S. treasury. Now we are looking at buying Class 214 submarines from Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, or is it France's Direction des Constructions Navales Services. Our new big-ticket idea will cost us Euro1.2 billion.
Roti or killing machines? Imagine; the Islamic Republic routinely submerges into absolute darkness of the Dark Ages while our Muslim leaders contemplate buying ultramodern Class 214 submarines featuring air-independent propulsion using polymer electrolyte module hydrogen fuel cells. Imagine; no roti, no pani, no bijli [No bread, No Water]--and no justice. But, proud to be the 11th largest arms importer on the face of the planet.
by Dr Farrukh Saleem
[Published in: The News, May 04, 2008]
Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is short on food. Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is food-insecure. Imagine; one out of every two Pakistanis is managing to subsist on less than 2,350 calories per day. In March 2007, there were 60 million Pakistanis short on food. That number now stands at 77 million; a 28 percent increase in just one year.
According to the World Food Programme (WFP), over the past year, "food prices in Pakistan have risen at least 35 percent, whereas the minimum wage has risen by just 18 percent, leading to a nearly 50 percent decline in the purchasing power of Pakistan's poor…" On March 27, the World Bank warned that "Pakistan must take immediate action to prevent its economy from collapse" and that "painful adjustments" would be needed to prevent a crisis.
All right, one out of every two Pakistanis is going hungry and what do we do. We go out and buy killing machines. Imagine, over the past five years our decision-makers have bought killing machines worth $4.55 billion from the US alone.
All right, Pakistan is now officially more water-stressed than is Ethiopia.
What have we done about it? Well, we have bought 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 1,450 two-thousand-pound bombs, 500 JDAM bomb tail kits and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided bomb kits. The bill: $667 million entirely paid with Pakistani national funds.
All right, UNICEF says that 200,000 Pakistani children die annually because of unsafe drinking water--dysentery, diarrhoea, typhoid, and gastroenteritis. What do we do? We go out and buy 60 midlife update kits for F-16A/B combat aircraft. Total value: $891 million (of which $108 million was paid by the US under its Foreign Military Financing).
All right, we haven't built a major dam in 27 years but we have paid out a colossal $1.43 billion for 18 new F-16C/D Block 50/52 combat aircraft with an option to buy 18 more. Not just that, we have already transferred $298 million to the US treasury for a hundred Harpoon anti-ship missiles (of which 70 have been delivered) and $95 million for 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (of which 300 have been delivered).
What is the US up to? They have provided us $1.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing when they know very well that we actually need food for our undernourished citizenry and clean drinking water for our children.
According to the Pakistan Water Gateway, within the next 15 years at least "one out of every three Pakistanis will face critical shortages of water threatening their very survival." And, how are we preparing for that eventuality? Well, we have four Agosta 90B and three Agosta 70 class submarines. To be certain, an Agosta 90B has a crew of 36 plus five officers, so in effect 164 of our brother Pakistanis will be safe.
According to Gallup Pakistan, "Sixty-six percent of a national sample of respondents from the rural and urban areas of all four provinces say they have lately faced difficulties in obtaining atta (flour) for their daily food consumption." What do we do? We go out and buy six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars for a cool $100 million.
Roti or killing machines? The story doesn't end at $4.55 billion going into the U.S. treasury. Now we are looking at buying Class 214 submarines from Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, or is it France's Direction des Constructions Navales Services. Our new big-ticket idea will cost us Euro1.2 billion.
Roti or killing machines? Imagine; the Islamic Republic routinely submerges into absolute darkness of the Dark Ages while our Muslim leaders contemplate buying ultramodern Class 214 submarines featuring air-independent propulsion using polymer electrolyte module hydrogen fuel cells. Imagine; no roti, no pani, no bijli [No bread, No Water]--and no justice. But, proud to be the 11th largest arms importer on the face of the planet.
Tags: DefenceSpending, Pakistan, Food Crisis
India: Creation of private militias by the state call's for international reprimand
NO QUICK FIXES, PLEASE
by Dilip Simeon
(in: Hindustan Times, April 28, 2008)
The Supreme Court's March 31 observations regarding the armed group - Salwa Judum - affect not only Chhattisgarh, where this group operates, but pose questions to major actors across the political spectrum. Admitting two public interest petitions on the matter, Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asked the respondent, "How can the State give arms to some persons? The State will be abetting in a crime if these private persons kill others." This observation contains a profound and much-evaded truth about our polity. It also has ramifications for a long-due process of reform in India's fast-eroding criminal justice system. If Chhattisgarh persists with a strategy that the court has prima facie perceived to be illegal, it will only be following several nasty precedents that point towards the criminalisation of the State.
The Union of India, represented here by the state of Chhattisgarh, has illegally sub-contracted its sovereign control over legitimate force to a private vigilante group which functions with impunity. The Salwa Judum has the backing of the BJP and the Congress and has been accused of committing punitive rapes and killings. The policy of rewarding its cadres for killing Naxalites has encouraged false encounters. This brutal campaign has undermined the legitimacy and reputation, not only of the government of the day, but also of the Indian Union. Chhattisgarh has claimed that the Salwa Judum is a 'Gandhian campaign'. This is a strange description of men armed with guns, axes, bows and arrows. The National Commission for Women and citizen's inquiries have concluded that the lawless conduct of the Salwa Judum has led to a spiral of violent retribution, resulting in a civil war among the tribal population. In joint raids carried out by the Salwa Judum and the security forces, suspected 'Naxalite sympathisers' (mostly old persons and small children who cannot run away) have been murdered, their houses torched and livestock looted. In several instances, the raids have continued until all the villagers moved into camps. Its atrocities are rarely registered, marking an extension of impunity to an extra-legal force.
Up to January 2007, 4,048 Special Police Officers (SPOs) were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. These Salwa Judum activists are given weapons training by security forces under an official plan to create a paramilitary structure parallel to that of the Naxalites. The SPOs are mostly unemployed tribal youth and minors. The appointment of minors as security personnel is a violation of constitutional clauses (Article 39) that protect the lives and dignity of children; and of the Child Labour Act (1986) that forbids the employment of children in hazardous activities. The government has also violated UN conventions on the rights of children, and thus rendered India vulnerable to international reprimand.
In January 2007, over 47,000 persons were living in so-called relief camps and 644 out of 1,354 villages in Dantewada district were prey to their activities. Thousands have fled to neighbouring states. Clearly, the government sees enforced resettlement as the best means of separating the revolutionaries from their environment. These methods were employed by the British in Malaya and by US forces in Vietnam. But India is a 60-year-old democracy and the people being forced out of their homes are Indian citizens with equal rights under the law. They may work and live where they like and their liberties may not be curtailed or taken away unless by due process of law. They are not criminals and cannot be held responsible for the rise of Naxalism, of which they are the victims, and for which the administration is answerable.
Chhattisgarh has also enacted the Special Public Security Act (2005) that throttles legitimate dissent and other fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21. Civil rights activist Binayak Sen has been incarcerated under this Act. Along with its other actions related to the Salwa Judum, this measure violates Article 13, which forbids the State from making any law, ordinance or regulation that 'takes away or abridges' the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. The Schedule V, which protects tribal areas, has also been violated. Is the Constitution being undermined by governments tied to industrialists and MNCs?
It is questionable whether draconian laws can be effectively regulated - the semi-permanent status of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in the North-east is a glaring case of how emergencies can develop vested interests. We may expect the national security establishment to raise an outcry against the disbanding of the Salwa Judum. From their own standpoint, however, this policy will lead to the perpetuation of violence, stabilise rebellious attitudes and reduce public security. This might be a lucrative proposition for some but its consequence will be to render destitute the poorest sections of the citizenry and drive them to desperation. It will also result in the erosion of the writ of law and the constitution. We should consider whether the emergence of insurgencies with a support base among India's most-deprived people has something to do with sheer misgovernance. Violent movements gain stature when directed at undemocratic governments.
The Union Home Minister wants special legislation to deal with extremism. Is it not true that our major political parties have indulged in terror-inducing activities in the past? That the process of justice in these cases has been tardy, to say the least? Dare we say that in certain cases, private armed groups and captive mobs have been hired by the state? The protection enjoyed by the Ranvir Sena and the Salwa Judum are examples. So was the vigilante action in Nandigram undertaken by political cadre associated with the West Bengal government. If our rulers believe that such activities will curtail insurgency, they are mistaken. The only way to protect the rule of law is to respect it. Disrespect for law by its guardians has already had disastrous results.
President Pratibha Patil has referred to mob violence as a result of the failure of Indian judicial system. Her Republic Day address spoke of "internal threats from Naxalism and terrorism", the former feeding upon "sentiments of discontentment in the undeveloped parts of the country". In Chhattisgarh, this discontent derives from the devastation of livelihoods for the benefit of corporate houses with an eye on mineral-rich tribal lands. The President noted that violent methods "had no place in a democracy". Surely this applies to all sides? A month later, she advised a seminar on judicial reforms that the rise of mob violence was due to the "failure of the justice delivery system"; and stated that it was time to "collectively introspect on the causes of the ills of judicial administration without being unduly touchy and sensitive to criticism... we need to have in place a judicial machinery which is easily accessible and dispenses affordable and incorruptible justice to the people". Should not the administration pay attention to these observations by the Head of State? Contrary to the Prime Minister's assessment, it could be the criminal justice system that is the biggest security threat facing the country.
Dilip Simeon is Senior Research Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
by Dilip Simeon
(in: Hindustan Times, April 28, 2008)
The Supreme Court's March 31 observations regarding the armed group - Salwa Judum - affect not only Chhattisgarh, where this group operates, but pose questions to major actors across the political spectrum. Admitting two public interest petitions on the matter, Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asked the respondent, "How can the State give arms to some persons? The State will be abetting in a crime if these private persons kill others." This observation contains a profound and much-evaded truth about our polity. It also has ramifications for a long-due process of reform in India's fast-eroding criminal justice system. If Chhattisgarh persists with a strategy that the court has prima facie perceived to be illegal, it will only be following several nasty precedents that point towards the criminalisation of the State.
The Union of India, represented here by the state of Chhattisgarh, has illegally sub-contracted its sovereign control over legitimate force to a private vigilante group which functions with impunity. The Salwa Judum has the backing of the BJP and the Congress and has been accused of committing punitive rapes and killings. The policy of rewarding its cadres for killing Naxalites has encouraged false encounters. This brutal campaign has undermined the legitimacy and reputation, not only of the government of the day, but also of the Indian Union. Chhattisgarh has claimed that the Salwa Judum is a 'Gandhian campaign'. This is a strange description of men armed with guns, axes, bows and arrows. The National Commission for Women and citizen's inquiries have concluded that the lawless conduct of the Salwa Judum has led to a spiral of violent retribution, resulting in a civil war among the tribal population. In joint raids carried out by the Salwa Judum and the security forces, suspected 'Naxalite sympathisers' (mostly old persons and small children who cannot run away) have been murdered, their houses torched and livestock looted. In several instances, the raids have continued until all the villagers moved into camps. Its atrocities are rarely registered, marking an extension of impunity to an extra-legal force.
Up to January 2007, 4,048 Special Police Officers (SPOs) were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. These Salwa Judum activists are given weapons training by security forces under an official plan to create a paramilitary structure parallel to that of the Naxalites. The SPOs are mostly unemployed tribal youth and minors. The appointment of minors as security personnel is a violation of constitutional clauses (Article 39) that protect the lives and dignity of children; and of the Child Labour Act (1986) that forbids the employment of children in hazardous activities. The government has also violated UN conventions on the rights of children, and thus rendered India vulnerable to international reprimand.
In January 2007, over 47,000 persons were living in so-called relief camps and 644 out of 1,354 villages in Dantewada district were prey to their activities. Thousands have fled to neighbouring states. Clearly, the government sees enforced resettlement as the best means of separating the revolutionaries from their environment. These methods were employed by the British in Malaya and by US forces in Vietnam. But India is a 60-year-old democracy and the people being forced out of their homes are Indian citizens with equal rights under the law. They may work and live where they like and their liberties may not be curtailed or taken away unless by due process of law. They are not criminals and cannot be held responsible for the rise of Naxalism, of which they are the victims, and for which the administration is answerable.
Chhattisgarh has also enacted the Special Public Security Act (2005) that throttles legitimate dissent and other fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21. Civil rights activist Binayak Sen has been incarcerated under this Act. Along with its other actions related to the Salwa Judum, this measure violates Article 13, which forbids the State from making any law, ordinance or regulation that 'takes away or abridges' the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. The Schedule V, which protects tribal areas, has also been violated. Is the Constitution being undermined by governments tied to industrialists and MNCs?
It is questionable whether draconian laws can be effectively regulated - the semi-permanent status of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in the North-east is a glaring case of how emergencies can develop vested interests. We may expect the national security establishment to raise an outcry against the disbanding of the Salwa Judum. From their own standpoint, however, this policy will lead to the perpetuation of violence, stabilise rebellious attitudes and reduce public security. This might be a lucrative proposition for some but its consequence will be to render destitute the poorest sections of the citizenry and drive them to desperation. It will also result in the erosion of the writ of law and the constitution. We should consider whether the emergence of insurgencies with a support base among India's most-deprived people has something to do with sheer misgovernance. Violent movements gain stature when directed at undemocratic governments.
The Union Home Minister wants special legislation to deal with extremism. Is it not true that our major political parties have indulged in terror-inducing activities in the past? That the process of justice in these cases has been tardy, to say the least? Dare we say that in certain cases, private armed groups and captive mobs have been hired by the state? The protection enjoyed by the Ranvir Sena and the Salwa Judum are examples. So was the vigilante action in Nandigram undertaken by political cadre associated with the West Bengal government. If our rulers believe that such activities will curtail insurgency, they are mistaken. The only way to protect the rule of law is to respect it. Disrespect for law by its guardians has already had disastrous results.
President Pratibha Patil has referred to mob violence as a result of the failure of Indian judicial system. Her Republic Day address spoke of "internal threats from Naxalism and terrorism", the former feeding upon "sentiments of discontentment in the undeveloped parts of the country". In Chhattisgarh, this discontent derives from the devastation of livelihoods for the benefit of corporate houses with an eye on mineral-rich tribal lands. The President noted that violent methods "had no place in a democracy". Surely this applies to all sides? A month later, she advised a seminar on judicial reforms that the rise of mob violence was due to the "failure of the justice delivery system"; and stated that it was time to "collectively introspect on the causes of the ills of judicial administration without being unduly touchy and sensitive to criticism... we need to have in place a judicial machinery which is easily accessible and dispenses affordable and incorruptible justice to the people". Should not the administration pay attention to these observations by the Head of State? Contrary to the Prime Minister's assessment, it could be the criminal justice system that is the biggest security threat facing the country.
Dilip Simeon is Senior Research Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
How many more deaths can Sri Lanka take
HOW MANY DEATHS WILL IT TAKE?
by Rohini Hensman
Who is Responsible?
There can be little doubt that the bus bomb which killed 26 and injured many more at Piliyandala last Friday, as well as the earlier suicide attack at Weliweriya, were the work of the LTTE. Its leaders keep reminding us that their strategy of seeking a military solution backed up by acts of terrorism and war crimes remains unchanged. While it is true that Tamils in Sri Lanka have suffered injustice and violence at the hands of the state, this does not justify or excuse acts of terrorism aimed at civilians. And while it is true that there is an ongoing war between the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE, such attacks are defined in international law as crimes even when committed during a war. Apart from terrorist attacks in the South, the LTTE has killed and ethnically cleansed Muslim and Sinhalese civilians from areas of the North and East when it occupied them. All these actions are war crimes and crimes against humanity: no struggle for self-determination, no matter how brutal the opposing power, can justify them.
The LTTE has made its stand on a democratic political solution to the conflict absolutely clear by killing – or trying to kill – every single Tamil of any standing who was working towards such a solution. Rajani Thiranagama, Neelan Thiruchelvan, Lakshman Kadirgamar, T.Subathiran, Kethesh Loganathan and many others have paid with their lives for seeking a political solution compatible with respect for human rights and democratic principles. Others have managed to survive only by fleeing Sri Lanka or putting themselves under the protection of the government: courses which rob them of a large part of their freedom of action in their struggle for justice. Tamils in the areas under LTTE control are likewise subjected to appalling oppression, including child conscription and use as human shields (both war crimes), forcible conscription of adults, complete denial of freedom of expression and association, torture, and killings.
Given these characterisics of the LTTE, what options are there in dealing with them?
War Crimes by the State
The suicide attack at Weliweriya took place against the backdrop of a sensational report released by University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), naming state security personnel responsible for the murder of five students in Trincomalee in January 2006 and seventeen humanitarian workers of Action Contre la Faim in Mutur in August of that year. It is useful to recall at this point that UTHR(J) is high on the hitlist of the LTTE, which has killed one of its leading members and issued death threats against others and their relatives. It would therefore be absurd in the extreme to accuse them of wishing to whitewash the LTTE in any way, especially given their fearless criticism of that group all along. Indeed, their unbiased reporting of human rights violations was one of the reasons why they were awarded the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. The other reason was the meticulous character of their investigations and reporting. We therefore have every reason to take their Special Report No. 30 (http://www.uthr.org/SpecialRepo
These two cases are particularly important because they were cold-blooded killings which cannot be explained as ‘collateral damage’ or ‘being caught in the crossfire’. Nor were they committed by government allies like the TMVP, but by the government’s own security forces. In other words, just like the killings at Piliyandala and Weliweriya, they were terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians, identified in international law as war crimes, which cannot be excused by the fact that the state is waging a war against a ruthless terrorist group. The fact that the state tried (unsuccessfully in these cases) to blackmail the families of the victims into lying that the victims were LTTE operatives suggests that there are many more cases of state terrorism passed off as killings of LTTE members.
These war crimes were compounded by the involvement of various branches of the state at all levels – the police and STF, the judiciary, the armed forces and Defence Ministry – in the crimes themselves, and in attempts to cover them up. The reason why a human rights group could solve the mystery while the state could not becomes evident when we find that there has been systematic intimidation (in some cases murder) of family members and witnesses, while others have been forced to flee the country due to death-threats. No wonder no progress was made when the criminals were assigned the task of investigating the crimes! And no wonder the government objects so strongly to UN human rights monitoring, when it has so much to hide! The failure of even the Commission of Inquiry to solve these cases confirms the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons’ criticisms of it, and underscores the fact that the CoI is in no way a substitute for UN human rights monitoring. If there is still no indictment of the perpetrators of these vile and despicable crimes after the excellent detective work done by those who provided information for the UTHR(J) report, we can conclude that the government is using the CoI as yet another figleaf to cover up its human rights violations.
Is this the way to fight the LTTE? Most emphatically not! The absence of genuine criminal investigation and of the rule of law, which allows the state to commit war crimes with impunity, also allows the LTTE to get away with murder. And the hatred generated by the state’s abuse of human rights and perversion of justice can be used by the LTTE to recruit suicide bombers for its own criminal purposes. Given the radical undermining of the rule of law by the government, the only way to break this vicious circle is to invite a UN human rights monitoring mission to help with the task of investigating both crimes by the LTTE and crimes by the state, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Is There a Military Solution?
Suppose we grant that war crimes by the state engender war crimes by the LTTE and ought to be stopped, isn’t it still the case that the LTTE, given the kind of group it is, has to be defeated militarily? This is a question that requires serious scrutiny.
There are hardliners within the LTTE who will never give up; these people may need to be fought militarily. But they first need to be isolated. A large section of the LTTE’s fighting force consists of conscripts, both children and adults. The heart-breaking story of Jenny, a young girl forcibly conscripted by the LTTE, desperate to rejoin her family but killed by the Sri Lankan Army before she could do so, is typical of this section (see http://www.asiantribune.com/?q
Then there are voluntary fighters who join the LTTE because they are so bitter about six decades of oppression of Tamils by the Sri Lankan state, beginning with the assault on the citizenship and franchise of hillcountry Tamils, and ending with crimes like those against the ACF workers. Ending war crimes by the state will go some way towards convincing these people that the government is not as bad as the LTTE, but it is not enough. Most of them would not leave the LTTE unless they are convinced that their democratic rights would be protected by the Sri Lankan government.
This is where a credible political solution to the conflict becomes critically important, and it looked as if the government was serious about finding such a solution when it set up the All Party Representative Committee. The majority report of its panel of advisors, and Chairman Tissa Vitharana’s report, marked significant progress. If the process had continued to completion, most of these voluntary fighters would have left the LTTE, isolating the hardcore. Instead, there was sabotage of the process by some elements in the government and outside, who could not reconcile themselves to the idea of democratic rights for minority communities, and were even willing to retain the present system of dictatorship – which is what the executive presidency really is – in order to avoid granting them. The process ended in a fiasco earlier this year, when the President forced the APRC to present a watered-down version of the twenty-year-old 13th Amendment, which was already part of the Constitution, instead of their own report.
Subsequently, Mahinda Rajapakse announced at the Independence Day celebrations that ‘The practical solution is to bring the provincial administration closer to the people within the framework of the Constitution,’ making it clear that so far as he was concerned, the APRC process, premised on proposals for a new constitution, was dead and buried. Its members were sent on foreign trips at the expense of the taxpayer to study devolution in other countries, but it had already been decided that any proposals that went beyond the existing constitution – which was part of the problem, not of the solution – would be ruled out.
It is true that the hardliners in the LTTE will never give up their violent campaign for a totalitarian Tamil Eelam unless forced to do so; but they will never be defeated militarily until their supporters have been weaned away by a government that respects the human rights of Tamils and offers them a democratic political solution. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the present government can never defeat the LTTE. It is clear, too, that the LTTE alone is not responsible for the atrocities at Weliweriya and Piliyandala. The government is also responsible, because such attacks are a foreseeable and inevitable result of the strategy it has chosen: a purely military solution with impunity for war crimes.
The First Time as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
So who can defeat the LTTE if the current president and political leaders are incapable of doing so? The UNP leadership has once again demonstrated its opportunism by failing to declare firm support for a democratic political solution, while the TNA too remains ambivalent about its support for such a solution. There are minority parties willing to support a democratic constitution in defiance of both the president and the LTTE, but their leaders are understandably afraid of exposing themselves to assassination by alienating both sides at the same time; moreover, it would be impossible for them to change the constitution by themselves, or even lead a campaign for doing so. So it seems unrealistic to expect any change within the lifetime of the current government and presidency. But the next parliamentary elections could provide a window of opportunity for defeating the LTTE and ending the war, provided preparations begin immediately.
In this context, the Left could play a critical role, acting as a pole of attraction for politicians from all parties who support a democratic political solution to the civil war, and making the next election a referendum on this issue. It is disappointing indeed that it has failed so far. The old Left – the LSSP and CP – must be familiar with Marx’s aphorism that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce; yet they appear to be proving it true in their own conduct. The first time – when the same Colvin R. de Silva who had predicted that ‘Sinhala Only’ would lead to two nations presided over the 1972 Constitution, which entrenched a Sinhala Buddhist unitary state without protection for the rights of minorities – was tragic indeed, leading to a civil war that has claimed close to 70,000 lives. The second time – when instead of presenting the interim APRC proposals, Tissa Vitharana handed back to President Rajapaksa a mutilated copy of the 13th Amendment which the president had just handed to him – was pure farce. Unless the old Left is able to break with this tradition of abandoning their principles in order to form governments with Sinhala nationalists, it will continue to be marginalised.
The parties that broke away from the LSSP and CP due to their betrayal of the rights of minorities could also be potential members of an alternative pole. Unfortunately, many of them have illusions in the LTTE’s agenda for a totalitarian Tamil Eelam, because of their doctrinal acceptance of Stalin’s definition of a ‘nation’ combined with Lenin’s arguments for the right of nations to self-determination. Unless they are able to examine these articles of faith critically, and conclude that the LTTE’s agenda has to be rejected completely, they will falter in their support for a truly democratic solution to the civil war. As for the JVP (which is now in disarray), its ‘Leftism’ is so completely drowned out by its Sinhala nationalism that it is hard to see any support for democracy emerging from it. But some of the elements who broke away from it after the last insurrection could be part of an emerging force for democracy.
The next elections may seem a long way off, but unless preparations for them begin soon, they will be upon us before we know where we are, and it will be too late to create a democratic alternative to the totalitarian politics tearing Sri Lanka apart. Bob Dylan asked, how many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died? Let’s not leave the answer blowing in the wind any longer.
[The above article was published in The Island (Colombo), 30 April 2008]
India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power
South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List
March 29, 2008
URL: groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/1102
o o o o
Kerala students, who have set up an organisation, Students Against Nuclear Power (SANP), were on indefinite hunger strike at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar to project their demand that the Indo-US civil nuclear deal be scrapped, gave up their fast after eight days on March 17, 2008 following the intervention of and assurance from various socio-political leaders. Their demand has been powerfully raised in the Lok Sabha and in the crucial meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the deal. They received support from various political leaders in carrying the struggle forward against the Indo-US nuclear deal. The initiative taken by them is regarded as a distinct one of its kind as it is directly related to the future of the nation, said many in solidarity. Members of Parliament like D. Raja, P. Karuunakaran, M.P. Veerendra Kumar, C.K. Chandrappan, Pannyan Raveendran, Dr K.S. Manoj, Dr P.P. Koya, political leaders like Annie Raja, G. Devarajan, K.N. Ramachandran, Dhruv Narayanan, and eminent personalities like Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy, Sandeep Pandey, Swami Agnivesh, Praful Bidwai, Prashant Bhushan, and so many others visited and expressed their solidarity with the students’ struggle against nuclear power. Many faculty members and students from Delhi Universtiy, Jamia Mallia Islamia, JNU and AMU came to them. Pratidhwani, a Delhi based movement, observed a day’s hunger strike with the students to express their solidarity. Memoranda were forwarded to the Prime Minister, UPA chairperson, Defence Minister and External Affairs Minister through Member of Lok Sabha Sandeep Dikshit. Demanding the scrapping of the deal and supporting the students’ hunger strike, hundreds of telegrams, fax messages and e-mails were sent to the Prime Minister’s Office from different parts of the country. Several demonstrations, poster campaigns and dharnas in solidarity with the hunger strike of the SANP took place in different parts of the country. The students, while winding up the fast, declared that they ‘are ready to sacrifice and will resume the struggle if the government is going on with the deal’. The position of the SANP activists has been spelt out in the following statement.
STATEMENT OF STUDENTS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER (SANP) ON INDEFINITE HUNGER STRIKE IN PROTEST AGAINST INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL
The anxieties concerning the Indo-US nuclear deal began on July 18, 2005 with the Joint Declaration of our Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and US President George Bush. The treaty is known as the 123 deal because of the changes that were made in the 123 section of the American Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that allows the US to enter into treaties with India which has not signed the NPT. There are 17 sections in 22 pages in the deal which is relevant for 40 years. The Hyde Act is another amendment made to this deal that will allow the US to sell nuclear technology and equipments to India. The Hyde Act is known after the name of Henry Joseph Hyde, the Senator who proposed the Act.
The PM insists that nuclear energy is the only source for meeting the energy crisis of our country. But one needs to look at the energy production of this country and compare how much nuclear energy India will get from the nuclear deal before signing the deal. Thermal and hydro-electric projects contribute 55 per cent and 22 per cent respectively of the total production of power in the country. The 4120 megawatts that come from nuclear power projects contribute only two per cent. The government claims that if the nuclear deal is signed, by 2040 the nuclear power production will touch 40,000 megawatts. The Planning Commission places it at 29, 000 megawatts by the year 2021. The wind generated power units and the recently improved power generating source jointly produce 10,715 megawatts (7.5 per cent) whereas nuclear power with its history of more than fifty years has been able to produce only 4120 megawatts.
The cost of nuclear generated electricity is appalling. Coal/thermal power is priced at Rs 3.73 crores/megawatt as against the Rs 7.4 crores/megawatt from nuclear power. Natural Gas and hydroelectric power can be generated at Rs 2 crores per megawatt. The imported reactors that are part of the nuclear deal will take the cost to something like Rs 11.1 crores (inclusive of the interests of the production capital). Statistics show that the cost of nuclear power is five times that of hydroelectric power and three-and-a-half times that of thermal/coal power. It might be relevant to recall the financial burden that Enron, with its mere 2000 megawatt capacity, brought to bear on the Government of Maharashtra. The burden of 40,000 megawatts will be staggering.
A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveals that the US spends 4.2 cent for coal generated power and 7.6 per cent for nuclear power. The disposal of nuclear waste, which poses a grave threat to all forms of life, is still a daunting problem. The cost of decommissioning of nuclear reactors exceeds that of commissioning. The carelessness of man, internal unrest, civil wars, natural disasters raise serious challenges to nuclear safety. The cases of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are hard to forget. Einstein’s observation that research on nuclear safety should be given priority over nuclear energy is worth recalling here.
India, a fast-developing country, is in urgent need of nuclear safety. What is of paramount importance is why and how India should depend on nuclear energy. It is not wise to engage in a frantic rush for nuclear energy which causes serious social crisis when there are other more productive and less harmful ways of producing power using modern technology and natural resources. Those who argue that we will need nuclear energy when the coal and thermal sources of power are exhausted should remember that uranium, which is essential for nuclear power, will not be available as a long term source.
We need to depend on alternative sources and systems of generating power that will not destroy the balance of nature or the existence of humanity. Solar power is the fastest growing option that is receiving widespread attention and acceptance. Scientists have come to the conclusion that from the Rajasthan desert alone one lakh megawatts of solar power is possible. On a long term basis, we need to develop solar, hydro-electric, wind and biomass and for short-term dependence we can look to thermal and coal. In Nepal alone, there is the possibility of producing 8000 megawatts of hydro-electric power and our National Hydroelectric Power Corporation points out that we can make around 50,000 megawatts of hydro-electric power. Many mini hydro-electric projects and alternative systems and sources are possible. This being the situation, we need to think whether we should lead ourselves into a Gordian knot (nuclear deal) that America insists.
Another objection raised by those who support nuclear power is that coal/thermal power generating stations will worsen global warming. There is no doubt that use of fossil energy will augment the green-house effect. Just because India stops using such energy is not going to help. If India’s coal reactors emit 500 kilos of waste US reactors emit five tonnes. Statistics show that the major culprit of global warming is the US. The US has always resisted everything that is against their interests. The US had no qualms about walking out of the Kyoto agreement. Only selfish interest governs the US in this nuclear deal. Section 104 (d) 5 (b) is ample proof of that country’s selfish concerns in this deal.
The above data proves without doubt that for power safety and environmental protection we need coal based power generating stations and not nuclear power reactors. We need to rely on clean coal technology to reduce environmental pollution. A major chunk of the domestic power use is the electric bulb invented by Edison more than one hundred years ago. Such bulbs convert 90 per cent of electricity to light. The use of such bulbs in India is estimated at Rs 100 crores. Replacing them with CFL bulbs will reduce energy consumption by more than fifty per cent. You can save the environment from thousands of tonnes of carbon waste, and reduce the electricity bill in households. The longer life of the CFL bulbs will also reduce E wastes. The total cost will be somewhere between Rs 7000-10,000 crores. Such being the case, to argue that nuclear power is the only solution is fooling oneself.
---
THE deal, which is supposed to be for power safety, refers only to electric energy. Electricity forms only a portion of our energy consumption. Oil, natural gas and petrochemical products are not even discussed. The demand for oil and natural gas are on the rise by the day. Seventytwo per cent of the petroleum consumption of our country is imported. According to the Integrated Energy Policy Report of the Planning Commission, by 2032, the demand for petroleum will rise from 33,400 lakh tonnes to 46,200 lakh tonnes and that of natural gas from 990 to 1840. These figures show that the Indo-American nuclear deal will meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Before one enters into this deal, one needs to take into consideration some facts. India’s share in the world energy consumption is a mere two per cent. India stands first globally as the importer of oil. Nuclear energy meets only three-to-five per cent of the demands for energy as compared to 30 and 10 per cent of oil and natural gas. In the future 40 per cent of the energy demand will be from oil and natural gas.
The pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan will be a partial solution to our demands. The project with an output of 250 lakh tonnes of natural gas would be a significant step towards saving millions of rupees. The figures furnished by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Resources are significant. The cost of one billion Terminal Unit of Natural Gas (Iran-Pakistan pipeline project) is a mere $ 4 as against the international market price of $ 14. The possibility of a very cost effective means of acquiring natural gas will be nullified by the Indo-American nuclear deal.
American business concerns give much importance to the 123 deal. The US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business federation in the world, expects around Rs 60 lakh crores from India as part of the Indo-American deal. The business houses in India also expect crores of rupees from this deal. The big shots in the government also expect monetary gains from this deal. How can one claim that they are the followers of Gandhiji who insisted that all plans for development should be implemented without losing sight of the poorest sections of our country? That smiling toothless revered old man sitting on the wall of Manmohan Singh’s office would have said ‘no’ to the Indo American nuclear deal. ‘Quit Nuclear Deal’—that is what that great old man, who passed away sixty years ago, would be exhorting us to do today.
The intention of the Indian Government is to amend the nuclear deal and open up the production of nuclear energy to private corporations. This will destroy the nuclear safety of our country. The possibility of uranium and plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out. It would be worthwhile to remember Einstein’s words—“It is dangerous to give greater powers to private agencies and corporations that do not have equally great responsibilities”.
The meagre energy that we get through the 123 deal will be achieved at the expense of sacrificing India’s sovereignty and integrity. It will be the end of our self-reliance in the field of nuclear energy and it will offer shackles in the sphere of foreign policy.
The question whether India should keep aloof from nuclear energy when China, Korea and France even with their energy resources from coal are favourable towards nuclear energy has also come up. It is not by quoting the example of France or China that India should take a decision; rather, it should be based on the assessment of technological advances that India has achieved in the field of nuclear energy. Indian scientists have pointed out that the nuclear deal will destroy the second stage fast breeder technology that our country alone possesses.
India’s voting against Iran can be seen as a move only to appease America. This is ironic since those who voted against Iran are the followers of Nehru who once reiterated to America that we are not international beggars. Such actions adversely affect the sense of justice that this country has always upheld.
What is more essential for the power, security and self-sufficiency of the country is to use the energy that is available from oil and natural gas. These do not lie in buying reactors from GE or Westinghouse. To make this possible we must have peace in the Asian region. The intention of the American imperialist forces is to cause unrest. Do we need this deal that will sacrifice the sovereignty and foreign policy of our country? Power safety means self-reliance. Remember what the Urdu poet Iqbal wrote:
The ocean told the dew drop:
“Come I will protect you in my lap.”
The dewdrop said: “I prefer to die on the hot sands rather than merge myself in you.”
March 29, 2008
URL: groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/1102
o o o o
Kerala students, who have set up an organisation, Students Against Nuclear Power (SANP), were on indefinite hunger strike at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar to project their demand that the Indo-US civil nuclear deal be scrapped, gave up their fast after eight days on March 17, 2008 following the intervention of and assurance from various socio-political leaders. Their demand has been powerfully raised in the Lok Sabha and in the crucial meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the deal. They received support from various political leaders in carrying the struggle forward against the Indo-US nuclear deal. The initiative taken by them is regarded as a distinct one of its kind as it is directly related to the future of the nation, said many in solidarity. Members of Parliament like D. Raja, P. Karuunakaran, M.P. Veerendra Kumar, C.K. Chandrappan, Pannyan Raveendran, Dr K.S. Manoj, Dr P.P. Koya, political leaders like Annie Raja, G. Devarajan, K.N. Ramachandran, Dhruv Narayanan, and eminent personalities like Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy, Sandeep Pandey, Swami Agnivesh, Praful Bidwai, Prashant Bhushan, and so many others visited and expressed their solidarity with the students’ struggle against nuclear power. Many faculty members and students from Delhi Universtiy, Jamia Mallia Islamia, JNU and AMU came to them. Pratidhwani, a Delhi based movement, observed a day’s hunger strike with the students to express their solidarity. Memoranda were forwarded to the Prime Minister, UPA chairperson, Defence Minister and External Affairs Minister through Member of Lok Sabha Sandeep Dikshit. Demanding the scrapping of the deal and supporting the students’ hunger strike, hundreds of telegrams, fax messages and e-mails were sent to the Prime Minister’s Office from different parts of the country. Several demonstrations, poster campaigns and dharnas in solidarity with the hunger strike of the SANP took place in different parts of the country. The students, while winding up the fast, declared that they ‘are ready to sacrifice and will resume the struggle if the government is going on with the deal’. The position of the SANP activists has been spelt out in the following statement.
STATEMENT OF STUDENTS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER (SANP) ON INDEFINITE HUNGER STRIKE IN PROTEST AGAINST INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL
The anxieties concerning the Indo-US nuclear deal began on July 18, 2005 with the Joint Declaration of our Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and US President George Bush. The treaty is known as the 123 deal because of the changes that were made in the 123 section of the American Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that allows the US to enter into treaties with India which has not signed the NPT. There are 17 sections in 22 pages in the deal which is relevant for 40 years. The Hyde Act is another amendment made to this deal that will allow the US to sell nuclear technology and equipments to India. The Hyde Act is known after the name of Henry Joseph Hyde, the Senator who proposed the Act.
The PM insists that nuclear energy is the only source for meeting the energy crisis of our country. But one needs to look at the energy production of this country and compare how much nuclear energy India will get from the nuclear deal before signing the deal. Thermal and hydro-electric projects contribute 55 per cent and 22 per cent respectively of the total production of power in the country. The 4120 megawatts that come from nuclear power projects contribute only two per cent. The government claims that if the nuclear deal is signed, by 2040 the nuclear power production will touch 40,000 megawatts. The Planning Commission places it at 29, 000 megawatts by the year 2021. The wind generated power units and the recently improved power generating source jointly produce 10,715 megawatts (7.5 per cent) whereas nuclear power with its history of more than fifty years has been able to produce only 4120 megawatts.
The cost of nuclear generated electricity is appalling. Coal/thermal power is priced at Rs 3.73 crores/megawatt as against the Rs 7.4 crores/megawatt from nuclear power. Natural Gas and hydroelectric power can be generated at Rs 2 crores per megawatt. The imported reactors that are part of the nuclear deal will take the cost to something like Rs 11.1 crores (inclusive of the interests of the production capital). Statistics show that the cost of nuclear power is five times that of hydroelectric power and three-and-a-half times that of thermal/coal power. It might be relevant to recall the financial burden that Enron, with its mere 2000 megawatt capacity, brought to bear on the Government of Maharashtra. The burden of 40,000 megawatts will be staggering.
A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveals that the US spends 4.2 cent for coal generated power and 7.6 per cent for nuclear power. The disposal of nuclear waste, which poses a grave threat to all forms of life, is still a daunting problem. The cost of decommissioning of nuclear reactors exceeds that of commissioning. The carelessness of man, internal unrest, civil wars, natural disasters raise serious challenges to nuclear safety. The cases of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are hard to forget. Einstein’s observation that research on nuclear safety should be given priority over nuclear energy is worth recalling here.
India, a fast-developing country, is in urgent need of nuclear safety. What is of paramount importance is why and how India should depend on nuclear energy. It is not wise to engage in a frantic rush for nuclear energy which causes serious social crisis when there are other more productive and less harmful ways of producing power using modern technology and natural resources. Those who argue that we will need nuclear energy when the coal and thermal sources of power are exhausted should remember that uranium, which is essential for nuclear power, will not be available as a long term source.
We need to depend on alternative sources and systems of generating power that will not destroy the balance of nature or the existence of humanity. Solar power is the fastest growing option that is receiving widespread attention and acceptance. Scientists have come to the conclusion that from the Rajasthan desert alone one lakh megawatts of solar power is possible. On a long term basis, we need to develop solar, hydro-electric, wind and biomass and for short-term dependence we can look to thermal and coal. In Nepal alone, there is the possibility of producing 8000 megawatts of hydro-electric power and our National Hydroelectric Power Corporation points out that we can make around 50,000 megawatts of hydro-electric power. Many mini hydro-electric projects and alternative systems and sources are possible. This being the situation, we need to think whether we should lead ourselves into a Gordian knot (nuclear deal) that America insists.
Another objection raised by those who support nuclear power is that coal/thermal power generating stations will worsen global warming. There is no doubt that use of fossil energy will augment the green-house effect. Just because India stops using such energy is not going to help. If India’s coal reactors emit 500 kilos of waste US reactors emit five tonnes. Statistics show that the major culprit of global warming is the US. The US has always resisted everything that is against their interests. The US had no qualms about walking out of the Kyoto agreement. Only selfish interest governs the US in this nuclear deal. Section 104 (d) 5 (b) is ample proof of that country’s selfish concerns in this deal.
The above data proves without doubt that for power safety and environmental protection we need coal based power generating stations and not nuclear power reactors. We need to rely on clean coal technology to reduce environmental pollution. A major chunk of the domestic power use is the electric bulb invented by Edison more than one hundred years ago. Such bulbs convert 90 per cent of electricity to light. The use of such bulbs in India is estimated at Rs 100 crores. Replacing them with CFL bulbs will reduce energy consumption by more than fifty per cent. You can save the environment from thousands of tonnes of carbon waste, and reduce the electricity bill in households. The longer life of the CFL bulbs will also reduce E wastes. The total cost will be somewhere between Rs 7000-10,000 crores. Such being the case, to argue that nuclear power is the only solution is fooling oneself.
---
THE deal, which is supposed to be for power safety, refers only to electric energy. Electricity forms only a portion of our energy consumption. Oil, natural gas and petrochemical products are not even discussed. The demand for oil and natural gas are on the rise by the day. Seventytwo per cent of the petroleum consumption of our country is imported. According to the Integrated Energy Policy Report of the Planning Commission, by 2032, the demand for petroleum will rise from 33,400 lakh tonnes to 46,200 lakh tonnes and that of natural gas from 990 to 1840. These figures show that the Indo-American nuclear deal will meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Before one enters into this deal, one needs to take into consideration some facts. India’s share in the world energy consumption is a mere two per cent. India stands first globally as the importer of oil. Nuclear energy meets only three-to-five per cent of the demands for energy as compared to 30 and 10 per cent of oil and natural gas. In the future 40 per cent of the energy demand will be from oil and natural gas.
The pipeline project from Iran through Pakistan will be a partial solution to our demands. The project with an output of 250 lakh tonnes of natural gas would be a significant step towards saving millions of rupees. The figures furnished by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Resources are significant. The cost of one billion Terminal Unit of Natural Gas (Iran-Pakistan pipeline project) is a mere $ 4 as against the international market price of $ 14. The possibility of a very cost effective means of acquiring natural gas will be nullified by the Indo-American nuclear deal.
American business concerns give much importance to the 123 deal. The US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business federation in the world, expects around Rs 60 lakh crores from India as part of the Indo-American deal. The business houses in India also expect crores of rupees from this deal. The big shots in the government also expect monetary gains from this deal. How can one claim that they are the followers of Gandhiji who insisted that all plans for development should be implemented without losing sight of the poorest sections of our country? That smiling toothless revered old man sitting on the wall of Manmohan Singh’s office would have said ‘no’ to the Indo American nuclear deal. ‘Quit Nuclear Deal’—that is what that great old man, who passed away sixty years ago, would be exhorting us to do today.
The intention of the Indian Government is to amend the nuclear deal and open up the production of nuclear energy to private corporations. This will destroy the nuclear safety of our country. The possibility of uranium and plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out. It would be worthwhile to remember Einstein’s words—“It is dangerous to give greater powers to private agencies and corporations that do not have equally great responsibilities”.
The meagre energy that we get through the 123 deal will be achieved at the expense of sacrificing India’s sovereignty and integrity. It will be the end of our self-reliance in the field of nuclear energy and it will offer shackles in the sphere of foreign policy.
The question whether India should keep aloof from nuclear energy when China, Korea and France even with their energy resources from coal are favourable towards nuclear energy has also come up. It is not by quoting the example of France or China that India should take a decision; rather, it should be based on the assessment of technological advances that India has achieved in the field of nuclear energy. Indian scientists have pointed out that the nuclear deal will destroy the second stage fast breeder technology that our country alone possesses.
India’s voting against Iran can be seen as a move only to appease America. This is ironic since those who voted against Iran are the followers of Nehru who once reiterated to America that we are not international beggars. Such actions adversely affect the sense of justice that this country has always upheld.
What is more essential for the power, security and self-sufficiency of the country is to use the energy that is available from oil and natural gas. These do not lie in buying reactors from GE or Westinghouse. To make this possible we must have peace in the Asian region. The intention of the American imperialist forces is to cause unrest. Do we need this deal that will sacrifice the sovereignty and foreign policy of our country? Power safety means self-reliance. Remember what the Urdu poet Iqbal wrote:
The ocean told the dew drop:
“Come I will protect you in my lap.”
The dewdrop said: “I prefer to die on the hot sands rather than merge myself in you.”
Next1-10/26