sacip.freeflux.net

by Zia Mian and MV Ramana

India and Pakistan have been talking peace since 2003, yet they have continued to expand their nuclear arsenals. This suggests a failure both of imagination and of political will to seriously engage with the nuclear danger. The peace process does not seem to recognise the fact that since the two countries conducted their nuclear tests in 1998 there has been a war and a major military crisis, both prominently featuring nuclear threats. Nuclear denial in south Asia is not a symptom of inattention, or passivity in the face of an overwhelming problem. It is deliberate blindness to the contradiction between word and deed. India and Pakistan talk of peace while pouring scarce resources into developing their nuclear arsenals, the infrastructure for producing and using them, and doctrines aimed at fighting a nuclear war.

[Read More]

Tags: India, Pakistan, Peace, Militarisation, Nuclear Weapons, Defence Spending

See Report from a Pakistan Peace coalition seminar
Posted on: South Asians Against Nukes Dispatch, May 13, 2008

[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.
[...].

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

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.

Tags: DefenceSpending, Pakistan, Food Crisis

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/SpecialReports/Spreport30.htm) seriously, and it certainly carries conviction.

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=node/9659 ). These people would gladly leave the LTTE if they could; they are hostages, and the aim should be rescue them, not kill them. If they knew the government was trying to rescue them, many more would try to escape the LTTE, thus weakening it militarily.

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 13^th 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 13^th 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]

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.”   

South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List
December 26, 2007
URL: groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/1091

o o o o

TERROR BY CLERICAL ERROR
by Jawed Naqvi
(in Dawn, December 20, 2007)

INDIA’s top missile scientist unveiled plans last week to build a ballistic missile defence by 2010 that should effectively tackle the threat from Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Dr V.K. Saraswat was also quoted as saying that the proximity of Pakistan’s assets would give India just three to four minutes to respond to a perceived attack.

The missile defence system now on the anvil would protect ‘high-value’ assets and major cities like Delhi and Mumbai. Informed people would consider the plan delusional, and therefore dangerous.

Russia and the United States, with far greater lead-time to respond to each other’s nuclear threat and with a highly refined command and control mechanism, still do not have a completely trustworthy system in place.

The official doomsday scenario written by the US government during the Cold War - called The Emergency Plan Book - would make countries like India and Pakistan look not just ill-prepared to consider the use of nuclear weapons but also ill-advised to flaunt them. For all its sophistication and years of preparedness for nuclear attack on its territory, the United States looked pretty vulnerable as recently as Sept 11, 2001. How the administration went round like a headless chicken in the aftermath is nicely recorded in The Doomsday Scenario, a 2002 book based mostly on the Emergency Plan, which author L. Douglas Keeney wangled from a library during a brief period when it
was declassified.

During the Cold War, more than $45bn was spent to protect both senior US government officials and the general public in the event of a nuclear attack. This funding supported everything from the production and distribution of films and pamphlets instructing citizens how to mitigate the effects of a nuclear blast and fallout to the secret construction of massive underground facilities to allow the government to continue to operate during and after a nuclear war.

The extensive and extremely expensive plans to build massive blast and fallout shelters for the populace were systematically rejected by US presidents on the grounds that they did not want to create a national panic. The Congress balked at the price tag and the military leaders argued that it was more sensible and cost-effective to invest in offensive weapons to deter war and, if need be, wage war. One fallout of the Sept 11 attacks was that for the first time the United States activated its Continuity of Government plans (COG), some of which have been lampooned in Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. But the real emergency envisioned in The Doomsday Scenario, cited by Keeney, pertained to “kiloton and megaton-sized bombs” that would “pummel our industrial, transportation, communication, and financial centres in a sustained downpouring of warheads”. The national landscape, according to the American response plans, “would be blurred with smoke and haze and littered with death and destruction and contamination, with only the most rudimentary fragments of community and government surviving”.

Said the Emergency Plans Book, “12,500,000 are suffering from blast or thermal injuries and have an immediate and evident need for treatment.” The surviving labour force is “engaged in large numbers in disposing of the dead”. America’s shipping ports would be clogged with sunken ships; it would
be a nation of people scrounging for food, “with crematoriums working around the clock”.

Ironically the current discourse on nuclear weapons in Islamabad and Washington DC and Dr Saraswat’s plans to defend India’s high-value assets, whatever that means in the context of millions dead, are so obviously unreal. America’s headache stems from the fear of Muslim extremists taking control of the nuclear trigger. That the bomb looks any more secure with the followers of other faiths is one of the big fallacies of our times.

We did feel (or know) during the 2002 India-Pakistan stand-off that a more real nuclear threat could come from any ‘mad major’ lurking within the chain of command of either country. And why blame the mad major when the political leadership of that period on both sides looked quite prepared to do the job of, let’s say, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper?Do we remember the delusional commander of a US air force base in Dr Strangelove who initiated an attack plan to strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons? He had set out to thwart what he believed was a Communist conspiracy to “sap and impurify” the “precious bodily fluids” of the American people with fluoridated water which he believed had caused his impotence. Change the bodily fluids with some other catchphrase that sells with our people and we are in the same league with Stanley Kubrick’s villainous brigadier.

The advent of Al Qaeda as the all-pervasive ogre out to destroy the world tends to lull us into the false belief that the messianic zeal of the president of the United States is any less threatening. The readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran or any other country (don’t forget the Seventh Fleet flexing its muscles in the Bay of Bengal not too long ago) is at par with the clarion call for “aar paar ki larai” (fight unto finish) that emanated from the Indian leadership.

Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine too comes ironically from a highly disciplined and professional army, not gun-toting mullahs. It signals the readiness to be the first one to stage a nuclear strike. Add to this conundrum the bristling tensions between the United States and Europe on the one side confronted by an increasingly insecure but militarily powerful Russia, and we have a serious problem on our hands.

In our self-absorption with Narendra Modi in India and the hurly-burly of January elections in Pakistan, there has been a tendency to miss out on the subversive action underway in our vicinities that is of equal if not more serious consequence to the region. Last month Russia’s parliament voted to suspend compliance with a key Cold War treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe as Moscow signalled it was weighing new force deployments on its western flank. Last week Russia’s defence officials warned that any Iran-bound missile from Europe travelling over Russian air space could be read as enemy action by its trigger-ready retaliatory system.

Stanley Kubrick’s film was loosely based on Peter George’s Cold War thriller novel Red Alert, also known as Two Hours to Doom. Dr Strangelove satirises the Cold War and the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. For India and Pakistan, with just three to four minutes to take evasive action, if Dr Saraswat’s count is right, there won’t be any time for Brigadier General Ripper to deliver all his humorous lines before doom strikes us suddenly. Whether the threat comes from a Muslim cleric or a clerical error of a secular nature, it would still spell disaster for millions.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in New Delhi.

Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order

[Press Release - Bombay, 12 March 2007]

The International Seminar on “Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order” held in Mumbai, on March 10-11, 2007 was organised by a number of local organisations, as per the attached list ‘A’, and endorsed/participated by the international organisations, as per the attached list ‘B’.

After due and indepth deliberations in which a number of international and national experts and activists took part, the Seminar has resolved as under:

I. What the Deal Is All About?
The content of the ‘Deal’, which is currently being negotiated between India and the US, was first laid out the joint statement issued by the Indian Prime minister and the US President on July 18 2005 from Washington DC and then further reiterated on March 2 2006 in another joint statement by them issued from New Delhi incorporating the major elements of agreements between the countries reached till then. The signing of the Henry Hyde Act on December 18 2006, after protracted and nervewracking deliberations in the US Congress, by the US President towards amending its own Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to make the ‘Deal’ possible is a major step forward towards bringing the ‘Deal’ into force.

The ‘Deal’, in its essence, is meant to enable India, a nonsignatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), henceforth to have ‘civilian’ nuclear trade - in terms of nuclear fuel, technology, plants, spares etc., with the US, and also other nations so desirous, by making a unique exception in case of India. India in return will have to designate, at its own options, its nuclear reactors into two categories - ‘civilian’ (for power production) and ‘strategic’ (for Bomb making), and ensure separation between the two. The ‘civilian’ reactors/plants only will be opened up for international inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The nuclear trade will accordingly be limited to the ‘civilian’ reactors only. In case of the ‘strategic’ ones, there will be neither any inspection nor any trade.

II. When and How the ‘Deal’ Comes into Operation?

In order to bring the ‘Deal’ into force, India will have to further finalise the “123 agreement” with the US, laying down the specific scope and terms of cooperation and codifying the modes of separation between the ‘civilian’ and ‘strategic’ plants and perhaps diluting some of the conditions incorporated in the Henry Hyde Act at the instance of the US Congress to which India is objecting; and conclude a treaty with the IAEA on the specific scope and terms of inspection.
Then the proposal will go to the 45member Nuclear Suppliers Group so that it unanimously amends its rules, which as of now prohibits nuclear trade with India - being a nonsignatory to the NPT, to accommodate the above two agreements reached between India, on the one hand, and the US and the IAEA on the other.
On succeeding in obtaining a green signal from the NSG, the whole package will go back to the two houses of the US Congress, which stands reconfigured since, for its final nod.

In the event of obtaining such, the US President would put his signature and the ‘Deal’ will eventually come into operation.

The Indian government, unlike its US counterpart, is not obligated to obtain any parliamentary approval.

III. Why the ‘Deal’ Must Be Opposed?
The ‘Deal’ as and when, and if at all, comes through will grievously undermine the current global regime of nuclear nonproliferation, as it is meant to make a unique exception in case India, in gross violation of the underlying principles of the NPT, and thereby also the prospects of global nuclear disarmament. The fact that Pakistan has been brusquely refused a similar deal by the US in spite of persistent clamouring and Iran is being demonstratively coerced to desist from developing its own nuclear fuel cycle technology, integral to nuclear power production allowed and encouraged under the Article IV of the NPT, further brings out graphically the abominable discriminatory nature of the ‘Deal’. Moreover, the lesson that one would tend to learn is that if one can weather the initial storms of international censures after breaking the nonproliferation taboo, things would normalise in a while. One may even get rewarded in the process. This is sure to trigger off stepped up vertical and horizontal proliferations.

Moreover, by enabling India to import fuel, natural or enriched uranium, from abroad, the ‘Deal’ would make it possible for India to use the indigenously produced uranium exclusively for Bombmaking. This possible escalation in its fissile material production capacity is, in all likelihood, push Pakistan further to nuclearise even at a great cost, and thereby aggravate tensions and accelerate arms race in the region with spinechilling consequences.

It’d also further cement the growing (unequal) strategic ties between the US and India and thereby would add momentum to the US project for unfettered global dominance and Indian craze to emerge as a global power basking in the reflected glory of the global headman. It’d just not only undermine India’s position as a founding and leading member of the NAM, it’d also pose a very serious challenge to the NAM and its objectives in terms of radically raised level of US domination on the global scene.

India’s rather meek submission to highly deplorable and dangerous threats issued and postures adopted by the Bush regime in relation to Iran and its nuclear programme instead of trying to find a just and fair solution in terms of having a Weapons of Mass Destruction free MiddleEast including Israel is a clear and extremely worrisome pointer. India’s keenness to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) initiated by the US to interdict any vessel in international waters suspected of carrying (unauthorised!) nuclear materials, in gross violation of all international laws and also the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme of the US are another two highly disturbing indicators.

India’s growing closeness with Israel, the frontline state of the US in the Middle East, would also pick up further pace in the process.

This ‘Deal’ would obviously distort India’s energy options by diverting scarce resources to developments of resourceguzzling, intrinsically hazardous and potentially catastrophic, nuclear power at the cost of ecologically benign renewable sources of energy.

This would, furthermore, provide a strong boost to the nuclear industry worldwide, particularly the potential suppliers from the US. And that’s precisely why the business lobby in the US is working overtime to get the ‘Deal’ clinched.
The recent visit by the Russian President Vladimir Putin to India as the guest of honour at the Republic Day event and his public commitment to supply additional nuclear reactors to India and work for the safe passage of the ‘Deal’ through the NSG underscores the convergence of interests of the nuclear power lobbies worldwide as regards the ‘Deal’ and the new market that it is promising to open up.

IV. We Demand

The government of India, given the grave multifaceted negative implications of this ongoing deal, must forthwith withdraw from all further negotiations with the US in this regard.

It must strive to regain its old prestige and influence, both moral and political, by opting to again play a meaningful leading role in the NonAligned Movement and other international alliances geared against imperialism, militarism and oriented towards a nuclear weapons free South Asia and the world.

The government of India is further urged to make global abolition of nuclear weapons its diplomatic priority and take up and pursue the issue vigorously with the NAM, UNGA and other international fora.

V.

The Seminar also decides to send a copy of this Resolution to the Prime Minister of India, the Chairperson of the ruling UPA - Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the incumbent chair of the NAM - the Cuban government, and also the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, Mr Ban Kimoon.

It also urges the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to turn down the proposal to amend its rule to accommodate the ‘Deal’, as and when it come sup for discussions.

‘A’
Indian Organisers:
Bombay Urban Industrial League for Development (BUILD)
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS)
Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA)
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP)
Documentation & Research Training Centre (DRTC)
Forum for Justice & Peace (FJP)
Indian Institute for Peace, Disarmament &
Environmental Protection
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD)
Initiative India
Institute Community Organization & Research (ICOR)
Labour Education and Research Network (LEARN)
National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy (PIPFPD)
Peace Mummbai
People’s Media Initiative (PMI)
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK)
Wisdom Foundation
Women’s Centre
and others

‘B’
International Organisations Endorsing:
AfroAsian Peoples’ Solidarity Organisation
Friends of the Earth Australia
Mayors for Peace
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD),
and others

Event Details
10.3.2007 (SATURDAY)
10 0011 00: Registration & Inauguration.
Welcome Speech: Admiral (Rtd.) L Ramdas (PIPFPD/CNDP).
11 0014 00: 1st Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: India, NonAligned Movement and the Emerging Global Order’.
Speakers: Achin Vanaik (CNDP), A.A.M Marleen PC (SecretaryGeneral, AAPSO, Sri Lanka), Ashim Roy (General Secretary, NTUI), Ms. Hamsa Abd ElHamid (International Secretariat, AAPSO, Cairo).
Chair: Fr. Allwyn D’Silva (FJP/ICOR).
15 0018 00: 2nd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Nuclear Arms Race’.
Speakers: John Hallam (Friends of the Earth, Australia), E.A.Vidyasekera (AAPSO Secretariat Coordinator), Hari Sharma (President, SANSAD, Canada) speech read out in absentia, Praful Bidwai (CNDP).
Chair: Vijay Darp (PIPFPD).
March 11 (SUNDAY)
10 0013 00: 3rd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Energy Options’.
Speakers: Surendra Gadekar (CNDP/Anumukti), V T Padmanabhan (Researcher on radiation effects on human heath), M V Ramana (CNDP).
Chair: Leslie Rodrigues (VAK).
14 0018 00: 4th Plenary:
Documentary film by K P Sasi on effects of radiation (from thorium) on human health.
Strategy Session and Adoption of Resolution.
Speakers: Theodore Orlin (President, International Human Rights Education Consortium, USA), Sandeep Pandey (NAPM/CNDP), Eric Toussaint (CADTM, Belgium) and others.
Chair: Sukla Sen (CNDP).
Discussion on Film
Speaker: V T Padmanabhan.
Chair: Sushovan Dhar (VAK).
Thanksgiving

LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA


5 March 2007
 
 
Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
 
Dear Prime Minister,

Neglect of Children Under Six in the Union Budget 2007-8
 
We are writing to express our deep concern about the neglect of children under six in the Union Budget
2007-8.
 
You may remember meeting some of us on 19 December 2006 (just after “Bal Adhikar Samvad”), when we discussed the FOCUS Report, the rights of children under six, and the recent Supreme Court judgement on ICDS.  At that time you had assured us that the UPA Government was committed to the universalization of ICDS, as stated in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP), and also to the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement.  We are, therefore, startled and dismayed that this commitment is not reflected at all in the Union Budget 2007-8.  The allocation for ICDS (Rs 4,761 crores) has barely increased in real terms, and is virtually unchanged as a proportion of GDP.
 
It is a mystery to us how the CMP commitment and Supreme Court judgement can possibly be implemented within such meagre budget allocations.  The Supreme Court judgement requires an increase in the number of Anganwadis from the present 9.4 lakhs to 14 lakhs at the very least by December 2008.  Higher allocations are also required to enhance the quality of ICDS services.  Based on fairly conservative calculations of the requirements of “universalization with quality”, the National Advisory Council had recommended (in November 2004) an allocation of at least Rs 9,600 crores for ICDS in 2007-8.  This figure needs upward revision in the light of the Supreme Court judgement, yet the actual provision in the Union Budget 2007-8 is not even half of this conservative estimate.
 
As per this Budget, the Government of India will be spending less than Rs 5,000 crores this year on children under six, who represent more than 15 per cent of India’s population.  This compares with Rs 96,000 crores to be spent on “defence”.  This is a staggering and unacceptable imbalance in Budget priorities.  The contrast is all the more shocking at a time of growing evidence (particularly from the National Family Health Survey) that there has been no substantial improvement in infant and young child nutrition, including optimal breastfeeding practices, during the last eight years, in spite of runaway economic growth.
 
We urge you to intervene and ensure a fairer deal for children in the Union Budget 2007-8 as well as in the 11th Plan.  We also take this opportunity to reiterate our appeal for more active political leadership on children’s issues, including the universalization of ICDS.
 
Yours Sincerely,
 
                                  
  Jean Dreze        N.C.Saxena Shantha Sinha  Aruna Roy
  (Allahabad University)        (former Secretary, (M.V.Foundation) (National Campaign for
     Planning Commission)                         People’s Right to Information)
                           
Kavita Srivastava Harsh Mander   Vandana Prasad     Arun Gupta
(People’s Union  (Centre for Equity                (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan)     (Breastfeeding Promotion 
for Civil Liberties) Studies)           Network of India)
              
       Annie Raja                        Veena Shatrugna  Sudha Sundararaman            
      (National Federation               (National Institute                     (All India Democratic                       
       For Indian Women)                 of Nutrition)                   Women’s Association)         
 
 
 
 
cc: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (Chairperson, UPA),     Shri P. Chidambaram (Finance Minister),
     Dr. Montek S. Ahluwalia (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission)