UN body evaluatng India's Human Rights record

The Asian Human Rights Organization, Hong Kong, says: 

India will be evaluated at the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review in Geneva, Switzerland today.

The three countries (Troika) involved in the review are Kuwait, Mauritius and Mexico. That these countries have worse records of human rights in comparison to the country they would collectively review suggests how firmly, and perhaps blindly, such processes are at the UN. Yet the UPR may still be considered beneficial because it at least presents recurring opportunity at the UN for human rights organizations to flag their concerns about the country under review.

India has submitted its National Report to the UPR Working Group, which is available here. Other documents concerning India relevant to the UPR process are also available here.

The national report places overwhelming emphasis upon the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court on human rights. In page 3 of the report, the government claims that the Court has initiated a "revolutionary interpretative evolution" of fundamental rights in India. It is true. What is false, however, is the affirmation that the Court's initiative is "fully supported by the overnment". The evolution of the Court's interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to housing, against forced eviction, right to education, clean environment and against forced labour proves that on each occasion someone had to approach the Court seeking its assistance and writ jurisdiction to 'direct' the government concerned toward what that government had to do. Each one of these cases highlight the failure of the state to fulfil its duties. The Court has also reiterated its authority to review both legislative and executive actions. Within the Constitutional architecture, the government is legally compelled to obey with the Court's directives. Essentially, the government's 'concessionary' claim that it has 'fully supported' the Court's directives possess no inherent merit.

The absence of honesty in the government's claim as to its compliance of the Court's directives is visible from facts on the ground. The first case cited by the government is the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights (petitioners) against Union of India and others (respondents) reported in All India Reporter Supreme Court 431. The Court was called upon to decide the constitutional vires of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in this occasion. While maintaining that the central government had adequate powers to enact the law now held to have had the worse impact on the protection of human rights, the Court drew comparison from the Reserve Forces Act, 1980 of the United Kingdom where the government is empowered to "call upon" its reserve forces when there is a threat to the security of the nation. The Court failed to recognise, however, that the conditions in the United Kingdom (UK) and India are vastly different. The UK could afford to have legislation such as the Reserve Forces Act because its justice institutions are far superior to those of India (in terms of transparency, accountability, resources dedicated to training, solid theoretical and philosophical foundation and an infinitely less corrupt bureaucracy), both then and now. The Court however could not be blamed in totality for this serious omission and disparity since it had not been requested to consider the misuse of the law in the infringement of human rights as it happened then and continues now.

Despite this, jurisprudential wisdom at the time warranted the Court to impose 10 'dos and don'ts', none of which has been followed since then. Given knowledge of the cases of human rights violations available today, one could argue that the Court failed to critically appreciate the nature of the threat the AFSPA was supposed to help diminish, the population upon which the law is thrust upon and the possibility of enforcing discipline upon the armed units which would be protected by the impunity provided them by the law. Today, AFSPA has not merely failed to reduce or contain this violence, but has instead inflamed it. The populations in places throughout India where this law is enforced have further alienated themselves from the national mainstream – this is also due to the discrimination practiced against them by the rest of the country. The number of human rights abuses committed by armed units under the protection of this Act as documented by numerous NGOs and civil society organisations is alarmingly high. This has substantially contributed to the considerable lack of discipline within the country's armed units.

Incidents left inadequately investigated due to the absence of an independent investigating agency in the country and the unwillingness of the government to create one has resulted in gross human rights abuses wherever this draconian law is in use. The unmarked mass graves in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the countless cases of rape, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions reported from states like Manipur stares balefully in the face of the Supreme Court's jurisprudential piety in issuing some obviously ineffective dos and don'ts while deciding the Naga People's case.

They are of such nature that it is worth reproducing here. 

1. Action … (b) Power to open fire using force or arrest is to be exercised under this Act only by an officer/JCO/WO and NCO. (c) Before launching any raid/search, definite information about the activity to be obtained from the local civil authorities. (d) As far as possible co-opt representative of local civil administration during the raid. 

2. Action during Operation (a) In case of necessity of opening fire and using any force against the suspect or any person acting in contravention to law and order, ascertain first that it is essential for maintenance of public order. Open fire only after due warning. (b) Arrest only those who have committed cognizable offence or who are about to commit cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable ground exists to prove that they have committed or are about to commit cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable ground exists to prove that they have committed or are about to commit cognizable offence. (c) Ensure that troop under command do not harass innocent people, destroy property of the public or unnecessarily enter into the house/dwelling of people not connected with any unlawful activities. (d) Ensure that women are not searched/arrested without the presence of female police. In fact women should be searched by female police only. 

3. Action after operation (a) After arrest prepare a list of the persons so arrested. (b) Handover the arrested persons to the nearest Police Station with least possible delay. (c) While handing over to the police a report should accompany with detailed circumstances occasioning the arrest. (d) Every delay in handing over the suspects to the police must be justified and should be reasonable depending upon the place, time of arrest and the terrain in which such person has been arrested. The least possible delay may be 2-3 hours extendable to 24 hours or so depending upon particular case. (e) After raid make out a list of all arms, ammunition or any other incriminating material/document taken into possession. (f) All such arms, ammunition, stores, etc. should be handed over to the police State along with the seizure memo. (g) Obtain receipt of persons arms/ammunition, stores etc. so handed over to the police. (h) Make record of the area where operation is launched having the date and time and the persons participating in such raid. (i) Make a record of the commander and other officers/JCOs/NCOs forming part of such force. (k) Ensure medical relief to any person injured during the encounter, if any person dies in the encounter his dead body be handed over immediately to the police along with the details leading to such death. 4. 

Dealing with Civil Court (a) Directions of the High Court/Supreme Court should be promptly attended to. (b) Whenever summoned by the courts, decorum of the court must be maintained and proper respect paid. (c) Answer questions of the court politely ad with dignity. (d) Maintain detailed record of the entire operation correctly and explicitly.

Don'ts 1. Do not keep a person under custody for any period longer than the bare necessity for handing over to the nearest Police Station. 2. Do not use any force after having arrested a person except when he is trying to escape. 3. Do not use third degree methods to extract information or to extract confession or other involvement in unlawful activities. 4. After arrest of a person by the member of the Armed forces, he shall not be interrogated by the member of the armed force. 5. Do not release the person directly after apprehending on your own. If any person is to be released, he must be released through civil authorities. 6. Do not tamper with official records. 7. The Armed Forces shall not take back person after he is handed over to civil police.

That the judicial logic behind these directions has failed, and miserably so, is proved by the D. K. Basu (petitioner) against State of West Bengal and others (respondents) reported in All India Reporter Supreme Court, 610. Ironically, the government has cited this case as well in its report to showcase the prowess of the safeguards provided by the judiciary to protect fundamental rights in India. The Court's intervention in this case was due to the repeated instances of blatant violations of prescribed procedures and fundamental by the state police. The argument that the legal guarantees even civilian police fail to provide in peaceful environments and times would be provided by armed units operating in hostile environments is naivety and nothing short of laughable. The present quality of life in places where the AFSPA is enforced is proof of this. That the Supreme Court of India has declared AFSPA constitutional in 1988 should not be an excuse for the government to review, and, if necessary, repeal it.

The government has claimed that it is considering a domestic law against torture. It is true that the law was passed in the Lok Sabha in 2010. The importance the members of the Lok Sabha attributed to this law and informed nature of the debate is apparent from the long discussion on the law in the Lok Sabha. Most members complained in jest that holding them back in the parliament at 9.30 pm is torture and requested that the law be quickly passed. The 625 words-long Bill that failed to even properly define the term 'torture' has today been placed in the Rajya Sabha's deep freezer for the past two years following a review by the Parliamentary Select Committee. Even the members of the parliament do not know the fate of the Bill. No government worthy of its mandate would go to an international body like the UN and state that even though the government is still not serious about this law, "the Supreme Court of India, through its judgments, has … laid down exacting standards on this issue". This statement about the Court laying down exacting standards is false. There is simply no such judgment.

The court has dealt with this issue on several occasions, most importantly in Kishore Singh (petitioner) against the State of Rajastan and on others (respondents) when the court said "...othing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a state official running berserk regardless of human rights". This case is reported in 1981 All India Reporter, Supreme Court 625. Yet torture has not been defined as it is understood in international law. Neither does the offense carry significance particular to crimes against humanity that warrants serious investigation and prosecution. That the D. K. Basu case came 16 years since the Kishore Singh case proves this. Torture is endemic in India and there are painfully few means to change this reality at the moment.

The accolades showered upon the National Human Rights Commission by the government in its report need to be viewed with exceptional caution. Mr. K. G. Balakrishnan, who bears a tainted image concerning his integrity as a judge, heads the NHRC. This was reflected in the NHRC's own consultative process for the UPR. Many consultations were held where members of the army, human rights defenders and victims were invited to the same room. Then the human rights defenders and victims of rights abuses were asked to depose against the army, which they did not due to fear of reprisals. The very same insensitivity of the NHRC while adjudicating claims has attracted criticism so much so that during the accreditation review process the NHRC underwent in 2011, a considerable number of Indian human rights organisations appealed to the International Coordination Committee for NHRIs to degrade the NHRC from its 'A' status. The lobby did not succeed, yet it was one of the most embarrassing moments for the NHRC in its entire history. That the NHRC received near to 100,000 complaints is no surprise owing to the poor human rights standards in India. Admittedly, expecting the NHRC to deal with so many complaints with the present limited infrastructure itself is injustice. That the NHRC disposed off 87,568 cases in two years itself shows the quality of adjudication. This means that, excluding holidays, the NHRC has the unique capacity to adjudicate about 300 cases in each working day. This poses troubling questions about the quality of the adjudication being dealt out.

It is true that State Human Rights Commissions are constituted in 20 states. However, fewer than five among these twenty states possess adequate infrastructure for day-today functioning; these include independent Commissioners. Many Commissions have ceased to function as appointments to office-bearing positions critical to the commissions' operations have not made. That the NHRC has resorted to monetary compensation instead of proper resolution of the cases/grievances suggests that a meagre USD6020 has been used to "buy off" 583 victims. This fails to bring the investigations to the heart of the matter, where institutional failures have occurred and where systemic abuses of human rights have become the norm.

Similar claims made by the government concerning child rights, the right to food and the right to equality are equally questionable. That 42 percent of the children below the age of five in India are severely malnourished places India lower in living standards than all countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is not a record that speaks well of any government that 42 percent of its future population might not even live their life to the fullest that already they have suffered substantial and permanent physiological damage that will prevent them from developing their intellectual and physical capacities. For a country to plan an estimated USD40.44 billion outlay not to have means to rescue its children from acute poverty lacks logic. The Supreme Court of India cannot supplement the provision of nutrition with its empty judgments.

Worse still are the accusations laid upon country's civil society by its government in a report concerning the Maoist issue. The government has placed the responsibility upon the civil society organisations to urge the Maoists to join the national mainstream. The question that needs to be asked is which side of the national main stream, whether the increasing number of rich upper middle class or the 42 percent who are destined to starve to death in the coming years that the Maoists are being asked to join. Indeed the country's civil society bears some of the responsibility to urge violent political forces to resort to democratic ways of participation. However this is not possible without the government undertaking to address the root cause of the rebellion. Legislations like the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 or private militias like the Salwa Judum – which the Supreme Court of India has also held illegal but the government continues to promote – provide no answer to the Maoist concern. If Maoism was the answer to Stalin's snubbing of China, what it fuels today in India is criminal neglect by the government of its people. The answer to this concern lies partially with the government, and it is the honesty, sincerity and humility of that admission which is lacking in the government's report.

The UPR, which will be completed today, will not address any of these concerns. It will remain a reduced space for the country's civil society to articulate and debate concerns about the people of India and their interests. What is required is action by the government on the ground. That would not come about through the government's voluntary pledge to the Human Rights Council or from the government's treaty obligations to international conventions and covenants. Neither can the administrative writ of a government, even supplemented by court judgements, result in improvement of the human rights conditions. In India, well-intentioned but hollow and ultimately ineffective judgements remain a desperately inadequate substitute for the good governance that will systematically and sustainably improve the mechanisms protecting human rights and standards of living.

Economy at a crossroads

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Is the Indian dream fading? With the growth rate sliding, the rupee falling and the stock market going for a spin, this question is being raised within the country and abroad.

Last week a foreign news agency quoted a spokesman of India Inc as saying, “We have a full-blown crisis on our hands.” In a report which painted a picture of a paralysed political leadership and a drifting economy, the agency also quoted former US envoy Tim Roemer as saying the American business community was “increasingly frustrated and fatigued by flip-flops and roll-backs and reversals of decisions.”

Both were batting for acceleration of the globalisation process which has been on hold for some time in the face of strong opposition from some of the Congress party’s allies in the ruling United Progressive Alliance. Foreign and domestic business interests argue that more reform is the answer to India’s current problems but the experience of the fully globalised economies does not bear this out.

India emerged without major injury from the global economic meltdown of 2007 primarily because reform measures had not gone so far as to draw it deep into the financial convulsions of the time.  Foreign investors found it an attractive market and the economy continued to grow at a fast pace.

The scenario has changed somewhat since then. Last month the global agency Standard & Poor’s lowered India’s sovereign credit rating outlook from “stable” to “negative”, citing concerns over rising fiscal deficit and debt burden and lower growth rate.

Officials point out that there has been no general downgrading of credit rating and that the outlook on long-term ratings has in fact been revised from “negative” to “stable”. However, fears that foreign investors may shy away persist.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who attributes the current difficulties to the Eurozone downturn, says the government has noted the concerns and is taking steps to strengthen and sustain robust economic growth.     

Advocates of accelerated reform attribute the government’s reluctance to move forward to differences between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Finance Minister. They believe Manmohan Singh, who, as Finance Minister, began the process of dismantling the controlled economic system, is willing to go forward but Pranab Mukherjee, who is a pragmatic politician, is holding the government back.

The country no doubt is facing a serious situation. At the end of the last financial year the fiscal deficit stood at Rs522 billion. While the government’s income rose by only 36 per cent in the previous five years the deficit shot up by 312 per cent. The trade deficit mounted to $185 billion. The rupee fell to 54.91 against the dollar, the lowest level so far.

Many believe a slight fall in the value of the rupee was necessary as a corrective measure but with importers buying up dollars to hedge against the global uncertainty the decline has gone way beyond the desirable level. Everybody is looking up to the government and the central bank to intervene and arrest the slide but they have to move cautiously lest they should add to inflation, which is already running high.

Foreign and domestic corporate interests consider the situation ripe to press home the International Monetary Fund’s proposal to cut subsidies. When they talk of subsidies, they have in mind the subsidies on food, fertilisers and petroleum products like diesel, kerosene and cooking gas, which by and large benefit the poor and the middle class. They overlook the subsidies that benefit the affluent, which are a bigger drain on the economy than those that benefit the poor.

In the most recent budget, food, fertiliser and petroleum subsidies add up to a mere Rs2,163 billion. The subsidies to the rich, which figure in the document under the head “revenue foregone”, total Rs4,373 billion. The figure includes customs duty waiver of Rs1,953 billion, excise duty waiver of Rs1,691 billion and corporate income tax waiver of Rs729 billion.

In 2008, corporate tax in India was only 17.3 per cent while it ranged between 20.7 per cent and 37.0 per cent in the other BRICS states and between 30 per cent and 50 per cent in the developed economies. Since then it has come down to 14.7 per cent. Is it any wonder that India is producing billionaires faster than any other country?

Emergent India is at a crossroads. It has to decide whether to follow the route that landed the developed economies in the throes of crisis or furrow a new path taking into account its special circumstances. It will be disastrous to let less than one per cent walk away with undue gains and heap new burdens and make life more difficult for more than 99 per cent.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, May 22, 2012.

Citizens' appeal to end intimidation of protesters at Koodankulam

Dear friends,

Eminent Indian citizens like Prashant Bhushan, Aruna Roy, Binayak Sen, Vandana Shiva, Lalita Ramdas, Partha Chatterjee, Praful Bidwai, Achin Vanaik, Gnani Sankaran, John Dayal, Meher Engineer, Sandeep Pandey etc. have endorsed an appeal urging people of India to demand that the government immediately stops intimidating and harassing peaceful protesters in Koodankulam.

The appeal has also demanded that the Indian government should put an immediate moratorium on nuclear energy projects and should engage people into widest possible consultation on safety, costs, environmental and other impacts of nuclear energy and its relevance for India’s energy future before embarking on a massive nuclear expansiondespite popular protests, objections by independent experts and the global trend of shift away from nuclear energy. 

This appeal is a reflection of our collective frustration and instead of being sent to the Govt, it will be presented before people of India.

Signatures in large numbers are being collected  and this appeal is being released in different parts of the country by concerned people.

In Mumbai, we invite you to the release event of this national appeal on Koodankulam, at 6:30 pm in Chaityabhoomi, Dadar on May 20, 2012 India Gate. The appeal would be released by prominent human rights activist Binayak Sen and film-maker Anand Patwardhan.

in soldarity
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmamment and Peace ( CNDP )
Konkan Vinashkari Prakalp Virodhi Samiti,
Konkan Bachao Andolan
Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, ( Mumbai Unit )

contact-  Anuj-9757475875, Kamayani -9820749204

Police as spoiler of criminal investigations in South Asia

Basil Fernando

The following is a comment from a reader to an AHRC Urgent Appeal on the issue of dowry deaths in India. We reproduce this short comment by the reader because it represents the general perception about the police in all South Asian countries in their role in criminal investigations:

"Police in maximum measure finds the wrong person because some unavoidable circumstance had made them bound to forget the proper code of investigation. Most of the officers are educated and trained but, lack of adequate personnel, lack of proper infrastructure, over burdened in duty hours, pre historic prosecution procedure, inevitable political pressure, every such things keep morality of the force downward. Intentionally, our police force was not updated and a discrimination within our public mind has been created against the force. Unfortunately, these personnel belong to the same society as ours, but, we don't believe in them and they don't believe on us. British era procedure of suing persons and torture them for confession is the common practice, which is uncivilized and unfortunate. But, if the respective Govt. is sleeping, who will make it?"

" .......we don't believe in them and they don't believe on us". That is exactly the way the relationship of police to the public is perceived both by the public as well as the police officers themselves. This may sound funny. However, the matter is too serious to be regarded merely as ludicrous.

It is on this very relationship between the police and the public that the functioning of any civilised society in modern day rule of law terms revolves around. A lot is spoken of today on public security has become rubbish in terms of this relationship between the public and the police. When people do not believe in their policing system what kind of public security can there be?

However, if we go by the statements from the heads of state or the top officers of the defense departments, we are made to think that these honourable gentlemen have not time for anything else since they are so preoccupied in trying to ensure the security of the public. After all, they tell us how seriously they are working on the elimination of terrorism, of organised crime, of the widespread drug industry, the issue of the trafficking of women and children and so many other terrible social evils. And of course, they also tell us how concerned they are about the elimination of corruption with which the public, in all South Asian countries, is disgusted with.

However, the people don't believe in the police and the police do not believe in the people.

When this is the case how are our presidents and prime ministers and the ministers in charge of security establishments and many other highly paid experts who have taken upon themselves this duty of ensuring public security are to keep their promises?

As long as the relationship of the police to the people and the people to the police is one of distrust any talk about public security can be nothing but pure bluff.

So the ludicrousness is not just about the public/police relationship but it is about the claims of good governance in South Asian societies.

If good governance is to become a seriously pursued objective the first issue to be dealt with in all South Asian societies is a fundamental police reform. Until this institution is reformed the distrust will remain.

The attention of the South Asian intellectuals, opinion makers and policy makers needs to be on the issue of police reforms and not on the so-called issue of public security. When the shift in attention from so-called public security to ways of achieving a fundamental police reform happens the social discourse in South Asian societies will become more sensible.

Basil Fernando is Director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong, a regional non-governmental organization that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights.

Kashmir: no lesson learnt

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

French statesman Talleyrand said of the Bourbon kings that they learnt nothing and forgot nothing. The same can be said of India’s rulers, judging by their inaction on Kashmir when the time was opportune.

The Kashmir valley, which witnessed several waves of violence during the past two decades, has enjoyed comparative peace for some time. However, the Indian government has failed to take advantage of the situation to promote the political process and ensure lasting peace.

The quiet of the recent past is partly the result of closure of the mountain passes following snowfall, restricting movement across the line of control. But there is reason to suspect that Kashmiri weariness has also contributed to the lull.

The Hurriyat Conference, an umbrella organisation of parties which do not consider the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India as final, has not been very active. One of its leaders, Abdul Ghani Bhatt, recently suggested that the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir have lost their relevance. Its chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farouq, asserted that they remain the basis for resolution of the dispute. The conflicting statements of the two leaders indicate the group is clueless on the way forward.

The Kashmir issue is linked with India-Pakistan relations inasmuch as it is a remnant of the partition of the subcontinent. The process of normalisation of relations between the two countries remained slow and tortuous during the past year but some hopeful signs have emerged. There is, for instance, growing recognition that both the countries can gain from increased mutual trade and people-to-people contacts.

All this created a favourable atmosphere for the Indian government to take a new initiative to address the grievances of the people of Kashmir which have led to recurrent violence. It had before it the report of a three-member team of interlocutors which contained some ideas it could work on.

The team comprising Dileep Padgaonkar, a noted journalist, Radha Kumar, a well-known academic, and MM Ansari, a former Information Commissioner, was appointed in 2010 as part of a package announced to quell a wave of student protests which had led to brutal police action that left more than 100 teenagers dead and several hundred others wounded.

A 36-member all-party parliamentary delegation which flew into Srinagar on a fact-finding mission was greeted with stony silence. The Hurriyat leaders refused to meet the MPs. However, some MPs sought them out and held discussions with them. They also had talks with J and K Liberation Front leader Yasin Malik.

Unfortunately MPs belonging to the Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which tends to view issues through a communal prism, adopted a recalcitrant attitude and blocked the emergence of a political consensus.

Following up on the parliamentary initiative, the government announced an eight-point package to assuage Kashmir’s wounded feelings. The appointment of interlocutors for a dialogue with political parties, groups, students and civil society was the first of the eight points.

The other points included release of all detained students and withdrawal of the cases against them, immediate reopening of educational institutions, an ex-gratia payment of Rs500,000 each to the families of those killed and review of the working of the security law and deployment of security forces, especially in Srinagar.

The government, recognising the need to address the problem of economic backwardness, made a special allotment of Rs1 billion for the state and decided to set up separate task forces to go into the developmental needs of the predominantly Hindu region of Jammu and the predominantly Buddhist region of Ladakh.

The Hurriyat leaders who want Kashmir’s representatives to be included in India-Pakistan talks on the state’s future were cool to the concept of indirect dialogue. However, the interlocutors held discussions with them. They also travelled widely in the state and met more than 700 delegations.

The content of the interlocutors’ report has not been made public so far, but it is widely believed that they have recommended grant of a measure of autonomy to the state and changes in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act which gives the security personnel impunity. The government’s failure to consider its recommendations and formulate an action plan shows it gives a low priority to the political process.

The government’s inaction apparently stems from a lack of moral courage to take on the BJP, which, it fears, will not only condemn any accommodation of Kashmiri sentiment as appeasement but also use it to whip up communal passions with an eye to the 2014 parliamentary elections.--Gulf Today, May 15, 2012.

Koodankulam agitators' demands

The People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) has embarked upon the fourth round of indefinite hunger strike from May 1, 2012 at Idinthakarai with the following demands:

[1] The ongoing work at the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) must be halted and the following steps must be taken immediately.

[2] As the Central Information Commission (CIC) has instructed the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), the Safety Analysis Report and the Site Evaluation Report must be released to the public immediately. And the full and final post-Fukushima safety audit report must also be released to the press and the public.

[3] A new and comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report must be commissioned as the one that the DAE has released after 23 years of struggle is incomplete, erroneous and outdated. The Tamil and Malayalam translations of the new EIA must be shared with the local people and the Press in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

[4] The opinions and preferences of the project-affected people must be heard by a competent authority in an open, transparent and democratic manner to understand the fears and concerns of the people. 

[5] An independent national committee must be constituted to study the issues of geology, hydrology, oceanography and seismology involved in the Koodankulam nuclear power plant.

[6] Disaster management training and evacuation exercises must be conducted in the 30-km radius of the Koodankulam plants and beyond  in the wake of the recent earthquake all over Tamil Nadu and India.

[7] A Tamil Nadu State Assembly Resolution must be passed that the Pechipparai dam water from Kanyakumari District and the Tamirabharani river water from Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Districts will not be taken for the KKNPP reactors.

[8] A copy of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) on liability secretly signed between the governments of India and Russia must be made available to the project-affected public.

[9] Complete and truthful information must be given to the local people and the citizens of India about nuclear waste that would be produced at the Koodankulam plants and its management.

[10] All the false cases against the members of the struggle committee and the common people must be withdrawn immediately and unconditionally. Our friends who are still languishing in prison, Muhilan and Sathishkumar, must be released immediately.

[11] The local people's right to protest peacefully and nonviolently against the KKNPP and other related issues must be respected and honored. And no more false cases and other intimidatory exercises should be used against the struggling people.

The Struggle Committee,

People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE)

Youths' freedom struggle

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Sixty-five years after the successful end of India’s freedom struggle, young citizens are engaged in a freedom struggle of their own. The fight this time is to secure Internet freedom.

India’s Internet population, which crossed the 100 million mark last November, is expected to touch 300 million in three years if the present growth rate is maintained. There are more than 2.6 million domain names and about one million businesses are online.

Already India ranks third after China and the United States in Internet use and it is well poised to top the list as it replaces China as the world’s most populous country in the next few decades.

After the electorate rebuffed the Emergency regime of 1975-77, which resorted to rigorous censorship, successive governments have tried to live with a free press. With public opinion opposed to new legal curbs on the media, they have been watching idly as television channels under professionally weak leadership act irresponsibly.

However, they have been unwilling to view the new media’s irreverent conduct with the same degree of indulgence. Surreptitious attempts to gag Internet criticism have been on for more than a decade.  Shivam Vij, a Delhi-based journalist and active Internet campaigner, has chronicled the ham-handed and often counterproductive censorship efforts of this period.

According to Vij, the first act of censorship was in 1999 when the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, then the country’s biggest Internet service provider, blocked the website of Dawn to deny Indians access to the Pakistani version of the armed conflict on the icy heights of Siachen.  The VSNL had complied with the wishes of the government, headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, without any written instructions.

The following year Parliament enacted the Information Technology Act, which provided for the creation of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) to deal with problems like hacking and malware attacks. Although the law does not authorise the agency to block websites, Vij says, it has been resorting to censorship since it came into being in 2003.

The clandestine operation came to light when the government, acting on CERT-In’s advice, asked the ISPs to block the Yahoo! Groups page of a small outfit of the Khasi tribe of Meghalaya state and they inexplicably blocked all Yahoo! Groups, leading to a public uproar. The resultant publicity enabled the Khasi group, which had only 82 members at the time, to reach a large audience through another platform.

A similar faux pas occurred three years later when the ISPs blocked all blogs in Google’s Blogger site. The New York Times reported the event and the embassy in Washington informed the government the report was an international embarrassment. Thereafter CERT-In asked the ISPs to block only specific blogs and not the entire Blogger platform.  By now the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance was in power.

Since 2007 social networking sites have taken off hundreds of pages at the instance of the Indian government or courts following complaints that they contained defamatory material. The Google revealed 70 per cent of the material it removed between January and June last year in response to official requests was criticism of the government. 

New rules under the IT Act framed by the government last year made “intermediaries” like social networks and blog platforms liable for the content. Anyone can now lodge a complaint against what appears on blogs and social network sites and ask for that objectionable content to be removed.   

While the authorities, in demanding removal of material, claimed it was prejudicial to national security or might create enmity between different groups, most of it was criticism of Central or state leaders. A Facebook page critical of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi was in the dossier Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal placed before executives of FB, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, whom he summoned to demand that they evolve a mechanism to delete objectionable content.

Some of what the government considers objectionable material can be attributed to the immaturity of India’s Internet users, 75 per cent of whom are below 35 years. The social networks, which can be accessed easily, happen to be the only forums where they can express themselves freely.

P. Rajeeve, a Communist Party of India-Marxist member of the Rajya Sabha, has given notice of a motion for annulment of the new IT rules. An online petition in support of the move says the government is invoking national security and public morality concerns to undermine digital rights and exhorts Internet users to tell the lawmakers they won’t stand for censorship and unsupervised information sharing.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, May 8, 2012.

Probes that get nowhere

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Just as the Congress party, which heads the ruling United Progressive Alliance, thought the Bofors scandal, which brought down the Rajiv Gandhi government more than two decades ago, had been finally laid to rest, it has come back to haunt it and its head.

The scandal relates to kickbacks paid by the Swedish arms maker Bofors to secure its biggest ever deal of $1.3 billion for the supply of 410 howitzers to India and a supply contract for almost twice that amount.

Led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the opposition rushed in to make the most out of the Congress party’s discomfiture. But a worse embarrassment was in store for the BJP. A court slapped a four-year jail term on its former president, Bangaru Laxman, in another corruption case.

The Bofors scandal was broken by the Swedish radio which said the company had bribed Indian politicians. The names of Rajiv Gandhi and Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, a friend of the Gandhi family, came up in later media reports. VP Singh, who became prime minister following the Congress party’s defeat, referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which registered a corruption case.

In 2004, long after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the courts exonerated him but the continuing proceedings against Quattrocchi remained a source of worry for the party, now headed by his Italian-born wife, Sonia Gandhi. Last year the courts granted the CBI’s request to drop the proceedings against Quattrocchi as he could not be brought to India.

Former Swedish police chief Sten Lindstrom, who had leaked a large number of documents relating to the kickback payments to Geneva-based Indian journalist Chitra Subramaniam-Duella, leading to a series of investigative stories in The Hindu, rekindled memories of the scandal last week with an interview to her to mark its silver jubilee. 

Lindstrom said he had turned whistleblower as he could not count on Bofors or the Swedish and Indian governments to get to the bottom of the deal in which rules were flouted, institutions bypassed and honest Swedish officials and politicians kept in the dark.

Lindstrom’s leaks did not yield expected results as there was no one in the Indian government or investigating team who shared his passionate desire to get to the bottom of the matter.

The CBI, which is directly under the Prime Minister, has a fair record of successful prosecution of offenders in ordinary crimes. However, its performance in cases involving top politicians, senior bureaucrats and high police officials is generally poor.

Recognising that the agency is susceptible to political influence, the higher courts have taken upon themselves the task of overseeing investigation of some sensational cases and asked it to report directly to them. The 2G spectrum cases in which two former ministers, a member of parliament and several high officials figure among the accused are among them.

The CBI’s failure to pursue the Bofors investigation vigorously even under non-Congress governments shows the issue of political control is not a simple one. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government, which served a full five-year term, too could not get to the bottom of the matter.

Lindstrom, in his interview, made two significant revelations. Fearing the media campaign might force India to cancel the contract, Bofors had sent its top executives to disclose the names of beneficiaries of kickbacks but no one of consequence received them. Politicians who met him and vowed to unravel the truth if they came to power did nothing when they had the opportunity.

Lindstrom has raised the Bofors issue again without high expectation. “Maybe we will get nowhere,” he said, “but silence cannot be the answer.”

The moral of the Bofors story is that politicians tend to view cases of corruption as grist to the mill of election propaganda rather than as acts of misdemeanour that call for punishment.

Ironically, while those involved in the Bofors affair, a real scandal, have got away, Bangaru Laxman has been convicted in a spurious arms deal. He took bribe not from an arms dealer but from a journalist posing as one in a sting operation conducted while the NDA was in power. Since there are two higher courts to which he can appeal, the present verdict cannot be taken as the last word. Eleven other cases filed on the basis of the same sting operation are still before the trial court. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 30, 2012.

New kid on the missile block

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Indian public opinion responded with a display of patriotic fervour last week as the country blasted its way into the elite club of countries with long-range missile capability by successfully test-firing the indigenously designed and built Agni V, with a range of 5,000 kilometres.

 “We are today a missile power,” said VK Saraswat, head of Defence Research and Development Organisation, which handles the Agni missile programme. Sections of the media interpreted it to mean the country now has the capability to fire an intercontinental missile.

China greeted the arrival of the new kid on the missile block with a quaint mix of sneer, suspicion and sobriety. The state-owned Global Times said India, swept up by missile delusion, apparently is hoping to enter the intercontinental ballistic missile club, although ICBMs normally have a range of over 8,000 km.

The newspaper quoted a researcher at the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences as saying Agni V actually has the potential to reach targets 8,000 km away, but the Indian government is downplaying its capability to avoid causing concern to other countries.

“China and India should develop as friendly a relationship as possible,” the newspaper said. “Even if this cannot be achieved, the two should at least tolerate each other and learn to coexist.”

A 17.5m tall, solid-fuelled, three-stage vehicle with a launch weight of 50 tonnes, Agni V cost more than Rs 2.5 billion to build. It can carry a one-tonne nuclear payload.

India did not inform China in advance about the launch. But China was following developments closely. Its media carried reports on the launch preparations and took note of a day’s delay caused by bad weather.

Apart from China, parts of Europe and capitals as far apart as Tehran, Jakarta and Manila fall within the range of Agni V but there was hardly any criticism from the rest of the world.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation said it did not consider India a missile threat to its allies or territory. The United States responded with a call for restraint, addressed to all nuclear-capable states.

With the border dispute which led to a short war between India and China a half-century ago still unresolved, the relationship between the two countries remains uneasy. In view of China’s cosy relations with Pakistan, Indian defence planning takes into account the possibility of having to fight on two fronts at the same time. 

Pakistan’s response to Agni V was muted presumably because it makes little difference to the military balance between the two countries. Both countries possess intermediate-range nuclear-capable missiles and have thus been, in a sense, in a situation of mutual deterrence already.

Both China and India hiked up their defence budgets this year – China by 11.2 per cent to touch a record $106 billion, and India by 17.63 per cent to reach a new high of $39 billion. The huge gap between the outlays reflects the differing strategic perceptions of the two countries. 

China justifies its huge military spending, pointing out that it is only 1.2 per cent of its gross domestic product and is in keeping with its security environment and economic and social development. It already has a missile with a range of 13,000 km, which puts North America within striking distance.

India’s defence budget is about 1.9 per cent of its GDP. Military and strategic experts have been arguing it must be raised to three per cent to effectively deter both China and Pakistan. However, military spending of that order can be ruled out as it will hamper the country’s developmental efforts.

China knows that India is not seeking military parity with it and poses no threat to it. Its concerns actually stem from the fear of India’s possible involvement with the USA which has stepped up its presence in the Pacific.

India has cause for worry too. Its problem is not that it cannot match China’s military manpower and hardware but that it is heavily dependent upon outside sources for equipment. It is now the world’s largest importer of arms.

What India perceives as China’s arrogance and China terms India’s persecution mania are pointers to the psychological hurdles the two countries must cross before they can establish healthy bilateral relations. Close cooperation in a forum like BRICS, which includes, besides them, Brazil, Russia and South Africa, may help in this regard.  -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 23, 2012

A colonial legacy that must go

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The Indian government is under increasing pressure from within the country and outside to curb the gross human rights violations resulting from prolonged use of the armed forces to deal with internal disorder.

Deployment of army personnel to deal with uprisings is a colonial practice. The British rulers were fighting rebellious elements in the northeastern region, as also the northwestern region which now forms part of Pakistan, till their very last days in the subcontinent.

Since insurgency in the northeast continued to be a problem, the government re-enacted in 1958 the colonial-era Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and brought it into force in the northeast. Following a spurt in terrorist activity, the law was extended to parts of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990.

AFSPA allows military personnel deployed in areas, which the government has declared as “disturbed”, to fire upon and even kill anyone acting in contravention of law and search any premises and arrest without a warrant anyone who has committed or is suspected to have committed certain offences. It grants security personnel immunity against legal action.

Although the law prescribes a six-month time-limit for an order declaring an area as “disturbed” the government has circumvented the restriction by repeatedly re-promulgating orders. Thus the draconian measure has been in force continuously for well over half a century in the northeastern states and more than two decades in Kashmir.

As a result, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution remain abridged in these areas. The bulk of the people of the northeast are tribesmen with distinct cultures of their own. J and K is a state with a Muslim majority. These demographic factors give the story of denial of democratic rights an additional dimension.

In the affected areas there have been continuous anti-AFSPA protests, the most poignant of which is the 11-year-old fast by Manipur poetess Irom Sharmila whom the authorities are keeping alive through forced nasal feeding. Since public opinion in the mainline states is muted, the government has found it easy to ignore the local protests.

The large number of cases of missing persons reported from areas where AFSPA is in force and the unearthing of an unmarked mass grave in Kashmir have fuelled civil rights groups’ demands for repeal of the law.

Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has demanded that AFSPA be withdrawn in view of the decline in militant activity in the state. In its report to the Central government, the team of interlocutors headed by journalist Dileep Padgaonkar has drawn attention to the recommendations of various bodies, including the Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission, to repeal AFSPA or at least amend it to bring it in line with the criminal law. It wants the army to remain in the barracks and policing functions to be transferred from the paramilitary units to the state force under a phased programme.

Last week Home Minister P Chidambaram flew to Kashmir to persuade the Chief Minister to accept a modified version of AFSPA. This appears to be part of an attempt to soften public opinion in view of the adverse observations made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, at the end of his recent visit to India.

Heyns, who had met government representatives as well as rights activists in different parts of the country during the 12-day visit , described AFSPA as a symbol of excessive state power which “clearly violates international law” and asked that it be scrapped. This recommendation is sure to figure in the report he submits to the UN Human Rights Council.

It is not the Central government alone that wants to keep the AFSPA alive in some form. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is in power in several states, is an even more ardent advocate of its ruthless application than the Congress, which heads the ruling coalition at the Centre. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) favours its withdrawal from Kashmir, but wants it to continue in Tripura, where it is in power.

Sudhir Vomnatkere, a retired major-general who had headed the Army’s human rights cell, in a recent interview to a website threw light on a little known aspect of AFSPA. When an area is declared as “disturbed”, there is political darkness under which “corruption of various kinds – political, economic, financial, money, women, drugs, smuggling etc” can go on, he said.  Clearly, AFSPA must go – in the interests of democracy. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 16, 2012.

Royal visitors from richest Gulf state

While the attention of the entire media was focused on Pakistan President Zardari and his son who were on a private visit to India, the Emir of Qatar and his consort arrived in New Delhi,  almost unnoticed, on Sunday on an official visit.

A small Gulf state with a population of 1.7 million, Qatar was ranked by the US magazine Forbes earlier this year as the country with the highest per capita income in the world.

The magazine put Qatar’s 2010 GDP per capita, after adjustment for purchasing power, at US$ 88,000, way ahead of the UAE with $47,500, which was in the sixth place.

Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thami of Qatar is a shrewd ruler. He has allowed the United States to set up in his country a forward headquarters of its Central Command, which plays a critical role in all Western military activities in the West Asian and South Asian regions. He has also set up and sustained the Al Jazeera television station which is engaged in correcting the distortions in Western media coverage worldwide.

On his India visit the Emir is accompanied by his consort, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned, who, incidentally, is Unesco’s Special Envoy for Basic and Higher Education.  (Please see writeup at the Unesco website)

The photograph of the royal couple reproduced above was taken by The Hindu’s V. V. Krishnan on their arrival at New Delhi. It shows the Emir in traditional Arab costume and Sheikha Mozah in a Western dress.    

New tack in Maoist areas

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

More than 150 young people, including 40 women, all with good academic records, selected as Prime Minister’s Rural Development Fellows, begin this week two months of training after which they will be deployed in 78 tribal districts worst affected by Maoist insurgency.

The fellows, aged between 22 and 30, include engineers, doctors, lawyers, computer personnel and journalists. They were picked from more than 8,500 applicants through a rigorous process in which their educational qualifications and performance in written tests, group discussions and personal interviews were taken into account.

Many of them are products of prestigious educational institutions and have opted out of well-paid jobs in the corporate sector to work for two years in backward areas, assisting district collectors in the implementation of welfare programmes. They will receive Rs 50,000 a month during training and Rs 65,000 a month thereafter.

The fellowship scheme, a brainchild of Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh, has been drawn up in the belief that accelerated development of the areas will make it difficult for rebels to enlist the support of the poor villagers, most of them tribesmen. With insurgency reportedly on the decline following harsh police measures, the time is considered opportune for such an initiative.

Several groups swearing by the teachings of Mao Zedong have been active in India since the 1970s. The largest of them, the Communist Party of India (Maoist), formed in 2004 through the merger of three previous formations, is engaged in what it calls “people’s war”. In 2009, the government launched a coordinated anti-insurgency campaign, which is widely referred to as Operation Green Hunt, in five states along the Red Corridor.

The Home Ministry had reported in 2008 that 223 districts in 20 states were affected by the Maoist movement. Last year it brought down the number of affected districts to 182, although the number of affected states remained the same. Five of the 39 members of the CPI (Maoist) central committee were killed and 13 arrested during this period.

Among those killed were Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad and Molajula Koteswar Rao alias Kishenji.

Azad was killed while on his way to meet Swami Agnivesh, a social activist, who was trying to persuade the Maoists to talk to the government.

While the government also reported a drop in killings by the insurgents, they still retain the capacity to strike at targets. Blasts and attacks on security personnel reported from states as far apart as Maharashtra, Bihar and West Bengal in recent months are believed to be acts of reprisal for the killing of Azad and Kishenji.

A few weeks ago Maoists in Odisha (formerly Orissa) kidnapped an Italian tour operator and a legislator belonging to the ruling Biju Janata Dal. The state government, which has been in negotiations with them since then through intermediaries, last week expressed readiness to free some arrested persons to secure their release.

There are reports that Maoists have recently made inroads into the northeastern states. This is a cause for worry as the region has witnessed insurgency by local tribal groups for several decades. In the south, Maoists are also said to be trying to establish a base in the Kerala-Tamil Nadu-Karnataka tri-junction.

Jairam Ramesh attaches much importance to the fellowship scheme which represents the first attempt to induct professionals into government activity on a large scale. Each district coming under the scheme will get Rs 300 million for a special integrated action plan for road works, water supply, farm support, children’s welfare etc. The two fellows posted in the district are expected to coordinate and evaluate the implementation of schemes there.

The young people, imbued with ideals, have volunteered for service in the troubled interior, knowing they have to face violent elements. But they may have to be ready for rearguard action, too, since the bureaucracy does not take kindly to anything which may limit its freedom of action. Corrupt officials are sure to view them as obstacles in their way. It remains to be seen if the political leadership can ensure conditions in which the fellows can perform their functions well.

The government has to bring about a measure of clarity in its approach to the insurgency problem.  It may be unrealistic to expect it to forswear the use of force while threats from armed groups remain. But, then, it is equally unrealistic to expect a constructive effort like the fellowship scheme to succeed while Operation Green Hunt, which involves serious human rights violations, continues. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 9, 2012.

Looking beyond wars

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The European countries which fought one another off and on for close to 1,000 years have been at peace with themselves for two generations and the political and economic union they forged two decades ago is rewriting the continent’s history. The threat of a catastrophic third World War, which was widely talked about after the second one, has receded, hopefully never to return. But the possibility of war is still a topic of discussion in India and its neighbourhood.

Half a century after India and China fought a short war — the only one in their history of 5,000 years — so-called think tanks and defence analysts in the two countries periodically speculate on a possible new military confrontation as the border dispute which precipitated the 1961 conflict remains unresolved even after many rounds of discussions.

Pundits presume China’s growing assertiveness in the wake of its emergence as a global power and its perceived rivalry with India, which is on the same developmental track, are factors that may lead to fresh conflicts, if only on a limited basis. The Chinese leadership’s assertion that there is room for both the countries to develop has not made an impression on their minds attuned to conventional wisdom.

India and Pakistan fought three wars in 25 years as independent nations but there has been no resort to arms in the 40 years since then, barring a brief confrontation on the icy heights of Siachen in 1999. Last week, writing in a Pakistani daily, a former army brigadier spoke of a likely Indian attack on Pakistan, coinciding with an Israeli attack on Iran. He also envisaged India seeking US support to “de-nuke, balkanise and de-Islamise Pakistan” before its planned pullout from Afghanistan.

Reports from the US indicate that forebodings about India-Pakistan relations prevail in official and academic circles in that country. James Miller, who is seeking confirmation as Undersecretary for Defence, told a Congressional committee last week that Pakistani military and intelligence services’ support to militants targeting India “has the potential to result in military confrontation that could rapidly escalate into a nuclear exchange.”

Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, writing at the CFR website said another Mumbai-type terrorist attack could lead India and Pakistan to the brink of war and require the US president to play an important mediating role.

Frank Panter, a high-ranking Pentagon official, was quoted as saying the US might have to develop an alternative route with India’s help if Pakistan refused to reopen the Nato supply routes to Afghanistan which it had closed four months ago in protest against bombing raids on targets in its territory.

Since Afghanistan emerged as a trouble spot following the Soviet invasion of 1979 India and Pakistan have been invariably on opposite sides. India now works closely with the US to ensure that country’s post-war stability but it will be a folly to ignore the vital differences in their strategic interests in the region.

With the Kashmir dispute in the limbo and Pakistan-based terrorist groups remaining a source of worry to India, there is indeed plenty of room for wild speculation. However, those looking beyond short-term possibilities can see signs of a change for the better in India-Pakistan relations with economic factors moderating political sentiments.

Of particular significance in this regard are India’s offer to provide Pakistan 5,000 megawatts of power and to supply petrol across the border and the Pakistan government’s determination to go forward with its proposal to grant India most favoured nation status. Pakistan’s business community, which views grant of MFN status with disfavour, has welcomed the offer to provide power as a harbinger of better relations between the two countries.

In the early years of Independence, India was Pakistan’s largest trading partner, accounting for half of its exports and nearly one-third of its imports. Adverse political and economic conditions kept pushing bilateral trade down over the years.

Official and academic studies in Pakistan have shown that gains from increased trade with India will far outweigh the losses. Indian official and commercial interests have recognised that, as South Asia’s second largest market, Pakistan has to be accorded its due place in the economy of the region. However, given the ground realities, the development of healthy economic relations must necessarily be a slow process.-- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 3, 2012.

The dangerous implications of India's nuclear romance

B.R.P.Bhaskar
IANS

Efforts are on to squelch the months-long peaceful movement by villagers living in the neighbourhood of the Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu which has delayed its commissioning. What brought the people out of their homes is the fear that the plant is a threat to their lives and livelihood. Repeated assertions by spokesmen of the national science and technology establishment, from former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam downwards, have not convinced them that the plant is accident-proof. Instead of talking to the people and addressing their concerns, the Government of India appears set to crush their movement using crude force.

At the best of times, it is not easy to have open and honest deliberations on the nuclear issue. Since nuclear technology has military applications, all countries routinely conduct much of the work in this area in total secrecy. The Indian nuclear programme has been directly under the prime minister since its inception, and Parliament does not look into the working of the Department of Atomic Energy closely. The institutional mechanism set up to oversee nuclear safety is under the department itself. So long as the government fights shy of creating an independent nuclear safety mechanism outside the department's control, its claims about the safety of the nuclear installations cannot be taken at face value.

The arguments advanced by the official establishment to allay fears about the safety of the Kudankulam plant are irrational and unscientific, not to say dishonest. How can Abdul Kalam guarantee its safety when the Russian equipment suppliers are not ready to do so? In a bid to belittle fears of radiation emanating from the plant, the government points out in an advertisement placed in the newspapers, that the people are already exposed to radiation present in nature and used in medical treatment. It is absurd to cite the presence of natural radiation and its use for medicinal purposes to justify exposing the people to a possible nuclear catastrophe.

One factor that complicates decision making on the Kudankulam project, the first stage of which is almost ready to be commissioned, is that the government has already spent about Rs. 150 billion on it. When India signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in 1988 for setting up the project, the cost was estimated at Rs. 40 billion. It shot up as a result of the inordinate delay in starting and completing the work, occasioned partly by the Soviet Union's collapse. But can a democratic government approach an issue involving people's lives and livelihood the way an auditor looks at a statement of expenditure? That a lot of money has been sunk is no justification for continuing with a project about which grave doubts remain in people's minds after Fukushima.

Anti-nuclear groups, which include persons with expertise in the area, have suggested that part of the investment in the ongoing nuclear projects can be salvaged by converting them into natural gas-based plants. After the Three Mile Island accident, the US had converted the Shoreham nuclear plant in Long Island, New York, the William H Zimmer nuclear plant in Ohio and the Midland Cogeneration Facility in Michigan to run on fossil fuel.

The argument that India cannot ensure energy security without nuclear power rests on questionable grounds. Currently nuclear power constitutes only three per cent of the country's energy requirement. Even if the projects conceived in the pre-Fukushima period are implemented on time (which, going by the record, is most unlikely), the expectation is that nuclear plants will supply 25 per cent of the power by 2050. This means there is enough time to recast the energy plans in the light of current realities.

Two years ago many countries were working on new nuclear plants. Last week the Germans backed out of a commitment to supply equipment for two plants in Britain citing the Fukushima disaster and the European economic crisis as the reasons. Today, India shares with China the dubious distinction of being the only countries determinedly pursuing the nuclear path, undeterred by Fukushima. The ruling establishments in the two countries are guided by visions of reaching the heights of the global economy. As the most populous nations, it is quite legitimate for them to aspire to be the world's largest economies. The moot question is what route to take to reach the destination.

Currently India and China are on a track cut by the Western countries which, having brought large parts of the world under their heel, had access to cheap energy sources. This raises two problems: large-scale consumption of energy and large-scale expulsion of poisonous wastes. Neither China nor India is engaged in scientific pursuits to find solutions to these problems. Instead they are claiming the right to follow the disastrous path of the developed economies. Their scientific efforts are limited to demonstrating that they can do what the West had done.

The motivation behind India's nuclear romance is not the need for energy security, as the ruling establishment claims, but the overweening desire for big power status. Its achievements in the fields of nuclear and missile technology have generated a sense of pride not only in its scientific and technical personnel but in the nation as a whole. This sense of pride effectively camouflages the stark fact that very little original work is being done in the fields of science and technology.

As a country blessed with sunshine, India stands to benefit the most by a breakthrough in solar energy technology, which is already available but is not cost- effective. Yet the government has neglected this area, transfixed as it is by delusions of nuclear grandeur. The fall of the Soviet Union, which had made great advances in some critical areas, like space technology, pushing the US to the second place, holds a lesson for India: big power status built up overlooking the interests of the masses is liable to collapse like a house of cards.

The Kudankulam line-up reveals the contours of a division within the country. Ranged on one side are various elements of the establishment: the central and state governments, the science and technology bureaucracy, the political parties, etc. On the other side are poor, marginalized people, backed by small, scattered groups of human rights defenders. A similar line-up can also be seen at other centres where nuclear plants are coming up as also at places all across the country where national or multinational corporations are trying to squeeze the poor people out to set up mega projects.