From Hiroshima to Fukushima-
Nuclear Lessons Learned and Unlearned
(Nagasaki Peace Day Lecture, 2011. Indian Pugwash Society at IDSA, New Delhi Aug 9, 2011)
I feel greatly honoured that I have been invited to deliver the Nagasaki Peace Day Lecture, 2011. I have been a member of the Indian Pugwash Society for some years, but this is the first time that I am participating in its activities other than using its excellent publications and website resources.
I am delighted that this session is being chaired by my senior colleague, Ambassador Arundhati Ghose, whom I admire and respect.
The long journey of the nuclear genie from Hiroshima to Fukushima and beyond has kept humanity on the edge of a precipice for more than half a century. We have been through many twists and turns, with fear of total annihilation looming large even while rays of hope emerged in the distant horizon from time to time. Sincere efforts were made to put the genie back in the bottle or to put it to productive use, but the nuclear danger has remained with us till today in different manifestations. Sadly, nuclear policies of various countries were determined by their ambition to acquire destructive power in their search for security. But security has eluded the planet, initially by the threat of use of nuclear weapons by design or accident, then by nuclear terrorism by non-state actors and now by the possibility of accidents in civil nuclear stations. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was caused by an act of war, but it set in motion a chain of events that led to the atoms for peace initiative, the creation of the IAEA, the advent of the NPT and related Treaties and the dream of a nuclear weapon free world and global zero.
Just as Hiroshima marked the beginning of a rethink on the possession of nuclear weapons, Fukushima should mark the beginning of a relook at civilian nuclear power as we know it today. It is not enough that we audit the facilities and satisfy ourselves that we are safe against the known risks like earthquakes and tsunamis. Needless to say, we should strengthen safety features and open our facilities for peer review to ensure that we are in tune with the best standards in the world. There should be transparency in the operations of our reactors and the results of studies done in the past on risks should be shared with the civil society. But above and beyond these measures, we have to rethink the whole question of civilian nuclear power generated by the same processes that are employed in the making of weapons. We should not be lulled into the belief that physical protection will save us from the vagaries of nature or simple human errors. We owe it to the future generations to start thinking of alternatives, whether it is fusion, sun, wind or waves. Fukushima must set us thinking on the use of nuclear power as much as Hiroshima prodded us to start thinking of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The lessons we learnt from the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are valuable even if a world without nuclear weapons is nowhere near realization. Nations still consider nuclear weapons indispensable for their security, though 9/11 demonstrated that the power to destroy the world many times over provides no guarantee of security. The world tends to huddle under their nuclear installations and nuclear umbrellas in a futile quest for security. Those outside these false comfort zones find ways and means to acquire dubious nuclear capability from death merchants like A.Q.Khan. The grand bargain of the NPT has not prevented proliferation even among the signatories. The IAEA, which was designed as a mother cow to bestow the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy on developing countries was transformed into a watchdog, without keeping the concomitant promise of nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states. The CTBT and the FMCT are still in limbo. The India-US nuclear deal is embroiled in the liability act and the ENR guidelines.
In the distant horizon, however, there is hope because of the lessons we have learned and unlearned after Hiroshima. Today, there is no serious fear that any sovereign nation will use nuclear weapons against another. Four cold war veterans began trudging along a difficult path of disarmament, which goes beyond arms control and non-proliferation, to reach the top of a mountain from which a new vista of a nuclear weapons free world might come to view. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had visualized that vista long ago and drawn up an action plan to reach there. President Barack Obama started a journey from Prague in the same direction, though he is not sure whether he can complete that journey in his own lifetime. The global zero has inched away from the proverbial square one. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had their impact on mankind.
Today, a major challenge is to protect nuclear material from terrorists, whether state- sponsored or non-state. They obviously have no conscience to be touched by Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Much of the nuclear material, which has been reported lost, has not been recovered, but some material has been recovered, which was never reported lost. Sufficient knowledge and material are out there to put together a dirty bomb or even a clean one. A failed nuclear state may even place a sophisticated arsenal in the hands of terrorists. The war on nuclear terrorism is an urgent necessity, a lesson we have learned after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in different parts of the globe.
A nuclear renaissance emerged out of a sense of security as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by human error rather than by systemic deficiencies or natural disasters. The increased awareness of climate change and the role of nuclear power in mitigation of global warming gave nuclear power a new halo. In 2009, the IAEA reported that 65 countries lined up at the IAEA to seek technology to either start or expand nuclear power programmes. While the growth of nuclear power slowed down in the US and European Union, it began to grow exponentially in Asia, notably China and India. The India-US nuclear deal removed most of the restrictions on import of nuclear fuel and equipment imposed by a technology denial regime and India signed new contracts for supply of reactors and fuel.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of March 11, 2011, involving a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and release of radioactive materials, following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami could not have come at a more inopportune time for the nuclear renaissance. It was the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind. The severity of the nuclear accident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Fukushima had an instant impact on the use of nuclear power everywhere in the world, ranging from evaluation of the safety situation everywhere to announcement by Germany and Switzerland of complete withdrawal from nuclear power by 2022 and 2034 respectively.
Although many countries, notably India, declared business as usual, the nuclear power scene around the world changed beyond recognition. In any event, it was clear that by 2050, nuclear power would be absent from the US and the EU. Whether any announcement is made or not, every country has begun to plan quietly for finding viable alternatives to nuclear power. The lesson we learned from Fukushima is that the prospect of dotting our coastline with nuclear reactors is perilous even if it guarantees much needed electricity as an engine of growth. Human survival should have a higher priority than human development.
Fukushima has clearly accentuated the divide between those who believe in nuclear power as the panacea for our power shortage and those who believe that nuclear power is fraught with dangers, ranging from accidents to proliferation risks and long term damage from waste disposal. The former group would have us believe that the risks far outweigh the benefits of nuclear power, while the latter would have us close down reactors instantly and switch to solar, wind and wave energy. Having been a champion of nuclear energy and its benefits, I would advocate a third way. First and foremost, let us not minimize or hide the impact of Fukushima on mankind by arguing that nobody has died in the Daiichi plant while thousands perished in the tsunami. We do not know how and when the radiation leaks will manifest in disease and death. The most recent reports on the aftermath are alarming. The Wall Street Journal reported on July 20, 2011 that Japan has banned all beef exports from the affected areas and introduced a health review of human beings for thirty years.
Business as usual is not an option for nuclear power after Fukushima, just as we learned after Hiroshima that nuclear weapon should not be a legitimate weapon of war. We should begin visualizing a world without nuclear power in 30, 40 or 50 years and begin developing alternate sources with the same vigour with which we developed nuclear reactors. Once that vision is recognized, human ingenuity will be channelized into innovation. We do not need to halt production or stop imports of nuclear material and reactors, but let there be a sunset clause for nuclear power in our planning for the future. I am painfully aware that there are no takers for this approach yet and the established camps on both sides of the divide have dismissed it as utopian, foolish and worse, devious. I am no scientist, but someone who argues that the imported reactors are bad, while the indigenous reactors are benign, cannot be credited with much scientific wisdom. If the processes are the same and safety features are similar, how can “swadeshi” be better than “videshi”? Nuclear disarmament was also dismissed in the same manner before, but at least the vision of a nuclear weapon free world is now shared by the haves and the have-nots. The lessons of Hiroshima have been learned, but the lessons of Fukushima are wished away.
The nuclear dilemma persists, despite the process of learning and unlearning ever since the atom was unleashed, but some truths must be recognized from experience, regardless as to whether one country or the other incorporates them in its policy framework.
First, the devastation from the use of nuclear weapons is so great for the present and future generations of mankind that use of such weapons should not even be contemplated. Nuclear weapons must be declared illegitimate and eliminated. Second, non-proliferation efforts on discriminatory basis will not eliminate the threat. As Dr. Mohamed Elbaradei says in his book, “The Age of Deception”, “the threat will persist as long as the international community continues to address only the symptoms of each nuclear proliferation challenge, waging war against one country, making a deal with a second, issuing sanctions in a third, seeking regime change in still another. So long as nuclear weapons remain a security strategy for a limited few possessor countries, with umbrella arrangements that extend that security to a secondary circle of allied countries, so long as others are left out in the cold, the proliferation risk will be with us.” The need for total elimination of nuclear weapons is a lesson that Hiroshima taught, but it took us 66 years just to acknowledge it. No one knows how long it will take to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Fukushima, preceded by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, has also had its lessons. First, nuclear power carries with it a safety risk, which cannot be ignored, whatever be its benefits. As Prof. Amarjeet Singh said at this very forum last year, “safety makes all plants mutual hostages…. A nuclear accident anywhere in the world affects the prospects of nuclear power everywhere.” He was prophetic when he said, “Nuclear energy is more brittle than other strategies to mitigate climate change as one major future accident could overnight nullify the resources and time invested in nuclear power up to that point.” Fukushima came just eight months after those words were uttered in this very hall. No amount of action by the international community can eliminate this danger, unless we have the courage to visualize a world without nuclear power and work for finding alternatives for energy production.
We have seen political, economic and environmental colonialism and should be aware of “nuclear power colonialism” in the making. We appear to be eyeing the “buyer’s market” in reactors and fuel as their supply increases as major countries move away from nuclear power. We should not forget that President Bush had defended his nuclear deal with India by saying that India’s use of nuclear power will reduce pressure on oil. A Japanese Minister has just declared that Japan might terminate its fast breeder reactors to eliminate the rationale for reprocessing. When developed countries move away from such technologies, export incentives for such material to developing countries will increase. The reduced demand in some countries makes the market move to other regions. In fact, fear has been expressed that the ironic consequence of Fukushima may be a more dangerous global nuclear landscape. India and China may well be the victims of this trend unless we exercise caution.

Hiroshima and Fukushima have brought to light two facets of the danger from the nuclear genie. Man developed nuclear weapons in his quest for security and realized the folly of mutually assured destruction. The quest for energy security has driven him to develop nuclear power, the more benign manifestation of the atom. The time has come for him to pause and ensure that the second quest does not prove as dangerous as the first.
Thank you.

Pakistan's Charm Offensive Works

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Pakistan's foreign ministers do not have to be young, attractive, fashionable or of the weaker sex to attract attention in India. Even at multilateral conferences in India, filled with fashionable young women, the television cameras stay focused on Pakistan's representatives, regardless of their sex appeal. The interest becomes ecstatic if a visiting Pakistan Minister happens to have the attributes of Bollywood stars. Rightly did Seema Goswami call Foreign Minister Hira Rabbani Khar "Pakistan's new weapon of mass distraction." More sensational, but poorer in taste was the headline, "Pakistani bomb lands in New Delhi." India is still reeling under the imagined value of her pearl and diamond necklaces, Cavalli sunglasses and Birkin bag.

No doubt, Pakistan was on a charm offensive this time, demonstrated not just by the charm of the brand new Foreign Minister on her first ever foray into diplomacy, but also by the Foreign Secretary having a new and friendly mask this time, in contrast with his previous postures. Consequently, the admonition administered by our Foreign Secretary for the meeting with the Hurriyat appeared harsh in the media. But more significantly, India seems to have been charmed into conceding ground on many of its established positions.

The fundamentals of the Pakistan position remained intact through the hype about "new engagement" and "new beginning." HRK, as the Pak Foreign Minister was affectionately called, began with an assertion that India should not dominate South Asia. Then she walked into a meeting with Kashmiri separatists even before meeting her host. She also made sure that the right phrases about outstanding issues were included in the Joint Statement.

India's main agenda, the punishment of the perpetrators of 26/11 was quickly sidelined when HRK dished out the wisdom that the judicial process took time and much groundwork had to be done. If it is still in the stage of groundwork, she has no responsibility to deliver on this issue. India naturally insisted on speeding up the judicial process, but without making it conditional for advancing the peace process.

The Joint Statement appears to be a wish list of Pakistan.For instance, two sides expressed satisfaction on the holding of meetings on the issues of Counter-Terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial) and Narcotics Control; Humanitarian issues; Commercial & Economic cooperation; Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project; Sir Creek; Siachen; Peace & Security including CBMs; Jammu & Kashmir; and promotion of friendly exchanges.

Though the composite dialogue is not mentioned, the assertion of the dialogue process is with a view to resolving peacefully all outstanding issues through constructive and result oriented engagement, and to establish friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations between the two counties.

The trust issue is dealt with simply by agreeing to build a relationship of trust and mutually beneficial cooperation in conformity with the determination of the people of both countries to see an end to terrorism and violence and to realise their aspirations for peace and development.

Terrorism is no more a threat from Pakistan to India, but terrorism poses a continuing threat to peace and security and the two have reiterated the firm and undiluted commitment to fight and eliminate this scourge in all its forms and manifestations. Both sides agreed on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism including among relevant departments as well as agencies to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice.

Although we know that Pakistan is building up its nuclear arsenal at break neck speed and holding up the negotiations on a fissile material treaty, India had no problem in promoting "Confidence Building Measures, between India and Pakistan and to agree to convene separate meetings of the Expert Groups on Nuclear and Conventional CBMs, in Islamabad in September 2011."

The press went to town on the absence of the K word in the discussions but the Joint Statement loudly proclaims that the two sides held discussions on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to the need for continued discussions, in a purposeful and forward looking manner, with a view to finding a peaceful solution by narrowing divergences and building convergences. Our position that the only matter to be discusses is terrorism in Kashmir has been totally forgotten in the formulation. Mani Shankar Aiyer's formula of "uninterrupted and uninterruptable" dialogue has been embraced bu HRK, but it, mercifully, does not find a place in the statement. How can there be uninterruptable dialogue with Pakistan? Even if there is another 26/11, will we continue the dialogue process?

The provisions made for border trade are elaborate and specific, glossing over the problems of the past. On trade itself, the tone is unduly optimistic, considering the hesitation Pakistan has always had in normalising trade relations with India. By reaffirming the commitment to the Indus Water Treaty, we seem to have sacrificed one of our bargaining points on the water issue.The resumption of the Joint Commission also masks the problems in bilateral relations.The schedule of meetings envisaged gives a false impression of progress.

The extent and depth of the agreements reached at the talks has given Pakistan reason to convince the world that the bilateral relations are back to normal despite lack of satisfaction over 26/11 and continuation of terrorism as its state policy. HRK has established her credentials. The US will be particularly impressed. Has India been swept off its feet by the charm offensive of Pakistan? Or is there a change of heart in Pakistan to prompt concessions by India? Only time will tell.

India-US: The Limits of Engagement

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Unsavoury incidents involving diplomats and their families are not rare in friendly countries at the best of times. The issues are dealt with in terms of diplomatic protocol and reciprocity, without even the press getting wind of it. When reciprocal expulsions become necessary occasionally, care is taken to order home those diplomats, who have completed their terms so that breaches of diplomatic civility do not cloud bilateral relations. But the US and India have been showing increasing irritability in dealing with such issues. Some harsh US actions have elicited uncharacteristically sharp responses from the South Block. The US is even holding up clearance for a new Indian Consulate in Seattle, Washington, according to press reports.

India-US relations are far too important, diverse and complex to be affected by thoughtless actions of law enforcement agencies or even diplomats. But the oversensitivity, demonstrated of late, appears symptomatic of a deeper malady. The creeping disillusionment in major areas seems to spill over to the diplomatic level. As Hillary Clinton packs her bags to come to Delhi and Chennai next week, she needs to think of ways and means to convince her hosts that the strategic partnership is alive and well. Hers is indeed a rescue mission. Many areas in the strategic partnership require immediate and focussed attention.

Of course, both sides will vehemently deny this proposition, as they did to me in Washington and New Delhi a couple of weeks ago. Both will point to the umpteen working groups, quietly working away to fulfil the promises of the Obama visit and the last round of the strategic dialogue, not to speak of high level visits from both sides. They will quote trade figures and speak of the intensity of the economic dialogue to demonstrate the robustness of the relationship. They will even attribute any gloomy assessments to ignorance. But ask them about civil nuclear cooperation, balance of trade, India’s candidature to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the record of cooperation in the Security Council on West Asia and non-proliferation and then you will hear from both sides the tales of unfulfilled promises and unchanging mindsets. The grievances on both sides are so well balanced that it is difficult to determine who should or can make the first move.

Since the nuclear deal had raised the highest hopes for a sea change in the relationship and had accomplished most, the disillusionment is also most acute in that area. Our perception is that President Bush signed the deal for his own selfish reasons, but the official line and popular thinking in America is that it was a price paid to win India as an ally. A senior American official recently repeated the question we had heard from 2005 as to what India had done in return for the nuclear deal, which dramatically changed India’s profile. The give and take within the deal itself is not at issue here, but the transformation of the relationship from a friend to an ally. India is willing to comply with the letter of the deal and expects the same from the US, but the US wishes to see fundamental changes in Indian policy. The US feels that while India has derived immense benefits from the deal, it has made no readjustments in policy, worthy of a natural ally of the United States. The unchanged voting pattern of India and echoes of cold war rhetoric continue to make them uneasy.

To make matters worse, the promise of nuclear trade worth billions of dollars has remained unfulfilled on account of the Liability Law and we have done little to help President Obama reduce his unemployment burden, which has reached unbearable proportions. No American President has won a re-election if the unemployment rate is 7% or above. There is no sign that President Obama can bring the unemployment down to safe levels by 2012. The “fighter aircraft shock” has worsened the situation. In the American view, India opted for the purchase of an aircraft from Europe, while the US was offering a friendship package. India, on the other hand, believes that we adopted the Liability Law in our own interests and chose the fighter that suited our functional requirements. These are done deals, which have little scope for changes at this stage.

India maintains that the US should find ways to accept the suppliers’ responsibility and also fulfil the promise of full civilian nuclear cooperation, including transfer of ENR technology, in accordance with the “clean” NSG waiver for India. India would also like the US to push harder for India to be admitted to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a promise held out by President Obama during his visit. More than the practicality of these measures, the truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration would rather have no nuclear trade with India than dilute its non-proliferation commitments. I was told two years ago that the US would not be unduly concerned if there was no nuclear trade at all, provided it was compensated in other ways. ( “The US may have no nuclear trade with India” Rediff column dated April 21, 2009). Moreover, the increasing scepticism regarding nuclear power after Fukushima has also become a factor in nuclear cooperation. Steering around the nuclear irritant is still a major challenge.

On the Indian side, the lack of any forward movement on the reform of the Security Council after the promise held out by President Obama in the Indian Parliament is another instance of disillusionment. India continues its heroic efforts at the UN to move the proposal forward, but without any tangible support from the US. The latest G-4 move, masterminded by India, to seek an endorsement of the principle of expansion in both categories has elicited no US response. The US stakes in the expansion puzzle go beyond bilateral considerations.

If anything, India’s performance as a non-permanent member of the Security Council has only enhanced concerns in the US over revival of Indian “nonalignment”. On Iran, Libya and Syria, congruence of policies is hard to accomplish even with the best of intentions. The latest US moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan are hardly conducive to increase confidence either. The emerging contours of policy on both sides cause concern.

When Strobe Talbott, recently chosen by “India Abroad” for the Friend of India award, said bluntly that “India and the US are not now and may never be allies”, he was pointing to the fundamental contradiction in expecting a fiercely independent India to serve US interests in the region and the world. The public opinion in India is such that the assertion of a certain distance from the US policies is essential for any Government in New Delhi. The limits of engagement with the US, breached during the first term of the Manmohan Singh Government, have come into play once again. The Prime Minister does not have either the leisure or the energy to go beyond those limits as he had done during his first term. The US too has learnt its lessons on the extent of the strategic relationship possible with India.

The Hillary visit will certainly make progress on a number of vital issues of cooperation, the logic of which is beyond question. But an alliance of minds, which is essential to elevate the strategic partnership to a higher level, appears hard to accomplish. A new sense of realism, rather than undue optimism, will prevail in India-US relations in the future. As long as expectations are curtailed and mutuality is established, there will be neither recrimination nor disillusionment. In the end, it may not be a defining relationship of the new century, but a mutually beneficial partnership.

MATTERING TO INDIA The Shashi Tharoor Campaign By T P Sreenivasan

THE TRIUMPH AND AFTER

P.Ravindran Nayar

T.P.Sreenivasan's book, "Mattering to India: The Shashi Tharoor Campaign" takes a critical look at the phenomenal sway the glamorous diplomat had over the ballots and his image as a politician which got mired in controversies.

The New Indian Express June 28, 2011

When Shashi Tharoor moved into a hill top house up a narrow by-lane in a quiet residential area in Thiruvananthapuram, prior to his contesting the parliament elections in 2009, the excitement among the people was palpable. The local residents were pleased that an internationally renowned UN diplomat and brilliant author, who had the additional qualification of being suave and handsome and genuinely articulate, had come into their midst, elevating the pot-holed by-lanes of Palace Garden to instant stardom. Taking up residence in Thiruvananthapuram was a precursor to, or rather a pre-requisite for, Tharoor’s seeking a ticket to contest the elections. And such was his charm that long before he quietly vanquished his detractors in the Congress Party, who were many, and made himself the favoured nominee of the party High Command for the Thiruvananthapuram seat, there were considerable sections of people, especially youngsters, who had made up their mind to vote for him in case he contested.
But winning the party ticket did not mean that it would be a cake walk for him in the election. Much needed to be done and his credible victory with an impressive margin was the result of really hard work put in by Tharoor, says former Ambassador T P Sreenivasan in his book Mattering to India:The Shashi Tharoor Campaign.
Sreenivasan has based his title on a flamboyant quote from Tharoor himself. ’India has always mattered to me. Now I want to matter to India,’ Tharoor had once said.
Being a close, long-time friend of Tharoor, what Sreenivasan has attempted is an intensely personal narrative on the runup to the elections and the many factors that led to Tharoor’s impressive victory with a huge margin. Sreenivasan was both an observer of and participant in many of the events recounted in this book.
Born in London, brought up mostly outside the state and working for long outside the country, Tharoor was in every way a rank outsider as far as Malayalees were concerned. His link to Kerala was mainly through his ancestral family in his native village of Kollengode, Palakkad district. But he had a far better link to educated Malayalees through his many books and countless articles on matters of interest to Kerala.
Srenivasan explains how such a virtual outsider, who was not proficient in the local language and had never lived in Kerala, overcame the several impediments he faced and generated a veritable Tharoor wave. With a team of aides, which included some of his friends and well wishers from abroad, Tharoor slowly but steadily worked his way up , neutralizing opposition and enlarging his support base. The campaign was hectic in the sense that on many days Tharoor was up and about for 22 hours a day, leaving just two hours for a catnap.
The book, which makes absorbing reading, gives rare insight into the manner in which Tharoor successfully overcame opposition to his candidature from within the Congress and outside. This included how he managed to negate the threat from two strong contenders for the party ticket, former MP V S Sivakumar and Vijayan Thomas,who was the main support base for the party’s television channel. According to Sreenivasan, Tharoor mollified these two with the help of the Congress High Command. Once he was sure of the party ticket, Tharoor sought to neutralize opposition from BJP leader and former Union Minister O Rajagopal who was most likely to be the BJP nominee.Though Rajagopal would not have won the seat he was sure of garnering a good chunk of the votes, reducing Tharoor’s chances of victory. Srenivasan says that it was through the good offices of Mata Amritanandamayi that Tharoor ensured that Rajagopal, her disciple, opted out of contest.
Statistics of the poll results apart, Sreenivasan has included guest essays from two journalists and some people involved with the campaign to supplement his views. Many of Sreenivasan’s articles on Tharoor during and after his abortive bid for the top post in the UN also find a place in the book. It has a Foreword by Dr Babu Paul,former Chief Secretary,Kerala, who does not conceal his fascination for Tharoor. ‘There is a certain charisma about the man. It is as if there is a magnet implanted somewhere in his thoracic cavity,’ he says.
Though the book was probably planned after his victory in the polls and his elevation to the Union Council of Ministers as Minister of State for External Affairs, by the time it was out Tharoor was embroiled in a series of controversies from Twitter to IPL and was out of the ministry.The book makes a detailed reference to these events, as also to his subsequent marriage to Sunanda Pushkar, in an epilogue which sums up the sordid resignation drama thus:
“The glittering image that Tharoor brought with him after his elitist and western upbringing and his life in rarefied circles dazzled many people. His apparent ability to play down that elitism and be one with the people in dress, food and language made him an instant hit. His impeccable image gave the impression that he would be the harbinger of change in Indian politics, which had become corrupt and inefficient. But the messiah image was marred when his elitism manifested itself in his five- star life style and fondness for fame, wealth and other pleasures of life. He is perceived today as clever and shrewd but not much different from others before him. He may well return to prominence and political leadership, not because of the promise that he will change the system, but because he is far less guilty than many others who have flourished in politics with fewer talents and skills.
“In George Bernard Shaw’s play Saint Joan, the executioner says after burning Joan of Arc at the stake that we have heard the last of her. Warwick, another character in the play, responds: ‘The last of her? Hm! I wonder!’
“We have not heard the last of Shashi Tharoor.”

Mattering to India The Shashi Tharoor Campaign
By T P Sreenivasan
Pearson
Pp 165 Price Rs 550

Illusion of Immunity: Strauss-Kahn and Krittika Biswas

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The US State Department has responded on June 14 formally to India's protests over the arrest of Krittika Biswas. The reply is sugar coated, but the answer is an unambiguous assertion that dependents of officers of the Consular Corps are not entitled to diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity gives a sense of security to those who "lie abroad" for their nations, but it is best when it is not tested. Fortunate are those who enjoy the privileges such as duty and tax free facilities, but do not ever have to resort to immunity to escape action against criminal offenses. The cases of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) and Krittika Biswas clearly illustrate that police authorities, particularly of the New York variety, have little respect for diplomatic niceties. For them, they are criminals first and Managing Director of the IMF and an Indian Vice-Consul's daughter later. They know that the lawyers will fight endlessly over the fine points of law,but they believe in instant justice for those who are criminals in their eyes.

The way the world has reacted differently to the two cases of violation of diplomatic immunity, however, indicates that the public accepts technical violations in the case of serious crimes, but questions them in cases of juvenile or light crimes. The way DSK was pulled out of a plane and taken handcuffed to jail for an alleged rape attempt, which had not yet been proved, inspired awe rather than derision, while the narration of the travails of an 18 year old hapless Krittika aroused sympathy for her and condemnation for the police. Popular perception, rather than diplomatic immunity, was the decisive factor, which determined public reaction to the two events. The Managing Director of the IMF, doubtless, had diplomatic immunity, but it became irrelevant, while Krittika's immunity was in question, but her humiliation stood condemned.

Diplomatic immunities and privileges should be the same in every country that has ratified the related Vienna Conventions, but in actual practice, different countries apply them differently. The more developed the country, the less respect for privileges and immunities. In India, for instance, even the junior most diplomats and consular staff are treated with respect even if they do not have privileges by the book. In New York, on the other hand, people complain about special parking spots and tax concessions for diplomats. Those in the line at a department store in New York openly protested when I handed my tax exemption card to the cashier and no amount of explanation that this was a reciprocal facility available also to the American diplomats in India satisfied them. "They should also not have such privileges", was the answer. Parking fines and towing were made applicable to diplomatic cars in New York after a public outcry. At one point, there was even a move to ship the UN out of New York on account of the presence of too many diplomats disturbing peace in New York even while building peace in other corners of the globe. The city appeared to be willing to give up the vast amount of revenue it earned from the UN presence there.

In most developing countries, diplomatic passport holders are waved off at immigration and customs counters, but in many western capitals, such privileges cannot be taken for granted. Terrorism and drug trafficking have made diplomatic privileges less relevant today than before.

In the case of Krittika, diplomatic privilege is only a side issue. The questions being asked in India are whether her alleged crime was serious enough to call the police and whether the police treated her harshly because of her colour and nationality. The answer may well be negative to both these questions. Diplomatic immunity for the children of the Consular staff is a matter of interpretation of the Vienna Convention and the US interprets it narrowly. The first mistake was made by the teacher by calling the police, which took disproportionate action. The details of her humiliation, which were given by Krittika, were abhorrent, to say the least. Like the Indian police, the New York police seemed unaware of the basic human rights of a teenager. Whether she had diplomatic privileges or not was not an issue here.

The racial overtone was given to the incident by the subsequent revelation that the actual culprit, a Chinese boy, was treated differently even after his guilt was established. Here, a charitable explanation could be that having faced charges by the Indian Consulate and others in the case of Kirttika, the police went soft on the Chinese boy. The mystery is that this incident, which took place in February, did not come to public attention till Krittika announced her intention to sue the New York City for one and a half million US Dollars. Was her decision to sue the city prompted by the subsequent soft handling of the Chinese case?

It is quite out of place to bring into this case India-US relations and China-US relations and their respective importance for the US. The State Department could never have instructed the police to run foreign policy. There could well be a certain animosity in certain circles towards foreigners in general, but it will not be limited only to brown colour. One far-fetched explanation could be that Indian children in American schools are so bright that there could be some envy towards them and an over zealous teacher may have tried to fix one of them.

Indians in the US are great achievers and they have begun to be noticed everywhere from the White House to the Board Rooms of big corporations. Inevitably, therefore, there have been instances of targeting them for harsh action even on suspicion of demeanor. Average Indians constantly complain of racial discrimination in matters of promotion and crucial appointments. But the success stories are overwhelmingly higher than instances of discrimination. Discrimination is certainly not the policy of the Government even if it is being practiced in certain circles. The US is still a country of equal opportunities even if some may feel deprived of their jobs by immigrants. In the case of Krittika, it could be a conspiracy between a teacher and a police official, but not racial discrimination or anti-Indian feeling. Even the earlier cases of disrespect to diplomats should not be construed as anti-Indian.

The Government of India was right in taking up the case in right earnest and in allowing Krittika to sue the city, but this case should not be mixed up with politics or with immunity issues. Some have called for reciprocity in applying the immunity provisions to American diplomats, which is fine, but there should not be any action that smacks of revenge. Diplomatic immunity is meant for ease of functioning, not to shield offenders and it should be applied more as an art rather than as a science. The New York police was praised for dealing with DSK, but was criticised in the case of Krittika and that is a lesson in itself.

Legacy of Dr.Mathew Illickal

(Eulogy at the Memorial Service-- New York June 15, 2011)

My son has already spoken, more poignantly than I could, on our family ties to Dr. Mathew Illickal and his family. I have myself spoken yesterday how indebted we are to the Illickal family for enriching our lives in the last 31 years. Today, I shall speak more broadly, not just from the perspective of our family, about the legacy of Dr.Illickal, a legacy that makes us all feel proud.

First and foremost, his legacy is the family he has left behind. Lilykutty herself is his creation. She is not the same bride he brought along to these shores: she is today an accomplished lady, who is an asset to the community and to the society at large. His children, Mohan, Manoj and Maya and his grandchildren are the greatest gifts he has bequeathed to us. He will live on in them and remind us of him. His values will remain immortal.

Dr. Mathew’s professional legacy shall also last very long. I am sure his motivation to come to the US was to gain professional skills in this land of technology and research. He became one of the best in his profession as a surgeon, but he retained the traditional values of his Indian training. He relied on his touch, his instinctive understanding of the human body to heal, not merely on machines. I have never heard him speak of his accomplishments, which celebrities he has operated upon etc. But we knew his professional skills. We called him whether we had a cold or broken bones and he gave us the cure with his thoughtfulness and sympathy. He healed us in a way only God could, by giving us strength and confidence.

His legacy as an Indian immigrant to the United States is also a noble one. He did not leave India because he had a grievance or because he could not make a living there. And having come here, he did not ever denounce India or Indian medicine. He gave his life of service to his country of adoption and earned the respect and confidence of his patients at a time when Indian doctors were few and far between. If Indian Americans have won a place for themselves here and enhanced India’s prestige and influence, it is because of the hard work and talents of people like Dr. Illickal. He has done more to India-US relations than any ambassador could. Like other Indian Americans, he was a true ambassador of his country here. He did not speak nostalgically about returning home, but his wish to have his ashes sent home has revealed his passion for his motherland. If lekha was here, she would have spoken of the support he has extended to “Karuna”, the charity organisation to help the poor that Lilykutty heads in New York.

And more than anything else, his is the legacy of a perfect human being. He had no malice, no ill will. He had a beatific smile for everyone, a word of encouragement and comfort for everyone. He will be remembered for his aristocratic upbringing and unfailing humanity and humility. We are the poorer for his parting, but richer for his legacy. May his soul rest in peace.

Engaging Global Indians

(My Remarks at the Plenary Seminar of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, Toronto. June 10, 2011)

I suspect that I am on this panel because I have had the experience of engaging global Indians in diverse situations in different times. I have dealt with the impoverished Indian farmers in Burma after the Indian exodus of the sixties, I have witnessed the military coup in Fiji against the Indians who made those islands a paradise on earth, I have been in Kenya where the Indians had virtual control over the economy, I have seen the emergence of Indian Americans as a powerful force in the United States since the eighties and I have engaged the largely professional Indian expatriates in Europe. As someone who lives in Kerala, I cannot be unaware of the problems and prospects of the Indians in the Gulf.

One conclusion I have reached from this experience is that there is no single formula that India can deploy to engage the diverse Diaspora it has around the world. India’s policies and approaches have also evolved over the years. In the early years of our independence, India had left Indian immigrants to find their feet in foreign lands with no expectation from them and no promises. India was a passive witness to the upheavals in Kenya, Uganda and the Caribbean, though India warmly welcomed those who returned to their motherland. In the second phase, India began to realize the value of engaging the Indian community abroad to seek technology and investment. That was a period of discovery for both India and the overseas Indians, but the bewildering diversity of demands on their side and limitations of action abroad by India led to a searching of souls by both. Today, we are in the third phase, in which the expectations on both sides have been toned down to a realistic level and India and her children abroad have begun to work in a cohesive manner.
India is today aware that engaging the global Indians should not be single dimensional. There are limits to the extent of investments that they can bring in. Other than the expatriates in the Gulf, the community will not make remittances to India. Demands for dual citizenship have been partially met. Welfare measures have been drawn up for those in need, particularly in the Gulf. The engagement is now deeper, multidimensional and mutually beneficial. The institutional framework has been established by the sagacious Indian leadership, particularly the Minister responsible for Overseas Indian Affairs.

Two major developments have helped to create the right atmosphere for engaging the global Indians for the benefit of the country. First, India’s unprecedented economic growth and its influence in the world have given global Indians greater pride and incentive to be partners in the great game. Their opportunities back in India have grown to such an extent that the thought of return to India is no more far-fetched. This does not mean that there will be a massive return to India. The psychological sense of security about a safe and prosperous homeland gives them greater confidence. I remember that during the Fiji crisis, Indians came to me not for Indian visas, but for Australian and American visas. India does not bewilder them anymore.

The second reason is the political and economic instability in certain parts of the globe. The power and economic centres of the world are shifting. During the recession in developed countries, India presented a relatively stable trajectory of growth. Some regions, who were considered stable and steady sources of energy, are witnessing dramatic changes and democratic aspirations. India presents an alternative in the event of instability and uncertainty and this creates a stake for the community in India’s growth and development.

The new situation has transformed the chemistry between India and the Indian community abroad. Today, Indian communities abroad are seeking innovative ways and means to participate in the exciting events in India. Tomorrow I shall be at a meeting of Indian professionals from Kerala in Chicago to draw up a programme to give professional support to the Government of Kerala. This initiative has come without any prodding from Kerala itself. This is just one example of how global Indians are seeking to network in India for mutual benefit.

India is also in the process of orienting its policies for the benefit of Indian communities abroad. Memories are still fresh about the role played by Indian Americans in finalizing the nuclear deal and in taking India-US relations to a higher level. The growth in this relationship will serve the interests of the Indian Americans. Similarly, the growth in cooperation with Canada is of benefit to the Indian community here. There is a greater emphasis today on developing close ties with countries which have large Indian communities in the developed and developing world. Strategies are being worked out to turn the Indian communities abroad as a powerful resource in our foreign policy. The maturity that has developed between India and the Indians abroad will be of immense benefit to both.

Indians in the UN System

By T.P.Sreenivasan


You cannot throw a stone into the UN or its Specialized Agencies without hitting an Indian, but there are no Indians as chiefs in any of these bodies. Indians may do all the work and win approbation, but they continue to be sherpas and not summiteers. Even today, the highest level Indian in the UN system, Vijay Nambiar, is only the Chef d' cabinet, a glorified executive assistant to the UN Secretary General. None of the nearly twenty Specialised Agencies is headed by an Indian today, even though many Indians in key places may well be doing the work of these Agencies. After Arcot Ramachandran headed the UN Habitat in Nairobi many years ago, we have not been able to get a similar post even though we have highly qualified experts in many areas.

The reason for this sorry state of affairs is that we do not have a policy to create opportunities for deserving individuals to enable them to grow in the system. Even those who go fairly high do so by their own initiative and by pulling wires in the Government to gain support for one post or another. Many posts in the UN system are the preserves of different countries and the countries concerned plan the careers of successors in such a way that the jobs remain within the countries concerned or in the regional groups.


Even the Indian candidature for the post of the UN Secretary General was at the initiative of the candidate himself. The Government did not give any thought to finding a winnable candidate for the post and merely made Shashi Tharoor India's candidate after he decided to make a bid and influenced high places in India. Even after he became the official candidate, he did not get the whole-hearted support of those in the field and many of them were happy that he lost, as was predicted. It was argued that his candidature would stand in the way of reform of the UN and India winning a permanent seat in the Security Council.


The Asian Group in the UN is so diverse that there is hardly any possibility of agreement on a common candidate except on a rotational basis. There were already several Asian candidates, including Ban Ki-Moon when the Indian candidate emerged. Countries like Japan and Korea are able to get even posts considered preserves of other countries and groups by putting up candidates with relevant experience by keeping them in the mainstream for years. In our system, rotation is so sacrosanct that no individual is allowed to grow in any organisation beyond a few years.


Dr. Homi Bhabha helped establish the IAEA and his bust is still there outside the IAEA boardroom. But no Indian has risen to even the second level in the IAEA since then, though some of our scientists aspired to senior positions. Of course, our not signing the NPT had made several areas in the IAEA out of bounds for Indians.

The Indians who rise in the UN system are the objects of envy of their colleagues and every effort is made to get them back as soon as possible. Many diplomats have been forced to return to the country to protect their promotions in their own services, though now the Government is a bit more liberal in extending their deputation to the UN and other organisations.


We do not subscribe to the dictum that having Indians in high places in the UN system is helpful to India. Those who rise to these positions go out of their way to erase their Indian identity to become truly international civil servants. This is one of the reasons why those in the Government do not care to secure these jobs for Indians. Only personal networking enables them to get these jobs and the next time they look for the Indian ambassador is when they are due for a promotion or an extension. Most Indians in the UN system are no assets to the Indian missions accredited to them.


Most Indian PRs to the UN have managed to get positions in the UN, but not beyond Under Secretary General. None of them has contested for elected posts. Most heads of Specialised Agencies are elected and India is extremely reluctant to put up candidates. The myth is that contesting these posts will affect our chances for becoming a permanent member in the Security Council.


The World Bank and the IMF are even less democratic than the rest of the UN system because they operate on the basis of weighted votes. Even though we have good candidates and there is a general sentiment in favour of the highest jobs being made available to those outside the US or Europe, it will be very hard for India to get the top position in the IMF. India will be offered second or third positions as a compromise in the end.


There have been a few instances where it has suited the big powers to offer some high level positions to Indians. A few years ago, India got a very important post, but we paid a very high price for it by helping to bring down a fellow developing country head from another organization. Such deals may become increasingly possible, but we have to plan ahead and present acceptable candidates. No one gets top positions in the UN system by sheer merit. Major Powers should be made to develop vested interests in India or in certain Indians if Indians have to become chiefs in the UN system. Till then, Indians will be playing second fiddle or lead peacekeeping units under civilian bosses from the western world.

Nuclear Power: The Third Way

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The expectation of the nuclear establishments around the globe soon after the Fukushima disaster was that the extreme anxiety about nuclear power would die down sooner or later and that business would be as usual thereafter. The world is not there yet, but time is not far when Fukushima will be just a bad memory except for those who were affected by radiation. Not to learn its lessons from Fukushima is a grave error that humanity can make.

Globally, polarization has taken place between those who are confident that the world can rely on nuclear power for all time to come and those who want to abandon nuclear power altogether immediately even if it means a drop in economic growth. Both these alternatives are not in the long term interests of the countries concerned. By holding future generations hostage to nuclear power, we are doing them a great injustice when we know that no nuclear reactor is absolutely safe. We have every right to jeopardize our own generation, but those unborn should not be victims of our blind faith or lack of innovation or imagination. By dotting our coast with nuclear domes, we are leaving the future generations to live under the hood of a cobra.

Those who insist that nuclear power should be abandoned altogether at this instant and switch to other sources seem to be in a dream world. The investments made in the development of nuclear energy, particularly in the developing world, have paid rich dividends. As of now, the cost of nuclear power production is comparable with other sources and helps reduce greenhouse gaseemissions. More than anything else, the current shortages of power cannot be met without expanding nuclear power in the short term.

In the present situation, where public opinion is divided between pro-nuclear and ant-nuclear activists, different Governments have responded differently to the Fukushima tragedy. Germany and Switzerland were unequivocal in their decision to phase out nuclear power. Others, including Japan, the US, China and India announced investigations and innovations to reduce dangers. Those who were on the threshold of the nuclear age have quietly dropped their plans. Even some of the countries, which have pledged to stay on course, will alter their plans, slow them down and look for alternatives, particularly if the safety reviews reveal inadequacies as in the case of the US. The studies have already concluded that the US reactors cannot withstand multiple natural disasters, as it happened in Japan. China has lost some of its enthusiasm for nuclear power. In India, the mood in the establishment is cool confidence that nothing will go wrong here. Inspections and studies are pro forma as the conclusion is known. India will continue to develop nuclear power to meet its energy needs, even if there is an element of risk in it. The Prime Minister has ruled out phasing out of nuclear power, regardless of the outcome of the studies. It calls into question the purpose of the studies themselves.



There must be a third way, since committing the world to perpetual use of nuclear power is hazardous and we are in no position to switch to alternatives immediately. India should be able to visualize a world without nuclear power after 20 or 30 years. The optimum average age of a nuclear reactor is 30 years and it will not be unreasonable to phase out the reactors, including the ones being installed now in a period of 30 years. Once we establish this as an objective, the entire planning of energy in India should be revised to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to develop alternative sources of energy within that period. Scientists speculate that if India had invested its resources and time on other forms of energy, we would not have needed nuclear power at all

India was the first country to give the world the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The point that it was an impractical idea did not deter us from sketching the various steps that would lead to global zero. After the deadline that we had set for it passed, the world has woken up to the wisdom of it. Why do we not put on our thinking caps again and draw up a plan of phasing out nuclear power in 30 years? Such a timeframe will not immediately affect our nuclear programme, including acquisition of reactors from abroad. We can commission the French reactors, if the location is acceptable to the people in the area and develop an adequate safety system for a short period, rather than for an indefinite length of time. Inevitably, we need to develop alternatives like solar and wind energy, in addition to traditional sources, which have to be tamed to protect the environment. If fusion technology or any other safe method of using the atom develops in the meantime, we shall be prepared to adopt them in place of fission.

Fukushima has roused the conscience of humanity in a way Three Mile Island and Chernobyl had not done. Faster communications and deeper knowledge of what happened there has dramatically altered the way the world looks at nuclear power. To argue that nobody has died of radiation, while thousands have perished in the raging waves and the falling bricks is to underestimate the impact of Fukushima on the minds of the people.
What India says to the Ministerial Meeting of the IAEA, when it convenes in Vienna in the third week of June, 2011 will be hugely significant. If we merely say that we will undertake inspections and make our inspectors fiercely independent and our processes transparent, we will miss an opportunity to give humanity a way to break away from fear. The choice should not be between fear of radiation and lack of development. A proposal by India to strive towards a nuclear power free world by 2040, with adequate development of alternative sources will be a major contribution to the outcome of the June conference.

Obama Embraces the Arab Spring

T.P.Sreenivasan

President Barack Obama can never be faulted for his choice of words. His assessment of the Arab Spring and the US role in it was no exception. "Change cannot be denied", he said and proceeded to endorse the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Claiming to open a new chapter in American diplomacy, Obama spoke out clearly in favour of democratic change, urging the leaders of the region either to lead the transition or get out of the way. "America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia against the raw power of the dictator", he declared.

What pleased the President about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the demands for change in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa was that they meant rejection of the ways of Osama Bin Laden, who believed that violent extremism alone would take the Islamic world to the promised land. As Tom Friedman pointed out, Laden lived long enough to see the death of his philosophy in the Arab world. The people in the region had taken their future into their own hands and they had achieved more in six months than terrorists had accomplished in decades. In the circumstances, the rest of the world, particularly the US should readjust their policies to remain relevant.

President Obama admitted that the core interests the US had pursued in the region, such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation, free trade, security, Israeli friendship and Arab- Israeli peace had not helped to eliminate mistrust. Self determination of individuals would be as important as stability and , therefore, the US would oppose repression and support universal human rights.In dealing with specific cases, President Obama sought to find common elements in all of them, which deserved the US support. Seeking democratic change in the Arab world was an opportunity for the US.

But more importantly, President Obama recognized that politics alone did not put protesters into the streets. Though there were islands of prosperity in these countries, many had difficulty putting the food on the table. Talents were in plenty, but corruption and authoritarianism denied opportunity to young people. President Obama outlined a number of measures ranging from writing off Egypt's debt to multilateral and bilateral assistance to the countries that emerged from repressive regimes.

No speech on the Arab world could conclude without a road map for Israel and Palestine. In fact, it would have made no sense if the President had made no mention of this core issue on which the future of US- Arab relations would depend. A day before receiving Prime Minister Natenyahu in the White House, Barack Obama became the first US President to explicitly state that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He was categorical about the unshakable US commitment to Israel's security, but the principles he laid down for an eventual solution based on Israel and Palestine existing within recognized and secure borders were unexceptionable, The plans were opposed instantly by Israel, Hamas and the Republican Party, a sure sign that Obama plans had the potential to move towards a compromise.

Like the Cairo speech two years ago, the Arab Spring speech too was an effort to build bridges with the Islamic world. Coming as it did after the elimination of Bin Laden, the speech was particularly conciliatory except in the case of Iran and Syria, which were clubbed together for supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. A heavy dose of economic measures will be welcomed by the new regimes, which have to grapple with depleted treasuries and development challenges. The President sought to justify US intervention in Libya and hinted that the US would not hesitate to step in wherever the new spirit of democracy faced resistance.

Barack Obama mentioned virtually every country, which had shown signs of unrest, but steered clear of even mentioning Saudi Arabia, an omission, which was carefully noted by analysts. But the sweeping generalisations he made about the elements of the Arab Spring cannot but apply to Saudi Arabia also. But there is no denying the fact that each situation would require a different principle and policy.

President Obama has a greater reputation as an orator rather than as a statesman. His readiness to pursue American national interests at any cost, even by initiating new wars and other forms of intervention has detracted from his messiah image he had before the election. The US foreign policy has shown no great change since Barack Obama became President. Expectations about peace breaking out on all fronts, on the basis of which President Obama was given a Nobel Prize for Peace were belied. Against such a record, the Arab Spring speech would also be read with skepticism, cynicism and even disbelief. The world will welcome the lofty ideas that have figured in the speech, but the credibility deficit will remain till the US conduct on the ground matches the President's golden vocabulary.



--

India-US Relations at Crossroads

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The killing of Osama Bin Laden came at a time when India-US relations were at a low point of the roller coaster ride to which these relations have often been compared. After the visit of President Obama, which kindled hopes of raising those relations to a higher level, it appeared as though India was distancing itself from Washington to assert its independence. The US too had other preoccupations, particularly the "Arab Spring"in which an Indian partnership was ruled out. The postponement of the strategic dialogue, India's vote on Libya in the United Nations Security Council, India's overtures to Iran and its role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit were seen as straws in the wind. To crown it all, India announced that it had shortlisted two European fighters, ignoring American demarches at the highest level that acquisition of US fighters would contribute to the strategic relationship between the two countries.

While India has maintained that the choice of the fighters was motivated solely by the technical specifications, many strategic thinkers in the US and India felt that India had missed an opportunity to cement the strategic relationship at a time when India faced multiple threats. But an Indian-American executive of one of the firms, which unsuccessfully bid for the Indian contract for 126 Multi- Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), was surprisingly unperturbed by the news of the Indian decision to go for one of the European fighters.He said that the US had known for some time that India was apprehensive about the US fighters because of the US involvement with Pakistan. In the event of a war with Pakistan, India would be disadvantaged by the superior capability that Pakistan might have already obtained from the US.. Moreover, there would be many linkages between the suppliers of aircraft to India and Pakistan. But he said that he was much relieved that India had not chosen the Russian aircraft. The US would gain substantial profits from the Indian deal with Europe and, therefore, he saw no reason for the new deal to have any impact on India-US relations.The joint ventures between the two countries and proposals for Indian investments would balance the loss in the aircraft deal. Even the delay in orders for nuclear reactors on account of the Nuclear Liability Bill would be of no consequence, he said.

On the contrary, the resignation of the US Ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, was clearly linked to the strenuous efforts he had put in to persuade India to purchase the planes from his country. His parting message that he was satisfied with the state of relations between the two countries did not carry conviction. His embarrassment about the revelations in Wikileaks about his assessment of the events and people in India would have also contributed to his predicament.

The full story of the postponement of Hillary Clinton's visit to India for continuing the strategic dialogue has not yet come to light. Some speculate that it was the fear of direct pressure on the MCRA deal that prompted India to seek a postponement. The visit is now scheduled to take place in July 2011.

The Nuclear Liability Bill was a big blow to the US businesses, which were poised to get a captive contract worth ten billion dollars as a direct outcome of the nuclear deal. Promises given to find a way around the liability of suppliers by elaborating rules on the bill have remained unfulfilled. The US India Business Council and other business groups must be frustrated that the heavy investments made in getting the nuclear deal through gave no returns. The Fukushima disaster has also cast its shadow on the use of nuclear power.

For the US, "the most unkindest cut of all" must be the role played by India at the BRICS summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda. India's abstention on the vote on Libya in the Security Council was a meaningless gesture against intervention, when it had nothing to gain from Gaddafi and when the Arabs and the Africans had no qualms about supporting the west. The BRICS rubbed the point in, much to the chagrin of the US and NATO. The fact that India gained little in the summit and the subsequent bilateral talks with China gave India no alibi for taking these positions. China diluted the position of the other four in BRICS on Security Council reform, making it even less supportive than the US position.

India's overtures to Iran, leading to a possible visit to Tehran by the Prime Minister must also be of concern to the US. Even in the best of times, the hoards of American think tankers, who came to Delhi had only one question to ask of India - whether India would be willing to dissuade Iran from taking the nuclear weapon route. Our standard reply that we have a civilisational link with Iran and even today, we meet a large chunk of our energy needs from Iran has never impressed them.The revival of the pipeline must be anathema to the Americans.

The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either. President Obama's remark that the Americans will not need to go to India for cheap health care was not taken kindly in India. None of these had a any substantive content, but the cumulative effect was far from favourable to the atmospherics.

In actual fact, however, the two countries are quietly working on many issues of vital concern to them. Much more needs to be done to coordinate efforts for stability in West Asia and Africa, not to speak of the traditional areas of cooperation, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, piracy and disaster management.The post -Fukushima concerns on nuclear safety is another area for joint research and effort. India has more to gain from the US than from any other country at this time. Frittering away the gains of the Bush era and the early days of Obama for the sake of appearing to be distancing ourselves from the west may hurt our interests. If the US begins to be vengeful and strike where it hurts most like technology transfer, Indian American interests, Indian education and work visas, the losses will be substantial.

The killing of Osama bin Laden is an opportunity and a challenge for India-US relations, though its importance should not be exaggerated. The elimination of the most significant symbol of international terrorism should give us reason for comfort. Though the Indian Prime Minister was not on the list of the world leaders, whom Obama called soon after his success in bringing a closure to 9/11, Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to him in a matter of days and presumably congratulated him. He must have expressed the hope that Pakistan would now be more receptive to India's demand for bringing the culprits of 26/11 to book. The US itself has been forthcoming in revealing that ISI operatives may have been behind the Mumbai attack.

The perceived deterioration in the relations between the US and Pakistan may have no impact on India-US relations, essentially because the present phase will be temporary, if not imaginary.US-Pakistan relations will return to normal in a very short time as they have a logic and resilience going back to half a century. India cannot step into the role that Pakistan had assumed in 2001both because of the nature of our polity and our national pride.

A thought has also arisen that India should rush to normalise relations with Pakistan and be supportive to Pakistan at this difficult juncture. In fact, such a suggestion was made by some at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They felt that India and Pakistan should form a united front against the Soviet Union to stop the intervention in Afghanistan. It may we ll have happened if Indira Gandhi had not returned to power before such a move gained currency. Any effort to befriend Pakistan at this point in misplaced sympathy will be dangerous. If anything, India should go slow in its ebngagement with Pakistan till Pakistan sets its house in order after the trauma of Abbottabad.

The best hope is that the present phase is the inevitable descent of the roller coaster before it gains momentum again to climb even higher. The imperatives of cooperation are much stronger than the impulse to appear distant from the Dhritarashtra's embrace that the US connection is considered to be..

A Sting Operation

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.

My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.

The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.

Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!

Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.

All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.

The New Indian Express May 6,2011

A Sting Operation

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.

My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.

The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.

Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!

Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.

All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.

The New Indian Express May 6,2011

Implications of Osama's killing exaggerated.

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Children say the damnedest of things. They also make the wisest of statements. A Malayalam poet wrote, "Children, who cannot put words together, you are the ones, who have the vision and the knowledge of God's will." This has been proved once again, when my granddaughter, Durga's response to the news of Osama Bin Laden's death was, "Oh! I thought he was dead long ago!" Apparently,other children reacted similarly, according to facebook entries from around the globe. Then why are the adults so excited? Why are they over analyzing the impact of a death that occurred, at least figuratively, quite some time ago? Are we not exaggerating the importance of Osama's death to the US, to President Obama, to Pakistan, to international terrorism, and most of all, to India?

I do not dispute President Obama's claim that Osama was found hiding under the nose of the Pakistanis and that, in a swift and efficient operation, US soldiers killed him in a firefight, with no losses to American lives. I do not also dispute the claim that Osama was given a decent burial, with Islamic funeral rites.in the deep sea. I am sure the DNA has been preserved before the body was disposed off. But this was clearly the whirlwind which came after the wind was sewn decades ago.The world will move on,more or less in the same wayward way as before, even after his death. Osama could well have lived on without making much of a difference to the world.

There was only one logic in the timing. President Obama's reelection campaign had begun and it was time that he justified his Nobel Prize for Peace by getting out of at least one of his wars. The timing of the killing was chosen by him to register a victory and to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan after installing a hotch-potch government which would not threaten his homeland security. He may well win his second term on account of bringing Osama to justice, though public memory may not outlast any other event that may affect the verdict. Osama had become irrelevant to Al Queda except as a symbol of Jihad. The terrorist outfit will survive and regroup itself to give cause for concern to the west and others, but this was inevitable whether Osama died in his bed or killed in battle.

As for the war on terror, this is a milestone, but the road extends beyond the horizon. There are enough individuals, organisations and states, which believe in terrorism as a justifiable way of gaining the advantages that cannot be obtained by legitimate means. No reason exists for jubilation, as was seen in the streets of the US. The US and the world cannot afford to bring their guard down. The massive investments made for security around the world will still be justified as terrorists look for new and innovative methods to beat the system. In fact, one of the legacies of Osama is the suffering undergone by ordinary people at the airports and elsewhere. As someone observed rightly, the best punishment for Osama would have been to make him go through airport security day in and day out for the rest of his life.

Pakistan will not change a bit even after Osama. Someone said that Pakistan has not yet decided whether it should take cash or credit for Osama's killing. They are inclined to claim cash from the US rather than deny the US the credit for the masterly operation. It suits them to protest about violation of sovereignty and appear disgruntled, having done nothing to protect their prized possession. The whole point of protecting him was to fatten him and to hand him over to the US at the most opportune moment as Pakistan had no use for him. No one believes that Pakistan was unaware of Osama's whereabouts or the timing of the US operations. More information will become available about Pakistan's complicity and duplicity, but that will not add anything to the information the world already has, if it wants to punish Pakistan. Pakistan's friends, particularly China, will continue to nurse it as a potential guarantee against India's unbridled rise politically and economically. Nothing will change even in the US position that Pakistan should not be allowed to fail. The US does not want Pakistan either to break up or fall into the hands of fundamentalists. the US has been saying for long that India should work with those in power in Pakistan, because those who came after them would have longer beards! Osama or no Osama, Obama or no Obama, the US-Pakistan relations will remain robust. Tensions and differences of opinion will persist between them, but, in the ultimate analysis, the big brother will prevail.

India has no reason to rejoice in Osama's exit from the scene. Laskar-e-Toiba and the other outfits are nurtured not by Al Queda, but by the Pakistani intelligence and state.They will not change their spots. The hope that the world will be convinced that Pakistan was culpable for 26/11, now that it has been caught cheating the US is far-fetched. Nobody is looking for new evidence. Whether we begin the dialogue or not, the perpetrators of 26/11, including Kasab will survive one way or another. Brave words have been spoken by our hawks that we should follow the US example and take out the criminals ourselves, but there are more who say we do not have either the will or the capability to do that. Even nuclear war is considered a possibility in the event of any dirty trick. We have no lesson to learn from the Obama killing. Our enemies are better protected than the hapless, sick (and reportedly phoneless and internetless) and fragile Osama, who found his watery grave. They do not face the wrath of a super power as Osama did. India has to muddle its way through the perfidy of Pakistan, blowing hot and cold, using the carrot and the stick. The dead Osama will not influence war or peace with Pakistan, just as the living Osama did not.

Elimination of Osama was a declared objective of the war on terror. His killing was essential for the US to declare victory before beginning its withdrawal from Afghanistan. An Afghan dispensation friendly to Pakistan will more than compensate for the present loss of face for Pakistan. Sacrificing Osama is a small price to pay for such a long term gain for Pakistan. The timing of the killing of Osama may have suited the US strategy in the Afpak region and it may have executed it on its own, but Pakistan may well stand to gain by the action, whether there is already a deal or not On previous occasions, reports on Osama's death were exaggerated, but this time the implications of his death are unduly exaggerated.

Column in New Indian Express titled New Five Make Right Noise
April 27,2011

Brick By Brick- India in New Five to Assert Independence

By T.P.Sreenivasan

India appears to be building a wall between itself and the Unites States brick by brick after five years of building bridges with Washington. The BRICS summit in Sanya in China was the latest instance of the demonstration by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that his strategic partnership with the US does not preclude other coalitions of convenience.The Libya vote in the UN Security Council, friendly gestures to Iran and cricket diplomacy with Pakistan were the other signals.The BRICS summit did not advance any of India's vital interests, but provided another forum for India to assert its independent foreign policy.

Diverse as they may be, with little political glue, the BRICS states made tentative steps towards a common position not only on economic matters, but also on some sensitive political issues. China characterised it as "a defining force to shape the new international political and economic order." But the US, like Banquo's ghost, hovered around the room in Sanya and moderated and diluted the outcome. Each one of the New Five has more to gain from the US than from each other, however keen they are to find a common cause. The presence of two of the P-5 in the New Five makes it a strange mix.

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have more things that divide them than those that unite them. Russia and China and China and India are more adversarial than comradely.Brazil and South Africa have their own grievances against India as they had voluntarily given up their nuclear option, while India gained the best of both worlds by testing and later signing the nuclear deal with the United States. Brazil and South Africa are bitter about Chinese economic policies, which have impacted them adversely. There is no precedent to a name coined by a private financial institution becoming the nomenclature of an international economic or political grouping. The term, BRIC was coined by Goldman Sachs to characterise the phenomenon of four large and emerging economies, not to turn them into power brokers. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs has noted that the five countries do not have same interests, their wealth per head is different and their politics and philosophy are different.

Another grouping, India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) is already in existence with democracy and development goals as a platform and the emergence of BRICS is likely to weaken this useful association. As the largest developing countries with global aspirations, the three countries have a clear political and economic agenda, which must be pursued.

Although the initial steps to turn BRIC into a viable grouping were taken by Russia, China has now taken charge by first inducting South Africa and then hosting the first BRICS summit.With the addition of South Africa, BRIC not only became BRICS, but also a new reality with representation from all continents. Two of them are permanent members of the Security Council and three are non-permanent members with aspiration for permanent membership. Such a group as this cannot but command attention.

What transpired in Sanya was no less impressive. Apart from the expected call for reform of global financial and monetary institutions, the New Five decided to take law into their own hands by deciding to use their currencies for the transactions among themselves, though it will not amount to more than 1 percent of world trade. China extracted its pound of flesh by getting the five to endorse its own agenda of seeking Yuan to be in the basket of currencies for SDRs even though it is not fully convertible. China's currency revaluation, a matter of urgency for the other participants, was not on the agenda. China, however, agreed to import more value added products from the other four states. Russia gained support for its membership of the World Trade Organisation. India did not get much except vague support for Security Council reform without any mention of expansion of permanent membership, despite the fact that four out of the five are committed to it. Even the lukewarm US support for India goes beyond "comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council" advocated by BRICS. As the host, China has orchestrated the outcome to its advantage.

Russia and China were in a position to veto the Libya resolution in the Security Council, authorising humanitarian intervention in Libya, but chose to abstain, thus enabling the US and NATO to have their way. South Africa had actually voted for the resolution. India and Brazil, which abstained more to distance themselves from US interventionism than to support Gaddafi, found some consolation in the group favouring a negotiated rather than a forced settlement in Libya. "We share the principle that the use of force should be avoided", they said, extending support for the efforts of the African Union.The clear signal from Sanya was that BRICS will be a pressure group within the G-20 and the Security Council to counter the US. But care was taken not to be provocative or confrontational as they have to gain much from their partnership with the US.The P-5 spirit may well remain intact even after the Sanya summit.

India found another brick for its wall by mending fences with China. India announced resumption of defence exchanges with China without a solution for the issue which prompted the suspension of the exchanges in the first place. China has not yet withdrawn its practice of issuing residents of Jammu and Kashmir "paper visa" for China. India made another concession by accepting unwritten conditions on the composition of defence delegations, which will visit China.Even the formation of a new mechanism to tackle issues arising on the border was no concession by China. If anything, it recognised the Chinese position that the border issue was too complex to be resolved in a hurry.Improvement of relations without any notable change in the Chinese assertiveness is of no value except as a signal to the United States.The Chinese encouragement to Pakistan's belligerence and its border claims remained untouched.

Like in the old days of the Non-aligned Movement, the signatories to the declaration will rush to Washington to put the best possible construction on the wording to convince the United States that they did not mean to offend its sensitivities. The old game of public declarations and private confessions will continue. But, for each member of the group, BRICS has its uses.They have to build their defences against the United States brick by brick

IAEA- The Way to go after Fukushima.

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A distressed Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),who helplessly witnessed a nuclear catastrophe in his own homeland with no authority or capability to help, has invited the foreign ministers of member countries to Vienna in June to devise ways and means to strengthen the safety role of the Agency. Normally, conclaves of the IAEA are gatherings of top nuclear scientists and Vienna based diplomats, who claim monopoly of wisdom on matters nuclear and insist that the greatest danger to the world arises from proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond the designated nuclear weapon powers. But this time, the invitees are policy makers, who have to think out of the box to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear accidents.Safety is too important a subject to be left to those with vested interests.

Perhaps, the June meeting may eventually be attended only by the scientists, now that the horrors of Fukushima have gone off the television screens and comfort is being sought in the thought that no one has died of radiation as against the thousands that perished on account of the earthquakes and tsunami. The two workers who were found dead in the reactors may have, after all, died of falling debris.Like the Three Mile island and Chernobyl, Fukushima will fade into history as another accident that did not need any more attention than its predecessors.But it will be unconscionable for the June meeting to just pay lip service to the safety mantra and move on with the business as usual in the comfort that God is in his heaven and all is well with the world.

The world seems to have long forgotten that the IAEA was created to harness atoms for peace safely without diverting them for military use.The subsequent emergence of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) turned the Agency into a proliferation watchdog, with much of its resources devoted to the safeguards aspect of its activities. Rightly did the Director General lament that the IAEA was not a safety watchdog and it had no choice but to be on response mode when a meltdown took place in Fukushima. It took several days before the IAEA was given any responsibility. It had no source other than the operators to tell them about the seriousness of the situation.

Prevention of accidents should be the highest priority for the IAEA. Its role should start from the designing of reactors and continue through installation and operation. Presently, such responsibilities rest with private companies, for whom profitability is paramount. Even state authorities give importance to efficiency and cost rather than safety. Apart from setting standards, the IAEA should be involved in selecting venues to ensure that the places, which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis are excluded. It should be mandatory to involve the IAEA at every stage and the IAEA should, in turn, be given the resources necessary to respond to requests immediately and meaningfully. Peer reviews organised under the aegis of the Agency must also be mandatory for member states to accept.

Should an accident occur, the IAEA should be instantly involved in minimizing the danger of radiation and in defending the population against its evil impact. Questions of sovereignty should be set aside as in the case of humanitarian intervention in the event of internal conflicts.To equip the IAEA to perform such functions, there should be a team at the disposal of the Director General, which can be deployed at short notice, much like the rapid deployment forces maintained by Governments.

When a group of eminent persons formulated a vision for the IAEA in 2020, the focus was on a nuclear renaissance, which seemed to be in the offing. Today, the priority is to restore confidence in the people, particularly in the vicinity of reactors. The Governments have little credibility in this matter and the IAEA should fill the gap.

The June conference should restore the balance originally envisaged between promotion of nuclear energy, safety and safeguards. The overwhelming importance given to safeguards has deprived the Agency of its safety dimension.Nuclear power will inevitably lose much of its sheen in the aftermath of Fukushima. Only after safety is ensured can the IAEA engage in promotion of nuclear power.The IAEA should become as much a watchdog of safety as it is of non-proliferation.

The world, still in the throes of the nightmare of Fukushima, looks to the Vienna conclave with hope and expectations.Its success lies in enabling the IAEA to play its role in preventing nuclear accidents and assisting countries to battle the aftermath of accidents, if any. The future of nuclear power will depend on the confidence that that the IAEA can eventually instill in humanity.

Nuclear Power After Fukushima

(An All India radio Talk recorded on April 18, 2011)

The Fukushima nuclear disaster could not have come at a more inopportune moment for nuclear power around the world, particularly in India. The stage was set for an exponential expansion of nuclear power as a source of energy because of the scientific evidence that use of fossil fuels was positively harmful to the environment on account of the emission of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power, on the other hand, was seen as clean, long lasting and economical, compared to the other energy sources.


The world was on the verge of a nuclear renaissance, with nearly fifty new countries opting for the generation of nuclear power. The United States, which had built no nuclear reactors for more than twenty years, began construction of new nuclear reactors. China was poised to expand its nuclear power generation dramatically. India, which had an ambitious plan for generation of nuclear power, but was hampered by shortage of uranium and a ban on exports of nuclear material to India, was ushered into an era of expansion of nuclear power when the India – US civilian nuclear deal opened the option for India to import nuclear fuel and reactors from diverse sources. India saw nuclear power as the panacea for its power shortage and development constraints.


The world was not unaware of the danger of nuclear accidents when reactors were initially designed and built. The locations of reactors were chosen with extreme care to protect them from natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. Heavily populated areas were excluded to the extent possible for fear of radiation in the event of a meltdown. Two major nuclear accidents, one on the Three Mile Island in the United States and the other in Chernobyl in Ukraine shocked the world, but they both turned out to be on account of human error, not design or functional faults. Other minor accidents also did not reveal any fundamental flaws in the science of nuclear power generation. Nuclear reactors withstood the onslaught of earthquakes and tsunamis by shutting themselves down and maintaining cooling systems to contain the generation of heat. There was a sense of comfort that nuclear reactors were safe, as long as normal precautions were taken and strict safety standards were observed.


Fukushima shook us in to the realization that calculations with regard to the intensity of earthquakes and tsunamis could go dangerously wrong and a combination of the two natural phenomena could bring havoc to reactors and endanger humanity itself. The Fukushima earthquake was more than 9 on the Richter scale and the tsunami, which followed, was of unprecedented proportions. Though the safety systems installed in the reactors kicked in as expected, they were knocked out one after the other, leading to a meltdown with grave consequences for human, animal and plant life. The reactors shut down instantly and the cooling systems began working, but both the electric systems as well as the diesel generators were devoured by the high tsunami waves, leaving pumping massive amounts of sea water as the only option to cool the reactor. It took the heroic Japanese workers several days to contain the damage, but not before Fukushima went into history as the worst nuclear accident in history, with consequences, as yet, unknown.


Many years will pass before we realize the full extent of the damage inflicted by Fukushima, but it has shaken the faith in the minds of many about the safety of nuclear power. Whatever may be its other benefits, nuclear reactors have begun to be seen as potential killers with transnational reach. Germany instantly announced its intention to phase out nuclear power as a source of energy. So did Switzerland. Other countries announced thorough reviews of their nuclear installations to reassure themselves of foolproof safety. Construction of new reactors was delayed, pending installation of additional safety features. Regulatory authorities were strengthened and peer reviews were invited. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered its own weaknesses in ensuring safety and called an international conference in June 2011 to take remedial action. Fears of a terrorist attack on nuclear reactors were also revived in the minds of the people in vulnerable countries. The traditional anti-nuclear countries and lobbies began a crusade against nuclear power.


The inveterate optimists, however, began searching for the silver linings on the dark clouds. They argued that deaths caused by the nuclear meltdown were much lower than those on account of fallen buildings and floods. They also took comfort in the thought that earthquakes and tsunamis of Fukushima were unprecedented in scale and might never occur again. The lessons of Fukushima would make the future reactors more safe and secure. It was also pointed out that it would not be easy for countries like France, China, the United States and India to abandon nuclear power for decades to come even if other sources of energy were developed at a fast pace. The only feasible proposition would be to strengthen safety and security to the extent possible and accept the risks.


In India, the Fukushima disaster has only caused some ripples, not waves. The official reaction is that Fukushima is a wake-up call and that all efforts should be made to make nuclear power generation safer and more secure. The scientists involved swear that the Indian facilities are safe and that the locations selected for the old and the new reactors are not prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. Further precautions will be taken by building additional features. But reconsideration of the role of nuclear energy is out of the question. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said as recently as on April 15, 2011: “I am convinced that when all is said and done, when cool headed discussions take place about the future of energy, what are the problems with coal, what are the problems with hydrocarbons, in terms of their impact on climate change, there would be no reconsideration about the role of nuclear energy.”


The question, however, is whether Fukushima will fade away into memory like its predecessors did and business will continue as usual, with minor modifications in design and construction of nuclear reactors. Will the people of India, particularly those who live in the vicinity of nuclear reactors, accept the inevitability of living in the shadow of danger? Is it conscionable for us to condemn the future generations to constant fear of another Fukushima? Should we not think in terms of making a long term plan for developing alternate sources to such an extent that we can reduce and eliminate our dependence on nuclear power? India gave to the world a vision of a nuclear weapon free world. Should we not give to the world a vision of a nuclear power free world?


In my view, these questions have to be answered after relooking at the options available to us at this critical time. No doubt, India cannot abandon its path of relying on nuclear power in the short term. But while reviewing its policy, no option should be excluded, not even the option of a carefully orchestrated exit from dependence on nuclear power. Future generations should not challenge our wisdom in dotting our coastal areas with daunting metal domes of nuclear reactors, rather than the soothing windmills that rotate in the breeze and fuel our energy generation. The victims of Fukushima will not have died in vain if the accident leads to a relook at nuclear power policy around the world to ensure generation of power without undue risk to mankind.