Eyes right- “look east”!

Indian prayers have been answered - the US secretary of State, Hilary Clinton in her recent article in Foreign Policy has stretched the "sea from the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca to the Pacific". From now on, India will not have to waste time in justifying its inclusion in multilateral security or economic arrangements in the ASEAN and beyond. India has reason to celebrate the success of its ‘look east’ policy because the region is moving "toward a seamless regional economy" (the theme of November 2011 APEC summit at Hawaii). But for trade to flourish, peace is paramount. To ensure peace, Hillary says, we are building "a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests... Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia."

Japan and the US are moving in tandem to make workable arrangements ranging from multilateral to ‘minilateral’. Yuriko Koike Japan’s former minister of defence and national security adviser recently wrote, "The best way for peace to prevail in the region is for the US and China to share responsibility for a regional order with Asia’s other powers, particularly India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea. Asia’s choice is clear, either the region embraces a multilateral structure of peace, or it will find itself constrained by a system of strategic military alliances." One needs to appreciate the efforts of the otherwise reticent Japanese to take the initiative to shape the regional security architecture. The Japanese dependence on US is well known. It is the most intriguing relationship, where the Japanese have been able to overcome all feelings of negativity and revenge against the US that must have cropped up after the Hiroshima - Nagasaki nuclear attacks and also the occupation of their country. Perhaps, it is this positivity that has made them overcome their fear of America - may be the Japanese have developed enough immunity vis-à-vis the US and they strongly feel that America is like chicken-pox that attacks only once in a life time. Paradoxically, Tokyo is wary of Beijing’s attack plans that has historically been at peace with the island nation. The thing that is confusing in Koike’s plan is the role that he expects China to play. Because in the same article he also mentions that "China is at the root of most of the disputes troubling Asia." He further writes about his concerns regarding "China’s renewed conception of itself as the ‘Middle Kingdom’, a state with no sovereign equal." If China is such a huge problem then how can it be a part of a solution that envisages sharing responsibility with others in the region? Furthermore, one is also confused about the sudden Japanese and American love for Vietnam. Both Beijing and Hanoi fall into the category of totalitarian states. Then why undue favours towards Vietnam?

Vietnam is a tough guy, it has fought with China before and is not afraid to take it on again on its claims in South China Sea. So, it fits into the Japanese understanding of natural ally just as the term ‘maritime democracies have been coined to add sheen to India-Japan relationship. However, we are at a stage in history, where semantics and rhetoric needs to be replaced with substance based on truth.

Hillary feels that the U.S. commitment in Asia Pacific is essential. "It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so." What Hillary Clinton is missing is that the Marshal Plan and NATO architecture had come up after a great war that had killed millions. The world had sacrificed a lot to establish the US Empire. One doesn’t know if in the internet age the people of Asia will be willing to sacrifice their peace to save the American empire? And sooner rather than later both India and Japan will learn the futility of building Cold War type of barriers once again in the 21st century.

Organ Trade

Cannibalization!

“Namaste”, According to Yoga guru means: I honor the place in you where the entire universe resides; I honor the place in you of love, of light, of truth, of peace.” And when that inner space is violated by greed of the individuals who without any remorse disturb the harmony inside by remorselessly removing the parts like kidney, which constitute the inner being, one is found to feel repugnant. However, equally repugnant is the fact when the inner spirituality is tampered by the dictates of the demand-supply curves, and force us to see human organs as a piece of resource that cannot be allowed to go waste. These are exactly the problems which a Harvard Economist Alvin Roth discusses in his paper, Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets. “Markets by their very nature are indiscriminate, promiscuous and inclined to reduce everything - including human beings, their labor and even their reproductive capacity - to the status of commodities.” Says George Soros, the world-class billionaire financier.
The big question which the economist must begin to ask is, can capitalism be allowed to slump to such levels of moral bankruptcy, that the poverty stricken individuals should sustain the lives of the rich by selling their body parts. It would indeed be an ultimate defeat of the markets, if any attempt is made to regulate (a euphemism for legalize) organ transplants so that, Paul can keeping paying Peter through marketisation of his body parts.

Civil Service Reforms-India

Published in B&E

The strange case of mr. patil and the hen

Politicised; pliant & pressurised is what the political class has reduced the civil servants to. Killing the very spirit and purpose of service, the government is hell bent on making good governance an ever elusive goal.

“The civil service should be accountable, effective and transparent in its functioning. It should be proactive and produce results.” What we need is a “fair, just and equitable” system of governance. These prophetic words belong to none other than our reformist Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who in his initial (after taking over as the PM in 2004) rush to change the system had made bold statements. Three years hence all we can say is, it was mere rhetoric; a humbug. Like all politicians, Manmohan Singh too got embroiled in the political mess, with no time to for definitive policy making. The result is, today, we have unnecessary & avoidable controversies pertaining to lack of transparency in filling the high profile posts in the government. If only the PM had persevered, we would not have seen Kiran Bedi washing her dirty linen on television channels. Earlier, another woman in MEA, Veena Sikri was overlooked for the post of Foreign Secretary, Chokila Iyer who finally managed to get the highest post in MEA had to go through a series of struggles. All these examples may make us wonder if gender is the major criterion for the government to fill high profile jobs. However, a closer scrutiny of the system reveals that womanhood is certainly not the sole reason, why Kiran Bedi has been denied the top-cop post in the national capital. The malaise runs far deeper & therefore, cannot be ascribed to one single reason alone.

The rather sick Indian bureaucracy has plunged itself into an unfathomable pit of unholy nepotism, favouritism & corruption, reducing itself to being the midwives of politicians. Adding punch to the negative assertions about civil services and their impact on the armed forces, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Raj Kadyan told B&E, “A bureaucrat in the Ministry of Defence asked me to pay up Rs.5 lakhs, for an assured promotion to Army Commanders’ post. The General added finally “everything boils down to demand & supply. The top posts are very few & the queue is too long. Those who have the power to decide these appointments exploit this demand-supply gap to their advantage & showcase their power and reach.”The bureaucracy is so deeply embedded in a nexus with the politicians that they have simply forgotten the very purpose of the profession. This fact is corroborated even by the politicians from time to time. Former Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma had remarked “We have a highly flawed system of management of administration.... Our administration, including the police force, has got significantly politicised.” The politicians cannot pass the buck, because it is they who are required to reform the system and create healthy work environment for the civil servants. That the political class has totally failed to provide a congenial workspace culture is proven by the fact that grievances within the services is at an all time high. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT-which deals with the grievances of government employees) has 24,585 cases pending as of June 2006. Although the CAT since its inception in 1985 has been maintaining a case disposal rate of almost 90%, but the fact that these cases are on the rise, shows that somewhere down the line the administrative reform process which the government claims to be pursuing for last so many decades have failed to produce results and provide India with a well-oiled administrative set-up.

The bright, young men & women, who are fortunate enough to enter the corridors of power, are not born corrupt. They are neither traitors, deliberately intending to harm the nation through their misdemeanours. The question is – who converts these talented civil services rookies into crooks of highest order? What lures the civil servants to debase their values system and become subservient to the dictates of the political class? Majority would say that it the system which induces the fear in their minds – the fear of being left behind in the rat race – the paranoia related to being posted to the remote corners of the country, where their families will have to bear hardships. It is these small fears which lead them to abandon their dignity at the altar of power & pelf. Therefore, instead of choosing the harder right, they conveniently opt for the easier wrong. The harder right of course relates to serving the country and its people at large. The easier wrong under which majority of the bureaucracy takes refuge is – in a democracy they serve the nation by genuflecting in front of the elected representatives of the people. Therefore, they are doing no harm by following the illegitimate dictates of their masters. It is this very thought process, which makes aspiring professionals into diminished; pliant individuals, incapable of rendering selfless service to the nation.However, there are a few officers who uphold the principles & values and refuse to compromise with the system. But such ramrod straight individuals earn the wrath of their seniors as well the politicians & end up being superseded. This dejected lot leaves behind a trail of discontent, which not only displays the rot in the system but also adversely affects the overall performance of the service machinery. Noted bureaucrat and former Chairman, Central Vigilance Commission (CVG) N. Vittal, told B&E that the government’s skewed policy “doesn’t adequately reward achievers & punish the non-performers. As the Peter Principle states that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence, if you don’t take adequate measures to stem this tide through proper policy of rewards and punishment all you get is a cipher.” There is absolutely no reason to dispute the former CVG’s assertions, because the motivational plans for the civil servants are simply based on patronage system. The ‘time-scale’ promotion system dovetailed with ‘security of tenure’ adds a sense of complacency among the bureaucrats, thus making them less accountable to the system and prone to corruption.
The entire country understands the ills plaguing the system. The sham & vain efforts of the government to reform the system have produced zero results, aggravating the situation ‘beyond economic repair’ and mercilessly killing the very essence of nationhood & people’s faith in the state.

Mumbai Riots 1992

Published in B&E

1992 MUTINY!

There is a growing clamour in India to punish those guilty of the 1992-93 riots that victimised the Muslim community. But unlike those accused of the bomb blasts, will the guilty here be brought to book?

In an atmosphere of communal polarisation, what does one expect from the police? The guardians of ‘public good’ are expected to be non-partisan; diligently douse the fires of bigotry & display compassion for the victims. And what happens when the police fails to meet these constitutional & of course, the moral obligations? In short-term, such a behaviour flares up the passions, leading to gruesome atrocities against the community failing to find favours with the protectors. In the long-run, the social fabric of the nation suffers an irreparable dent. This heinous crime was committed by the Mumbai police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, where the Muslim community was systematically allowed to be butchered at the behest of saffron-clad politicians. Recollecting the police apathy & insensitivity during the riots, Prabhat Sharan, Senior Editor, The Free Press Journal told B&E, “I & a colleague of mine was sitting with a high ranking police officer & we heard police personnel on the wireless jocularly stating, Mandir Wahin Baneyenge and Udhar Landiya (a derogatory term for Muslim) ko marne ki report hai, zara dekh lo. The police officer did not know what to say he just sheepishly grinned.” The evidence of this, rather obnoxious behaviour of the Mumbai police is adequately documented in the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission report on Mumbai riots of 1992-93. These facts have recently been corroborated by a leading television news channel in India, which has released the wireless messages of the policemen, exposing them as accomplices in the brutalization during that period. Explaining the police behaviour Prabhat Sharan added “We cannot say the entire police force is communalised but then a section of it does carry the germ of hatred towards Muslims in their bosoms.” Now, if a section of the police force only carries the germ, it leads us infer that Mumbai police has been deeply infiltrated by communal elements belonging to the majority community & it is this section of the Mumbai police, which acted at the behest of their political masters instead of following the lawful command of their senior officers. And if this is true, then what happened in 1992-93, surely constitutes a mutiny in the police force.

“They neither obeyed nor did they disobey; they did what they felt and most of them were either polarised or scared to even approach any mob.” Prakash Deshmukh, Senior Journalist, Sakal & an eye witness to the riots told B&E.Those who argue that it was neither a mutiny nor a larger conspiracy reason that since the entire society was communally polarised preceding the demolition of the Babri Masjid & thereafter, a few policemen also got infected. Such an argument supports the view, that an aberration, for a few policemen to get infected with communal virus was a natural phenomenon. Outrightly refusing to categorise Mumbai police actions either in terms of mutiny or aberration, a noted lawyer & Counsel for a group of the victims in the Shri Krishna Commision, Niloufer Bhagwat told B&E, that “If it were a mutiny, one would have seen summary trial being carried out against the constables & officials, who disobeyed the constitutional command, but nothing of this sort has happened. The fact is that no tangible commands to help the victims emanated from the top. It was a larger conspiracy played out at the highest levels to divide the country to manage the discontent arising out of neo-liberal shift the economy was making in the 1990s.” Without drawing a macro-picture of the causes & effects of the neo-liberal agenda, one can say that riots were a systematic act of crime against a particular community. The policemen who collaborated with the lumpen element were a part of the plan executed with precision by political elements. The policemen who participated in the genocide did not get infected after the riots had broken out; they were in fact, already suffering from the communal cancer which had infiltrated their nerve centre much before the riots. That the infiltrated policemen were only used by the political class at that juncture to execute their well laid out plan is the moot point. Therefore, to deny this fact tantamounts to burying ones head like an ostrich to the reality that what happened in Mumbai in 1992-93 was nothing short of a mutiny.

The communal elements in the police force disregarded their constitutional & professional duty; switched over their loyalties to openly ally themselves with the political agenda of a particular hue. And if this does not constitute a revolt within, then we certainly need to redefine the word ‘mutiny’. Moreover, one need to appreciate that communal passions were being raised in the society for years preceding the riots. Did the police officials in Mumbai & the administration system in the country take any concrete measures to stop this virus from seeping into minds of their men? What programmes did the higher police management team launch to ensure the integrity of their rank & file is preserved during tough times? What did the police intelligence networks do to identify & weed out the politicized elements within their force? Search for the answers to these questions and all you will receive is a stoic silence from those who consider themselves to be professionals. By letting politics make inroads within the police structures, all that the police personnel have done is to fracture the state monopoly over organised violence. And no doubt it is because of this enfeebled monopoly that communal carnages continue to engulf our nation at repeated intervals.

Indo-US nuclear Deal

Published in B&E

1. 2.. 3... twist!

Is India all set to sell out its strategic interests to meet the growing demands made by Uncle Sam?!

Nine years ago, on May 11 and 13, India had marked its arrival on the global strategic landscape with five underground tests at the Pokhran nuclear range. The event was hailed as the triumph of Indian nationalism over the non-proliferation diktats imposed by the global nuclear club (USA, UK, China, France and Russia). Shakti ‘98 (name of the operation) was celebrated as the reassertion of India’s independent decision-making ability in a largely unipolar world. Although, the pre-test preparations were carried out under total secrecy and the execution was clandestinely conducted, the post-test announcements to the world were loud and clear. The Indian public was empathically informed by administration that the nuclear tests were carried out by effectively evading the US satellites and hoodwinking the CIA. However, the euphoria was short-lived, Pakistan conducted almost similar test on 15 May, albeit with a tacit understanding with the United States. The important question, which the chain of events leading to the nuclear test in 1998 and the subsequent attempts by the US administration to “cap or roll back” the Indian nuclear ambition leads to, was the US administration really caught napping on 11 May 1998? Or was it a deliberate attempt by the US to turn a blind eye to the Indian nuclear escapades and offer it a loose rope to hang with. Scores of SIGINT (signal intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence) sources feed the US administration, especially on the nuclear proliferation; this makes it hard to swallow that the US was unaware of the Indian nuclear blasts. Even if we agree that the US intelligence networks were prevented from reading the Indian designs, how does one explain the post-Pokhran US behaviour vis-à-vis the Indian dreams?

Immediately, after the blasts, the US imposed sanctions on India, which were gradually eased in the beginning of the 21st century. This strategy was buttressed by catapulting India to a status of global power and thus appealing and appeasing the Indian elite. The whole drama about India as the future ‘super power’ culminated with, July 18, 2005, civilian nuclear agreement between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Without reading between the lines, the so-called doyens of Indian strategic community began to shout out that India has been granted the status of a ‘nuclear weapon state’. Although the left-liberals and the concerned scientific community did raise hackles about the actual US intentions, but their voice was drowned in the din. The net result is that two years after the July 18 agreement; the Hyde Act & numerous bilateral talks, India is slowly, but gradually, beginning to comprehend the true US government’s intentions to lure into a deal which primarily intends to put a lid over India’s strategic options, limiting its ability to conduct further nuclear tests. As the growing opposition within the US about approving India’s entry into the exulted nuclear club gains momentum, a feeling of being cheated is beginning to dawn upon the Indian decision-makers. That after 9 years of the carrying out nuclear blasts, India is yet to have in place a ‘credible nuclear deterrent’; develop a viable command & control infrastructure; suggests that India is a reluctant nuclear power, lacking the will to occupy the nuclear high table. Despite these glaring indicators, Project Director Pokharn II and former Director of IDSA, K. Santhanam, is still sanguine about the prospects of India’s nuclear weapons programme, while talking to B&E, he opined “All is not that bad on the nuclear weaponisation front. We are moving gradually, but definitively on fitting the nuclear warheads on our missiles and this would be achieved sooner rather than later.” This probably makes him more confident about the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, he adds that ‘one need not be unduly perturbed of the concerns about giving US the leverage over our reactors.” But don’t we have enough reasons to be concerned when Henry Sokolski, Head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre, a Washington think tank, devoted to nuclear issues says that, “The Indians are being greedy.” “All that India is asking is, the prerogative of determining the future nuclear tests should rest with New Delhi. The 123 bilateral agreement should not incorporate a clause forcing India to make a de jure commitment to keep away from testing.” said, Dr. Kalyan Raman, member of the Indian delegation at Carnegie Endowment Forum for global issues, while talking to B&E. Agreeing to the US wishes on ‘testing’ would tantamount to signing the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) without being a party to it. All along, India has been opposed to joining the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and CTBT, on the grounds that these treaties encourage “nuclear apartheid” and are primarily designed to preserve the nuclear inequity in the world. Coming to a bi-lateral understanding with the US on this particular issue is bound to harm India’s strategic interest in the long-run.Another contentious issue in the proposed 123 deal relates to the civilian nuclear energy aspect. Those who are favouring the deal, argue that energising our nuclear reactors through a continuous supply of enriched uranium from the US will help us diversify our energy resources & enable us to get the latest nuclear technology. What these shenanigans are forgetting is that nuclear energy provides less than 2% (perhaps, the 123 deal may help this figure to rise unto 7%) of the energy requirements of the country. But what if the US chokes the supply lines? The moot is, does India agree to be a vassal state of the US empire? Are we ready to genuflect in front of Bush and his team? If the Indian government were to sign the 123 Agreement without retaining the right to keep its strategic options open, it will be the greatest betrayal in the history of independent India. If after 60 years of independence we still lack courage to stand up for our rights as a sovereign nation, then we definitely don’t deserve to dream big & play a crucial role in world affairs.

Indian Railways

published in B&E

Does Laloo really deserve all the accolades for engineering a ‘turn around’ of railways? Are the surplus figures quoted in his budget speech the true reflection of the progress achieved?

“A few years back, Laloo used to shout at the top of his voice that he will not allow the privatisation of Railways – same Laloo Prasad Yadav is now the chief proponent of outsourcing even the core functions of railways,” says Gopal Krishna, a trade union leader with Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in a conversation with B&E. “And all this talk about outsourcing & PPP (public-private partnership) is a euphemism for privatisation,” the union leader critically added. One may agree or disagree with the CITU leader, however, what one cannot deny is that PPP is the new mantra of Indian Railways (IR), being chanted with great devotion & fervour. Yes, over the past few years, a discernable shift in the IR mindset has become apparent. A fertile ground is being diligently laid to transform the behemoth into a dynamic & agile organisation, capable of optimally utilising its assets to enhance profits. Now, the big question is: does this new found love to increase private participation in IR affairs, clash with its social objectives? “It is not correct to view IR as just a corporate body or having corporate functions. It is a part of social fabric of the country, having a far greater role than just meeting economic needs of the country,” Y. P. Anand, former Chairman, Railway Board told B&E. But how does an organisation meet its social obligations, if it continues to operate in the red for years on end? With operation ratio plummeting from 82.6 % in 1994-95 to 98% in 2001 & with staff pensions & salaries accounting for 44% of the total revenues earned in 2004-05, IR was indeed mired in a mess towards the beginning of the 21st century. It was in no position to honour its commitment to pay dividends to the government. A pall of gloom had spread along the 64,000 kms railway networks & 7,000 stations across the nation. It is perhaps these dark hovering clouds of bankruptcy, which led the government appointed Rakesh Mohan Committee to recommend massive ‘structural changes’ for IR, suggesting privatisation as the panacea for the ailing gargantuan.

“Rakesh Mohan would see the issue purely through liberal economist’s view while Indian Railways is a body which is representative of Indian population,” added Y. P. Anand. Since the very word ‘privatisation’ was not considered to be politically correct, the report was obviously put on the back-burner – a via media was sought to turn things around in the IR – chaperon in the private actors, desperately seeking to enjoy a share of pie in this rather large organisation- accounts for 2.3% of its GDP and owns roughly 45,000 hectares of idle land. And what followed this decision to drop privatisation & introduce PPP, is now history. A big media campaign was launched hailing the Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav as the messiah, who through his sheer management skills, had turned around an almost bankrupt public sector enterprise into a profit earning corporation. (In 2007-08 budget, IR generated a surplus of $4.5 billion or Rs.200 billion on revenue of $16 billion. Astonishingly, the revenue & surplus targets for 2007-08 stands at whopping $ 18 billion & $5 billion respectively.) However, Laloo’s tryst with surpluses seems to nearing an end. The recent media reports & Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s indictment of the IR’s accounting procedures have revealed that at least Rs.26.89 billion (roughly 13%) have been reflected in the 2006-07 surplus figures not because of any increase in the business, but primarily because of altered accounting policy adopted by IR. Had this 13% not been added the ‘surplus’ figures would have been much closer to what was achieved during the 2005-06 period. And this would certainly have prevented Laloo from receiving accolades from top B-schools across the globe. The question is: did Laloo encourage fudging of figures or was he assisted by the MNCs to pave the way for private entry? Private players too should be held responsible because the IR ‘turn around’ is being celebrated as the victor of PPP. Needless to add that in any partnership both the brickbats & the accolades must be equally shared.

It is a widely known, since Independence, scores of IR functions have been performed by contractors, then why this clamour about private participation now? “IR have a natural monopoly over rail sector in India. The private sector is not enthusiastic in venturing into rail industry.” Anwarul Hoda, member, Planning Commission, told B&E. Endorsing the view, N. M. Balasubrahmanyam, Secretary General, Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport, told B&E. “A lot of investment is needed by a company, which requires a good return, as good a return as in other industries. Hence, privatisation isn’t likely to take off in a big way in India,” Not withstanding the comments, the fact is that both the MNCs and the domestic private players are queuing up to grab the IR contracts both in core & non-core sectors. As opposed to the innocuous contractors’ of the yesteryears’– the fear about the present day private contractors results from the enormity of contracts (see box – IR is seeking investment to the tune of Rs.3,500 billion, in 11th Five Year Plan).Only fools would oppose improvement in financial viability & health of an organisation & therefore, its capacity to meet its social responsibility. But if the process of improving the bottomline is undertaken in a dubious manner; paying scant regard to the long-term sustainability of the reform process, credibility of the participating actors takes a nosedive. Then, whether you name the process as privatisation, PPP or simply an effort for public good, it is bound to be opposed tooth & nail by the public.

NUCLEAR POLICY: UNITED KINGDOM

Published in B&E

1000 reasons for......and against the British government’s nuclear plans

The Brown government in UK is being vigorously confronted by the Greens over the nuclear power issue. The environmental group had recently pulled out of the government sponsored consultations with the public on the issue. The recently concluded London survey, involving 1000 representatives of the British population has revealed that 46% support the use of nuclear power & about 25% disapprove of the government’s plans to revive and renew the nuclear energy resources. However, despite the support extended for the nuclear energy, 92% of the Londoners’ have expressed their concern against the disposal of nuclear waste likely to be generated by reactors.The environment lobby (consisting of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance and a few others) is dissatisfied with the government’s consultation exercise. John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace, told B&E that the entire process is a “farce”, & “public relations stitch-up” by the government. Earlier in February, the London High Court had declared the first round of consultation process conducted by the government to be “seriously flawed” & “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. This time again the Greens opposed to the setting up new nuclear power stations and are contemplating moving the Courts against the government plan.The government’s defence in favour of revitalising nuclear power is based on national energy security concerns. The British, who had built their first nuclear reactor in 1956 have a total of 19 reactors – the last one began operations in 1995. All the reactors barring one are likely to complete their life-cycle & decommissioned by 2023. Roughly 18% of the British electrify needs are met by nuclear power. Gas & coal supply 37% & 34 % of the power respectively. Now, according to the government, if the decision to set up new nuclear plants is delayed further, its dependence on fossil fuels will worsen by the day. The other line of defence, which the Brown administration is adopting is that nuclear energy is essential to meet the carbon emission norms laid down by the EU. “Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891,” says the London-based reputed environmentalist Gorge Monbiot.
Besides the government, the other party interested in seeing the revival of nuclear power is of course the corporations like Areva NP, EDF, British Energy, E.On, Iberdrola, RWE npower & Suez, who after the release of Energy policy in 2007 (granting access to private players in nuclear reactors field) have been getting seriously involved in the process. The Greenpeace and other groups however, feel that instead of going atomic, the government needs to invest more in renewable energy, in order to achieve 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.The arguments put forth by all the parties are right. If nuclear waste & safety are a threat to environment, then the depleting fossil fuels too is a reality. The issue needs to be decided squarely & fairly in people’s court and for that the British government will have to involve the majority population rather than merely a set of 1000 people.