Do we need to increase Nuclear Power Production?

The Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is visiting India between Dec 11-13^th, 2015 & a nuclear deal perhaps is in the offing. The former Economic Affairs Secretary, GOI, EAS Sarma, has argued against the deal reminding all the 99, well documented, potential  nuclear disasters & the 3 known ones: Three Mile  Island, US, in 1979, Chernobyl , Soviet Union, in 1986 & Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. He avers that when the Paris conference is underway & the voice of “green energy” & “Negawatts” (saved Megawatts) has reached a crescendo, opting for nuclear energy is preposterous. With safety in doubt & costs exorbitant, not to talk of the pain of the displaced families from the proposed plant sites, his is a rational argument against the deal that is reproduced below.

http://scroll.in/article/773920/nuclear-power-is-unsafe-and-too-costly-for-india-ex-power-secretary-eas-sarma-tells-modi-japans-abe

That begs the question: Do we need nuclear power?

As per Ministry of Statistics & Program implementation (MOSPI), India has an installed capacity of 2.84 lakh MW as on Mar 2014 of which thermal contributes 70.25%, hydro 14.24%, non-utilities 13.83% & nuclear energy 1.68%; while the installed nuclear power is 5780MW of which 1000MW is under commissioning, an additional 2800 MW is under construction.  

India has placed 22 nuclear plants under the supervision of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) as mandated under the Indo- US nuclear deal signed in 2009. Post the nuclear testing in 1998, India suffered sanctions that led to most of its plants running at less than its capacity because of shortage of fuel & this deal was meant to rectify the same. This was also meant to allow for installation of additional nuclear plants to provide clean energy to over 300 million people who still do not have access to electricity. But is nuclear the only route to alleviate the lives of people living in darkness?

Solar power was very costly in 2009 which is not the case now. An article in the Economic Times on Mar 17, 2014 states that conventional power is procured for under Rs 5/- per unit while solar power costs have dropped from Rs 17/- in 2010 to Rs 6.5/- when Himgiri Energy ventures agreed to supply at the said rate to the MP state grid; wind power has already acquired grid parity pricing & solar would achieve the same soon.

India has planned 175GW of renewable power by 2022 of which about 100GW is likely to be solar; this is against the installed capacity of 5GW by 2016, of which 2GW has come during the last 1 year. India has also launched the International Solar Alliance of over 120 countries at the COP 21 Paris climate summit, in Nov 2015. Both these initiatives shall drive economics of scale in solar, helping costs of solar drop below thermal & nuclear shortly making solar the preferred option.  Therefore, nuclear power is ruled out on the “cost criteria” for it would inflict a heavy burden on the consumers. Off course, questions on safety of nuclear power plants still persist & agitations of the “Kudankulam” kind would perhaps be seen wherever new plants are proposed.

Previous nuclear disasters were forgotten & it was widely assumed that safety has been restored through scientific innovation & IAEA regulation till Fukushima burst the dream in 2011. Most of the Western countries are therefore re-evaluating their energy policies. France whose energy requirements were once fulfilled to the extent of 75% by nuclear power has already started progressively shutting many of its nuclear plants.  Germany, another of the larger nuclear powers, had 22100 MW of installed capacity in the year 2000 which it has progressively reduced & plans to further reduce it to 4285MW by 2022. The engineering powerhouse that Germany is, they are now honing their skills on the technology behind dismantling of nuclear plants which they perceive as a lucrative potential business opportunity worldwide.  Incidentally, the costs of dismantling are higher than the costs of installation; as an example, the nuclear plant at Stade built in 1972 at a cost of 150 million euros, required about 1 billion euros to dismantle, after 31 years of operation.  The evidence piling up raises the big question: Why should India go against an international trend?

India is keen to secure uranium supplies for existing plants to sweat existing assets which makes a rational economic logic. However, that requires the membership of the 48 member NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group); surely countries facilitating such an entry would demand their pound of flesh which in this case is a favourable supplier deal to its local nuclear industry. Areva from France, GE & Westinghouse from US & Toshiba, Japan Steel Works & Hitachi from Japan are the most important contenders for supplying nuclear hardware; Russia too is keen to have a share of the pie. Therefore, while "safety" & "cost" criterions should ideally cross out additional incremental nuclear power as an option, it is a “necessary evil” & some compromise is, perhaps, necessary to keep friendly nations in good humour, to achieve our long term diplomatic goals. India therefore plans to only triple the nuclear capacity to 14600 MW by 2024; that would form a miniscule percentage of its total installed power capacity.

The other sane alternative - without increasing installed nuclear capacity - would have been to increase domestic production of uranium – through MOU with countries that have expertise or exploit further our known reserves of thorium & the unique nuclear fuel cycle that our scientists have championed; while the former is being attempted - though not with much gusto - the surprisingly weak policy push on the latter is often bewildering.

Conclusion

If India only triples its capacity to 14600MW then the blended cost of power in India would not be adversely affected thereby nullifying the “costly” logic. Nuclear equipment deals with companies in US, France, Japan, Russia et al perhaps are a quid pro quo for getting  the much needed nuclear fuel to help our existing plants run at full capacity; perhaps, some compromise & sacrifice is a good bargain.

Prohibition in Bihar: Policy Consequences

Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, honoured his electoral pledge by announcing implementation of Prohibition from April 2016. Nitish’s popularity amongst women voters was attributed, partially,  to his “cycle scheme” for school going girls & the prohibition pledge further strengthened his connect, with his core constituency, helping him win a landslide win in the last state elections.  Politically astute Nitish, smarting under the criticism of kowtowing to the whims of Lalu Yadav, has tried to redeem himself partially by announcing the implementation of this promise. Though his announcement was greeted enthusiastically, the economic consequences of such decisions are usually disastrous.

Back of the envelope calculations reveal that prohibition shall lead to a revenue loss of about 3650 crores for Bihar, immediately effecting social welfare spends. It will be interesting to watch how a fine administrator like Nitish would balance the move without inviting a backlash that could be counterproductive in the medium term where he fancies himself as the next PM candidate in the 2019 elections. To further that ambition, expect the Bihar govt. to demand support from the already stressed centre which is unlikely to be agreed to, effecting centre-state relations.  Such a polarisation would help Nitish though. It is reasonable to also expect a political slugfest with Nitish demanding that Modi fulfil his electoral promise of transferring 1.25lakh crore to Bihar apart from the earlier announced 0.4 lakh crore; off course the demand to grant “special status” would still persist.

Prohibition, just like the production quotas during the license quota raj, prior to 1991, is meant to fail.  History is replete with instances where many states, like AP, TN, Haryana & Mizoram attempted prohibition, failed & eventually were forced to retract their decisions.  There are some notable exceptions though: Lakshadweep, Gujarat, Nagaland, & parts of  Manipur; the NE states have been successful because of an extremely active civil society along with religious heads supporting the measure. Anna Hazare has been able to make Ralegan Siddhi, in Maharashtra,  liquor free by persuading villagers take a resolution in a temple – for greater moral sanction  - with deviants inviting public flogging. While some retailers selling liquor closed down voluntarily, those who resisted were attacked by a youth organization, “Tarun Mandal”, which was effectively the executor of the decision. Gujarat, though, technically remains a "dry state" since its inception in 1960, although bootleggers, there, have a field day.   

A loophole in the law that was meant to protect tourism allows foreigners & NRIs with permits to hold liquor;  likewise, patients can ingest the brew under supervision but these allowances are widely misused. Separate rules that apply for SEZs are taken advantage of. Since Army & the paramilitary forces do not come under the ambit of state laws, "contacts" can get you the booty. 5 litres of alcochol is allowed on checked in baggage on domestic flights which is used widely to sneak in the mix.

Prohibition, therefore, fails because revenues that should ideally accrue to the states are usurped by a new category of intermediaries. Shortage of any commodity encourages smuggling since demand creates its own “innovative” supply lines. Supernormal profits, attracts unsavoury elements who vitiate the law & order apparatus; worse still the latter along with the political bosses get co-opted. It is this clique that has most to lose if prohibition is revoked & hence acts as a pressure group to prevent the retraction of this uneconomic measure. Vigilantism & the consequent trampling of civil rights is the other dreaded consequence.

The only way to reduce alcohol consumption is to attack the demand side of the activity & not the supply side which is what prohibition attempts. If prohibition does indeed force drinkers to dunk the practice because of induced scarcity it could still be attempted. However, consumer behaviour studies show that people do not stop drinking because of the imposition of prohibition but explore innovative ways to circumvent the law. When prohibition was implemented in AP, they travelled to neighbouring Yanam, Pondicherry & a similar behaviour is being now seen in Kerala; this has the potential of transferring one state's revenue to a neighbouring one. Extending the same logic, tipplers would pay black-marketers, more, depleting family savings further, perhaps, with a further increase in domestic violence. This goes against the basic premise of implementing prohibition: More family savings & hence better life. 

The ill effects do not end there.  Liquor smuggled through tubes or in wind shield wiper tanks or other unhygienic containers has the unintended consequence of inducing long term pain. Increase in the sale of hooch, toddy et al, mixed with inedible substances, are known to accelerate liver damage. There have been many recorded instances of spurious liquor vends doling out poison leading to the death of the chief wage earner (CWE) of the family. Therefore, prohibition forces revenue loss for the state immediately & substantially higher health care costs in the long run. Farmers who produce grains or sugarcane - whose byproduct molasses is used for making liquor - are also effected by such bans. When production is banned, employment opportunities in manufacturing are adversely effected. This makes it an uneconomic public policy alternative.

It must however be agreed that that alcohol consumption has many deleterious consequences & has to be tackled, as ordained, through article 47 of the Directive Principles of State policy, of our constitution. Indians are known to binge & not consume liquor in moderation, complicating the options for public policy makers. While "sin tax" is the oft used measure, it has to be supplemented with education propaganda, reduction of liquour selling outlets, non allowance of outlets beside residential colonies, schools et al, starting counselling & deaddiction centres & banning surrogate advertising Prohibition is not the answer for it helps neither the government nor the citizens, including the drinkers' family

Is India Intolerant?

Aamir Khan the brand ambassador of ‘Incredible India” & “Attithi Devo Bhava”  was trolled on social media for speaking his mind on an “Intolerant India” & revealing his wife, Kiran Rao’s poser: Should we leave India for the sake of our child? Aamir is within his rights to express his views just as critics on the other side are in deciding not to view his next movie “Dangal”, to prove that it was only the tolerance of the majority Hindus of this country that has made him a superstar; withdrawal of that patronage would drop him from both the 300 crore collection & superstar clubs, they aver. Staying away from a movie screening is a legitimate form of protest but violence, preventing others from viewing pleasure,is not & the occurrence of the latter should be seen as nothing more than a “law & order” problem by state authorities & action should be initiated accordingly.

The BJP spokespersons claim that while Mohammed Yusuf Khan & Mahjabeen Bano had to rechristen themselves as Dilip Kumar & Meena Kumari respectively, hiding their Muslim ancestry, to gain cinematic acceptance, the 3 superstars, today, of Indian Cinema – the Khans - were not required to replicate the same practice, which is a reflection of Indian tolerance or more so majoritarian Hindu tolerance. They are not wrong since both the aforementioned superstars of yesteryears also had to marry from within their own religion – while another Hindu superstar, Raj Kapoor, could not marry outside, perhaps out of compulsion & not out of choice; contrast that with 2 of our current superstars, who have married Hindus - the other remaining the eternal most eligible bachelor - out of choice, exemplifying greater assimilation amongst religious communities & enhanced amity.  Perhaps, one would have bought that BJP's logic had the campaign of “Love Jihad” not showcased Kareena Kapoor & Saif Ali Khan as an example to whip up passions. Kiran Rao might not have felt quite as frightened had “Love Jihad” not been followed up by other vitriolic campaigns like the “beef ban”, leading to the Dadri lynching of a Muslim youth; combine that with the lingering memory of a Muslim youth, in Mumbai, killed last year, for sporting a skull cap that revealed his religious identity & she must have experienced Goosebumps. Any mother would be protective of her son – who in this case would be seen as a Muslim - & Kiran is no different. The shrill rhetoric of “Go to Pakistan” by Giriraj Kishore or other deplorable statements made by Yogi Adityanath & Sakshi Maharaj & no efforts made to rein them in, does not bestow confidence even to the moderates in the country to hold forth, on a bold stance, that incidents such as those are only coincidental & not courtesy the new govt. sworn in 16 months ago.

While the BJP has much to answer for, the parties that have arrogated to themselves the exalted status of “moral messiahs” are not unscathed either. The Congress  Party stands accused for the excesses committed during the dark days of  emergency & the 1984 Sikh massacre while the SP was an equal partner in crime during the Muzzafarnagar riots; the TMC is indulging in eliminating the cadre of the CPM displaying “Political intolerance” which the CPM exhibited in good measure when in power. The abject silence on the fate of the Kashmiri Pandits when they were cruelly thrown out of their native land to become refugees in their own country does not inspire confidence  in the "secular" opposition. Therefore, none from either the Left, Right or Centre are un-smeared. 2 wrongs do not make a right though & therefore the debate should continue in all earnestness.

Rahul Pandita, a journalist cum novelist, generally seen as right leaning, currently at Yale, says that he too is frightened since a contrarian view expressed invites trolling, being smeared with black ink or inflicted with violence. While it is easy to dump Arun Shourie or Narayan Murty’s recent criticism on the pervading environment of "intolerance", claiming that the former is smarting post denial of a berth in the cabinet while the latter was generally seen as closer to the Congress, the statements of Bharat Ratna CNR Rao or the President Pranab Mukherjee, both of whom are meant to be apolitical, should make people sit up & take notice. At least lend them your ears.

The right wing rubbishes the opposing strands of opinion arguing that Dadri happened in UP & the murders of rationalist, Kalburgi, happened in Karnataka, both being opposition ruled states; the murder of Pansare happened when Maharashtra was ruled by the Congress & hence they argue that rather than blame the BJP, it is the concerned state govt. that need to be chastised for failing to  in their constitutional mandate to maintain law & order. Solid argument, it definitely is, but for the fact that despite the change in govt., at Maharashtra’s Mantralaya, we are yet to see Pansare’s murders being brought to book. Taking the logic further, the bail approvals for Maya Kodnani, indicted by the courts in the 2002 riots case, or the generous reprieve granted to DG Vanzara, the infamous police officer of the Gujarat cadre, does not inspire confidence.

The intolerance debate is currently not restricted to the religious or the political  but is making its way into art too. Cinematic freedom, the right wing argues, does not mean poking fun at other religions while being non satirical on one’s own.  Had Charlie Hebdo caricatured the Prophet & the Pope would a sense of proportion been achieved in the aggrieved minds? Would it lead to a balance between “freedom of religion” & “freedom of expression” leading to greater social harmony? If Aamir was liberal in lampooning Hindu religious practices in “PK” would he be equally enthusiastic is doing so against Islamic practices? Would be keep quiet thinking that a fatwa that had befallen Salman Rushdie would welcome him too or would he follow in the footsteps of Javed Akhtar or Tarek Fatah & condemn extremist practices in his religion & work towards a genuine religious reform?

MF Hussain faced a barrage of criticism for his nude Saraswati images many years after he painted them & was forced to die in a foreign land; hope Aamir does not meet the same fate. We would lose a fine actor then!!

Happy To Bleed

The intention of the Sabarimala Board to install machines, to prevent menstruating women from entering the temple, to maintain its chaste traditions, has invited derision on social media. The consequence:   “Happy To Bleed” campaign posts on Facebook & debate on the India Today TV channel.

Hinduism has seen a plethora of reform movements; though shunned initially, were ultimately accepted since Hinduism promotes a philosophy that encourages a contrarian view to ensure that only the best emerges post a debate. Many monotheistic religions see the polytheistic Hinduism as heretic, forgetting that the very option to pray to one or multiple gods is “democratic” that allows for debate & reform. The Bhakti movement started in the 7^th century AD & reached its zenith during the 12 -18^th centuries, all in an effort to reform Hinduism. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the founder of the Brahmo Samaj, started his efforts at banning “Sati” – woman’s self-immolation in the funeral pyre of her deceased husband – in 1812 & was successful in getting a law passed, only, in 1829, with the help of Viceroy, William Bentinck.  Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar got the Widow re-marriage Act passed in 1856 after much effort; his campaign FOR women education & AGAINST child marriage & Polygamy were only partially successful though, during his lifetime.  Similarly, Dalits', disdainfully, were not allowed temple entry till Mahatma Gandhi, pushed their cause.  While these 3 reforms were taken up by 3 greats, preventing women from getting excommunicated from the household during the 3 day menstruating period has been successfully achieved by both feminists & “modern” common men which is an encouraging sign. 

Reforms, therefore, should continue & delightfully each of the reform attempted has gained quicker acceptance as compared to the preceding one. “Shock therapy” with religious reform as with an “economic” one might backfire. Reform we must, but only post a nuanced debate & building a consensus.

Rahul Gandhi's "British Citizenship"

Rahul Gandhi's "British" citizenship issue is the buzz this week. While he is shown as an Indian citizen at the time of the company, "Backops'' incorporation, the subsequent annual returns posted, depict him as a "British" citizen stoking a controversy; the company was subsequently dissolved around 2009. Instead of allowing the controversy to crowd out airwaves, the Indian Foreign Minister should communicate with her British counterpart or High Commissioner - as she did in the Lalit Modi issue -& seek an official response, if Rahul did indeed take British citizenship between 2004-06 & subsequently relinquished it; if he did do so, he loses his "moral" right to be the PM of this country. 

Allowing this controversy to fester reminds one of the accusation that besmirched VP Singh in the late '90's - when he was leading the Jan Morcha against the Congress - that his son had an illegal account at St Kitts - a black money haven - which was ultimately proved to be untrue. Clearly, it was an attempt to sully the opposition, which was then engaged in a continuous onslaught on the govt. of the day on Bofors & was seen to be gaining a political advantage which it ultimately did in the elections of 1989. It is important, therefore, that the DTD (Dirty Tricks Department) of either of the parties should not be allowed to have a field day. The country has a right to know if the current accusation is true or untrue & hence communication with the British is important; needless to say anyone indulging in political harakiri should be forced to pay, heavily.

The BJP is right when it questions the Congress' defense of "British" citizenship being a "clerical error"; how can the same error occur twice?. How can Rahul & Sonia Gandhi's educational qualifications, listed in the affidavit, submitted to the Election Commission, before fighting elections be proved false? What is conveniently forgotten, however, is that Smriti Irani made the same mistake & still continues to be a minister. Therefore, none of the top 2 political parties come out unscathed in this controversy, except off-course score some debating points. Hanging a "Damocles sword" on political opponents, to force them to do your bidding, is an old political game.  The Big Question: If political leaders give wrong affidavits either with regard to their educational qualifications or their assets, why is the Election Commission silent & not taking action? Is it a "caged parrot" like the CBI - as the honorable Supreme Court of India once historically averred?

The Unlikelihood Of A War With Pakistan

 There are many in India who are fed up with the incessant nit pricking from Pakistan, driven by their policy to "bleed India through a thousand cuts". India's war record against Pakistan has not been spectacular, despite the outstanding performance of the armed forces, due to a lack of material resources & a political will to force results. The first war in 1948 was across Kashmir, a territory which we still retain though as a festering wound, in need of attention & a solution. The second war in 1965, as per the Indian army's own archives, was a stalemate while the 3rd in 1971,was a thumping victory that dismembered the country into Bangladesh & Pakistan. The result of the 3rd war encourages hawks to imagine the dismemberment of Pakistan again. Kargil intrusion happened in 1999 & Pakistani forces were forced to withdrew due to international pressure. Kargil too saw material shortages, a problem which still persists, indicating that we are yet to learn from history & even if we do, we delay action leading to dis-quietening consequences.

Pakistan's nuclear parity with India prevents the latter from waging a war against the former despite her conventional weapon superiority. China's tilt towards Pakistan is obvious & since India is in no position today to fight on 2 fronts today, war with Pakistan is only in the realm of imagination.Would our allies support us during a crisis? History indicates otherwise.

America & the Soviet Union, busy with the Cuban missile crisis, delayed support to India in 1962 causing us a loss of territory & pride; would the situation be any different today? America denied software codes, for the Patriot missiles even to its closest ally - Israel - during the Gulf crisis, in 1991; surely India cannot expect a different treatment. The latest Indian tilt towards the USA, had an immediate reaction; Russia has started supplying military equipment to Pakistan & hence India cannot count on the traditional Russian support either. The costs of death, destruction, displacement & reconstruction are the other vectors for consideration before taking a call on crossing the borders. Therefore, the hawks who are rooting for a "final battle" with Pakistan have misplaced priorities.

The "Gujral docrrine" , perhaps, ensured the destruction of the Indian Intelligence network in Pakistan in the late 90's. Building the same is time consuming & the statement of the NSA, Ajit Doval, that any Pakistani misadventure on India would be rapid & repaid through the independence of Baluchistan is reflective of the strategic thought process of this govt. Talking Peace with Pakistan - generally rickety because of various power centres, unless there is a dictatorship - should always be the top priority but if it fails application of covert means is the only solution since inaction is not deemed as a sign of "graciousness" but "weakness" as social science theory has already proved. However, "silence" is the golden rule of covert operations unlike the "chest thumping" that we saw on national television after the Indian raid on NSCN (K) camp in Myammar. Diplomacy & covert operations are two pawns to be moved simultaneously on the chessboard of International relations. Since neighbors cannot be chosen, "Peace" should remain the topmost priority always.

Tipu Jayanti: An avoidable Controversy

"Tipu Jayanti" is an unnecessary controversy created by the Congress government in Karnataka. No doubt, Tipu Sultan was a brave monarch & a great strategist - a fact admitted even by his bitter enemies - the British. Equating his "bravery" to "patriotism" for the Mysore state - of which he was the undisputed monarch - is fine but extending this logic to call him a "Indian nationalist & freedom fighter" is not; after all the idea of India is a 20th century phenomena & not an 18th century one when Tipu lived. 

Historians should debate his secular credentials too. The BJP spokesperson GVL Narsimha Rao speaks about the letter written by Tipu to the Nawab of Kurnool on how he subjugated the people of Coorg & got them converted to Islam; the congress spokesperson says that Coorg was captured to provide right of way to the Mangalore port which was of strategic significance. Not sure about the veracity of these events but historians should necessarily debate the secular credentials of Tipu, especially when several Christian organizations too have raised the banner of protest.

Noted historian, RamChandra Guha, put it succinctly that since India has chosen to be a "Republic" - an anathema to "Monarchy" - no Indian state should sponsor birth anniversaries of Monarchs; however private individuals or political parties can have that luxury, perhaps, as a respect to their "fundamental rights"