The Hindu Business Line : The nuclear debate — India should not buckle under pressure

PRESSURE from various quarters seems to be building on India to fall in line with the United States to put India's fast breeder reactors (FBR) under international safeguards — in effect, get trapped into the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, even without actually signing it. At a time when the debate is all about whether or not India should agree to give up its decades-old stand on not putting domestic fuel-fired nuclear power plants under international safeguards in order to buy uranium from abroad, reports have appeared on some Indian news channels on the hazards of mining by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL).

While the timing of the news reports cannot but raise eyebrows, the content appears to be equally intriguing. The UCIL has countered the allegations, pointing out several factual errors in the report. For example, the reports said that the UCIL had given contaminated rocks to villagers for construction of houses. The Corporation has categorically denied ever having done this.

Again, the reports said that the local people use the contaminated water discharged from the `tailings pond', whereas the UCIL has stressed that water from the pond is always monitored for contamination before being discharged into the Sabarnarekha river; in any case, the local people use water only from up the stream. Quite apart from this, some defence analysts think that now is the time for India to escape the frigid zone of nuclear isolation and seize the opportunity to gain access to uranium. One, in fact, suggested that India agree to put the FBRs under safeguards as a "down payment" for joining the "nuclear club". The experts have compared India's reluctance to tow the US line to its initial aversion to globalisation. They have termed the stand taken by the Department of Atomic Energy — that putting FBRs under safeguards would undermine India's strategic interests — as the Department's love for monopoly control over India's nuclear sector. There is no doubt that pressure is building up, which is more the reason that India should not buckle.

The experts' views boil down to one question: `How do the consequences of India agreeing to safeguards as demanded by the US compare with the consequences of not doing so'? The charge that the Department of Atomic Energy wants to retain a monopolistic control over India's nuclear establishment may or may not be true. But it is beside the point.

What does India gain by acceding to the US demand? Access to uranium, for sure. After this point, things are not so clear. What if India gets the uranium from abroad? Would we see the construction of a dozen overseas-uranium-fired nuclear plants from next year?

Not likely, considering that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India already has seven plants under construction and seven or eight more on the anvil. If not the Government of India undertaking, which organisation will put up the new plants... the private sector? Therefore, any plant that uses uranium procured from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group can only be thought of several years from now. Thus, it is surprising to see experts finding fault with the DEA that it has glossed over the fact that the next set of indigenous fast breeder reactors will come up only a decade from now. While that may be true, any access to international uranium is no quicker option either.

Those who support India's concurrence with the demanded safeguards link the issue with rising oil prices. It is patently wrong to do so. India's stance on nuclear civilian and Defence issues has developed over several decades. On the military front, India has taken a clear and consistent stand on non-proliferation, unlike some countries that have signed the NPT but surreptitiously violated its covenants. On the civilian front, after spending thousands of crores of rupees India has acquired the know-how. Now is the time to enjoy the fruits of those efforts. Crude oil prices can be at one level today, quite another tomorrow.

Remember, only eight years ago, oil was selling at $12 a barrel. One should also not forget that there are vast untapped oil reserves in the world — Canada's for example. Oil prices may well slide to $50 a barrel over the next five years. Linking nuclear issues to crude oil would be extremely short-sighted. On the other hand, what are the consequences of India not agreeing to the nuclear safeguards? Would it be incurring the wrath of the US, or inviting isolation? Not likely, considering the growing importance of the Indian economy. The worst that can happen is a few years' delay, if at all, in the nuclear programme. We can live with that.

(Response can be sent to ramesh@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Power

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The nuclear debate — India should not buckle under pressure

The urban mess

Mr Prime Minister, your slip is showing!

`Somehow' management

IIMs: The global (dis)connect?

Doha Round — The challenge beyond Hong Kong

Villagescope — Reviving the rural economy

India-US nuclear deal

Re 1 STD calls

FDI and growth