ne wsyaps.

co m

http://www.newsyaps.co m/why-bho pal-is-a-warning-against-nuclear-po wer/79264/

Why Bhopal is a warning against Nuclear Power

Lo kesh Malti Prakash

December has dawned upon our country amidst quite a f anf are this time. T he khushi ke aansu of the nation in awe of its multi-millionaire entertainer bestowed with Bharat Ratna on the evening he retired were not even dried when the mangal yan lef t earths sphere of inf luence af ter complex scientif ic manoeuvres, including heavenly blessings of Lord Venkateswara in case science let us down. In this excessive adrenalindriven, hyper-erected pride of national achievement, tragic memories of December have little chance to recur in popular imagination. T he popular so f ar as determined by the calculated media-f renzy that shapes and perpetuates its imagery f or over-conspicuous consumption. December 1984, Bhopal there is not much lef t in it to sell any more. But f or the city, every year on this date it is f ace to f ace a bitter moment that never stops haunting it, if not the nation any longer. Yes. December is not just another month of the calendar f or Bhopal. For the city December is a cruel reminder of one of the worst industrial disasters that struck it 29 years back. And worse, it is a reminder of how the Indian state and its institutions colluded to deny justice to Indian people. And this December, when our leaders hobnobbed with the visiting Japanese royalty to push ahead a nuclear deal between the two countries a deal that would give another push to the much touted nuclear renaissance it is relevant to take stock of Bhopals tragedy lest this dreamed renaissance turns into last step to dark ages f or us. It is now a f ull 29 years when an implosion in the pesticide plant of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) leaked into open poisonous gases that included Methyl Isocyanate leading to thousands of deaths and thousands more getting impaired in various degrees. Should we call these deaths and injuries collateral damage? A collateral damage in pursuit of the much vaunted Green revolution of India. Af ter all, the UCC plant was established to produce pesticide necessary to protect the hybrid progeny of green revolution crops that promised hunger-f ree India. An otherwise bloodless revolution so generously pushed by USA and its Fords, Rockef ellers, and the UCCs among others.

Actually, f or Bhopal, December is also a reminder of the serious chasm that had long back f ormed between We, the people and the Indian State that was supposed to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, Republic at a dif f erent moment of its blood-bathed incipience. It was not without reason that the State, in just the second decade of its independence chose US-sponsored green revolution instead of pursuing indigenous and sustainable scientif ic options to tackle the agricultural crises, not to mention the sociopolitical option that the state had wilf ully abdicated altogether. T he green revolution was not Indias requirement. It was the requirement of US f oreign policy and corporations like Union Carbide. T his is the f undamental f act that should be remembered Bhopal was the price that We, the people paid and continue to pay till date to keep corporate prof its rolling at any cost. T his is essential to remember because, unlike what mainstream discourse tends to make us believe, Bhopal today is not merely about the issues of inadequate compensation, bad healthcare and unsaf e water supply in the af termath of any accident, albeit a tragic one. T hese issues are important, but f undamentally Bhopal is about the abject bankruptcy of a development paradigm that risked lif e, human and otherwise, as well as nature in the interest of capital. If the Indian State f ailed to provide compensation, healthcare and saf e water supply or if it f ailed to enf orce liability on criminal corporations f or harming lif e and nature, it is simply because the state chose to discard the ideal of Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, Republic in serving the interests of capital that f avours this mad drive of development.
To wa rds Nucle a r Re na is s a nce o r Da rk Age t he wa rnings o f Bho pa l

T here is a sinister parallel between the reason dtre of the UCCs pesticides plant in Bhopal and nuclear power plants (existing and proposed). T he pesticides plant was necessary f or the green revolution to proceed unabated and nuclear power plants, we are being told, are necessary to produce electricity vital f or maintaining and bolstering the energy revolution the country needs to develop. In the 60s, the agrarian crisis was not merely about low agricultural produce but about low agricultural produce caused by highly inegalitarian agrarian structure. T he green revolution short-circuited the inegalitarian part to boost production. T he result is that agrarian crisis in the countryside persists and f ood availability to poor remains uncertain despite records made in f ood production. T he result is also another crisis shrinking water availability due to high water consumption and pollution of water and soil due to use of chemical f ertilisers and pesticides. T he question that should be asked is why the unsustainable model of capital-intensive green revolution was chosen instead of pursuing land-ref orms and promoting indigenous research f or sustainable f orms of agricultural practices. On the contrary such research was proactively discouraged and disallowed. Similarly, in case of nuclear power, the case being made out of scarcity of electricity is not merely about low production but also, in large measure, about the use of electricity that is produced. Why do we need electricity? Is it to run air-conditioners, malls and host of power-guzzling luxuries on of f er in market f or those with vulgarly deep pockets? Or is it to supply the basic necessities of each and every one of us? And f or supplying the basic needs, shouldnt electricity be produced in ways that do not endanger lif e and nature? And shouldnt it also be ensured that the production and distribution of such electricity does not tend to perpetuate the economic divisions of society by the usual play of sale and purchase? Bhopal could occur because similar questions were ignored. T he questions of what kind of development we are pursuing. A development that benef its a f ew in the short-term and annihilates everybody in the longterm, or a development that enriches human existence while preserving the earth. T his is no more an option, but a compulsory lesson of Bhopal. Earth is already on the path of irreversible ecological damage due to climate change caused by two centuries of development of a f ew!

Bhopal could occur because corporate greed demanded so. T he same greed that runs amok behind suicidal pursuit of nuclear power. What is being touted as pollution-f ree option is more of prof it-making option f or the nuclear industry. Prof its to the tune of thousands of crore rupees will go into pockets of Indian and f oreign corporations in pursuit of nuclear energy. Prof it is a word that people of any third world country like ours (notwithstanding the chandrayan) should especially be wary of . T his single term is powerf ul enough to override every concern of saf ety and security of people and their habitat. T he UCC did not care to maintain the strict saf ety norms at the plant in Bhopal that it enf orced in similar plants in the US. Af ter the deadly implosion on 3rd December 1984, culpability of UCC was deliberately diluted to minimize f inancial liability of UCC. T he responsibility f or polluting soil and water in vicinity of the plant even prior to the implosion was never enf orced on UCC or now the Dow Chemical company (that took over UCC in 2001). Prof it is so scared a term that in 2006 Ratan Tata, in his capacity as the co-chair of USIndia CEO Forum, wrote a letter to Indian government of f ering to setup a trust to clean the Bhopal plant site and urged the government to not sue Dow Chemical Company f or the same. Enf orcing liability could hurt investment environment because unabated prof its at any cost is threatened. It is no wonder that the nuclear lobby wants itself out of the liability radar. Our government could be very happy doing so but f or the slight hiccups of public opinion in an election year. Despite the much touted f oolproof saf ety of the nuclear plants, the industry pre-emptively wants its neck saf e out of any problem. T hey should be asked, if nuclear plants are so saf e why worry about any liability at all? Even UCCs Bhopal plant was saf e prior to 3rd December 1984. And when it comes to saf ety, even Japans Fukushima was quite saf e bef ore the tsunami blew it apart. Nuclear plants and nuclear energy being saf e is one of the biggest lie of our times. In short, one is not too of f the mark to say that nuclear energy programme is a conspiracy to create thousands more Bhopals. It is not a question of technical saf ety, but of sustainability and reason in f ace of the imminent crises f acing our collective existence and existence of lif e on earth. 29 years is a long time. But is it not long enough to pay heed to these f ew obvious questions bef ore the mad pursuits of illusory dreams and development-mania lead to more deaths and possibly irreversible destruction?