Many nations view nuclear power as the most viable source of energy when the world has no other easy option; but the key issue that they confront is ‘social opposition’, more so after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Yet, in very few countries have anti-nuclear movements succeeded. The decisions by Germany, Switzerland, Vietnam, etc., to roll back their nuclear programmes are argued as dramatic exceptions; and it is believed that anti-nuclear sentiment is not likely to remain forever in Japan either. However, there have been some cases in Australia and the United States, where near-complete reactors have been halted by popular opposition. Will India join this list?
With the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver, India’s nuclear power program has been unshackled from the multilateral technology-denial regimes. Consequently, India has embarked on an ambitious nuclear energy expansion programme. Meanwhile, India is also facing a modicum of resistance to the construction of new nuclear power plants. Owing to vehement public opposition, nuclear projects have been halted, shifted or cancelled in places like Haripur (West Bengal), Bhoothathankettu and Peringome (Kerala), and in Mithivirdi (Gujarat). This is likely to escalate in future, as more reactors are in the pipeline. Will India’s nuclear energy programme be shackled from within? Even though there is no pan-Indian anti-nuclear movement in the country today, the social resistance seems to be getting consolidated and institutionalised. How will this culminate? The various manifestations of social opposition to, and changing dynamics in social acceptance of, nuclear energy in India are matters of serious introspection.
Science-Technology-Society Triad
“Science, technology and society constitute a dynamically interactive triad” influencing each other in significant ways.1 The body of scientific knowledge that a society assimilates determines its technological prowess; and technological innovations, in turn, generate new social contexts. In other words, if science and technology is misunderstood and neglected, social development will be missed; and if social control is absent, science and technology will be misused, and civilization will be at stake.
As the three are not passive partners, the question is whether society always responds wisely to the scientific march, and whether the evolution of technology always complements the sustainability of society? Diametrically opposite but convincing narratives are advanced involving nuclear energy, given the history of serious nuclear accidents along with the many societal benefits that have accrued. Nuclear science and technology today seems to be standing at a societal crossroads, waiting to be marked as ‘awful’ or ‘awesome’.
Every technological endeavour involves benefits along with certain risks; but society responds positive if the expected benefits outweigh the involved risks. Then “how much risk is society willing to accept to realize the promise of emerging technologies”?2 In India, “from the Chipko movement to the Narmada movement to Koodankulam protest, same type of voices are heard demanding protection of livelihood, environment, and democracy.”3 Specifically, the sporadic pockets of skepticism over nuclear energy in India seem symptomatic of the predicament involving social acceptance vs. promise of technology. It is believed that lack of information, or a ‘misinformation overdrive’, leads to public fear of nuclear technology. Further, nuclear technology comparatively elicits an extraordinary level of concern because of the scale of potential hazards it poses. The nature of nuclear technology itself is complex, with emission of invisible radiation and possibility of catastrophic accidents, to that extent, the media always presents the worst case scenario. Consequently, the public’s concept of risk is heavily influenced by the imagined consequences of catastrophic accidents, and is built on values, attitudes and sets of attributes which are different from those of the policy-makers and nuclear experts.4
Therefore, it is assumed that, with greater public education and social understanding of nuclear technology, public support for, and greater social acceptance of, nuclear projects can be achieved. Of late, governments the world over have resorted to aggressive public engagement, media management, along with lucrative packages for rehabilitation of affected people. Still, anti-nuclear movements or sentiments are pervasive in many parts of the world.
Dr. Sitakanta Mishra is a faculty at the International Relations Department in the School of Liberal Studies (SLS) of Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University (PDPU), Gujarat, India.
Vinod Gaur, “Why this Seminar?”, in Vinod Gaur ed., Nuclear and Public Safety, New Delhi: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, 1996, p. xi.
Rick Borchelt and Kathy Hudson, “Engaging the Scientific Community with the Public”, Science Progress, 2008,http://www.scienceprogress. org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/print_edition/engaging_scientific_ community.pdf.
John S. Moolakkattu, “Nonviolent Resistance to Nuclear Power Plants in South India”, Peace Review, Volume 26, Number 3, 2014, p. 426.
Joop Van Der Pligt, “Public Attitudes to Nuclear Energy: Salience and Anxiety”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1985, p. 90.
“An Open Letter by PMANE to the Fellow Citizens of India”, The Movement of India, Volume 6 Issue 4-5, November 2011–January 2012, p. 17.
Moolakkattu, p. 422.
S.P. Udayakumar, “The Blind Carrying the Lame: Nuclear Power Programme and Opposition in Southernmost India”, 1999, http://www. gvpwardha.iecit.in/documents/books/env/7.pdf.
“Ecological Movement Against the Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant”, http:// shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/16662/8/08_chapter%204.pdf, p. 229.
Ibid, p. 234.
Uday Kumar, p. 116.
Chaya Babu, “Koodankulam: How we got here”, thealternativein, February 16, 2012, http://www.thealternative.in/society/koodankulam-we-got-here/.
Ibid.
Monamie Bhadra, “India’s Nuclear Power Problem”, Cairo Review, Volume 5, 2012, pp. 75-76.
Ibid, p.77.
“Jharkhandi Organization Against Radiation (JOAR)”, http://jadugoda. jharkhand.org.in/.
Maulik Pathak, “Gujarat’s nuclear power plant project to be shifted to Andhra Pradesh: NGT”, Livemint, June 1, 2017, https://www.livemint. com/Politics/gis6xh208EC0qW7ujVm2MO/Gujarats-nuclear-powerplant- project-to-be-shifted-to-Andhr.html.
Shobha Warrior, “Kudankulam is more a PR disaster than scientific”, September 21, 2012, http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show- 1-interview-with-kalam-s-scientific-advisor-ponraj/20120921.htm#1.
Aziz Haniffa, “India Should Choose Iran, Not US”, The Rediff Interview, December 28, 2005, http://www.ieer.org/latest/indiairan.html.
P. Vishnu Kamath and Sanjay Havanur, “Kaiga as a Site for an Atomic Power Plant: A Re-examination”, in Vinod Gaur, ed., Nuclear and Public Safety, New Delhi: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, 1996, p. 31.
S.K. Jain, “Nuclear Power in India-The Fourth Revolution”, An International Journal of Nuclear Power, Volume 18, Number 2-3, 2004, p. 13.
“Nuclear Technology Review 2009”, http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/ GC/GC53/GC53InfDocuments/English/gc 53inf-3_en.pdf, p. 15.
“Govt sets target to triple nuclear power generation by 2024”, The Indian Express, March 22, 2012, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/govtsets- target-to-triple-nuclear-power-generation-by-2024/.
John B. Ritch, “Will The Nuclear Power Industry Regain Public Trust?”, Forbes India Magazine, 29 December 2011.
India’s nuclear regulatory agency – AERB – has been alleged to have fewer powers and less independence. Though AERB proclaims itself as “independent”, its functional and administrative linkages with DAE and AEC are not strictly separated. For example, the safety review report of the AERB is submitted to the AEC in which the Managing Director of NPCIL and Chairman of DAE are members (whose work the AERB is mandated to oversee) and not the Chairman of AERB. Also the AERB depends mostly on the DAE and BARC staff and their research facilities.
A. Gopalakrishnan, “A Nuclear Regulator Without Teeth”, The Hindu, September 16, 2011.
A. Gopalakrishnan, “Issues of Nuclear Safety“, Frontline, Volume 16, Number 6, March 1999, pp 13-26.
A. Gopalakrishnan, “Nuclear Power: The Missing Safety Audits”, April 26, 2011, http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_nuclear-power-themissing- safety-audits_1536223.
A.R. Sundararajan, K.S. Parthasarthy and S. Sinha, “Atomic Energy Regulatory Board: 25 Years of Safety Regulation”, AERB, November 2008, p. 90.
According to Makarand R Paranjape, “neo-Gandhianism is…not merely a creed or an ideology; it is not merely a set of beliefs or practices; it is the assumption of personal and social responsibility; it is the commitment to individual and collective amelioration; it is process of self-realization and communitymaking.”, http://www.makarand.com/acad/Neo-GandhianPraxisAPersonalRe port.htm.
P.K. Sundaram, “Nonviolence confronts Nuclear Insanity in India”, October 13, 2011, http://www.dianuke.org/nonviolence-confronts-nuclearinsanity- in-india/.
“Anti-Nuclear Movement in Koodankulam: A Great Experiment in Nonviolence”, September 24, 2011, http://www.dianuke.org/anti-nuclearmovement- in-koodankulam-a-great-experiment-in-nonviolence/.
“AAP backs anti-nuclear activists in Kudankulam”, Deccan Herald, December 30, 2013, https://www.deccanherald.com/content/377674/aapbacks- anti-nuclear-activists.html.
P. Sudakar, “Anti-Kudankulam activist Udayakumar joins AAP”, The Hindu, February, 2014, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/antikudankulamactivist- udayakumar-joins-aap/article5736964.ece.
M. Aruloli, “SP Udayakumar quits Aam Aadmi Party”, Deccan Chronicle, October 19, 2014, https://www.deccanchronicle.com/141019/nationcurrent- affairs/article/sp-udayakumar-quits-aam-aadmi-party.
Julie Mariappan, “Udayakumar, anti-nuclear activist, floats party to continue crusade”, The Times of India, January 19, 2016, https://timesofindia. indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Udayakumar-anti-nuclear-activist-floatsparty- to-continue-crusade/articleshow/50634568.cms.
Paul C. Stern and Roger E. Kasperson, “Public Acceptance of Energy Technology”, in Paul C. Stern and Roger E. Kasperson, ed., Facilitating Climate Change Responses, Washington D.C.: National Academic Press, 2010, pp. 45-60.
Roger E. Kasperson, et.al., “Public Opposition to Nuclear Energy: Retrospect and Prospect”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 5, Number 31, Spring 1980, p. 17.