Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Google+ 

Support Us

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Civilian Nuclear Proliferation And Deep Democracy

By Rosanna Marvell & Raminder Kaur

23 February, 2013
Countercurrents.org

Nuclear power has long been associated with national security, arising as it has done out of post-World War II legacies of scientific-military control. However anti-nuclear civilian groups have emphasised the globality of the environment and of human security that transcends the particularities of national borders. The case for international solidarity arises out of three main factors: (i) that environmental damage and the impact of radioactive contamination does not recognise national borders; (ii) nuclear developments across the world have been accompanied by a high level of anti-democratic activities that effectively oppress, abuse and harm the lives of local residents in particular; and (iii) particularly in the last couple of decades, in the quest for nuclear power, governments have colluded with multinational corporations that transcend nation-state boundaries which undermine the national security rhetoric attached to nuclear developments. Thus despite efforts to brand protesters as anti-national, recent campaigns have further eroded the national-nuclear security dyad where neo-liberalisation has lent fuel to their fire. Protesters argue that if multi-national companies have the right to enter into national territories then the state in its prioritising of economic gains has in fact mortgaged the country and its people to multinationals. Such public-private collusions have in fact led to increasing state oppression on nuclear dissenters. A case study is India which since the ratification of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal in 2008 has seen more and more multinationals trading with India in the construction of new nuclear reactors and related technologies. The Koodankulam struggle in India for the first time in the history of nuclear relations was presented as a prima facie case in the heart of the former colonial capital, the Houses of Parliament in London in October 2012. Such a move strengthened the global movement towards horizontal transnational alliances, a powerful way that such a cause can hope to succeed.

With the Green Member of UK Parliament, Caroline Lucas chairing, the agonies of Koodunkulam had a chance to be fairly heard amongst a packed room full of British, Indians and Non-Resident Indian attendants. Given the gravitas denied by arguments of 'progress', and the intervention of the 'foreign hand', this is no mean feat. This, instead, was an opportunity in which unheard voices could be attended to, less the foreign hand intervention and more the facilitation of a fair platform in an international campaign for the environment and democratic rights of dissent. Here members of many grassroots organisations such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Foil Vedanta, the Christian anti-Nuclear Group, and others joined forces. Standing in front of a six foot sign bearing the black and white CND insignia, its General Secretary, Kate Hudson, opened the proceedings, immediately setting the tone of ‘common concerns' and recognising that which binds together India and the United Kingdom in the face of nuclear issues: as the rest of the world retreats in a climate of global disillusionment, our two countries persist in forging forth. As she pointed out, even the U.S.A. have begun to change tack in recognition of the dangers of nuclear waste. From the off it was clear that this was not part of a paternalistic, humanitarian endeavour but instead a far more collaborative concern. Following Kate, Caroline Lucas took the stand, first thanking her Brighton Pavilion constituents, without whom she said she would not have been aware of Koodunkulam. Wryly drawing the rooms attention to the lack of fellow MPs, Caroline recounted the accusation from one of her colleagues that it was ‘not very 'green' to get involved in another country's doings', again raising the spectre of interventionism, something which Caroline was clear to rebuke. Just as clear was her assertion of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition complicity when Prime Minister, David Cameron, lifted the ban on the export of nuclear technologies and components to India, despite their refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and also against official advice. Ms Lucas drew attention to the situation of the villagers of Koodunkulam, a situation in which many are willing to sacrifice their lives as they feel ‘the nuclear power plant will result in their deaths anyway', following the removal of any recourse to properly protest against that which so threatens them. She ended her speech with the fact that whilst leading climate scientists have identified the next five to ten years as critical if we are to keep the climate crisis in check. However, even if you disregard any safety problems or any democratic problems, we are ‘not going to get [nuclear power] up and running, here or in India, fast enough' to make any tangible difference, and therefore any investment is effectively useless.

Despite the public acumen accorded of these speakers, it was the following part of the parliamentary debate that made this event so ground-breaking. For the first time, the voices of the villages could be heard, for once there was not someone acting as a mouthpiece, subaltern voices were allowed to speak for themselves. The first was a video recording of Dr. S. P. Udayakumar, whose still-framed profile had overseen all the proceedings thus far from a large screen at the back of the room. Dr. Udayakumar does not possess the global profile of campaigners such as Arundhati Roy; he is by profession a teacher, having taught English in Ethiopia and lectured in many universities. However, he has stood up and publicly campaigned for the rights of the disenfranchised villagers in Koodunkulam, and heads the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE). By speaking out, Dr. Udayakumar has earned unwavering persecution. He spoke of the government and administration of Tamil Nadu ‘thrusting this project down [their] throats' and how the village, surrounded by police and denied of basic amenities has become ‘totally isolated from the rest of the world', practically a ‘banana republic'. Even more striking was his account of the bravery of three women, already vulnerable from the threat of sexist treatment from officials, who left the village and walked to the district collector in order to present her with their account of the situation. It is key that what Dr. Udayakumar, and so many others, is asking for is solidarity , not aid or intervention. In his words ‘we want to establish an international solidarity across all countries'. He then referred to the planned nuclear expansion in Hinkley, Somerset on the west coast of Britain expressing support for the campaign in Britain and soliciting support for the plight of Koodunkulam. Clear from his message was that we cannot rely on governments to achieve our goals for us, we must form our own global horizontal alliances to succeed. The end of his message was met by applause from the room. Following the video recording, Amrit Wilson of the South Asia Solidarity Group, read out a message received the day before from Melrit, a woman from the fishing community who joined a large group in boats who surrounded the nuclear power plant, to seize it from the ocean. Melrit's words described the sea like her mother's home and the pain of the effect of the power plant on the ocean, the pain of missing her friends, of so many atrocities:

I forgot the desecration of the village church by the police. I forgot the anguish of the wives and mothers of all who were taken away brutally that day. I forgot thirst, hunger... I have grown up in this wind and sun, eating the bounties of the ocean. As I stood on the boat, I remember the demands we have put across... to let go of the sisters and brothers locked up on unfair charges since September 10, to withdraw all police forces from the villages and reinstate normal life, to close Koodunkulam nuclear power plant and convert it into a nature and people friendly energy production plant.

Amrit followed Melrit's letter with several points key to this debate, but the one I want to particularly drawn upon is what she refers to as the ‘belligerent ideology' of the ruling class and the fact that ‘the question of the foreign hand has been raised for the past forty years'. As she so rightly recognises, ‘it should be made clear it is nothing to do with this'. The final point she makes is a further imperative for deep democracy in the face of nuclear issues, the fact that global solidarity is required, because the companies that fund and set up power plants are global companies. The apparatus of the government, which can only operate at nation-state level, is not enough to combat these supra-national conglomerates.

The final speaker of the debate was Frank Boulton of Medact, whose main concern was his fear of the proliferation of nuclear arms. Frank mainly discussed the incidence of leukaemia in under-fives in areas surrounding nuclear power plants, but if no other point is to be drawn from his section I feel it is important to recognise his advice that in relation to nuclear matters, we have got to be really well informed – incorrect information and scaremongering merely serves to undermine the wider issues and could be irreparably damaging.

Following Dr. Boulton's closing remarks, the debate was opened up to comments from the floor, a few of which I wish to draw on here. Briefly, it is important to think more about the relationship, economic and otherwise, between governments and corporations in relation to nuclear issues, as things appear to be much more murky than they seem on first inspection. A shocking parallel was also drawn by a Tamil man in the audience between media silences, and painfully reminded the room of the horrific massacre that took place on the beach in Sri Lanka, in the supposed safe zone set up by the Sri Lankan government. Such an atrocity was only made possible by the shroud of darkness afforded by the media blackout.

In stark contrast of the jeans, t-shirt and cheerful cable knit of the academics and campaigners that made up most of the room were four Indian men, starkly notable with crisp, ironed suits. One, announcing he was a businessman who had arrived from Tamil Nadu only the night before, told a very different tale to that which everyone else has told. He spoke of a ‘fantastic' media coverage of events in India and countered that only a ‘very small minority', mainly the fishermen, were against the nuclear power plant, due to a desperate need for power in Tamil Nadu, where people are left without power for 17 hours a day. This very different point of view was staunchly attacked by both Amrit Wilson and Samarendra Das of Foil Vedanta . Samarendra recounted his recent experience of visiting Koodunkulam, where he found 6,000 police for 5,000 villagers, and had to use a back entrance of a house to meet Dr. Udayakumar in order not to be seen.

Raminder Kaur is the author of Performative Politics and the Cultures of Hinduism , Atomic Bombay: Living with the Radiance of a Thousand Suns, and co-author with Virinder Kalra and John Hutnyk of Diaspora and Hybridity. Rosa Marvell is a masters student

 

 




 

 


Comments are moderated