Democratizing Nuclear Debate in India

Democracy and Nuclear issues cannot go hand in hand. While civilization flourishes through public participation – a distinct principle of democracy, nuclear (as a weapon) eradicates a large number of populations when it is used. Therefore, nuclear is the antithesis of democratic principles. Any discussion on nuclear-related issues, may it be national security, the production of nuclear energy and its derivatives, is bound to be anti-democratic, which has maintained its status quo in all nuclear-capable countries around the world. The irony is that the two oldest and largest democracies (or twin pillars of democracy!) are engaged in civilian nuclear cooperation, lacking democratic approval. While the US Senators and Representatives are discussing threadbare, India’s Members of Parliament (MPs) are probably in the dark. Can it be approved by the representatives of people in both countries? Is it necessary for public approval, at least in India, on the nuclear deal?

In a recent letter to Parliamentarians in India, nine retired nuclear experts were obliged to serve in various nuclear establishments under New Delhi called for a parliamentary debate on the much-hyped (July 18 and March 3) Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. Finally, these experts come out from the hard shells to debate the nuclear issue, which is hitherto the outside public gaze; even MPs can’t raise this issue in the highest constitutional forum, Parliament. Why did these nine experts demand/request a democratic debate on the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation? Are they on the right path by initiating a debate in Parliament on a much-classified issue? Were there such precedents in Parliament to discuss nuclear-related issues?

The nine-member group wanted Parliamentarians to recognize the fundamental facts of India’s indigenous nuclear science and technology achievements. Suppose one would look into the answers to the questions posed by MPs regarding nuclear/atomic energy in the successive Parliament sessions during the last decade. In that case, the conclusion is that the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has deliberately avoided disclosing all the details. The first retaliatory question to these nine group members may be whether they adhered to this public discussion on the nuclear establishment when they served in charge of affairs in their capacity. Not at all. In fact, after their retirement, a few of these nine experts disclosed several concerns related to India’s nuclear establishment in writing through various papers. Notwithstanding sidelining these experts, the appeal letter to the MPs is a welcome step in the right direction.

The nuclear establishment in India is a most classified area where no public scrutiny, no enquiry commission, and no judicial intervention are allowed or, for that matter, tolerable. Empowered with the Special 1962 Atomic Energy Act, the DAE is exempted from such scrutiny. The department and its bureaucracy, under the direct control of the Prime Minister, who is first among equal people’s representatives, are the most pampered establishment in India. It is understandable as long as it makes nuclear weapons. The reason put forward by India’s in-built so-called and only patriots security experts (a self-claimed minority) is that nuclear issues are a significant concern for national security and should not be discussed in public. The public discussion will be tantamount to creating an unimaginable massive threat to national security.

But, a former scientists, a former bureaucrats, a former minister in charge of the defense portfolio, can write, talk, expose drawbacks after retirement only to create ruckus in general public life as well as un-necessary disruption of Parliamentary proceedings ignoring important issues which matters most. Why should a few only manage or control national security? The question is whose security and who is controlling/managing it. The public has a right to know about the security of the nation, how the professionals manage it, what the threats are, and so on. As long as the public is kept in abeyance on the most critical security issues, a huge country like India will be really in serious threat from terrorism and other threats. The ownership of national security should not be bestowed upon a few.

Can one MP access information on nuclear issues while Parliament is in motion? No. Two senior leaders from coalition partners in the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government seemed frustrated by honestly stating their ignorance of the nuclear issues in a public meeting on August 9 in New Delhi. They tried to get some information but, as usual, failed. Can the historical Right to Information Act apply to Nuclear or DEA? No. From the beginning, the RTI Act has mentioned that national security issues can’t be brought into this fold! Parliamentary oversight of all bilateral/multilateral engagement has to be enacted to make it more democratic and effective.

After 1998, the situation changed between India and Pakistan on the nuclear front. Therefore, it is an open secret of nuclear weaponisation in South Asia. While there is a ‘civilian’ nuclear cooperation is on the move, one ‘civilian’ has to be taken into confidence. Hence, it’s imperative to debate and discuss the civilian aspect of the nuclear deal, i.e., energy. The discussion on the nuclear establishment in Parliament is necessary to make it a thriving energy base for energy-hungry India. Even public discussion will minimize the drawbacks of uranium mining or waste disposal, the ugly face of peaceful nuclear endeavour.