In Madras on the coast there's a nuclear power station, and a fast-breeder reactor is being built. The foundations, which are a few metres deep, had collapsed and at the time of the tsunami in December 2004 there were 200 people at work on it. They were all killed by the water. The government had declared the area around to be a military zone. It was pitch dark, yet there was a lot of traffic, which people living around the site told me was transport of the dead workers from the nuclear power station.

I'm from South India, more or less the most southerly point of India, near to Sri Lanka. Close to my house there is a nuclear power station. There are also plans for new nuclear power stations in the area, but that's about all that's known. Our organisation asked to see the reports on the environmental effects these will have, but we were told that they were not available to the public.

In December 2004 the state of Tamil Nadu was hit by the tsunami. In the area where I live, small earthquakes occurred, force 3 on the Richter scale. There are also volcanoes which erupt from time to time. Our organisation asked why it was decided that nuclear power stations should be built in such a place, but we received no answer.

In India, it's difficult to explain the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Half of the population can't read or write, and many of these people live in the area where they plan to build the nuclear power stations. We are trying to make it clear what's at stake, to fishermen (fish being the most important food for many Indian coast-dwellers), to farmers and to women's groups. The middle class is well-educated and understands well enough, but this class wants to get rich and is positive about any kind of development, as long as India follows the US. These people aren't bothered about the consequences for society or the environment and they aren't willing to listen to any criticism.

The nuclear lobby in India reigns supreme. To give an example: nobody knows how much money is involved in these nuclear power stations. There is, in addition, no discussion of this in parliament. All political parties support nuclear power. There isn't one party with a green agenda. The government intimidates opponents of nuclear energy, sends the police after us, searches our houses. It is thus very difficult to put criticism of nuclear power on the agenda. People say indeed that India is a democracy, but all democracy means for our movement is the right to complain, and exercising even that right is not without its consequences. Widespread corruption also plays a role. In the case of major projects such as the building of a nuclear power station, politicians can line their pockets with more slush money than they can when it's a matter of small projects such as the building of windmills.

India's economy is growing by around 8 % per year and the demand for energy with it. The last few years have seen electricity consumption rise by 5% annually, but it is lower than that of the western world. India uses about three million barrels of oil a day while the European Union gets through fourteen million.

Of the approximately one billion (1,000,000,000) inhabitants some 80% live in the countryside in around 600,000 villages, 474,000 of which are connected to the national electricity grid. That seems a high proportiuon, but the picture is distorted. Most people are too poor to afford to be connected to the electricity supply, so that in fact in the countryside fewer than half of the population has electricity.

In 1947, the year of India's independence, the capacity of all electricity generating stations added together was a paltry 1300 megawatts. This has since grown to 124,000 megawatts. Two-thirds of the supply comes from fossil sources - coal, oil, gas - and 26 % from hydroelectric. As things stand, nuclear power makes only a small contribution, a bit less than 3%. The remaining 5% comes from sustainable sources, from solar and wind power. That's very little when you consider that India has a coastline of 7,000 kilometres where there are often waves and that the sun shines almost the whole year round.

A major problem is the quality of the electricity grid. During transmission and distribution four times as much electricity is lost as in, for example, a developed country such as the Netherlands. This is due to the poor condition of the antiquated network. The biggest priority for the near future must therefore be an improvement of the distribution grid. If India invested in that we would need fewer new power stations. On the other hand the loss will always be greater than it is in the Netherlands, because of the far greater distances which must be covered.

There is another reason why nuclear power is a bad idea. Nuclear power in India is roughly twice as dear as electricity from modern gas-fired power stations. And remember that we are talking about 400 million poor people who don't have sufficient to eat, don't have access to clean drinking water and are barely surviving. Also, India is a heavily populated country. If an accident occurred involving a nuclear power station, the consequences for human beings and the environment would be extremely serious.

The Indian government has had the various alternatives assessed. Wind power could be increased from 1,870 megawatts to 45,000 megawatts and small hydroelectric plants could add a further 15,000 megawatts. Then there is solar power which could deliver another 20 megawatts peak capacity per square kilometre. Yet they're going on with expensive nuclear power.

Not long ago an agreement was signed with President Bush concerning the delivery of two nuclear power stations by the US firm Westinghouse. $5 bn worth of weapons will also be supplied. Supporters say that Bush is helping India by supplying these things, but this agreement makes the world less safe.

The real background is, in my view, the fear that the US has for China. That's why they need a country bordering on China that can compete with it: India. China has more nuclear weapons and a bigger military arsenal than does India. This explains this 'support'. And because of this, because India is making nuclear weapons, it's odds on that Pakistan is going to produce more nuclear weapons, which also suits the US.

Naturally they speak about the peaceful use of nuclear energy. But we would do well to remember that India's first bomb was made in a nuclear power station supplied by Canada, a facility also aimed at producing energy for peaceful purposes. So I don't have much faith in statements about the peaceful use of nuclear power. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons go together. Otherwise, why would so much money be invested in nuclear power?

Read more about South Asian struggles against nuclear power

See also:

http://www.spectrezine.org/MiddleEast/Damveld.htm