My beloved Mr Yechuri discussed Nucleared deal

I thought enough of nuclear energy discussion but then when an argument is being stopped by quoting motives, I got into a debate mode. My favorite handler of words Mr Sitaram Yechuri in his column in Hindustan Times gives his own views on how Lefts opposition is being decried not because of reasons but because of prejudice. Point taken, a rational debate should be based on reasons so lets take his arguments and discuss.

"any attempt to cap India’s nuclear strategic capabilities will immensely benefit both China and Pakistan. Who, may we ask, is vigorously pursuing this Indo-US nuclear deal which, we are told, will limit India’s strategic capacities...". Interesting argument. "We are told" by whom? The very same Left. You make an assumption, prove a premise on the basis of that assumption and conclude that the assumption is right! As per my earlier writeup, the deal enhances our strategic capabilities by 1. allowing for nuclear technology know how. While this should not be transferring bomb technology, there are other engineering capabilities, safety training that will help. By creating opportunities for nuclear scientists to get jobs we'll get more talented people taking up such studies. Currently most end up being code monkeys in IT.

He rightly mentions that India is electricity starved. He also makes the oft quoted argument that our current nuclear electricity percentage is 3 percent of total which will go upto mere 6 percent in 20 years due to this deal. What the argument leaves out is why its only 3% today. I can think of 3 reasons.

1. We do not have the technology to build bigger/better plants and not enough engineers to maintain a lot of small plants.
2. We do not have access to enough fuel to generate more
3. We made a conscious decision not to build plants

Evidently its not 3, and Mr Yechuri does not say that it is. For if it was the whole deal needn't be signed. Which means its some combination of 1) and 2). And both imply we need to import technology And import fuel. Alas both cannot be imported unless India signs up NPT and gives up the very loved strategic option or by signing the deal. If opponents of the deal can get us both without either, lets welcome that option.

"Further, is nuclear power cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option.". Agreed. But there is also an economy of scale. France gets most of its electricity from nuclear plants. Which brings down costs. That however is a part of the story. Even with scale the nuclear power option is the more expensive option in short term. In short term. Fossil fuels are limited and especially oil, gas only a little less and prices are continuously rising. Further more, oil supply is nearly at peak and so its not that we can increase our consumption to 5 times and get adequete supply. I do not have the link right now but I read that already some gas based plants in India are running at sub optimal generation level because gas supply is not adequate. Further any reliance on unstable Mideast for oil is a strategic dependence on an unstable region. We depend on others for oil or for uranium its still a dependence.

Other thing is environmental impact. "This year’s floods according to the United Nations, are ‘unprecedented’ in human memory.". Most climate scientists blame global warming for sudden climatic changes and fossil fuel usage is the biggest culprit. Mr Yechuri's solution to a problem is the solution that is creating the problem in the first go.

"Huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on the US." .... "Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests?". So is this the real reason for Left's opposition if not 'instructions from abroad'? Well the logical argument is that you buy technologies from whoever has it. I'd say if the government is smart it will diversify sources. France is an obvious choice. As is Indian private sector which can soon learn the ropes.

"If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro, thermal, gas, clean non-renewable and solar electricity, India’s energy augmentation would be many times higher.". Admirable. Dams require a lot of land and displacement of people. Is Left recommending that such massive forcible land acquisition happens? Solar is great but is it commercially viable as a regular source of power? Where in the world has it happened. And how does the cost compare to the nuclear energy generation cost. Ah no figures there because they'll contradict his earlier arguments about cost reasons for avoiding nuclear energy. Thermal energy we tried once in south, alas our power plant sunk in the sea!

The rest of the argument gets into joint exercises and multipolar world and what not. I'm too sleepy to talk about it now but its already discussed in earlier posts.

"Any alignment with US imperialism to impose unipolarity will dissolve India’s distinctiveness in world politics. This is precisely what the Left seeks to prevent in the interests of India and its people.". So is the opposition to the deal because its with US and we cannot align with them to ensure multi polarity or is it because the deal is bad?

In short I find again Mr Yechuri's reasoning contradictory. Given my very high regards for his intellectual calibre, I can only speculate on reasons. But I for once am not convinced that the deal is not in our national interest.

Updated: Sept 20th.
Hindustan Times has this rather good analysis on need for Fuel supply diversification. It always gets my goat that our self serving politicians want India to live by their ideals (assuming that the arguments are really born of ideology). How I wish they work to make India live on its self interests rather than some arcane or popular ideology. Reminds me of all those years where we fought wars in ways that ensured an honorable defeat rather than a dishonourable win. The kings won their glory, the people had they women raped, wealth looted and liberty crying in chains.