Agitations over the ongoing Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) and the not so recent Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project have created roadblocks for the realization of India’s civilian nuclear ambitions. After all, nuclear energy is hoped to be the answer to meet India’s growing energy needs in a relatively affordable, effective and sustainable manner; at least such is the official policy. This reasoning resonates in KKNPP’s mandate – to generate electricity for the southern states of India facing acute power shortages, most notably Tamil Nadu. The agitation at Kudankulam ostensibly appears to be a conflict between the Indian government and the people, with the government siding with the corporates and dissuading the common people. But is this the only interpretation? Are there other standpoints that may lead to different interpretations? If so, are these shifting the focus away from the prime concern, that is, the safety of nuclear power plants in one’s vicinity?

The agitations certainly cannot be generalized within the people versus the state debate. On the surface are the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ nuclear lobby. The pro-nuclear lobby includes but is not limited to representatives of the official nuclear establishments like the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), while the anti-nuclear lobby can be divided into two groups. On the one hand, there are people who are ideologically and fundamentally opposed to the N-word in all its formulations, and on the other, people who have genuine concerns over their safety and that of the environment. Closely intertwined with safety concerns are livelihood concerns of the locals (basically fishermen) who fear that condenser water from the power plant could affect fish yield and harm marine life.

In a departure from the safety and livelihood concerns epitomized by the struggle in Kudankulam, the fact of India’s nuclear energy programme being a product of ‘nu-colonization’ has been highlighted as well. Nu-colonization (nuclear + colonization), a term coined by the National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM), considers Indian nuclear agreements that allow the setting up of power plants by countries like Russia in Kudankulam, France in Jaitapur and the US in Haripur (now scrapped) as a replication of the colonization process. NAAM’s assertion that “nuclearism as a policy is devoid of transparency, accountability or popular participation” challenges India’s democratic set-up. Hence, the emergence of that very democratic structure as an obstruction to the realization of its nuclear power dreams comes as a surprise. Jaitapur and Kudankulam are mere examples of the power democracy bestows upon the citizens of a country.

It is also interesting to trace competitive politics at play behind the agitations at Kudankulam. At one level, there is a clear conflict between the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam (AIADMK) chief J Jayalalithaa-led Tamil Nadu government and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre. The harmony over KKNPP that existed between the state and central governments was soon replaced by discord between the two, an example of this discord being AIADMK calling the plant ‘a federal project’ with not much left for the state to do in the scrapping of the project. These statements emerged during the run-off to the Panchayat elections, discounting the fact that Tamil Nadu, with the operationalization of the plant (Unit 1 and 2), would have been allocated 925 MW out of the 2000 MW of electricity generated, crucial for its development requirements. The outcome, however, made the motive behind the change in stance clear, with AIADMK sweeping the civic polls. This, at another a intra-state level of competitive ‘party’ politics, was addressed as ‘duplicity’ by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam (DMK), a major political party in Tamil Nadu.

Another debate embodied in the agitations is between science and democracy, articulated in an article by Shiv Visvanathan, senior fellow at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. He highlights the ability of democracy to question the ‘sanctity of expertise’ today. He also goes on to add that in a ‘democracy, the scientist and the activist have to work in tandem, each understanding the challenges the other faces.’ Perhaps then the conflict is more between the logic that science provides and the existence of an uncertain future that neither science nor democracy can explain.

While all this has been said, the prime concern – safety of nuclear power plants in a post-Chernobyl and post-Fukushima environment - remains unresolved. This concern has lost ground in the various interpretations laden with vested interests that Kudankulam has produced. One reason that explains the shift away from the main concern of nuclear safety is the time taken for the agitators to acquire media attention. While people in favour regard the opposition as sudden and preceding the operationalization of Unit 1, in reality, it has been in existence ever since the Inter-Governmental Agreement between India and the Soviet Union (now Russia) was signed in 1988. The Kanyakumari Declaration signed in 2009 is evidence of the steady build up to the current movement.

The delay in resolving the issue has led to new interest groups stepping in, often linking their interest with the continuation or scrapping of the power plant. This will only result in further aggravating the issue. The immediate need is to generate a consolidated grievance list ideally revolving around safety and livelihood as the only concerns with the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. It is time for the people to let go of their vested interests and associate with the justness of the cause. It is also time for government officials to actively offer quick and reliable long-term solutions.