FROM THE FRONT PAGE
By Adhitya Srinivasan
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s recent remarks on the anti-Kudankulam protests have probably created more noise and elicited more reaction than anything else that he has said over the last eight years. This may be because for the first time he has displayed the willingness and the political courage to take on anti-national elements.
Dr Singh has announced what till recently was only whispered: The anti-Kudankulam nuclear reactor protests are being orchestrated and funded by foreign powers. In keeping with our unapologetically nationalist stance, Organiser Weekly was the first to consistently analyse the protests from this angle. We first argued that there was far too much coincidence for the protests to be viewed as just another local mobilisation against a development project (‘Probe and Expose the Ploy’, Organiser, 30.10.2011). We then suggested that the anti-KKNPP protests were consistent with a larger trend of activity that appeared to be focussed on ensuring that India’s nuclear capability remains undeveloped (‘Catholic Church in Kudankulam Mess’, Organiser, 17.12.2011).
Before we return to discuss the latest round of allegations and war of words, it is imperative to review some pressing questions about the Kudankulam protest and nuclear technology in India that remain unanswered:
Why was the protest against the Kudankulam nuclear reactor organised just months before the reactor was commissioned? In any case, why did it take until now for such large-scale mobilisation of protestors?
Was there an invisible/foreign hand that had calculated the timing of the protests in a manner so as to embarrass Russian nuclear technology? The Prime Minister now says that NGOs based out of US and Scandinavia have been funding the protest.
Why was the Church playing a more than proactive role in organising the protests against the nuclear reactor at this juncture? Have local churches themselves been compromised?
Are the Church and its leadership being used or allowing themselves to be used as a front for the protest by larger players?
Does the church fear that missionary activity in general and conversion activity in particular will take a hit if the nuclear project is allowed to function? As a corollary, does the church believe that opposition to the nuclear project will assist them in future missionary work?
What is the source for all the money that is required to organise the protest and mobilise protestors? How much money is being spent by the protestors on a daily/weekly/monthly basis?
Why was former President, Dr. Abdul Kalam’s assurances on the safety of the Kudankulam plant (after careful inspection) dismissed without a thought? How can the people of any self-respecting Republic tolerate such an insult on their former President?
Why was former President, Dr. Abdul Kalam’s assurances on the safety of the Kudankulam plant (after careful inspection) dismissed without a thought? How can the people of any self-respecting Republic tolerate such an insult on their former President?
Why did the Bishop of Tuticorin abruptly direct priests and nuns against participating in the anti-Kudankulam protests and why did the good Bishop retract from this directive with equal abruptness?
Is there a national trend where local church groups block efforts at enriching uranium (in Jharkhand, Meghalaya, etc.) which is so crucial to our energy requirements?
Why have no nuclear energy benefits been transferred to India as a consequence of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal? In the absence of any energy benefits, would it be fair to say that the nuclear deal was just a decoy to end Indian nuclear tests?
Organiser Weekly had also called for a thorough probe into the funding of the anti-Kudankulam protests. Investigations conducted by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as well as the Tamil Nadu state police have revealed interesting details. The Union Home Ministry has cancelled the licenses of three non-governmental organisations (NGOs) based on investigation leads that they were diverting funds for the anti-Kudankulam protests. It is believed that two of these NGOs (Tuticorin Diocese Association and Tuticorin Multipurpose Social Service Society) are administered by Bishop Ambroise of Tuticorin. These NGOs were shown as having clearance under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 until last year.
Most recently, the ‘Q’ branch of Tamil Nadu police, invested with the responsibility of monitoring the activities of NGOs in the state, arrested a German national, Sonnteg Reiner Hermann in Nagercoil on charges of illegally sourcing funds for the Kudankulam protests. Immigration officials state that his visa will be cancelled and that he will be deported shortly. A surprise check on his lodge revealed that he had not only been mobilising funds for the Kudankulam protest but also that he was in touch with Lalmohan, a close aide of S Udayakumar who heads the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) and is leading the anti-Kudankulam agitation.
Udayakumar has made his tiff with the Central Government personal. He has threatened to sue Union Minister V Narayanswamy as well as Prime Minister Dr Singh. He asserts that his organisation has not received foreign assistance, financially or otherwise. These statements are mere posturing. Udayakumar probably knows that the financial transactions were structured in a manner such that his organisation was not the direct recipient of foreign money. But with each passing day, new information trickles in and continues to demolish Udayakumar’s claim. Will Udayakumar publicly assure the Indian people that he has not directly or indirectly received funds from abroad? The evidence recovered from the Hermann arrest would expose any such assurance.
In all of this bickering, we cannot afford to forget the larger issues that are at stake. Our country has come so close to being held hostage to the whims of a foreign state’s policies. It is important to expose the Kudankulam protest. But more important is the need to break the horrible chain by which our national interests came so close to being compromised. The Kudankulam chain involved four entities: the foreign government(s) that is opposed to Indian nuclear capability, the foreign NGOs which are well-funded by the aforementioned foreign government(s), local NGOs, groups (including local churches) who pressurise the Indian government through protest backed by the receipt of money from foreign NGOs through whatever complex structure they devise for this purpose and the protestors who are mobilised for the purpose. Accordingly, it would be well for the Home Ministry to pre-emptively commence investigations into such efforts rather than wait for matters to snowball as was the case in Kudankulam.
The Kudankulam chapter offers some important lessons in nationalism and social activism. Kudankulam has shown the country the dirty, destructive face of NGO activism. These NGOs are no longer concerned about engineering creative solutions to problems. Their only focus these days is to stall development work. This might have been tolerable if they took pains to offer better solutions to the government. Solution-oriented activism is not only welcomed but also needed to compliment institutional governance. Nationalism can mean many things to different people. But whatever your definition of nationalism is, it must mean being proud of India, it must mean being committed to the development of her people and above all it must mean never compromising on her integrity and sovereignty. We must congratulate Dr Singh for taking a bold stand. One sincerely hopes that after eight years of a boring and uninspiring premiership, he continues to find the courage to provide nationalist governance.
Comments