Introduction
The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, also known as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India. The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005 joint statement by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.
Why India needs Nuclear energy?
Today, India has an installed capacity of 4.5 GW which accounts for 3 percent of the total electricity generated. The demand for power is projected to stand at about 350-400 GW by 2020 and nuclear power generation capacity is expected to increase to about 35 GW. India targets to achieve 25 percent electricity production from this source by 2050. It would be baffling to mention that France, at present, generates 78% of its electricity from nuclear power plant.
Besides, nuclear power is a clean source of energy. Amazingly, 1 GW of power station would consume roughly 3.1 million tonnes of black coal each year as compared to only 24 tonnes of enriched uranium.
However, the merits of nuclear power cannot mask the grave risk involved in harnessing that power, which could result due to mishandling of nuclear material or a fault in the nuclear reactor.
Criticisms
The bill – Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 – had come under criticism from the opposition parties in India in the following ways:-
1) Claiming that it was designed to serve one-way interest of the US. Several amendments were then being suggested in the Nuclear Liability Bill, in which a major dilution being: recovery of damages from a supplier — even in the event of gross negligence — contingent upon his prior acceptance of liability in a written contract.
2) The original version of the amendment had come under sharp criticism from the BJP and Left parties as it provided for the “intent” of a supplier of causing an accident if an operator were to claim compensation.
3) The operator will be NTPC, a government run power corporation. It is contended that it will supply electricity at state subsidized rates, which ultimately would be borne by the taxpayers. In addition, only the operator can take the recourse from the supplier, in which case its financial liability would be only 500 crores (with an upper limit of 2000 crores that has to be borne by the taxpayers), which is far less than the damaged that can be caused. Ultimately, it is the indian taxpayer who will have to give the money even when the accident has occurred due to others’ mistake. The liability cap on the suppliers has been fixed at 1500 crores.
4) Clause 18 of the bill limits the time to make a claim within 10 years, which is very less as compared to the long term damage that may be caused.
Thus, the government restored the operator's right to seek compensation from the supplier and approved the draft bill with 18 amendments on August 25 2o10 in deference to the demands made by the Opposition. With the removal of “and,” the operator was free to pursue the supplier and he could do so even if there was no separate contract between the operator and the supplier.
Why so much criticism?
Though the technological developments in nuclear reactors have reduced the probability of a serious nuclear catastrophe, the Bhopal Tragedy (1984) has taught the government – the ruling and the opposition – to circumspect any other agreement that involves the masses.
Image Courtesy: http://www1.sulekha.com/mstore/newsblogs/albums/default/Indo-us%20nuclear%20deal.jpg
0 comments:
Post a Comment