Prerna Gupta: What was the government narrative around nuclear technology in India post-independence? What are the effects of linking development and nationalism to atomic energy?
Dilnaz Boga: In post-independence India, nuclear energy was envisioned as a crucial driver in propelling the country out of the shadows of British colonialism and into modernity and development. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru frequently articulated this vision, most notably during his speech on the eve of the introduction of the Atomic Energy Bill. He likened the atomic age to the industrial revolution, asserting that just as the steam engine powered the industrial era, India stood on the threshold of a new age powered by atomic energy.
Globally, the concept of the "Atomic Age" gained momentum following the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This new era promised immense power and economic growth through the generation of free, limitless electricity.
This alignment of nuclear technology with national development became one of the key reasons for the extraordinary powers vested in India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The Atomic Energy Act ensured that the government held a monopoly over nuclear activities, answering directly to the Prime Minister's Office and operating behind a wall of official secrecy. This insulation from public scrutiny, as well as from elected representatives, is further reinforced by legal penalties for revealing classified information under the Official Secrets Act.
As a result, there is a severe lack of transparency in the operations of Department of Atomic Energy. Despite massive and consistent investment by the government since 1948, nuclear energy's share of the total electricity supply has remained between 2- 4% only. However, performance reports or financial accounts related to nuclear energy remain largely inaccessible to the public, let alone the recurring safety concerns that are raised time and again.
My research looks at the impacts of the nationalism narrative and lack of transparency on the lived experiences of people. In interviews I conducted with residents near the Tarapur Power Plant, the first nuclear power station in India, it became evident that Nehru's vision of linking national development with nuclear energy initially resonated deeply with the local population. Many villagers who were displaced during the construction of Units 1 and 2 in the early 1960s recall their parents welcoming the plant, believing that their region had been chosen for something great. They were hopeful that the plant would bring development and prosperity.
However, over the years, this optimism gave way to profound disillusionment. The traditional livelihoods of farming and fishing that the villagers had given up were not replaced by the promised jobs or economic opportunities. The construction of Units 3 and 4 in 2004 only exacerbated these feelings of betrayal. The new expansion was accompanied by an unjust rehabilitation process, and many fishers and farmers were pushed into unstable contract work at the plant. Meanwhile, basic amenities like water and electricity remain elusive in rehabilitated villages.
One resident, Jitendra Raul, encapsulated the frustration felt by many:
If this technology is meant for the good of the people, then what do they have to hide? They are just fooling us. If they are doing something for our future, then we should know. It is my right. I should be able to decide if what they are doing for me is right or wrong. This is my right in a democracy. But this is not happening in the nuclear department. And it's not just here in India -- this is happening everywhere in the world.
PG: How many nuclear plants does India have and what are the risks generally associated with nuclear energy production? Do we have better energy producing options we should be switching to?
DB: The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) lists 24 nuclear power plants on its website. Of these, 3 are under maintenance and have not produced electricity recently, and 1 is permanently shut down, leaving 20 operational nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy production is associated with several environmental and health risks, including:
Catastrophic Accidents: While the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) asserts that accidents like Fukushima or Chernobyl cannot occur in India, there is no guarantee. The probability of such an accident might be low but it is not zero. Increased instances of extreme climate events such as cyclones due to climate change only exacerbates the risks of an accident.
The long-term impacts of such accidents on health and the environment are difficult to measure, as radiation-related health effects, like cancer, can take years to manifest. Additionally, catastrophic accidents have enormous financial implications. For example, the Japanese government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the ongoing cleanup at Fukushima. Recently, the release of treated radioactive water into the Pacific led to bans on Japanese seafood imports by China and Russia, significantly impacting the industry. The economic fallout from a similar event in India would be severe.
Nuclear Waste: Increasing nuclear energy production inevitably leads to a larger stockpile of radioactive waste, regardless of the reactor type. Some of these wastes remain hazardous to human health for hundreds of thousands of years. Although substantial research has been conducted for decades, there is still no proven method to safely manage them. Given the extensive timeframes involved, uncertainties will always exist about the eventual fate of these materials, making it probable that radioactive substances will eventually contaminate the environment.
Day-to-Day Risks: Aside from catastrophic incidents, nuclear plants carry everyday risks that are often overlooked. For instance, inadequate safety measures, poor waste disposal practices, or technical failures can lead to routine leakages of radioactive materials into the environment. The Sellafield nuclear site in the UK serves as an example. Between 1950 and 2000, there were 21 serious incidents involving off-site radiological releases, rated on the International Nuclear Event Scale, including one at Level 5. The Hanford Site in the U.S., originally developed for plutonium production, released significant radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River, contributing to increased cancer rates in surrounding areas. Cleanup at Hanford remains one of the largest environmental cleanup efforts in the U.S.
These everyday risks are often felt most by people living near nuclear facilities. My research on Tarapur and uranium mining in Jadugoda also highlights these persistent, under-discussed risks, emphasizing the importance of safety, transparency, and alternative energy solutions.
PG: What has the environmental impact been around one of the oldest plants in India such as the one in Tarapur (TAPS), which is just three hours from Mumbai?
DB: In interviews I conducted with fishing communities near Tarapur, they reported a significant decline in fish populations, including once-abundant local varieties such as Dara, Ghol, Pomfret, and Bombil, which they sold in Bombay. They also noted the near disappearance of prawns and crabs- that are usually found near the shore, attributing this to the hot water discharged by the nuclear power plant, which they believe has increased seawater temperatures and harmed fish eggs.
Residents of nearby villages, like Ghivali and Tarapur, also reported health issues such as joint pain, cancer, and congenital abnormalities in children, although they hesitated to directly link these to the plant.
The operation of Tarapur power plant has been frought with headlines around radioactive leaks and environmental impacts -- Local journalist Neeraj Raut, reporting on these issues since 1995, recounted incidents such as a 1995 radioactive water leak that killed several animals and exposed the local population to Cesium-137. a 1989 study by Doshi and Joshi from BARC found alarmingly high concentrations of Iodine-129 in marine algae near the plant, which they identified as a major environmental hazard due to the isotope's long half-life and its potential to enter the human food chain. This study, though impactful at the time, has not been referenced in subsequent environmental impact assessments or studies conducted by TAPS or BARC.
However, studies conducted by BARC and the Environmental Survey Laboratory consistently conclude that radioactivity levels in the air, water, and land are minimal and below regulatory limits, with no excess cancer risk for nearby populations. Independent studies are needed to properly assess the level of health and environmental impacts in the region.
PG: What are your findings on the health of the nuclear plant workers in Tarapur? How have the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) tackled these problems?
DB: Workers I interviewed in Popharan and Akkarpatti, along with journalist Neeraj Raut, expressed concerns about the rising use of contract workers at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS). Neeraj Raut, who has been reporting on the issue, mentioned that many of these workers are brought from distant states and, after leaving, there is no way to track their health conditions. He stated, "There is no method to find out what is the state or fate of the health condition of the contractual workers. Although the permanent workmen are given adequate facilities and are monitored, the contract workers are not."
The experiences recounted by contract workers from Popharan and Akkarpatti are terrible. They are made to work in high radiation zones, but they do not have access to benefits and healthcare. Harkesh Tamhore, a contract worker from Popharan, told us that in the case of a workplace injury, "there is a problem to even call an ambulance. They give first aid and then tell us it's not our responsibility anymore. Now it's your responsibility."
TAPS has a history of overexposing workers to radiation. The issue of workers' exposure to radiation at TAPS first came into the spotlight after the late journalist Praful Bidwai reported about it on May 8, 1983, in the Times of India. He revealed that the second unit of TAPS had to cut its output by almost half to contain gaseous emissions of radioactive matter into the atmosphere and address the growing overexposure of workers. According to TAPS engineers, more than 300 workers had been exposed to annual doses exceeding the limit of 5,000 millirems, with some of the highest doses reaching 18,240, 16,000, and 11,320 millirems. To mitigate this issue, TAPS started employing a large number of local villagers to perform high-risk maintenance jobs without any orientation or knowledge of radiation, as regular TAPS workers were already overexposed. This overexposure was acknowledged by the DAE but downplayed in terms of its impact. The issue resurfaced in the 1990s, but once again, the DAE and TAPS management downplayed the high radiation exposure to workers.
While such overexposure incidents are documented for permanent workers, no records exist for contract workers, who continue to fight for permanent positions and better facilities. Contract workers at TAPS have been advocating for permanent positions and improved facilities.
PG: What are the measures that can be taken to rectify the decades old damage to the people and their environment? Are there any examples from other countries that we could perhaps adapt?
DB: Unfortunately, no good examples of fully rectifying the environmental and health damage caused by nuclear energy comes to mind. One partial example comes from the United States, where the government introduced the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) after prolonged advocacy from "downwinders"-communities affected by nuclear testing-and Navajo first nation who developed lung cancer from working in the uranium mine. Although this legislation requires the government to provide compensation, it has been widely criticized as inadequate, and the fight for fair compensation continues.
The most effective measure would be to halt the construction of new nuclear power plants to prevent further damage to the people and their environment and prevent the creation of more nuclear waste. A significant step forward would be to make nuclear energy operations more transparent, with accessible and detailed reports on safety, incidents, and environmental impacts. A thorough and unbiased assessment of the impact of nuclear facilities on people and the environment in India is essential. This requires an independent authority to conduct comprehensive safety and environmental reviews of nuclear installations.
It is important to understand here that the institutional structure of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) holds serious hurdles to the unbiased safety review of nuclear facilities in India. Till 1972, the DAE did not have a separate, identifiable organisation or personnel to review the safety of its nuclear installations. In the 1970s, there was a suggestion from a senior bureaucrat to create an independent body located in the Department of Science and Technology, as it had been assigned the national responsibility for ensuring the preservation of environmental quality. However, this was not accepted by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Currently, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is responsible for monitoring the safety of all the nuclear facilities operated by the UCIL, which fall under the purview of the DAE. However, the Board is required to report to the AEC, whose chairman is the Secretary of the DAE and which comes under the direct control of the Prime Minister of India. Thus, the regulatory board reports to the very agency it is required to assess and monitor in the interest of public safety.
Moreover, the lack of technical expertise outside of DAE puts practical limits to AERB's autonomy. Dr A Gopalakrishnan, a former chairman of the AERB, observed in an article written in 1999 that "almost 95% of the members in AERB's review and advisory committees are drawn from among retired employees of the DAE, either from one of their research institutes like the Bhabha Atomic Research Center or a power generation company like the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd". Other authorities like the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) (whose function is to enhance the accountability of various public sector organisations and departments to the Indian parliament and state legislatures) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) too have raised concerns over the subordinate position of AERB to DAE.
Only an honest, independent assessment of nuclear facilities can help us fully understand the extent of harm done to people and the environment, laying the groundwork for meaningful remediation and prevention of further damage.
Prerna Gupta is a PhD student at the Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Her research examines the cultural, economic, and political factors shaping public perceptions of nuclear energy in India. She has been engaging with nuclear energy and weapons issues in India for more than ten years, both academically and through civil action. Her experience with various environmental and social movements drives her passion for socially relevant research and creative projects. Prerna is also a documentary filmmaker, currently editing a film on people's lived experiences around India's oldest nuclear power plant.
Dr. Dilnaz Boga is a professor, freelance journalist, filmmaker, and researcher based in Mumbai. As a journalist, for over two decades, she has written and taken photographs for The Guardian, L'Humanite, Al Jazeera, Frai, Dawn, New Internationalist, Asia Sentinel, Himal, IndiaSpend, Hindu Business Lineand The Hindustan Times. In 2019, Dilnaz completed her Ph.D. at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences on the local, national, and international media's coverage of Kashmir from 1990 to 2010, and has been teaching journalism.