Dear Mr. Narayan Murthy,
As the co-founder of one of the biggest and (once) most
respected IT giant companies, it is with great distress that I have to dissent
with you. Mind you, I had great respect for you until I read these news articles (and this)
about your statements made to impressionable college students at St. Xavier’s college
in Mumbai about the benefits of nuclear energy.
It is even more shameful
that YOU as a guiding symbol of youth chose the days and month of
the deadly Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings to make such statements. We
know from past experiences that the timings of such statements and “seminars”
are usually fixed by the Department of Atomic Energy/NPCIL etc to deflect
public attention from core issues related to nuclear. And apparently you
have willy-nilly fallen into that trap – lock stock and barrel.
I was shattered that you as a person with so much
knowledge, deep understanding of business consulting, outsourcing and
technology among many other skills can actually go around town with such juvenile,
rash and factually incorrect statements.
I must say that I have lost all that respect for you
Sir!
You were
supposed to be a role model for students; not be a champion of ASSOCHAM or for
FICCI or for foreign companies (which may give business contracts to Infosys)
or to butter up to the government and bag more contracts by your public
utterances (you already have the Padma Vibhushan and Padma Shree award, so
these do not matter - so the Presidents post is probably what you are aiming for?)
Seriously, Sir, it sullies your image to get into such
issues of national and international significance with zero knowledge.
To top
it all, you are also a member of the advisory boards and councils of several
educational and philanthropic institutions, including Cornell University, INSEAD,ESSEC, Ford Foundation,
the UN Foundation, the Indo-British Partnership, Asian Institute of
Management, a trustee of the Infosys Prize,
and a trustee of the Rhodes Trust, Chairman of the Governing board of Public Health
Foundation of India
and serve on the Asia Pacific Advisory Board of British Telecommunications.
Ironically, you are also the author of the book “A Better India, A Better
World” (it rings a bell about the BJP promise of Acche Din)
Frankly, it would have been quite easy to dismiss such
statements you have made had they came from some ignorant or an illiterate politician.
But from you - coming from such an impressive pedigree and with an impressive
background of engineering degrees (including that from the prestigious IIT,
Kanpur) and being a business tycoon as well CEO, Chairman of Board and Chief Mentor
at Infosys!! Speechless.
Notwithstanding all the above, it is with great pain
that I will have to take apart your statements – bit by bit.
- "As long as we're diligent and strive for excellence, there is nothing wrong in using nuclear technology for peaceful energy"
--- The key part of this statement is “As long as
we are diligent.” As long as nuclear industry exists Mr. Murthy, it will
remain opaque otherwise, or else its dark underbelly will be exposed. The
nuclear industry is notorious for its means of doing business. Costs are
under-reported when taking orders, the nuclear plants take forever long to be commissioned, cost overruns of even 100%
are common place in the industry, the nuclear industry frequently cuts
corners on safety and then puts up its hands saying that whatever happened is a
‘Beyond Design Basis Accident’ (BDBA).” When the industry itself claims that it
is not free from possible accidents (plus given the massive corruption involved
in these deals) can you – as a businessman – seriously imagine that corners are
not being cut? If you think so, then you certainly are (or pretend to be) an extremely naïve person
indeed!!
2. "Citing detractors who quote disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, Murthy said the number of people affected in these tragedies are far less than those who die in car accidents."
---- Sir, what is the source of your information?
Various surveys by reputed international NGO’s (who are not aligned to the UN)
have reported over a million excessive deaths related to the Chernobyl disaster. These include cancer,
thyroid problems, acute and severe depression besides heart and organ failures
and birth defects.
If it is the WHO which
is your “source”, then please read the WHO-IAEA deal about reporting nuclear accident statistics which
was signed about fifty years ago. (IIT should have provided you with that much knowledge?)
“In 1959, the International
Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) and World Health Organization(WHO) entered into an
working agreement which is out-of-date and conflicts with the research of the
WHO to determine the effects of ionizing radiation exposure on human health. We
are concerned that the language of this agreement (WHA 12.40 approved by the
12th World Health Assembly on 28 May 1959) mingles promotion of nuclear
technology, including nuclear power, with the WHO’s mandate to undertake
international health research work on people exposed to ionizing radiation-a
product of this same nuclear technology. Specifically the WHO, as stated in its
Constitution, has a mandate to “promote and protect the health of all peoples.”
Health is defined as “not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” but “the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.” This highest
attainable standard “is one of the fundamental rights of every human being
without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
(Link to some PDF’s and sites here or here )
Your statement is shocking as it comes from a person who is the Chairman of the Governing board of Public Health
Foundation of India.
It is my honest suggestion that you link up with some genuine medical experts
who have spent over four decades studying the effects of radiation. (You can
begin with Dr. Helen Caldicott here)
3. "France draws 85% of its power from nuclear sources."
Sir, please first read news and then give your "expert" comments.
The nuclear share of energy generated in France for 2014 was 77% and not 85% as
you claim. (Year wise and country wise generation data from the very champion
of the nuclear industry – World Nuclear Association is here Link)
Besides, France has committed to
drastically scale down its nuclear energy targets over the next decade to 50%
(even as it sells it's failed technology to India via Areva)
You may be
shocked to read this in the venerable Scientific American (June 29 2015 – here)
“The host nation (France) for
this year’s climate talk (the UNFCCC - COP21), is pumping the brakes on one of
its most successful ways of controlling carbon.”
Look at the REAL facts:
Areva of France (a majority owned – over 80%- held company by the French government till recently) has deep problems
regarding its reactor designs. From Olkilouto in Finland, to Hinkley Point
in UK and to Flaminvilla in France itself, its EPR reactor other reactors are faring very poorly. Massive cost over-runs, problems with reactor
designs and control panel problems have showed how this industry really works.
As a CEO of a large global organization; would you lead, respect or champion for an organization like Areva which is planning on setting up N-plants in Jaitpur?
A company which has not made any profits since 2010 (it's latest figures quote some
4.8 billion dollars loss for 2014).
Or championing
for the corrupt Russian companies which delivered faulty valves for the
Kudankulam nuclear plant?
Or championing
for US-Japan General Electric (GE) which supplied the Fukushima reactors, and which has
now thrown its hands up for the accidents claiming that they were “Beyond
Design Accidents”?
It is indeed surprising that a person of your stature does not
know about these facts before speaking to gullible students!! I would rather call
it as deliberate suppression of material facts. Or, probably hidden agends.
34. “There is nothing which is risk-free and hence, it is important to look at the trade-offs”
Sir, kindly
leave your risk appetite for your corporate interests and do not mix them with
public health issues. I would suggest that you don’t look with blinkered eyes
at the bottom line every time you have to make a statement – sometimes; it is
wiser to think of the overall good of people in the long term; not about short
term quarterly profit figures on the balance sheet.
4
5. "Nuclear
plant generates far less carbon than a thermal power station."
-
-- Again, as a businessman, you should know very well about the total lifecycle cost of any asset. You may relate better to the computer parlance term which we call as TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) Please get some of your so called super intelligent engineers to come back and report to you with what are the REAL carbon emission figures for a nuclear power plant over its lifetime.
-- Again, as a businessman, you should know very well about the total lifecycle cost of any asset. You may relate better to the computer parlance term which we call as TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) Please get some of your so called super intelligent engineers to come back and report to you with what are the REAL carbon emission figures for a nuclear power plant over its lifetime.
Mr, Narayan Murthy, it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change.
Look at renewables and energy efficiency. Think out of the box and society Sir, as you once thought for Infosys. Please get the bigger picture clear about energy and climate issues cleared in your own mind first before rushing into such debates.
And finally Sir, if you can come up with a credible solution to the radioactive nuclear waste issue, you might even get a Nobel Prize. And while you may ponder about that, please also figure out a way so that nuclear proliferation and weapons are not deployed using these reactors as a front.
Until
then...
Warm Regards,
Yours (once)
faithful,
ANUJ WANKHEDE
(The author can be reached on benchmark.anuj@gmail.com)
