The fiery fumes of Fukushima have not reached our shores, but they have entered our souls. Indeed, a soul searching is imperative even by those who have so far believed that nuclear energy is the panacea for power shortage and underdevelopment.
Those who have watched the helplessness of humanity, even its most scientifically advanced and disciplined part, will be devastated by the human suffering and the looming danger.

Those who fight the fire in Japan, braving the deadly fumes, have been characterised as a suicide squad.
Is humanity itself turning into a suicide squad, with the increased risks that nuclear reactors have engendered?
The world has not been unaware of these risks, demonstrated at Chernobyl and Three Miles Island, but hope has prevailed over experience. The new awareness of global warming, resulting from the use of fossil fuels, has contributed to a virtual nuclear renaissance.
Fukushima’s wake-up call has come at a crucial time. For India, the situation is particularly critical as it is on the threshold of a resurgence in nuclear power generation.
We cannot but rethink India’s half-a-century old decision to develop its energy mix with nuclear power as an essential component.
In today’s conditions, India simply cannot afford to shut down its nuclear reactors or freeze our nuclear power development, which was energised by the nuclear deal. The thought that five hundred million people of India still have no access to electricity is frightening.
Equally worrying is the prospect of having to abandon the new opportunity we have of obtaining fuel and equipment on account of the end of nuclear apartheid against India.
India’s minimum nuclear deterrent also needs to be preserved as long as nuclear weapons are part of the security doctrine of any country, friend or foe. We have to live with the dangers and risks for the sake of security on the one hand and development on the other.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, we are committed to their elimination at least in the distant future.
In 1988, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi gave the world an action plan for nuclear disarmament, which outlined a plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2010. The world largely ignored it then, but rediscovered it recently, not to embrace it unconditionally, but as one noble thought which should prepare the world for the long and arduous journey up the high mountain of disarmament and non-proliferation, from the summit of which one can see a world free of nuclear weapons.
India’s dream once again became a part of the search for the Global Zero. After all, India gave the zero to the world and it may well lead it to Global Zero. Likewise, India should now give the world an “action plan for denuclearisation of energy” within a 20-year framework. We should, of course, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, look at every nuclear reactor from the safety angle and take all the corrective measures necessary. We should also pull out the dusty files which have reports of past accidents and make them public for the whole world to see.
Suspicions of sabotage by insiders should be thoroughly investigated. These are essential steps even to maintain nuclear power generation for 20 years.
Our action plan should seek to get the entire world to commit itself to denuclearisation of energy. Like in the disarmament plan, realistic steps must be indicated at every stage of the plan, without disrupting life in countries which are already dependent on nuclear energy.
It should not create impediments to essential nuclear research for disease prevention and control, food safety and security, natural resource management etc, which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue to pursue.
Accompanying the plan will be a massive programme for developing renewable energy sources that do not contribute to climate change.
The ideal place for India to present the action plan is the United Nations General Assembly, which, in turn, can ask the IAEA to examine the plan, together with other proposals, to adopt a universally acceptable convention.
Such a measure will deprive the IAEA of part of its empire as it has been envisaging a nuclear renaissance by 2020. Several countries are waiting in line for designing and installing power projects and the only constraint is the lack of financial and technical resources.
But Fukushima may have already had an impact on the aspirants and the line may have shrunk in the last one week.
The action plan has a chance of succeeding if it is put forward before the fires of Fukushima die down and the nuclear lobbies bounce back into action.
Apart from the traditional nuclear sceptics like Austria, there will be new takers for the idea like Germany, which has decided to take a measured exit from nuclear power and reach the age of renewable energy as soon as possible. Switzerland also has taken similar measures. The vast majority of nations in the world, which has no nuclear programme for generation of electricity, will embrace the plan.
No doubt, a section of opinion makers in India will be reluctant to support such an initiative. The practicality of the idea will be called into question.
But Rajiv Gandhi had no hesitation in presenting the action plan for disarmament at a time when the world was not ready for it. Likewise, this is a historic opportunity for Dr Manmohan Singh to present a plan to save future generations of mankind from catastrophe.

T.P. Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India and governor in the IAEA