top of page

By:

Atul Bajpai

15 April 2026 at 5:33:58 pm

Atoms and Anxiety

A culture of secrecy and poor communication is weakening informed scientific voices in India’s nuclear debate AI generated image India’s nuclear establishment has long been associated with scientific excellence, strategic achievement, and technological self-reliance. From the early vision of Homi Jehangir Bhabha to the development of indigenous reactors and advanced fuel-cycle technologies, the country’s nuclear program has played a crucial role in shaping India’s global standing. Yet despite...

Atoms and Anxiety

A culture of secrecy and poor communication is weakening informed scientific voices in India’s nuclear debate AI generated image India’s nuclear establishment has long been associated with scientific excellence, strategic achievement, and technological self-reliance. From the early vision of Homi Jehangir Bhabha to the development of indigenous reactors and advanced fuel-cycle technologies, the country’s nuclear program has played a crucial role in shaping India’s global standing. Yet despite these achievements, nuclear scientists in India rarely influence public debate in a meaningful way. Whenever discussions emerge around nuclear energy, safety, radiation, uranium mining, or waste disposal, public discourse is often dominated not by scientists but by activists, political commentators, television panels, and social media narratives. This communication gap between experts and society has become one of the biggest challenges facing India’s nuclear future. The problem is not that Indian nuclear scientists lack expertise. Institutions such as Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, and the Department of Atomic Energy employ some of the country’s finest engineers, physicists, and researchers. India’s nuclear program has successfully operated reactors, produced isotopes for medicine and agriculture, and maintained a credible strategic deterrent. Technically, the country possesses a highly competent scientific ecosystem. The real issue lies elsewhere: nuclear experts in India have historically remained distant from public communication. Culture of Secrecy Unlike economists, environmentalists, or public health professionals who frequently participate in television debates, write newspaper columns, or engage with civil society, nuclear scientists often remain confined within institutional boundaries. Much of this is rooted in the culture of secrecy that evolved around India’s atomic program after independence. Since nuclear technology was closely linked with national security and strategic autonomy, scientific institutions developed an inward-looking structure where information sharing became tightly controlled. While this approach may have served strategic purposes during the Cold War era, it has created unintended consequences in a democratic and digitally connected society. Today, information vacuums are quickly filled by speculation, misinformation, and fear. In the absence of credible scientific voices, emotionally charged narratives gain greater influence over public opinion. This communication failure becomes most visible during controversies surrounding nuclear projects. Protests near Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant or debates around uranium mining often reveal a troubling pattern: local communities frequently feel unheard, while scientific institutions struggle to explain complex technical issues in accessible language. Officials tend to respond with technical reports and official statements, whereas public anxieties are emotional, social, and livelihood-oriented. Facts alone rarely persuade people unless trust already exists. Another major problem is the communication style adopted by many scientific institutions. Nuclear experts are trained to speak in technical precision, probabilities, and engineering language. Society, however, responds to stories, human concerns, and emotional reassurance. When scientists speak only through data tables and regulatory terminology, they unintentionally widen the gap between themselves and ordinary citizens. The Fukushima accident in Japan demonstrated how even technologically advanced societies can experience public distrust after a nuclear crisis. In India, where scientific literacy remains uneven and social media misinformation spreads rapidly, the challenge is even greater. A single rumour regarding radiation exposure can create panic far beyond the actual risk. Unfortunately, nuclear institutions often react slowly in the public domain, allowing fear to spread before facts emerge. Sociological Factors Media dynamics also contribute to the problem. Television debates reward confrontation more than nuance. Complex scientific discussions are reduced to dramatic headlines such as “nuclear danger” or “radiation threat.” Scientists who prefer careful, evidence-based explanations often struggle to fit into this format. As a result, loud voices overshadow informed voices. There is also a deeper sociological issue at play. In India, scientists are respected, but they are not always publicly visible. Unlike in some Western countries where experts actively shape policy debates through books, interviews, podcasts, and public lectures, Indian scientific institutions have traditionally prioritized research over outreach. Public engagement is often treated as secondary rather than essential. This disconnect has serious implications for India’s energy future. Nuclear energy cannot expand successfully in a democracy without social acceptance. Projects involving reactors, waste management facilities, or uranium mining require cooperation from local communities and state governments. Public trust becomes as important as technological capability. India’s energy demands are growing rapidly, and the country faces the difficult challenge of balancing economic growth with climate commitments. Renewable sources such as solar and wind are important but intermittent. Nuclear energy offers stable low-carbon electricity that can support industrial expansion without increasing greenhouse emissions. Yet if scientists remain absent from public debate, nuclear policy risks being shaped more by fear and political rhetoric than by informed discussion. The solution is not propaganda or public relations campaigns. What India needs is a culture of scientific openness. Nuclear experts must engage directly with universities, journalists, local communities, and digital platforms. Scientists need to explain not only the benefits of nuclear technology but also its risks, limitations, and safety mechanisms in honest and accessible language. Transparency builds credibility far more effectively than secrecy. Educational institutions and media organizations also have a responsibility. Science communication should become a serious public function rather than an occasional exercise during crises. India needs more scientists willing to write op-eds, participate in interviews, and interact with society beyond laboratory walls. In the twenty-first century, technological expertise alone is not enough. Democracies increasingly depend on public trust. If nuclear scientists do not shape the debate through communication and engagement, others will shape it through fear, ideology, and misinformation. The future of India’s nuclear program may therefore depend not only on reactors and research, but also on the ability of experts to speak meaningfully to society. (The writer is a former scientific officer with the Department of Atomic Energy. Views personal.)

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Mamata is seeing a ghost of Bangladesh behind the massive outrage and waves of protest over rape and murder of the trainee doctor. And the reasons are many.

It’s been over a fortnight. Yet with each passing day the voice of protest is getting louder and stronger. From the streets of Kolkata it’s pouring into roads of hinterland. The cry for justice for a rape victim has consolidated into a wail of demands to set a lot of wrongdoings right. Here in lies the fear and trepidation. Wasn’t the issue that brought the youth of Bangladesh out on the thoroughfares a simple, innocent one of quota reform?

The chief minister of Bengal, known for understanding the pulse of people better than many, was quick to read the signages floating in the political horizon.

The most obvious reason for her to be tensed is that both the regime change in Bangladesh and the mass protest in Bengal, were student-driven to begin with. The two incidents---end of 15 year old Sheikh Hasina government and turbulence in West Bengal, over the heinous crime, falling back to back, the first on August 5th and the latter from August 9th onwards, give natural scope for comparisons. More so, because in both the cases the movement strayed beyond an affected constituency to include aggrieved people at large, cutting across socio-economic demography. If the quota reform protest started by students in Bangladesh became a mass uprising against an autocratic regime, the campaign demanding justice for the rape victim and overall safety and security of women in Mamata Banerjee’s Bengal soon snowballed into a movement of no-confidence against the government. Slogans--”Mamata must resign” also got floated in social media much in line with the call for ouster of Sheikh Hasina. In fact “Resignation of Hasina” became the single point agenda into which all other fringe demands coalesced.

Incidentally, even before people started drawing parallels, that there could be a thread of commonality in the way the upheaval in Bangladesh and Bengal played out, Mamata was quick to point out that the Opposition were trying to pull off a Bangladesh by politicizing the tragic incident: “A coordinated approach has been executed by the BJP and the CPIM with support from the Centre to defame Bengal and exploit the situation....They want to make a Bangladesh here. They are taking cues from student unrest in Bangladesh and are attempting to capture similarly. I have no longing for the chair. I came here to serve people.”

Not only Mamata, her political lieutenants are consistently equating the turmoil in Bengal with the mayhem in Bangladesh. Cabinet minister for North Bengal development Udayan Guha threatened to take stern action against those, who would be trying to exploit the situation by emulating a Bangladesh like movement. “ Even after the hospital was vandalised, the police did not open fire on anyone. The police will not allow a Bangladesh type situation. We will not allow Bengal to turn into Bangladesh, Guha thundered.

Is the government’s fear unfounded?

Apart from the similarities on ground zero, as to how and where the future course of events are heading to, there are ample reasons for Bengal to mull on-- as to what led to a Bangladesh like boiling point. To begin with, it’ll be appropriate to talk of Bangladesh and the prevailing situation, that made the students’ protest become big in magnitude. The students were out on the streets because of a high reservation in public jobs. Unemployment and stagnant job market in private sector coupled with a high rate of inflation drove the educated youth to rebel against the government.

But soon the students found enormous number of sympathisers, who were equally at the receiving end. According to Bangladesh citizens, the last two terms of the Sheikh Hasina government were a mockery of democracy. Even elections would be compromised. As Hasina grew from strength to strength, she politicized institutions. The rank and file of police owed allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Extortion, harrassment and raids by police and people in power became rampant. An atmosphere of fear and repression reigned and people got restless to overthrow the government.

Politicization of institutions has been happening in Mamata government too. Allegations are quite strong that police in Bengal functions at the beck and call of political bosses. The lapses and alleged loopholes on the part of police in handling the rape and murder of the young doctor have yet again revealed a sense of confused or misplaced loyalty.

But above everything else both Hasina and Mamata governments allegedly seem to have twined in accepting corruption as a way of life. In Bangladesh jobs of primary and secondary teachers got sold at premium, Rs 10-12 lakh in the Hasina regime. Even police had to pay up for prized postings and transfers. In Bengal busting of the teacher’s recruitment scam has revealed how unsuccessful and ineligible candidates got government jobs in schools in exchange of bribes.

Similarities are multiple and inescapable. Mamata has good reasons to be apprehensive. It’s not only she, who can see and connect the dots. People, out on the streets, clamoring for justice, can see a providential pattern somewhere in the unfolding of future events in these two places-- Bangladesh and Bengal. True, they share more than 2,217 odd km of border. They share the same umbilical cord, other than language, culture, ethos, icons. Even emotions are the same. So she cannot take any risk.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Kolkata. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page