“The dream of reason produces monsters,” wrote Francisco de Goya, warning future generations about ambition unrestrained by wisdom. Hannah Arendt later observed that political power often compensates for inner weakness through spectacle rather than substance. These two ideas illuminate India’s latest legislative move in the energy sector, a move that is being sold as progress but risks becoming a symbol of institutional overreach.
This move also reminds us that grand state projects often reveal more about ambition than about public good. That warning resonates today. India’s parliament has approved a controversial nuclear energy bill. This is not a routine legal act. It is a political declaration. It reflects a state of mind. It displays a dream detached from material limits. The target of producing 100 GW of nuclear power by 2047 sounds majestic. It sounds historic. Yet large targets do not always prove large capacity. Often, they soothe the ego. Often, they serve spectacle.
This bill is not a symbol of progress. It is a narrative. A story told to the world. Hollow inside. It soothes a false national ego. Energy security does not emerge by ignoring risk. It emerges by accepting reality. India today lacks the capacity to safely advance nuclear energy with private partners. This decision may trigger political, environmental, and regional crises. Passed in the name of Shanti, the bill brings unease. That may be its deepest truth
The Shanti Bill 2025 is being sold as a guarantee of progress. The ruling party frames it as a ladder toward energy self-reliance. The opposition calls it a reckless gamble. Parliament witnessed a walkout. Demands to send the bill to a standing committee were ignored. Speed replaced scrutiny. This haste raises doubts about intent. If the law is truly safe, debate should not threaten it. Fear of discussion is revealing.
For the first time, India openly allows private sector investment in nuclear energy. Here the real problem begins. Nuclear energy is not just another power plant. It is a sensitive system. It demands civilizational discipline. Profit pressure matters. Cost cutting instincts matter. Corporate shortcuts matter. In this domain, they become existential risks. Markets reward speed. Nuclear systems punish haste.
Chernobyl and Fukushima are not dusty textbook cases. They are living memories. They occurred in advanced states. Strong institutions existed. Regulations were present. Even there, a moment of failure poisoned generations. India already struggles with infrastructure gaps and regulatory fragility. Transparency is contested. Allowing private players into this sphere is a warning bell. It should not be ignored.
Energy expert Narendra Taneja defends nuclear power with logic. He compares nuclear systems to aircraft maintenance. No compromise is possible. That is correct. Zero tolerance is essential. But another question remains. Will India’s private sector act with that ethic? Or will it repeat patterns seen in bridges and dams? Highways and factories tell stories. Not reassuring ones.
Many Indian nuclear plants are aging. The absence of a major accident so far is fortunate. It is not a guarantee. Especially when private capital enters. Profit becomes primary. Shareholders demand returns. Safety then faces pressure. It always does. History confirms this pattern.
Radioactive waste is another silent threat. It cannot be seen. It lasts for centuries. It contaminates land and water. Opposition voices raised this issue. The government cited IAEA oversight. On paper, the argument looks solid. In practice, IAEA supervision is limited. It depends on state cooperation. Internal corporate decisions remain outside its reach. Paper assurances do not neutralize physical risk.
Global data shows nuclear power is dominated by a few states. The USA. France. China. Russia. South Korea. They possess decades of experience. They have deep research capacity. They have trained human capital. India desires entry into this club. Desire alone is insufficient. Capability matters. The gap is real.
China is often cited. China expanded nuclear energy rapidly. But China operates under strict state control. Private capital does not dictate policy. Decisions follow central command. India differs. Here, politics, capital, and media intersect. Safety norms often retreat under that pressure. This is structural. Not hypothetical.
This bill is less about energy. It is about image building. A new edition of the Shining India narrative. Global power rhetoric continues. G20 glamour persists. Space missions are marketed. Everything aligns. Yet the ground reality remains stark. India still relies heavily on coal. Millions lack clean electricity today. Present deprivation is real.
Energy self-reliance demands balance. Solar power matters. Wind matters. Water matters. Grid upgrades matter. Line loss reduction matters. India has not pursued serious reform here. Instead, it has chosen a risky and expensive path. Because it looks grand. Because it photographs well.
Regional implications are serious. South Asia is already fragile. Nuclear weapons exist. Border disputes persist. Political instability endures. Nuclear energy expansion raises accident risk beyond borders. Air ignores boundaries. Water ignores maps. One incident can affect an entire region.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka should be concerned. They lack access to information. They lack oversight mechanisms. Distrust will deepen. A new arms-style competition may emerge under an energy label.
This bill is not a symbol of progress. It is a narrative. A story told to the world. Hollow inside. It soothes a false national ego. Energy security does not emerge by ignoring risk. It emerges by accepting reality. India today lacks the capacity to safely advance nuclear energy with private partners. This decision may trigger political, environmental, and regional crises. Passed in the name of Shanti, the bill brings unease. That may be its deepest truth.
