Foreign hand in energy security
Recently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) claimed that it found evidence of how foreign hands, and overseas funds aimed to shape India’s policies, and impact the energy security framework. Although the money involved is small, a mere INR 6 crore over 4-5 years, the inward flows were suspicious, possibly-illegal, and used the ‘Climate Change’ agenda to end or reduce the use of fossil fuels in the country. This objective, states the ED, may “severely compromise the nation’s energy security and economic development.” Thus, the aim was to interfere in the internal economic and industrial affairs.
A couple, which received the money as consultancy charges through a company that they owned, were self-proclaimed climate activists. The duo was previously engaged with the Climate Action Network South Asia. The money came from several foreign entities like the Climate Action Network, Stand.Earth, and others which, in turn, were financed by other global NGOs. The intention was to “promote the agenda of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (FF-NPT).” Lobbying is a natural and logical exercise, and there seems nothing ostensibly wrong with the proposed agenda. However, the ED claimed that this was against the national interests.
FF-NPT was a proposed global treaty that aimed to phase out fossil fuel production internationally. “While presented as a climate initiative, its adoption could expose India to legal challenges in international forums like the International Court of Justice,” explained ED. This stems from an understanding that despite the massive green energy initiatives locally, India will continue to depend on fossil fuels, both coal and crude oil, for several decades. Many experts feel that this is a necessity, and a reality, if the nation needs to grow at high growth rates until 2050.
Thus, any external attempts to nudge, pressure, or force India to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels will impact future growth and development. It will adversely influence not only state-owned entities like Coal India, Indian Oil, and others, but private refiners like Reliance Industries, and users in the public and private sectors. Most of India's energy demand is met by fossil fuels, including large amounts of crude oil imports, and they are critical inputs for several manufacturing segments. India’s imports and production of fossil fuels have increased, rather than decreased, in the recent past.
Linkages between foreign money, energy security, economic security, and national security have been on India’s radar for decades, especially since the economic reforms of the early-1990s. During Manmohan Singh’s tenure as the prime minister, there were charges that foreign NGOs used local entities to launch activities against the nuclear plants in India. One of them, which faced intense protests, was delayed due to these efforts that were masterminded from outside. Mining, and other manufacturing projects have similarly faced opposition from the grassroot and Civil Society forces and collectives that were possibly financed by overseas funds.
During the past decade or so, such concerns have gained credence. This explains why the previous regimes tightened the screws on foreign inflows in the NGO sector, and initiated moves to monitor and scrutinise them. Procedures became stringent, security clearances became mandatory, and existing local NGOs faced the heat. Expenses were regulated, and NGOs were forced by laws to spend only a certain percentage of the money flows on salaries and administrative work. In essence, the foreign inflows
were choked. The budgets of several large NGOs were affected, and a few, including known names, either walked out, or limited their presence.
Such moves angered the NGO sector, which claimed that the regimes were deliberately targeting them, and their activities. They said that it was irrational to club the efforts by the Civil Society with national security in the garb of economic security, and energy security. In a democracy, people have the right to hold their views, which may be contrary to the official opinions. Just because an entity opposes the mining activities due to their impact on environment, and local communities does not deem it as working against national security. There needs to be a balance between destruction and development.
Over the past few decades, there were debates and discussions on these issues. The pro-business and pro-national lobbies and sections felt that growth and development were the key to national success. If India needed to emerge as an economic superpower, it needed to pursue business projects faster than the other competitors. The pro-environment and pro-people sections opposed these views. They felt that nations in the modern times need to balance the priorities. Pursue one at the expense of the other was suicidal, not just for the nation but Planet Earth, and future generations.
Of course, what is important in this debate is the legality, and adherence to the laws. If the money inflows are illegal, or against the laws, the governments need to act. But if they are not, the officials cannot act merely because they subjectively feel that the activities are against the stated national interests, which invariably change with the changes in the political orders. For example, in the recent case of the couple, and INR 6 crore, the ED feels that mandatory and official clearances were not taken. Hence, the inflows were illegal. But in most cases, they are legal, and as per the law.
However, for the investigating agency to link the money with FF-PPT, and claim that this undermined energy security seems far-fetched. There are scores of businesses, civil right activists, economists, environmentalists, and politicians, who oppose the random use of fossil fuels. In fact, the current regime wants a raid shift to renewables, and India is at the forefront of global green energy. In such an atmosphere, opposing fossil fuels cannot be deemed to be an activity that dangers energy security. It may enhance energy security, and help the nation to prepare for a future, where fossil fuels may lose the upper hand in energy policies.
Debates on environment versus development have hinged around the pros and cons of both. Development leads to innovation, which generates wealth and technology to combat environment-related issues. It reduces poverty, which indirectly saves the planet for misuse and mismanagement. Some theories suggest that pollution initially rises with growth, and then falls as societies become wealthy. Giving priority to the environment is based on the thinking that reckless development can recklessly damage the planet. Development strains the finite natural resources, and each citizen has a moral duty towards the future generations of humans, animals, and plants.
