I agree that dismissing the role of nuclear energy as completely as Gadekar does is not good policy, and the the nuclear deal will surely help energy generation in India.
However, I am skeptical about when this would happen. Given the urgency displayed in finalizing the deal, and the fact that our reactors are currently running at less than half their capacities, I would like to assume that work will begin as soon as the first supplies are in. If the five-year plans are any indication of where the government is going, then this does not seem to be happening. Assuming that the drafters of the next five-year plan were unsure of the deal going through, the plan rates nuclear energy production far below on its list of priorities. Looking into the next ten years, the estimated increase in production/capacity is not significant enough. Their emphasis continues to be coal, followed by petroleum and hydro.
It would be a good policy to revise this estimate and undertake any necessary maintenance/upgrades to the existing reactors/units to ensure energy generation at the earliest upon arrival of the fuel. I think it would serve the dual purpose of actual energy production and also show the world that India was sincere in its arguments, and is only interested in energy production. It does not intend to divert any uranium for its weapon’s program.
As for thorium usage. I think it is a very positive aspect of our nuclear program. Thorium cannot be diverted to weapon production, provides at least a partial solution to the nuclear waste problem and with sufficient indigenous availability it would enable us to be independent of foreign assistance to sustain our energy program.
There is a good piece on thorium at usnews.com (
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/10/14/some-nuclear-energy-backers-say-uranium-alternative-could-be-a-magic-bullet.html )
Another positive step in finding alternate means of nuclear energy production is the setting up of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Organization, which would now cooperate with the IAEA. This organization is intended to help demonstrate how fusion could be used to generate electrical power. (India is a founding member of this organization.)
Finally, though I have my non-proliferation concerns about the deal, what with Pakistan immediately asking for deals with US and China, I think we have been handed a wonderful opportunity that should not be allowed to go waste due to political lethargy and bureaucracy.

You’ve correctly pointed out the central problem with the argument made by the likes of Dr Gadekar—one the one hand they dismiss nuclear power, despite its feasibility; and on the other, talk up solar and biomass, as if it will yield feasible solutions tomorrow or even in the next decade. It may sound nice in a country like the US where there is no power shortage, but it’s downright absurd in the Indian context, where there are chronic 16% shortages between demand and supply, even when electrification is partial.

They also ignore the most basic concept of engineering, economics and security: diversity. For a country like India, the question is not either/or. It is more of everything. We need more nuclear, more thermal, more hydroelectric, more solar and more wind, and more biomass.

I noticed that you have a link to my old blog (Scientia Natura) on your blogroll. Some shit happened that forced me to close my blog. However, if you liked my blog, something tells me that you would enjoy http://www.evolvedrational.com