[Reader-list] Sunita Narain: Not learning from Bhopal

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Kshamendra jee

I am directly taking the parts put up on the website of International
Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, to specify the legal liabilities of DOW,
which have been demanded:

As the current owner of Union Carbide, the *Dow Chemical Company *must:

   - *FACE TRIAL*: Ensure that Union Carbide and Warren Anderson present
   themselves in the Indian courts, and cease to abscond from the Chief
   Judicial Magistrate’s court in Bhopal.
   - *PROVIDE LONG-TERM HEALTH CARE*: Guarantee access to medical
   rehabilitation for the persons exposed to toxic gases and contaminated
   groundwater and their children. This includes medical care, health
   monitoring and necessary research studies. Further, the company must provide
   all information on the health consequences of the leaked gases and
   contaminants in the ground water.
   - *CLEAN UP THE POISON*: Clean up toxic wastes and contaminated
   groundwater in and around the Union Carbide factory site. Provide safe water
   to the community, and just compensation for those who have been injured or
   made ill by this contamination and/or have had their property damaged.
   - *PROVIDE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUPPORT*: Provide income opportunities to
   victims who cannot pursue their usual trade as a result of exposure-induced
   illnesses and income support to families rendered destitute due to death or
   incapacitation of the breadwinner of the family.


The view that DOW has no legal liability because it bought the plant after
the incident took place has no legal sanction. When one company takes over
another, just as the bought over plant's assets are now the assets of the
one who bought it, its liabilities are also transferred over to the latter.
One can't say that if I buy a company, and its assets are mine, but its'
liabilities aren't. This is not legally tenable. Which is why DOW chemicals
had to shell out $ 330 million for a UCC plant (after acquiring it) for
over-exposure to asbestos to the local workers as an out-of-court
settlement, that too within a year of acquiring it. Why then double
standards?

The only major question, which is legal rather than ethical, is whether UCC
had a control over UCIL or not. That is the question (the only one) on which
UCC and DOW can conveniently parrot their claims of not giving compensation,
simply because although UCC had about 50% shares of UCIL, one can legally
question whether UCC had any control over it. In one of the documentary
sessions organized in my college, this issue was certainly raised. The
answer to this, was given by a lawyer that yes, UCC (and now, DOW) have to
ensure rehabilitation of those who were affected by the tragedy, in light of
the US and the Indian laws. Infact, the first judgement on this issue was
given in a US court, which said that since the matter pertained to victims
living in another country (India), the matter should be decided in the
courts of that country, and not the US.

As for the clean up of the site, Indian and American Constitutions state
that it's DOW (previously UCC) which has to clean up the site; it's their
responsibility. As for compensation, DOW legally may not have to compensate,
but morally they should.

Here, I would like also to mention one more thing. Rajiv Gandhi, the then
PM, had refused a compensation of $490 million from UCC, and then the
settlement the Indian Govt (representing the victims) and the UCC finally
reached at, was $470 million. What a shame indeed!

I would also like to know hopefully, before my death, who gave the Indian
govt. the right to represent the victims, when it was the Indian govt. which
was guilty in the first place, having allowed a plant with faulty designs
and in violation of the norms (environmental and legal) to function?

Rakesh