[Reader-list] Fwd: Join 'No Coca-Cola Spokespersons for Indian Parliament' campaign on Facebook

[Anivar Aravind]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anivar Aravind <anivar.aravind at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Join 'No Coca-Cola Spokespersons for Indian Parliament' campaign on
Facebook
To: Greenyouth <greenyouth at googlegroups.com>, FOIL LIST <foil-l at insaf.net>,
Invites <invites at yahoogroups.com>


*Join 'No Coca-Cola Spokespersons for Parliament' on Facebook at
http://is.gd/ouhi.*


Shashi Tharoor is a Member of the Advisory Board of Coca-Cola India
Foundation, the PR face of a company that destroyed the environment and
lives of people around its plant in Plachimada, Kerala.

He speaks for the criminal company and ridicules people's fight for their
lives and livelihood.

Now he is seeking to represent the people of Kerala in Indian Parliament
from Thiruvananthapuram.

This is a chance for us to show our support for the struggle of people in
Plachimada by not sending a spokesperson for the Coca-Cola company to the
Indian Parliament.

Read more one this issue,

An Open Letter to Shashi Tharoor:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/msg/2f60091d948ac4e9

An Open Response to "an Open Letter to Shashi Tharoor":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shashi-tharoor/an-open-response-to-an-op_b_170172.html

An Open Reply to Shashi Tharoor:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/msg/6a09b6a15653654b

Coca Cola/Plachimada: An open rejoinder to Mr Shashi Tharoor:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/msg/651f28b01205e702

*Providing the Facts for Mr. Tharoor on Coca-Cola in India*
==================================
Mr. Tharoor:

I read with amazement your letter defending your role as an advisor to the
Coca-Cola India Foundation.

I was amazed because you have completely misstated the facts relating to the
shutdown Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada and the company's bottling
plants elsewhere in India.

As an advisor to the Coca-Cola India Foundation, along with your own
proclaimed inquiry into the matter surrounding Coca-Cola's operations in
India, it is incumbent upon you to be aware of the facts of matter and state
them as such.

Not only have you failed in stating the facts, but it is dismaying to note
that you repeat the same defense of Coca-Cola's operations in India as the
Coca-Cola company itself!

For your benefit, and more importantly, the public in India, I would like to
respond to your letter with the appropriate facts.

Scoring Political Points? *You accuse the authors of the open letter, Mr.
Swaminathan and Mr. Ajayan, of attempting to "score political points" by
releasing the open letter to the media and internet forums prior to you
receiving the letter. * An open letter is just that - a letter intended to
be read by a wider audience. It is not unusual to see such open letters
making the rounds in internet forums and the media prior to reaching the
specific person it is addressed to. And even a cursory internet search of
open letters alongside your name reveals that you are well accustomed to
such communication. The intent of the open letter was to highlight to the
larger public the problems the authors see with your association with the
Coca-Cola company and the foundation, especially in the context of you
"nurturing political ambition." Mr. Tharoor, if anybody is trying to score
political points, it seems to be you. Just a week after your response, we
read in the *Yale Daily News* dated March 5, 2009 that "Tharoor confirmed
that he is planning to run for a position in India's lower house of
Parliament, and said an official announcement would be released "in a week
to 10 days."" And the confirmation of your political run, strangely enough,
came at a lecture at Yale University which was sponsored by the Coca-Cola
World Fund! It is you who is running for political office, not the authors
of the open letter to you. You used your response to lay out your views on
the political climate in Kerala, asserted your identity as a Keralite,
stated your commitment to increasing corporate investment in the state, the
need to make it more business friendly, faulted the current negative image
of Kerala, bemoaned the trend of workers having to seek jobs in the Gulf and
elsewhere, asserted the need for safe drinking water for the state of
Kerala, and even managed to throw in "energy resources, waste management,
and the development of backward areas" - all very appropriate content for
someone making a run for political office. But you got the facts about
Coca-Cola's operations wrong. Coca-Cola India Foundation, Coca-Cola Company,
Coca-Cola India? You go to great lengths in your response to try to
differentiate, unsuccessfully, between the Coca-Cola India Foundation, on
whose advisory board you serve, and the Coca-Cola Company. Mr. Tharoor, as
someone who has been very involved in the campaigns against Coca-Cola in
India for over seven years now, I am keenly aware of the declared
differences between the two bodies. But the facts are as follows:

   - The Coca-Cola India Foundation was set up by the *Coca-Cola company* on
   December 3, 2007.
   - The Coca-Cola India Foundation was set up with an initial funding of
   USD 10 million by the *Coca-Cola company.*
   - The announcement was made on *Coca-Cola company* letterhead, including
   the absurd "Little Drops of Joy" caption.
   - The only two quotes provided in the announcement were by Mr. Muhtar
   Kent, President and COO, *Coca-Cola company* and Mr. Atul Singh,
   President & CEO, *Coca-Cola India.*
   - Close to half the announcement of the foundation was about what
the *Coca-Cola
   company* and *Coca-Cola India* (not the foundation) does.
   - The contacts listed for further information were the public relations
   company for *Coca-Cola India.*
   - The Coca-Cola India Foundation focuses on areas that the *Coca-Cola
   company* has decided.
   - The Coca-Cola India Foundation would cease to exist were it not for the
   funding from the *Coca-Cola company* itself.


The fact of the matter is that the Coca-Cola India Foundation is an integral
part of the Coca-Cola family and its primary purpose is to manufacture a
"green" and "benevolent" image of the Coca-Cola company and its products in
India, never mind what the reality on the ground may be. In your response,
you claim that "the purpose of encouraging such a Foundation is precisely to
ensure that the company looks beyond its commercial bottom-line and serves
the people of our country." The Coca-Cola company is a for profit
corporation whose primary (and sole) purpose is to maximize profits for its
shareholders. The Coca-Cola company neither has the expertise, nor has it
been invited, to serve the development needs of the people of our country.
Providing safe drinking water to the Indian population, as you suggest being
one of the Foundation's concrete projects, is out of Coca-Cola's realm. The
company bottles water and puts a price on it, making a product that remains
unaffordable for too many Indians - exactly the opposite of providing safe,
drinking water to all. Let us not forget that it has taken the Coca-Cola
company until now - sixteen years after it started operations in India - to
set up a foundation with an intention of preserving water and the
environment. Is this a proactive approach, as you claim? Hardly. The
decision to set up the Coca-Cola India Foundation is not so much the result
of altruistic intentions of the Coca-Cola company as it is a strategic move
on the part of the company to deflect attention away from the growing
discontent with its operations in India. It is also interesting to note that
the focus of the Coca-Cola India Foundation, set by the Coca-Cola company,
are water, environment, healthy living and social advancement - exactly the
areas in which the Coca-Cola company is being challenged in India. Why
worker's safety and rights are not included are beyond our grasp. But if
there was to be a vibrant labour campaign against Coca-Cola, be assured that
the Coca-Cola company would ensure that the Coca-Cola India Foundation
include worker's rights in their area of focus. Coca-Cola's Pollution
Confirmed by State *You claim that you are fully aware that groundwater
exploitation and pollution led to the closure of the Coca-Cola bottling
plant in Plachimada in 2004, yet you claim that you are "unable to
understand the scientific basis" behind the charges being leveled against
Coca-Cola in Plachimada.* It is absolutely unconscionable that you remain
ignorant of the facts surrounding Coca-Cola's operations in Plachimada, yet
you have the audacity to respond with such confidence to the original
authors of the open letter! Mr. Tharoor, why do you suppose that the
Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, one of Coca-Cola's largest in India,
remains shut down? The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada remains shut
down because the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB ) has refused
to issue the "Consent to Operate" to the Coca-Cola company. On August 19,
2005, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board rejected Coca-Cola's
application, and directed "the Company to stop production of all kinds of
products with immediate effect." The KSPCB rejected Coca-Cola's application
because it found unacceptably high levels of cadmium in Coca-Cola's sludge
(more than 400 to 600% cadmium beyond the permissible limit). The KSPCB also
established that the groundwater in the vicinity of the bottling plant had
been contaminated with cadmium as a result of high levels of cadmium in
Coca-Cola's sludge as well as effluent. Specifically, the KSPCB order dated
August 19, 2005 said, "Since the functioning of the Company in the present
manner causes severe environmental problems, including
poisoning/contamination of well water, the undersigned, by invoking the
powers conferred under Section 25(4), 27(2) and 33 A of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 refuses to issue the consent
to operate and, by rejecting the defective application submitted by the
Company to stop production of all kinds of products with immediate effect."
The Kerala State Pollution Control Board's decision was based on scientific
studies that it conducted on the samples it took from and around the
Coca-Cola bottling plant. Alarmingly, in international venues where we
continue to challenge them, Coca-Cola company officials have repeatedly said
that there is no scientific basis for proving the pollution allegations
against them. It is exactly the same defense you are claiming - lack of
scientific basis. Are you suggesting that KSPCB's technical studies are not
"scientific" enough for you? Mr. Tharoor, we have come to expect such
disregard for state government agencies such as the KSPCB from companies
like Coca-Cola that operate with impunity in India. For a person such as
yourself, who is in the hunt for political office representing the people of
Kerala, it is extremely unfortunate that you toe the same line as the
Coca-Cola company, in spite of the scientific evidence by the state
government against it confirming that it pollutes the groundwater. In the
event that the Coca-Cola company has not shared the KSPCB "stop production"
notice in you personal inquiry, you can see it here -
http://www.indiaresource.org/documents/kspcbAug192005.pdf It is also worth
noting that a formidable community mobilization took place in and around
Plachimada to bring attention to Coca-Cola's abuses and challenge them. The
actions of the state were a result of the public mobilization, without which
it is very possible that the Coca-Cola company would have continued its ways
in Plachimada. And in the interest of educating yourself so as to better
advise the Foundation, I would suggest that you also obtain the study of
sludge conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board of Coca-Cola
bottling plants in 2003. It is an alarming conclusion, to say the least. For
at least 10 years, it seems the Coca-Cola company was distributing its toxic
waste as fertilizer to the farmers around its bottling plants. I would be
curious to know if you would question the "scientific basis" of the Central
Pollution Control Board study as well, which included Plachimada. Coca-Cola's
Water Extraction Restricted by Court, Case Pending *In your response, you
note that "a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court ruled, in a judgment
dated 7 August 2005, that the company was not guilty of unfairly exploiting
the groundwater, and that indeed the groundwater in Plachimada continued to
dry up after the company ceased operations, leading the Court to conclude
that other factors, including a shortage of rainfall, were to blame." * Once
again, Mr. Tharoor, you adopt exactly the same defense that the Coca-Cola
company does when it comes to defending charges of water depletion in
Plachimada, raising serious doubts about the integrity of your fact-finding.
First, and very importantly, it MUST be noted that the High Court judgment
that you and Coca-Cola reference is currently being heard by the Supreme
Court of India. As such, there is no resolution on whether Coca-Cola was
unfairly exploiting the groundwater. It is premature, and I would suggest,
irresponsible, to conclude that Coca-Cola was "not guilty of unfairly
exploiting the groundwater", as you have done. It is noteworthy that while
Coca-Cola makes mention of this particular 2005 High Court judgment on their
website, there is no mention whatsoever of the case currently pending in the
Supreme Court of India. Secondly, and still quite importantly, the High
Court judgment that you reference actually placed RESTRICTIONS on
groundwater withdrawal by the Coca-Cola company, by no means a business as
usual matter. The judgment actually restricted Coca-Cola's water withdrawals
by 75% of what it had originally been permitted. The High Court judgment
even mentioned that Coca-Cola could not withdraw any water if the rainfalls
were below 30% of average. And yes, water levels in Plachimada have
continued to drop even after Coca-Cola ceased operations. This, in and by
itself, does in no way absolve the Coca-Cola company's operations in the
area of any wrongdoing. In fact, it begs the question as to why the
Coca-Cola company located its bottling plant in Plachimada in the first
place, given that Plachimada lies in the rain shadow region of Pallakad? In
other words, if the water conditions were already difficult to begin with,
why did a beverage company with a massive thirst for water locate itself in
that area? Coca-Cola Implicated in Other Parts of India *In your response,
you do not address Coca-Cola's operations in Kala Dera and Mehdiganj, even
though the open letter to you clearly made reference to them "for similar
destruction of environment, water and livelihoods." * Mr. Tharoor, the
Coca-Cola company's indiscriminate practices are not just confined to
Plachimada, as was noted in the open letter to you. In fact, Plachimada
points towards a pattern by the Coca-Cola company of regularly abusing water
resources in some of the areas where it operates. You have completely failed
to acknowledge the pending problems created by the Coca-Cola company in Kala
Dera in Rajasthan and Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh. As an advisor to the
Coca-Cola India Foundation, you should be well aware of the issues
surrounding Coca-Cola's practices in these areas. The community of Kala Dera
has challenged the Coca-Cola bottling plant since 2003, making it very clear
that the company's operations had exacerbated the water crisis in the area,
and that Coca-Cola must shut down its plant. In 2006, the Coca-Cola company
was forced to agree to an independent assessment of its operations in India
as a result of our campaign in the US. The assessment - paid for by
Coca-Cola - was released in January 2008, and only looked at six bottling
plants. The assessment was a scathing indictment of Coca-Cola's operations.
The assessment, conducted by the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), an
ally of Coca-Cola, saved its strongest language for Kala Dera. The
assessment confirmed that the Kala Dera "plant is located in a water-scarce,
drought-prone area" and that the water extraction by Coca-Cola has
"significant impacts" on Kala Dera. The assessment went on to conclude that
the Kala Dera "plant's operations in this area would continue to be one of
the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to
the communities around." The assessment made four recommendations to
Coca-Cola for the Kala Dera plant - including shutting down the plant - all
of which made clear that Coca-Cola must not use the groundwater in Kala Dera
anymore. The four recommendations were:

   - Transport water from the nearest aquifer that may not be stressed
   - Store water from low-stress seasons
   - Relocate the plant to a water-surplus area
   - Shut down this facility


Needless to say, the community of Kala Dera welcomed the recommendations.
But one summer has come and gone, and as another summer approaches - when
the water shortages are most pronounced - and Coca-Cola continues its
operations in Kala Dera. Mr. Tharoor, the Coca-Cola company has decided to
ignore the findings and the subsequent recommendations on Kala Dera, very
similar to what you seem to have chosen to done in your response.
Coca-Cola's continued operations in Kala Dera also violate the precautionary
principle that the company has ostensibly agreed to uphold - as a condition
to joining the UN Global Compact, which you mention. Coca-Cola knows,
without a doubt, that continued operations in Kala Dera "would continue to
be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of
stress to the communities around." Yet, the company operates. Coca-Cola's
operations in Kala Dera make a mockery of the UN Global Compact and lends
credence to the criticism that the voluntary guidelines of the Global
Compact are ineffective. We are now faced with absurd public relations
exercises from the Coca-Cola company under the guise of corporate social
responsibility. It has announced drip water irrigation initiatives with 15
farmers in the area to respond to the recommendations - in a village of
10,000! In your response, you mention that your role as an advisor to the
Coca-Cola India Foundation is to "ensure that the company looks beyond its
commercial bottom-line and serves the people of our country." Then perhaps
you can begin with asking Coca-Cola to choose one of the recommendations of
the TERI assessment. After all, why pay for a study if you are not going to
abide by the findings and the recommendations? And while you are at it,
perhaps you can also ask Coca-Cola to share the Environmental Impact
Assessment it says it conducted, but refuses to share, citing "legal and
confidential" reasons. Similar to Plachimada, one of the salient features of
the Kala Dera bottling facility is that it was located in an area that was
already experiencing water shortages. The Central Ground Water Board of
India had assessed the area as "overexploited" in its groundwater resources
in 1998, yet Coca-Cola started their bottling plant in 2000. That
Coca-Cola's bottling operations further exacerbated the already existing
water crisis was to be expected. In Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh, the TERI
assessment warned Coca-Cola of deteriorating water conditions, and has found
an alarming increase in pollution as one gets closer to the Coca-Cola
bottling plant - validating what the community has been saying all along.
Mr. Tharoor, Coca-Cola's problems in India are far from over, and this is
primarily because Coca-Cola has committed wrongs in India and instead of
incorporating genuine operational changes to the way it conducts its
business in India, the company has resorted to addressing the growing
opposition against its plants through its public relations department. The
Coca-Cola India Foundation, who you advise, is part of the public relations
exercise and yet another attempt by the Coca-Cola company to try to deflect
attention from the very real crises it has created in India. Sure, water
conservation initiatives in India and around the world are welcome, and
massive water guzzlers like the Coca-Cola company should be at the forefront
of cutting down their inefficient water usage. But they must first walk the
walk before they can talk the talk. Genuinely addressing the crises it
continues to create in India would be a positive first step. Appointing
celebrity advisors such as yourself to their Coca-Cola India Foundation is
not. Amit Srivastava
India Resource Center
www.IndiaResource.org <http://www.indiaresource.org/>


http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2009/ircresponse.html
===============
More

Response to Mr. Tharoor by S. Faizi, Environmental Expert Member of the
Kerala Groundwater Authority
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2009/faizi.html


*Join  Facebook Group and Invite Your Friends*
*http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=144116935382&ref=nf*

-- 
Any responsible politician should be encouraging a home grown Free Software
industry because it creates the basis for future jobs. Learning Windows is
like learning to eat every meal at McDonalds.




-- 
Any responsible politician should be encouraging a home grown Free Software
industry because it creates the basis for future jobs. Learning Windows is
like learning to eat every meal at McDonalds.