[Reader-list] The CPCB report on Pollution - It is not about pollution in a State (my take)
A.K. Malik
akmalik45 at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 27 02:02:08 IST 2010
Dear Mr Kaul,
You may be right or you may be wrong. Just because some one doesn't file a case for defamation does not mean he/she has accepted the accusations.May be a defamation could damage some one politically. Same inaction we have seen with the police and subsequently with Administration with our own eyes at the time of Sikhs massacre in 1984. Congress functionaries have also never filed any defamation cases against the accusations.I am not trying to prove two wrongs make it a right.My feeling is the inner inhibitions remain with everyone whether at politcal/administrative or even judicial levels and that may at times get reflected in actions or inactions.
Let us see what happens in his appearnace with SIT and what comes out.
Regards,
(A.K.MALIK)
--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The CPCB report on Pollution - It is not about pollution in a State (my take)
> To: "A.K. Malik" <akmalik45 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Sarai List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 6:09 PM
> Dear AKM
>
> That disclaimer was important so that there is no
> clouding of what actually is contained in the CPCB
> report. I had spent quite some time analysing it and didnt
> want that wasted since it revealed to me that declaring
> Gujarat to be the 'most polluted State' was a
> misrepresentation of the actual contents of the
> report.
>
> As it happens to be, it was not a disclaimer of
> convienience but factual and out of conviction.
>
> It should be understood that the attacks you referred
> to are not attacks on Gujarat but on Modi. Modi is the
> target. Gujarat just happens to be the State of which
> he was/is CM and so gets mentioned.
>
> Modi 'was' the CM of Gujarat when some of the
> most horrific incidents of violence took place in 2002.
>
>
> Such incidents of violence have taken place in other
> parts of the country too, why should Modi specially be
> targetted? The answer to that is quite simple.
>
> Modi is specially targetted, not primarily because he
> was the CM but because of substantial suspicion that he and
> the Administration under his control (and indeeed his
> directions) was complicit in the incidents of
> violence.
>
> One could say to that, that Modi is 'innocent'
> until proven 'guilty' by due processes of
> Law.
>
> That would be a fair point to make.
>
> Let me tell you now why I too look at Modi with
> intense suspicion:
>
> - Day in and day out Modi is accused in the Media (and
> every now and then in public speeches) by someone or the
> other of being 'guilty'. He is declared as
> 'guilty' without any margin of error.
>
> - What kind of a person is Modi that through all these
> years, under such a barrage of declarations of his
> 'guilt', Modi has not countered it by proceeding
> Legally against such accusers? Shouldnt Modi be launching
> Legal Cases against such accusers and telling them
> "C'mon, prove your accusation, or apologise and
> suffer penalties".
>
> - I would do that. Wouldnt you? Especially if one had
> the facility of the whole State Legal Establishment to aid
> you in proving your innocence as the Chief
> Minister.
>
> - Any excuse that the matter is sub-judice would be
> quite simply nonsensical. No Legalities can or should
> be allowed to hamper the availability of the basic
> provisions of Justice. Has Modi even tried to do so?
> No!
>
> - Oh but this one did not do it in a similar such and
> such case. Oh but that one didnt do it a similar that and
> that case. No!. No such excuse either can be anywhere
> good enough to justify Modi's (seemingly) lack of
> concern about the accusations.
>
> - Please remember, it not just any citizen who is
> being constantly accused of 'murders' and
> 'complicity in organised killings' but the Chief
> Minister of a State.
>
> It might so be that there not much purchase for
> Political-Morality and Political-Ethics in India anymore.
> Maybe.
>
> That does not assuage my intense suspicions about
> Modi, seeing how Modi is quite shamelessly not reacting
> Legaly to being constantly called a
> 'murderer'.
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/23/10, A.K. Malik
> <akmalik45 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: A.K. Malik <akmalik45 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The CPCB report on Pollution -
> It is not about pollution in a State (my take)
> To: "Kshmendra Kaul"
> <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Sarai List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 11:28 PM
>
>
> Hi Mr Kaul,
> I can't
> gather why people in this list are out to show Gujarat State
> is in shambles and why have you to give a disclaimer, what
> scares you?
> As part of the Central team, I have visited Bihar on
> several occasions and travelled extensively, had discussions
> privately with the DMs, Commissioners, Govt functionaries
> and people on the roads, residences, I have seen substantial
> improvements during the current regime,but discussions in
> this list seem to suggest otherwise.Gujarat visits have not
> been that much extensive but I have seen the
> differences.What are we going to achieve to convince people
> who have a stagnating mind set?
> Regards,
>
> (A.K.MALIK)
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/23/10, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From:
> Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [Reader-list] The CPCB report on Pollution -
> It is not about pollution in a State (my take)
> > To: "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com>,
> ravig64 at gmail.com
> > Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 7:32 PM
> > Dear Ravi
> >
> > Thank you for posting the weblink. What follows is
> not
> > directed at you. It is a general note.
> >
>
> > MY DISCLAIMER : I am not a supporter of Modi, or of
> the BJP
> > or RSS or VHP or BD or SS. I consider Hindutvavaad to
> be
> > contemptible and Anti-India.
> >
> > It is sickening that I need to make such a
> disclaimer.
> > The quality of understanding displayed by some on this
> List
> > and their obvious prejudgments, prejudice and
> bias, forces
> > me to do this.
> >
> > Now the CPCB Report:
> >
> > 1. It is not a report about pollution in States as a
> > composite whole but about pollution in selected
> 88
> > Industrial Clusters spread over the country.
> >
> > It would highly incorrect
> to transpose the data
> > into a comment on the whole State based on the
> Comprehensive
> > Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) of selected
> Industrial
> > Clusters in the State.
> >
> >
> If it is so revealed, then a better
> statement would
> > be """""Out of the
> Industrial Clusters (ICs) studied by
> > CPCB, some of the " most critically
> polluted" and "severely
> > polluted" are in
> Gujarat"""". That is for those who
> are
> > interested in focusing on Gujarat.
> >
> > 2. What does the report reveal:
> >
> > - Based on the CEPI value-markers
> set by CPCB, 43 of
> > the 88 ICs are "critically polluted"
> >
> > - Based on the CEPI value-markers
> set by CPCB,
> > 32 of the 88 ICs are "severely
> polluted"
> >
> > - Top 20 culprits in descending
> severity Ankleshwar
> > (Gujarat); Vapi (Gujarat); Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh);
> > Chandrapur (Maharashtra); Korba (Chhatisgarh);
> Bhiwadi
> > (Rajasthan); Angul Talcher (Orissa); Vellore (North
> Arcot)
> >
> (Tamilnadu); Singrauli (Uttar Pradesh); Ludhiana
> (Punjab);
> > Nazafgarh drain basin (Delhi); Noida (Uttar Pradesh);
> > Dhanbad (Jharkhand); Dombivalli (Maharashtra); Kanpur
> (Uttar
> > Pradesh); Cuddalore (Tamilnadu); Aurangabad
> (Maharashtra);
> > Faridabad (Haryana); Agra (Uttar Pradesh); Manali
> > (Tamilnadu)
> >
> > - Statewise share of the 88
> ICs studied by CPCB:
> >
> > * Andhra Pradesh
> Total= 5
> >
> Critical= 2 Severe=
> 1 Other=
> > 2
> > *
> Assam
>
> >
>
> Total= 2 Critical= 0 Severe= 0
> > Other= 2
> > *
> >
> Bihar Total= 2 Critical= 0
> >
> Severe= 1
> Other= 1
> > * Chattisgarh
>
> Total= 3
> >
> Critical= 1 Severe= 1 Other=
> > 1
> > *
> Delhi
>
> >
>
> Total= 1 Critical= 1 Severe= 0 Other=
> > 0
> > *
> Gujarat
>
> >
> Total= 9 Critical= 6 Severe= 2 Other=
> > 1
> > *
> Haryana
>
> >
> Total= 2 Critical= 2 Severe=
> >
> 0 Other= 0
> > * Himachal Pradesh
> >
>
> Total= 3 Critical= 0 Severe=
> >
> 3 Other= 0
> > *
> Jharkhand
> > Total= 5 Critical=
> >
> 1 Severe= 4 Other=
> 0
> > *
> Karnataka
>
> >
> Total= 5 Critical= 2 Severe= 3
> > Other= 0
> > *
> Kerala Total=
> >
>
> 1 Critical= 1
> >
> Severe= 0
> Other= 0
> > * Madhya
> >
> Pradesh Total= 5 Critical= 1
> >
> Severe= 3
> Other= 1
> > * Maharashtra
>
> Total= 8
> >
> Critical= 5 Severe= 3 Other=
> > 0
> > *
> Orissa
>
> >
> Total= 4 Critical= 3
> >
>
> Severe= 1
> Other= 0
> > *
> Punjab
>
> >
> Total= 4 Critical= 2
> >
> Severe= 2
> Other= 0
> > *
> Rajasthan
>
> >
> Total= 4 Critical= 3 Severe= 1 Other=
> > 0
> > *
> Tamilnadu
>
> >
> Total= 7 Critical= 4
> >
> Severe= 2
> Other= 1
> > * Uttar Pradesh
> Total=
> >
> 12 Critical= 6
> >
> Severe= 3
> Other= 3
> > * Uttarakhand
>
> >
> Total= 2 Critical=
> >
> 0 Severe= 1 Other=
> 1
> > * West Bengal
>
> Total= 4
> >
> Critical= 3
> Severe= 1 Other= 0
> > The above results can be interpreted and summarised in
> a
> > variety of ways. My (hopefully
> objective) summary would be:
> >
> > a. 88 Industrial Clusters/Areas ICs spread over
> 20
> > States were selected by CPBC
> >
> > b. 43 of these were evaluated as being
> "Critically
> > Polluted" and 32 as "Severely
> Polluted"
> >
> > c. Of the selected ICs, the top ranking 2 evaluated
> as
> > "Most Critically Polluted" are from
> Gujarat.
> >
> > d. In the top 20 "Most Critically Polluted"
> list, 5 ICs
> > figure from Uttar Pradesh, 3 each from Maharashtra
> and
> > Tamilnadu and 2 from Gujarat.
> >
> > e. Cent percent of the selected ICs from Delhi
> (1),
> > Haryana (2), Kerala (1) were evaluated as
> "Critically
> > Polluted"
> >
> > f. The number of "Critically
> Polluted" ICs was the most
> > in Gujarat (6 out of 9); Maharashtra (5 out of 8);
> Uttar
> > Pradesh (6 out of 12); Tamilnadu (4 out of 7);
> and
> > then Orissa, Rajasthan and West Bengal placed
> similarly (3
> > out of 4)
> >
> > g. The combined number of ICs that were found to
> > be "Critically Polluted"
> and "Severely Polluted" were the
> > most in Uttar Pradesh (9 out of 12, - 75%);
> Gujarat (8
> > out of 9, - 89%); Maharashtra (8 out of 8,
> - 100%);
> > Tamilnadu (6 out of 7, - 86%); Jharkhand (5 out of 5,
> -
> > 100%); Karnataka (5 out of 5, - 100%); Madhya Pradesh
> (4 out
> > of 5, - 80%); Orissa (4 out of 4, - 100%);
> Punjab (4 out of
> > 4, - 100%); Rajasthan (4 out of 4, - 100%); West
> Bengal (4
> > out of 4, - 100%)
> >
> > Kshmendra
> >
> > --- On Tue, 3/23/10, Ravi Agarwal <ravig64 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Ravi
> Agarwal <ravig64 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Reg: Another achievement
> of
> > Gujarat - No.1 in pollution
> > To: "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 11:29 AM
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > For details of this analysis - "Comprehensive
> Environment
> > Assessment of
> > Industrial Areas" please refer to the recent (Dec
> 2009)
> > Central Pollution
> > Control Board Document at
> >
> > http://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_152_Final-Book_2.pdf
> >
> >
> > Pages 26/27/28 are state wise pollution indicies and
> these
> > can be compiled
> > for each state. If i am not wrong, Gujarat has 8
> sites
> > mentioned above the
> > cutt- off level defining 'critical level of
> pollution,'
> > (amongst the
> > highest) and 1 site at the borderline. Similarly data
> for
> > other sites can be
> > compiled here.
> >
> > This is a first such report done by a premier Govt
> agency
> > and verifies what
> > other independent studies have been showing in the
> recent
> > past.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > ravi agarwal
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Rakesh ,
> > >
> > > The said article had been reported by IANS.
> However on
> > further
> > > investigation , there seems to be some doubt in
> the
> > authenticity of
> > > the article itself.
> > >
> > > Pls find All PIB releases mentioning Gujarat http://is.gd/aSOUJ all
> > > PIB releases mentioning CPCB http://is.gd/aSOXC
> > >
> > > Non of these releases has anything to mention on
> above
> > subject.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Pawan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Rakesh Iyer
> <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > An article, specially for those who keep
> singing
> > paeans about Narendra
> > > Modi
> > > > and his administration on this forum,
> without
> > trying to see the other
> > > way.
> > > >
> > > > Rakesh
> > > >
> > > > Link:
> > > >
> > > http://business.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/22/gujarat-most-polluted-state-in-india.htm
> > > >
> > > > Article:
> > > >
> > > > Gujarat most polluted state in India,
> Maharashtra
> > 2ndThe Central
> > > Pollution
> > > > Control Board has declared Gujarat as the
> most
> > polluted state in India [
> > >
> > Images <http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=india>
> > ]. The
> > > > conclusion has been based on the increasing
> > levels of pollution and toxic
> > > > wastes.
> > > >
> > > > There are seven states in the country that
> > account for 80 per cent of the
> > > > total hazardous wastes and among these
> Gujarat
> > tops the list, followed by
> > > > Maharashtra [ Images<
> > > http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=maharashtra>]
> > > > and Andhra Pradesh.
> > > >
> > > > Even after being declared as the most
> polluted
> > state, the Gujarat
> > > government
> > > > has not taken any necessary measures to
> prevent
> > the problem aggravating
> > > > further, environmental activists say.
> > > >
> > > > Criticising the state government for not
> taking
> > any adequate remedial
> > > > measures to tackle this problem, Mahesh
> Pandya,
> > director of an NGO named
> > > > Paryavaran Mitra (Friends of Environment),
> held
> > the authorities and
> > > > industrialists responsible for such an
> alarming
> > polluted environment.
> > > >
> > > > "There are six toxic waste sites in
> Vapi, two in
> > Ankleshwar, one in
> > > Vadodara
> > > > and one in Valadgaon. Even the government
> of
> > Gujarat has recognised these
> > > > waste sites. But till today the government
> has
> > not mentioned anything to
> > > > clear up these waste sites. So who are
> > responsible ultimately," said
> > > Pandya.
> > >
> >
> > > > "If we pursue the (Gujarat) state
> government,
> > they ask the association of
> > > > industries to clear it up. These
> associations say
> > it's not their
> > > > responsibility. Now the toxics are creating
> > pollution and affecting the
> > > > masses," he added.
> > > >
> > > > People residing near the industrial estates
> have
> > developed health and
> > > > breathing related problems, the forum said.
> > People have blamed the toxic
> > > > smoke and wastes discharged by the
> factories.
> > > >
> > > > "Because of the air pollution, the
> village
> > environment is getting
> > > affected.
> > > > Villagers have been here since ages but the
> > industries were set up after
> > > a
> > > > long period of time. We face so much
> difficulty.
> > We cannot leave food in
> > >
> > open or even the clothes outside for drying,"
> > said Kirit Patel, a
> > > resident
> > > > of Narol industrial area.
> > > >
> > > > "We are even becoming prone to
> breathing and
> > health problems. Pollution
> > > is
> > > > indeed a big problem," he added.
> > > >
> > > > According to a recent report by the central
> > government, Gujarat accounts
> > > for
> > > > 29 per cent of the 6.2 million tonnes of
> > hazardous waste, while it is 25
> > > per
> > > > cent in Maharashtra.
> > > >
> > > > Andhra Pradesh is rated next with 9 per cent
> in
> > generation of hazardous
> > > > waste, followed by Rajasthan [
> > > > Images<http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=rajasthan>]
> >
> > > with 5 per cent and West Bengal [
> > > > Images <http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=west+bengal>
> > ]
> > > and
> > > > Tamil Nadu reckoned at 4 per cent each.
> > > > Source: ANI
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on
> media and
> > the city.
> > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
> the
> > city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> > city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
> the
> > city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> > with subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list