Oaths, Promises, Lucre and Bhopal

In what are generally, though not always, correctly called democratic countries, governments are elected by the people. Typically, the members of elected governments take oaths when they assume office. In these oaths they promise to do certain things. Without exception, the things they promise to do are to be in the service and defence of the people who elected them. No Minister in India, for example, has sworn to harm India’s people. His or her duty, the justification for her or his position and privileges, is explicitly stated to be work in the interest of all Indians, both rich and poor, both old and young.1

But words can be no more than empty sounds. These days we see, and not just in one field, that the Government of India is systematically and consistently working against the interests of the people of India. It is in many ways attacking the citizens who authorised it to govern their country. The two most visible examples of this are Operation Green Hunt and matters to do with the Bhopal gas leak of 1984. I deal here with the second.

For long, there has been in place legislation aimed specifically at bringing relief to the victims of the Bhopal disaster (whose description as an “accident†has been challenged by many over the quarter century since it happened). Institutions have been created for the purpose. Time and again, promises have been made: but the survivors hold that too little has been done, that promises have been broken.

Here is a report from rediff.com (June 10, 2010) which shows clearly that the very people who went about making grand and well-publicised promises were at the same time doing things, unseen, to make those promises meaningless:

“A 55-page document gathered using the Right To Information Act from the Prime Minister’s Office shows how the members of [the] United Progressive Alliance Government including some senior Ministers have taken a soft stance towards [the Dow Chemical Company].

“Toxicwatch Alliance claims that ‘there was collusion between Ministers, government officials and Dow Chemicals [sic] to protect it from the liabilities of [the] Bhopal catastrophe. The documents reveal how some of the Ministers who have been made part of [the] Group of Ministers by the Prime Minister have been acting to safeguard the interest of the corporation in question, which is liable for [the] Bhopal disaster.’â€

This is nothing other than taking the roti from the thali of the man whom you are pledged to keep from starving. You put the roti there with one hand and you snatch it up with the other: and, when possible, you take away the thali as well, because metal can be melted and used to make industrial machinery and weapons.

Then there is the old story of how capitalist outfits take advantage of the famed cupidity of Indians in whom powers are vested. India Today says (June 11, 2010) that “Headlines Today has in its possession [an] exclusive document [which] is proof of Dow’s subsidiary companies making improper payments to the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC), transactions that did not reflect in the company’s records...†.

¨

Is the Dow Chemical Company liable, in law, for the Bhopal disaster? Corporations buy other corporations all the time: it is a routine matter. The sale of Union Carbide to Dow Chemicals—not including Union Carbide India Limited—may also have been routine, or it may have been exceptional and calculated. In essence, what happened because of it was that there is no entity or individual left to be made to pay for the Bhopal disaster. As gas vanishes into the atmosphere, so the criminals of the gas leak have vanished. This suits all concerned, not least the Government of India, which goes about with a begging bowl asking for US investment and which uses its powers and the chicanery of its corrupt “servants of the people†as a stick to beat down ordinary Indians.

Finally, what was the crime of which Keshub Mahindra and others were found guilty? They were originally to have been tried under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder); but, as a consequence of an order passed by the Supreme Court in September 1996, they were tried under Section 304 A (causing death by negligence), a lesser crime which carries a maximum sentence of two years (as against ten years).

The prosecution does not seem to have appealed against the Supreme Court’s order. Nor, apparently, did the CBI say anything, although it had prepared the charge-sheet on which the case was based. Let us not forget that this watering down of charges is related directly to 8000 deaths in the first weeks and another 8000 later deaths due to gas-related causes. This is one estimate. Government agencies have placed the death toll at 15,000.

Here is the report of an interview given to rediff.com (June 11, 2010): “M.R. Sivaraman, a retired Indian Administrative Service officer was the Finance and Planning Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Government when the Bhopal gas tragedy occurred.†This man, apparently the first government official to visit a hospital and to take action, ended with “It was homicide not amounting to murder... I felt extremely sad on June 7 (the day of the verdict) as I had seen people dying in front of me.â€

Note

1. This statement is certain to be questioned by those many who will say that India’s Constitution describes the country as a “democratic socialist republic†, and that many other indicators—not least the existence of a full-fledged Ministry to deal with “social justice and empowerment†—point to the fact that at least in principle the poor are to be favoured above the rich. I can only plead that here I am not concerned with the games played in the service of populism.