session since the tragedy, and therefore in their legal possession since 1998) even when FICCI and others have offered to do it. I am not sure why, but I understand the NGOs objected on the grounds that it is Union Carbide's/Dow's responsibility. Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001 or thereabouts. Incidentally, UCC's (the American company’s) entire shareholding in UCIL (51% of the Indian company) was sold to McLeod Russel Limited/Eveready Industries in 1994. The receipts of that sale have been donated to the Bhopal Hospital Trust. If it is anyone, it is actually this Indian company which is the direct inheritor of UCIL’s liabilities, if any. There may be other evils of its own that Dow may be accused of (for instance, Agent Orange). But without knowing the details of the merger agreement, I would hazard that the personal criminal liabilities of the Bhopal Gas tragedy should remain with the previous management. In the likelihood that a case is made against them based on civil responsibility, let the Supreme Court review its earlier decision, if required. It would, of course, require strong arguments to overturn the legitimate court settlement that the UCC and the government of India arrived at in 1989, which was also approved by the Supreme Court. Loud noises are not enough. As of now, under court directions, the government has been trying to dispose the waste through approved waste disposal facilities, but has been blocked by agitators in three states—Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra. It’s not actually about the toxic nature of the material per se, since these facilities routinely handle waste from chemical plants and other sites, but the politics of the situation. When man-made disasters of a gigantic
68
scale occur, the subsequent blame-game that is played between the government and the corporations involved is often fraught with complex questions of moral and social responsibility. Who is to blame? A company, after all, is a community of people. But it is also a deeply hierarchical community and thus a few people can be held responsible for the company’s actions as a whole. Thus, criminal charges ought to be made on individuals (such as the management of the company when the disaster took place) and not on the company as a whole or its successors. You can’t put a company in jail, but you can ask them to pay more. The case for criminal liabilities, though settled at that time, was reviewed and its previous judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in 1991 with regard to criminal liabilities. Subsequently, the lower courts have convicted eight Indians—including Keshub Mahindra, then Chairman of the Board of UCIL, for negligence—and sentenced them to two years in jail and a fine of a lakh each, the maximum amount which can be levied as per the law. This is in appeal and bail has been granted to the indicted. If our Supreme Court or the government has sold us down the drain, then let us protest against them. How can we expect justice from the world, if our own courts and government have not convinced us? Do we take proactive steps before the court decides upon a verdict? I understand that the IITs have dissuaded Dow from coming to the campus recruitment a la carte this kind of campaign. This is like running a kangaroo court. This kind of rule can be applied to any chemical manufacturer, nay, any company. In the end, you might as well disband the entire Chemical Engineering Department. On the other hand, there are many causes nearer home confronting us. For exam-