Backpage

AN undue focus on the extraordinary and spectacular, what jurist Upendra Baxi once identified as ‘a libidinal fascination with the pathologies of state power’, not only distorts our understanding of the functioning of modern states, it often leads to erroneous prescriptions for correction.

For days now our media and panel discussants have obsessively focused on how Warren Anderson, then Chairman Union Carbide Corporation, was helped to escape the country. Or how the political class and, regrettably, the judiciary ‘collaborated’ to first reduce the compensation demanded from Union Carbide to less then a fifth of the original claim and subsequently dilute the sections of the CrPC under which the accused could be tried for culpability. We are now more aware of the role, often questionable, of those in power at both the state and the Centre. And this is both useful and necessary. But, how does badgering the pilot who flew Anderson from Bhopal to Delhi, whether or not he suffers from sleepless nights for having helped a ‘criminal’ escape, help?

Equally ill-informed and unhelpful is demanding a death sentence for all those actually brought to trial. There is little doubt that those responsible for running the UCIL plant in Bhopal, as also the Board which is expected to provide oversight, were criminally negligent in disregarding the many warning signals about a potential disaster. Leaks and accidents had been reported in the plant leading, in at least one case, to the death of a worker. On a number of other occasions, the gas had leaked into the surrounding areas, causing serious discomfort to people. Anyone with any knowledge of the toxic and hazardous nature of the chemicals stored and used in the operation cannot claim to be unaware of the risks. That they did nothing to rectify the situation, refused to strengthen safety procedures, or even educate both the workers and the people in nearby areas of what to do in the event of a leak, is inexcusable and must be paid for.

But to argue, as some have done, that the culpability of say the non-executive Chairman of the Board is the same as that of the works manager, is surely stretching the point. Unless one can conclusively prove that the matter was indeed placed before and discussed in a Board meeting and that the Board either ignored the warning or refused to sanction the corrective measures, to give into the public demand for ‘blood’ is only falling prey to the ‘guillotine favouring procedures’ of the French Revolution.

To castigate the then, and subsequent, political and administrative leadership for errors of omission and commission, and worse, is both necessary and desirable. The Bhopal disaster only proves that our systems of licensing and approval, management and oversight, fixing responsibility and liability, are woefully inadequate. Clearly no one in positions of authority felt that locating a pesticide plant using dangerously toxic inputs in a crowded area of the city was courting disaster. No one bothered to put in proper precautionary systems of oversight. And the list of what could be done, but was not, seems endless. What may have been pragmatically acceptable in the era of early industrialization cannot be permitted to become durable benchmarks. Public rage is essential if correctives are to be introduced and institutionalized and ensure that no further Bhopals take place.

Nevertheless, misplaced ire can be debilitating. For instance, it is difficult to understand why for all these years, no worthwhile effort has been made to clean up the site of all remaining toxic elements as also in the areas used by UCIL to dump waste. This despite numerous reports about how the chemicals continue to leach into the ground, poisoning land and water sources.

Similarly, it is difficult to understand just what comes in the way of providing the best available medical treatment to all those survivors continuing to suffer the after-effects of the gas leak? How can we justify the low expenditures on hospitals and treatment, the laxity in appointing doctors, even suspending medical research on the long-term effects of the gas? Surely, doing all this in a concerted manner can only be a public good and in no way distracts from or dilutes the simultaneous effort at uncovering all that happened and fixing culpability and liability.

If anything that, alongside our inability to distribute compensation to a vast majority of the victims, remains the greatest failure of our collective response to Bhopal. Politicians and political parties may continue to score partisan brownie points, against each other and the judiciary. Activists too may revel in competing claims to victimhood and pronouncements of radical remedial action. But surely, those who suffered, and continue to do so, deserve better.

Harsh Sethi