Proving the point again

Our state has once again proved the point that had come through Binayak Sen's conviction; actually it shouldn't come as a shock, since it has been doing so time and again. Ilina Sen, wife of Binayak Sen, was today booked for convening a global convention on women, in which those gathered condemned the absurd allegations against Bnayak Sen and activist Sudhir Dhawale, demanded their release and also demanded the removal of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The charges against her ? That she had included foreigners in this meeting without informing the local police. Because the passports of said foreigners were with their hotel-manager and the manager of an ashram (where the foreigners were residing), the police arrested the managers. Their argument consists of two main points: firstly, the law decrees this event unlawful and enables them to make such arrests. Secondly, foreigners have no right to protest the govt. on the premises of a public institution - the Gandhi International Hindi University at Wardha, in this case.

So let's see what the govt. is saying: if you wish to protest, you must first comply with certain bureaucratic procedures that we have set in place. Inform the police, take due permissions, first clarify your stand to authorities, then go public with it. One would do well to remember the case of the motormen's strike in Mumbai, wherein a peaceful hunger-strike was forciby annulled citing "disruption of essential services". Also, because foreigners are foreigners, they do not have the right to democratic space in "our" country; they specially cannot protest within the confines of "public-institutions" - "public" in this case interpreted as the property of the govt. rather than as something that belongs to people. The message is very clear: toe the line, or else..... And that is the irony of it, because now the first step of protest and demonstration is necessarily compliance and seeking permission. And this is only a case wherein law has dealt relatively leniently with "offenders" - "leniency" here meaning just booking and arresting. The case of Binayak Sen and Sudhir Dhawale tells us that it could have been worse (and, ostensibly, for no reason at all).

- Pratik Ali

Kashmir: An Overview

Democracy is a relatively simple concept, it entails a strict adherence to the collective will of the people and all democratic institutions tend to be built around this central theme. After decades of struggle against a foreign oppressor we won ourselves the right to self-determination and the freedom that is essential to it; with one small exception, Kashmir.

Kashmir is a peculiar case as it enjoys a tremendous degree of constitutional autonomy. Laws passed by the Indian parliament are subject to validation by the Kahmiri State assembly and no Indian can buy property there. These laws exist to begin with because no matter how many maps we produce, the state remains disputed territory. Normally, the resolution of such territorial disputes are left to policy makers and diplomats, but where Kashmir stands out is in the fact that in the valley of Kashmir there exists searing popular resentment against India. This has only been exacerbated by consistent rigging of elections in the 1980s, complemented by Army rule and martial law. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has destroyed families of innocents and left a highly politicized youth with a simmering sentiment of injustice.

There are reports of the army and police barging into houses, and abducting family members on mere suspicion of either terrorism or compliance with terrorists. Some estimates state that at least 10,000 Kashmiris have gone missing following such detentions. Our conduct and thus reception is that of an occupying force

Everyday life too is marred by violence and instability and militants constantly wreak havoc in civilian areas and attack security forces. Curfew is common and many basic freedoms are denied. Very few Kashmiris in the valley feel any sense of belonging towards India, and yet for some perplexing reason we seem determined to cling obstinately to this little piece of land and its deeply alienated populace.

Separatism in the valley is much unlike any other secessionist movement that our nation has successfully tackled before. Here, the powerful desire for independence is less about any misplaced sense of nativism and more about a people’s aspiration to freedom.
It is unconscionable for a democracy to subjugate any part of its population the way India has the Kashmiris. It is about time we let Kashmir go, they don’t want us, whether they need us or not however, only time can tell.

*Contributed by Nachiket Joshi, St. Xaviers' College, Mumbai

Forest Guards

All the planning that goes behind managing our forests is, at the very basic level, looked after by the forest guards. In that sense, forest guards are at the vanguard of looking after a veritable ecological necessity. The questions that we wish to ask are as follows: what is the situation of the forest guards? What effect does that have on the maintenance of forests? What to do?

Forest guards are recruited from the general populace (those applying are mostly farmers) in the same way as police personnel are. Their duty is to mind their respective beat, one guard per beat, five square kilometers per beat. This includes enforcing the legal system that has been put up in place to maintain forests (ward off poachers, take wild-life census, etc.). For this, provisions are regularly stipulated to them, things considered basic necessities for this job: quarters to stay in, transport, needed effects like shoes, uniform, flashlights, and the necessary training. They must know the language of the locals and, like others, must be ready to work under a bureaucracy of a certain definition. In return, they get paid as Class III officers, and have corresponding govt. privileges.

This is as far as the systematic world of the forest guard is concerned; though reality hardly sticks to a system; interestingly, the system is still portrayed as if working fine.

The prime theme that runs through a discussion on forest guards and bio-preservation is motivation. Forest guards are highly motivated as prospective employees, given that it is a job which they think is good as an experience. Yet, it is found that most forest-guards lose this motivation in some time, since the material rewards are lower than what they should be for a Class III officer as per the sixth pay commission. Apart from this, all those provisions mentioned before fail to reach them, given the leakage that happens in the abdomen of bureaucracy of the money alloted to provide those. Apart from this, there are local and regular issues like corruption or feuds with locals that come up, which add to the detriment of their conditions. This is exactly what is meant by a self-perpetuating system: no matter what may be the real scenario, that something is wrong almost never comes through in the case of the forest-guard.

What, then, is the debate about? Firstly, a de-motivated worker can only give much less than optimum work; the logic is pretty simple – what you pay for is what you get. Secondly, it is a necessity that our ecological buffers – or what we have left of it – be preserved. So obviously, there is a contradiction in the system that is running, for the one who is in-charge of a necessity is disposed not to consider it so. What, then, has to be our approach?

One of the first things that is suggested is policy; it is postulated that if the rules are put in order from the higher ups and are provided for sufficiently, problems ought not to arise. Another approach suggests that this is a managerial problem, in the sense that the management of the rules has been inadequate and that needs to be looked after. This is pointing to the embezzlement of funds that went into providing motivation to the forest-guards as something which lacks an estimation of the real needs – conservation of green ecology – over the 'needs' of petty officials. Thirdly, it is also suggested that the role of conservationists and activists is a requisite, given that a system won't correct itself. Simple things like awareness drills, training, necessities of work, if provided by those concerned, could go a long way in protecting important parts of our environment. A very innovative managerial step could be getting the local population – who have lived in that milieu and know more about it, are, in pathos, more close to it – involved in bio-conservation. Lastly, it is also necessary that the material growth of society ought to be carried forward with its roots firm in ecological viability, for it is unsafe to stifle the green for the gray.

*Based on a study done by Ruth Pinto (St. Xavier's College) and a discussion around it

Reflections on the Bhopal gas-leak disaster

The Bhopal gas leak was not a tragedy; after all, one capable would sincerely do something for that which seems tragic. Nor is it something that was once a “victim” of a lamentable “accident” as portrayed in our textbooks and newspapers. Bhopal was a recipient of the selfishness of a state and a corporation. The adjective “the worst industrial disaster ever” doesn't do complete justice to it, for the state, unlike what is being driven under the carpet, was also a major cause to this wreck, along with the corporation that caused it primarily. Perhaps saying “this was the greatest administrative-industrial sabotage for profit” would be nearer to truth, unless of course we are apprehended by state apparatchiks who assert that the state acted the best it could (see Rajdeep Sardesai, HT 25th June, “Readjust the focus”) and that the “real” questions are something totally different. Of course, our inquisitive sense could ask us: “then why did, on the morning after the leak, the police of Bhopal announce that everything was fine?” We should not think about this a lot, we would be told; these facts don't lie in the 'real' world, notwithstanding that they really did happen.

At that time (for after that time, these facts were to be overhauled completely) Union Carbide Corporation owned 50.9% of Union Carbide India Ltd. The rest 49.1% percent were owned by many other investors, among them many public sector bodies too. Going by the logic that an owner is responsible to what happens by his company, here lies the primary responsibility (and culpability) of the state: as a shareholder of the company that screwed up. The second blame lies in its role as the administration, whose function was to, first of all, prevent any company from such massive rashness. Secondly, given that such rashness could not be avoided and spilled out, it was the state's mandate to make sure that suffering would be minimal. Thirdly, it was responsible for making sure adequate compensation would be given to those who suffered by those who caused the suffering, not only in monetary terms, but also in terms of justice, the trial by law of all those responsible for the act. The state failed in all these four fronts; let's see them one by one.

UCIL fell miserably short in all the fronts of security which needed to be looked, if it tried doing something at all. Right from minimal adequate man-power in the factory, both skilled and unskilled, till the means of disaster prevention like refrigeration of chemicals, upgrade of machine parts, etc., all necessary measures were clinically overlooked (look here). In fact, so clinically that UCIL even sacked its chemical engineer Kamal Pareek when he pointed out these failings of the unit. No attention had been focused upon emergency measures necessary once something terrible happens. And, as in a poetic composition of absolute causal symmetry, the method chosen to produce Sevin, the pesticide, was the deadlier one (having MIC as its intermediate product), for it was also the cheaper one. Meanwhile, we must remember that UCIL means UCC plus many others, public sector units involved. Secondly, that a major corporation like this could evade the state's look-up of its safety provisions is a clear mirror to what the approach of the state is towards industrialists vis a vis its citizens. In fact, the UCIL plant at Bhopal was asked to “Indianize” its production process, meaning to utilize indigenous constituents and technologies which were cheaper, though expensive in terms of general safety. Previous warnings were many, and not only addressed to the company but also to the state. Before the massive havoc in Bhopal, there were many other mishaps inside the unit against its workers. In fact, in one such accident, liquid MIC had burnt about 30% of an employee's body. Still, safety arrangements went only negatively better (that is, worsened). These too well known facts give a touch of humour to UCC's later claim that every precautionary measure had been taken and UCIL had disposed of its duties; may be the claim is true, as in the sense of disposal of garbage.

That is as far as the preventive role of the state fell short. But what about safety during emergencies? Events that unfolded right after the gas-leak are notable: immediately after the gas-leak began, Warren Anderson denied of any such happening. People started evacuating their houses, with burning throats and lungs, vomiting, blindness. They reached hospitals, where they were simply administered eye-drops and cough syrups. By four o' clock in the morning, the gas leak was controlled, and by seven the police confirmed Anderson's claim that everything is normal. This was when thousands had evacuated Bhopal and yet a cloud of chemicals hovered over and its admixture had entered soil and water.

Further, the govt. sealed off the site of the factory and started registering those affected by the gaseous carnage; but many had fled, only to come back later and learn that they do not classify as “affected”. Even those on the outskirts of Bhopal find it difficult till date to find a medical card, for the area deemed affected was so limited. No one under 18 years of age was registered. In fact, the way “affected” has been described is often ludicrous, reports having come in about Jairam Ramesh holding some mud from the site in his hand and claiming, “look, I am not affected.” Short/Long term defects among those present at that time do not matter; it's strange, for it is the first time that a disease has failed to be a criteria for itself.

Thirdly, the govt. has come up, time and again, with dismal packages of compensation. UCIL had earlier offered US$ 350 million, to which the Govt. of India responded with a claim of US$ 3.3 billion. Curiously, in 1999, the GoI accepted a settlement in US$ 470 million, which wasn't a raised amount, but the same offer with interest added to it. The present GoM under P. Chidambaram has made a monetary compensation of around Rs. 700-800 crores to be distributed to those “affected”, which has been put to barely 7% of all those really affected (look here). Money for other purposes (environmental clean-up, hospitals, services, employment) has been put at around Rs. 500-700 crores. This, claims the GoM, is an impressive compensation. Of course, given that it leaves out 93% of people affected, we could choose not to be so impressed. And the reason is not limited to that: along with this hike in central expenditure, the GoM has reduced funds from the Madhya Pradesh govt. from Rs. 928 crores to a mere Rs. 200 crores! Impressive downsizing! Also, while recognizing that the environment needs to be cleaned up, the govt. is reluctant to give “affected” status to those who suffer that environment. As far as justice is concerned, the govt. has virtually given a green signal to all those who headed the corporation: Warren Anderson was let loose, UCIL was allowed to be sold off to Everready Batteries, UCC to Dow Chemicals. These new owners refuse to take responsibility of the disaster. Among charges of civil and criminal liability, both were temporarily dropped, later restoring those of negligence, but not of culpable homicide. This removed the 'fugitive' status off Anderson and Union Carbide. It is quite obvious that the claim to extradite Warren Anderson is a red-herring; firstly, if he had to be booked, he wouldn't have been let to go. Secondly, it is a convenient way to take away attention from Dow Chemicals, on whom the liability would now come. It is assumed that the US govt. won't extradite Anderson, so claiming to be working towards it is a well calculated risk for the GoI. What is not spoken of is the eagerness which the govt., in all this, is showing to investors who could choose India to set up their workings.

Given such a state of things, prospects seem pretty bleak for those who have suffered and for those who support them in their fight. The institution that is traditionally assumed to support people, the state, has obviously drifted elsewhere. All that was left for them was to form co-operative groups that would join with others willing to help and fight to get back whatever they can from what they have lost.

As far as the future course of Bhopal is concerned, there is not dearth of suggestions, since a lot has been written since the disaster about it, and any discussion of facts points out to the same every time. Firstly, the compensation: it is always absurd to put price on humans. In this sense, this crime is beyond pardon. In another sense, it must be noted that the disaster took away the Bhopali's chance at life in various ways: general health, genetic makeup, associated handicaps for life, a generally low competitive ability resulting from all this. In a way, the disaster blew the ground beneath their feet and put them on a very low level compared to what is necessary to sustain oneself. Any reasonable compensation should aim at leveling this disparity; the schemes till present day are just a distant speck of a shadow of this. Secondly, the govt. should extend the “affected” status to those needy, and the criteria should be less simplified than what Jairam Ramesh came up with. Medical cards should be given to all these affected, and this should entail free medical care, as has not been the case till now in many cases. Environmental clean-up should be resumed (note here that the word 'resumed' should act as an incentive, since no serious work had ever been undertaken). It is essential that Dow should take responsibility of UCC's sins, and so with those who were the Indian counterparts of UCC and held a share in UCIL. These cases, moreover, should be fast-tracked. Industrial safety requirements should be increased, and assessed regularly. Production process should be of good and safe standards. It is not the case that we don't know what this means; the Bhopal disaster was predicted, but nothing was done. As against dominant trends, industry should not risk general harmony. Bhopal is an example of how a factory is not merely an economic unit, but grounded in the general ecology of a place and risks everything around it. Thus, political control of the most popular kind (involving referendums, public committees) should be necessary for all industrial endeavors by anyone. In fact, the activism of the Bhopalis is an example of the importance of unity in shaping one's society. It is also a sham that the various govts. have disowned their own responsibility; the Congress (I) under Indira Gandhi is responsible, for that is the time when UCIL started its operations in Bhopal, and started “Indianizing” its processes. The Rajiv Gandhi govt. is responsible for letting off criminals under foreign pressure and fixing pitiable compensation schemes. Every successive govt., state or centre, BJP or Congress (I), is culpable for the general silence upon the pain of the Bhopalis. We have all heard of Soorma Bhopali; we must also remember what a state and a corporation did to the place he came from.

P.S. The struggle of the people of bhopal, helped by others, is well documented here.