Dear Sulka, There is already a campaign on withdrawing Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010; but how do you/we propose to compel those agencies who willfully and knowingly remain committed to this overt piece of legislation? Why do they collaborate with the nuke hawks at such a great peril to the country, and why does the seemingly simple logic of widespread popular protests in response to such nefarious move by the rulers fail in our country? Interpreting & campaigning is one thing and getting people organized for doing something is another thing, you may agree. What do you think, ought to be the role of parties sitting inside and outside the Indian Parliament in rolling back the CLND Bill 2010 ? What will be like role of a responsible Left , and how you think is the unfortunate Bhopal judgement the right context in raising the issue? Regards, Venu.
On Jun 14, 10:08 pm, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. > > Sukla > > On 14 June 2010 22:27, Kavita Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sukla's concise comment is right on the mark. > > > On 14 June 2010 22:22, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> While the demand for justice, i.e. stricter punishment for those who were > >> directly responsible for ignoring the issue of safe industrial practices in > >> case of the UCIL chemical plant in Bhopal handling hugely hazardous stuff > >> and also those who are complicit in getting them off the hook, is > >> profoundly > >> justified; it is time to focus our attention on the larger issue of > >> industrial safety, particularly as regards the hazardous industries. > > >> It is only in the fitness of things that Civil Liability for Nuclear > >> Damage Bill 2010 is attracting large public attention, given the fact that > >> nuclear industry is just not only highly hazardous from uranium mining to > >> power plant - without any safe method for disposal of nuclear wastes, it is > >> also potentially catastrophic as chillingly demonstrated by the Chernobyl > >> accident on April 26 1986. > > >> Laws providing ground rules for adequate compensations etc. and provisions > >> for stricter punishments are, however, far less than enough even if direly > >> needed. Safety norms for industries must be updated as per international > >> best practices and credible and efficient monitoring mechanisms must be put > >> in place. Effective public participation in decision making and monitoring > >> has got to play a large role. > >> There is an abiding need to turn our gaze to these aspects going beyond > >> the strict limits of immediate concerns. > > >> Sukla > > >> On 14 June 2010 21:45, venukm <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> This trajectory of 26 years- long litigation was not anything but > >>> anticipated. 'Nationalist' leaders of all hues were playing dramas, > >>> while they conspired all along to protect the interests of the > >>> corporate giant and to cheat just not the affected people but the > >>> entire country. > >>> Let us ask for example, which party will sincerely make such a demand > >>> to the SC to reopen the 1996 decision diluting the criminal charges > >>> including charges of culpable homicide? > >>> Why did the entire political class keep silent since the days of the > >>> 'historic' judgement that virtually compromised the Bhopal Industrial > >>> (Genocide) Crime, despite the fact that there has been enough voices > >>> of concern from the citizens' groups demanding justice for the > >>> affected people? > > >>> On Jun 14, 5:32 pm, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > I/II. > >>> > From: Gopal Krishna <[email protected]> > >>> > Date: 14 June 2010 16:20 > > >>> > [Attachment(s) <#129366eb23017344_1293623ed6b14c6f_TopText> from Gopal > >>> > Krishna included below] > > >>> > *Press Note* > > >>> > * Bhopal**’s Industrial Catastrophe Caused Due to Emergency * > > >>> > * No Inquiry on US Corporation’s Research and Development (R&D) Centre > >>> so > >>> > far * > > >>> > *New Delhi**-The affidavit from Central Bureau of Investigation’s most > >>> > recent affidavit in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal* > >>> provides > >>> > information that implies that had Emergency been not imposed Bhopal’s > >>> > catastrophe caused by the US Corporation’s acts of omission and > >>> commission > >>> > would not have happened. (Relevant pages of the affidavit attached). > >>> There > >>> > is a compelling logic for an independent probe in the entire issue > >>> ranging > >>> > from granting of industrial license, escape of Warren Anderson, role of > >>> > Indo-US CEO Forum to lobbying by industrialists and ministers to > >>> absolve Dow > >>> > Chemicals of liability. > > >>> > It emerges that industrial license to US Corporation’s chemicals plant > >>> was > >>> > granted during the period when Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister had > >>> invoked > >>> > Article 352 to declare Emergency in the country from 25th June 1975 to > >>> > 21stMarch 1977 during 21-month > >>> > regime. The 7th June, 2010 verdict of the Bhopal court (attached) > >>> states > >>> > that Union Carbide Corporation too refers to the application for > >>> industrial > >>> > license on page no.4. According to the CBI’s recent affidavit, on > >>> > 1stJanuary 1970, Union Carbide Company had “applied for industrial > >>> > license for > >>> > manufacture of 5000 tones MIC- based pesticides” required under The > >>> > Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952. An > >>> > application for the registration of an existing industrial undertaking > >>> is > >>> > made to the Ministry of Industry (formerly to Ministry of Industrial > >>> > Development), Government of India. > > >>> > The application was signed by E. A. Munoz, a General Manager in the > >>> > company. The company did not get industrial license for more than 5 > >>> years. > >>> > There must have been sufficient reason to withhold permission for > >>> industrial > >>> > license. After the imposition of Emergency, the company was granted the > >>> > license on till 31st October, 1975 exactly nine years prior to her > >>> > assassination in 1984. The verdict notes that the issuance of > >>> industrial > >>> > license to Union Carbide Company for manufacture of MIC- based > >>> pesticides on > >>> > 31st October, 1984. > > >>> > R K Sahi, the then Deputy Director in the Ministry of Industrial > >>> Development > >>> > (former Deputy Advisor, Planning Commission) has informed that the > >>> entire > >>> > department was against grating of the industrial license. The officials > >>> in > >>> > the Ministry knew that obsolete and discarded technology and machinery > >>> was > >>> > being transferred to India for which the license was granted by > >>> bypassing > >>> > the due process. There was political interference in the granting of > >>> the > >>> > industrial license. > > >>> > The manufacture of Methy Isocynate (MIC) commenced with effect from > >>> > 5thFebruary, 1980, information regarding which was sent to the > >>> > Department of > >>> > Chemicals and Fertilizers vide letter dated 19th February, 1980. The > >>> company > >>> > informed the Ministry of Industrial Development on 12th November, 1982 > >>> about > >>> > the commencement of production in 1980, while requesting for renewal of > >>> > agreement that was to terminate in 1982. > > >>> > The verdict by Mohan P Tiwari, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, > >>> Madhya > >>> > Pradesh notes “Union Carbide Corporation , 39,Old Ridgebury Road > >>> Danbury > >>> > Connecticut ,USA 06817” and Union Carbide Corporation, (Eastern) Inc. > >>> 16th > >>> > Floor New World Office Building (East Wing) 24, Sabury Tsimsa Tsu > >>> Kowloon > >>> > Hongkong, as absconders. On page 25 of the verdict, it states, “(z) It > >>> is > >>> > worthwhile to mention here that the Government of India and the Team of > >>> > Scientists admittedly was never permitted to visit the Plant at > >>> Verginia, > >>> > USA. No brochure, or any other documentary evidence demonstrating the > >>> > similarity between the two plants at Verginia and Bhopal has been > >>> produced > >>> > before the court by the defence.” > > >>> > On page 95 of the verdict, it is stated, “Mr. Warren Anderson, UCC USA > >>> and > >>> > UCC Kowlnn Hongkong are still absconding and therefore, every part of > >>> this > >>> > case (Criminal File) is kept intact alognwith the exhibited and > >>> unexhibited > >>> > documents and the property related to this case, in safe custody, till > >>> their > >>> > appearance.” In the verdict, it is stated that “Dr. S. Varadarajan > >>> PW57, was > >>> > the Head of the team of experts who visited the Plant Site very next > >>> day of > >>> > the incident. He is an expert having excellent qualification. M.Sc. > >>> PhD. > >>> > From Delhi & Cambridge several Honorary D.Scs also former President all > >>> > three major Indian Academy of Science Bangalore, Indian National > >>> Academy > >>> > Delhi started by Shri M.N. Shah and Indian National Academy of > >>> Engineering > >>> > and a number of other Societies. (q)Dr. S. Vardharajan PW57, in para 2 > >>> of > >>> > his statement states that there were several defects, such as MIC is a > >>> > liquid but it evaporates with air and is highly toxic on inhilation as > >>> it is > >>> > made of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide converted into Phosegen, is > >>> > required to be utilized immediately and not to be stored. Storage of > >>> MIC > >>> > should have been highly limited only to meet the requirements for > >>> conversion > >>> > into Sevin as little as possible. (r) In Para 5 he further says that > >>> the > >>> > design required inhibitor to prevent voluntary polymerization of MIC. > >>> > Polymerization produces very high temperature and that accelerates > >>> > polymerization in an explosive manner. There are design defects, such > >>> as use > >>> > of Carbon, Steel and other material and pipes and other materials. > >>> These are > >>> > leading to corrosion in the presence of even quantities of Hydrogen > >>> > Chloride, Hydrochloric Acid (HCL) arising from Phosegen, Chloroform and > >>> > other Chloride materials.” Although the design fault by the US > >>> corporation > >>> > is established, the criminal liability of the Union Carbide’s case is > >>> yet to > >>> > be settled. > > >>> > It is noteworthy that Justice S Muralidhar, Delhi High Court in his > >>> seminal > >>> > paper titled “Unsettling Truths, Untold Tales: The Bhopal Gas Disaster > >>> > Victim’s ‘Twenty Years’ of Courtroom Struggles for Justice” concluded > >>> that > >>> > the cases concerning Bhopal gas disaster should not conclude till > >>> justice > >>> > has been done to every victim. Each strand of litigation is pending at > >>> > various stages and the questions that have arisen remain > >>> unsatisfactorily > >>> > answered.” He had aptly underlined in May 2004, “The extent of > >>> concealment > >>> > and subterfuge practised by UCC and UCIL in screening away from > >>> scrutiny the > >>> > extent of risk to which the MIC plant at Bhopal was subjecting the > >>> local > >>> > population. The enormous lies of the UCC and UCIL > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
