You are on page 1of 6

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Will We Ever Learn to Act Rather Than React?

GRK Murty
It is often the late dawning of the ‘RIGHT’ that results in a tragedy—at
least, that is what every reader of the Greek and Shakespearean
tragedies understands.

Today, witnessing what the TV channels and newspapers are


bombarding the viewers/readers with—the uproar after the Bhopal
District Court convicted eight former top managers of Union Carbide
India Ltd. (UCIL) for causing death by ‘negligence’ that resulted in the
leakage of tens of thousands of pounds of methyl isocyanate, a highly
toxic gas, from its plant in Bhopal on the night of December 2-3, 1984,
which took the lives of more than 8,000 people and left thousands
suffering its toxic aftereffects—and the cacophony that the political
parties are making over the escape of Anderson from the country in
1984, demanding his extradition from the US, though he is not a subject
of the current judgment of the court, one ends up with the same
gnawing discomfort.

The predictable outrage of the victims at the perceived disproportion


between the consequences of the tragedy that occurred 25 years back
and the sentence of the court is, of course, understandable, for they
have received a raw deal on all fronts. So is the case with the activists’
demand for action against Dow Chemical, the American company which
acquired Union Carbide in 1991. But the fact remains that it is too late
to be of any use. The issue has already taken too many twists during
the intervening period of 25 years, leaving the victims high and dry.
First, we must realize that the court has decreed as the law permitted
it: a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court passed a direction earlier
that the Bhopal gas case can only be tried under Section 304 A—rash
and negligent act causing death—of the IPC, but not under Section 304
para 2, because of which the penalty came down from 10 years to two
years.

Indeed, if one looks at the disaster from a right perspective, the


underpinnings of the whole tragedy, which incidentally number more
than one, lie strewn all around. The first and foremost question that
strikes a conscious mind is: How is it that the government permitted
the setting up of a plant that produces and handles a deadly toxic gas,
day in and day out, in a thickly populated area? It was also a well-
known fact by then that the gas proposed to be produced at the factory
was discouraged by many western countries for its known toxic
potential. Secondly, the technology to be deployed for its manufacture
itself was in doubt. Yet, the permission was granted for its
establishment in the city.
The next question that comes to one’s mind is: What did the
government do for ensuring safety in its operation? What kind of
inspections were carried out—did anybody, anytime, question the
company about the sufficiency or otherwise of the safety measures
adopted by the factory authorities? Were the people around the
factory ever educated about the safety precautions to be taken if any
accidental release of any irritating gas occurred? Reports indicate that
people around the factory were never sensitized about the likely
threats to their life from the factory. It is also said that a mere holding
of a wet cloth by the victims of the gas leak across their face might have
reduced the calamity substantially. But the fact remains that none of
the authorities acted on any of these preliminaries to ensure the safety
of people.

Now, moving to the post-incident legal action, the Government of India


(GoI) took upon itself the right to litigate by exercising the power of
parens patriae, and filed a suit in the US court against the Union
Carbide Corporation USA (UCCA), claiming damages to the tune of $3
bn. Incidentally, American tort lawyers are known for their securing
verdicts from their courts for huge sums that match the magnitude of
the suffering inflicted by the offender. But the GoI lost the case on the
very issue of jurisdiction; the judge of the US District Court sent the
case to India.

Later, fearing that it would take long years for settlement under Indian
legal system, and looking at the urgency in providing relief to the
victims, the GoI agreed to a settlement with UCCA before the Supreme
Court to accept $470 mn, a mere 15% of what it initially claimed in the
US courts, in full settlement of all civil and criminal claims arising out of
the disaster. With this, UCCA got itself extricated from the issue. At the
outcry of the victims, the Supreme Court later resuscitated the criminal
cases, but left the monetary settlement and cessation of civil liability
undisturbed. As a result, criminal proceedings were initiated against
those from India who were responsible for the operation of the plant
on that fateful night.

But the real tragedy of the Bhopal gas disaster is, little has been done
for the victims. Even the site has not been cleaned up till date, though
the toxic waste is known to contaminate the ground water of the
surroundings—already the lindane levels have reportedly crossed the
permissible level by 40 times, and mercury by 24 times.

The net result of the whole episode is: first, the UCCA/UCIL betrayed
the people of Bhopal; second, the GoI faltered in letting the victims
claim commensurate compensation in a free-market system for their
unprecedented suffering; and third, the legal system of the nation
being what it is, no one is sure when the current verdict of the court
will become effective.

Now, what does it all mean? It means: We must decide to ACT—to act
rightly at the right time. If we practice this, things will automatically fall
into place. And many tragedies can be averted.

*****

You might also like