has justice been made in Bhopal Gas Case?



In an unexpected move, wheat prices that were poised to drop sharply under the weight of rising inventories have jumped to multi-month highs, stroking concerns that after gold the next big boom could come in foodgrains. Though sceptics believe that there is an element of speculation in the recent rally, the likely factor has been the sharp drop in production and exports in Russia, the world's fourth-largest wheat exporter. The US department of agriculture recently said that wheat output in Russia may drop to 50 million tonne (mt) this year, 19% less than last year as the worst drought in 130 years trimmed output. Russia's exports may decline 23% to 14 mt, which can seriously impact availability of the widely consumed Black Sea wheat. The International Grains Council has downgraded world wheat stockpiles forecast by 2.5% to 192 mt by June 2011, reversing a June forecast for higher inventories. The fall in Russia's production coupled with concerns about wheat production in Kazakhstan and western Australia have hurled prices northwards.


The September-delivery contract in Chicago rose as much as 0.6% to $6.975 a bushel on Tuesday; it had reached $7.1125 on Monday—the highest level in the last 22 months. Experts believe that any move by Russian authorities to curb exports will hurl wheat futures towards $8.50 per bushel. But does Russia's reduced presence in world markets open a window of opportunity for India, where godowns are brimming (stocks as on July 1 were estimated to be around 34 mt against a buffer and strategic requirement of 20.1 mt)?


Even if the government allows private traders to export wheat—prospects are limited as there is hardly any surplus—the export price of the grain purchased from UP (the only state where private traders are active), will be around $330 per tonne after factoring in transportation and other incidental costs. Australian and Argentinian wheat is available in the global markets at a lesser price of $260-$270 per tonne (FOB), January-December delivery. As an alternative, the government could start exporting wheat from its godowns as and when returns become remunerative. Or it could subsidise private exports, which looks unlikely.


The $20-billion fund made available to the U.S. government by BP has highlighted a double standard in the dispensation of justice after the two disasters.


Comparing the compensations for victims of the Bhopal disaster and the BP oil spill, and calling for an equitable dispensation of justice, the former members of the International Medical Commission on Bhopal, Dr. Sushma Acquilla (U.K.), Dr. Rosalie Bertell (U.S.A.), Professor Paul Cullinan (U.K.), Dr. V. Ramana Dhara (U.S.A.), Professor Birger Heinzow (Germany & Australia), Dr. Gianni Tognoni (Italy) and Dr. Marinus Verweij (The Netherlands), say :


We, the former members of the International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB) welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister of India to set up a high level ministerial Committee to reopen the issue of the Bhopal tragedy, considered the world's worst industrial disaster. We understand the committee, chaired by Home Minister P. Chidambaram, met recently to explore and decide on the future of Bhopal victims and the fate of the residual Union Carbide plant. We are a group of independent experts in different fields of medicine and public health who studied the long-term health effects amongst the survivors of the Bhopal disaster, ten years after the accident.


This study was done at the invitation of gas victims who were frustrated by the Madhya Pradesh government's announcement that there were no long-term effects of the disaster and that the Bhopal case could be closed. Our study was the only one of its kind that attempted to define the gas-related illnesses in the population known as the "Bhopal Syndrome" and which showed that there were indeed long-term effects on multiple body systems.


We welcome the setting up of the ministerial committee and would like to offer our expertise to the government of India, as the only independent group of experts with detailed knowledge of the disaster and the effects of the gas.


IMCB in their 1994 report, made the following recommendations:


1. Reorganisation of the health system to establish a network of community-based primary care clinics.


2. The gas-related disease categories need to be broadened to include central nervous system and psychological (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) injury.


3. A conference to determine best practice rehabilitation medicine, including both western and Indian expertise, must be undertaken to develop rational treatments and prescripttion drugs for survivors.


4. Health data collected by the Indian Council of Medical Research should be communicated to the population and submitted for publication in professional journals.


5. Gas victims to have the right of access to their medical records.


6. Victim organisations should be adequately represented in the national and state commissions dealing with the disaster.


7. Criteria for compensation should include medical, economic and social damage to the victims.


8. Allocation of resources for economic and social rehabilitation of people and their communities should be made.


9. Thorough examination of the impact of the toxic waste buried on the Union Carbide site and its potential for further damage to public health needs to be researched.


To our knowledge, only the first recommendation has been partly implemented.


The recent $20-billion fund made available to the U.S. government by BP for the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has unwittingly highlighted a double standard in the dispensation of justice for the two disasters. The Gulf oil spill is, undoubtedly, ghastly but it is as yet much smaller in scale and consequences than the Bhopal disaster. According to the official figures published by the Indian government, 3,500 people were killed outright with the subsequent death toll claimed to be in excess of 15,000. Union Carbide abandoned the plant after the disaster and has been accused of failing to clean up the site, exposing local people to water supply contaminated with toxic chemicals. The deep water tables in Bhopal and surrounding areas are now considered to be at risk of contamination. Even though Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide's assets, it has refused so far to take responsibility for its liabilities.


While there were Congressional hearings to hold BP publicly accountable for the Gulf oil spill, similar action did not occur for Union Carbide's monumental disaster in Bhopal, even though the company was cutting jobs, decreasing safety training, cutting maintenance costs, and using inferior technology in Bhopal compared to a similar plant in Institute, West Virginia. It took 17 years for the Indian government to obtain a once-for-all settlement of $470-million compensation on behalf of the victims — a meagre sum compared to the interim compensation fund of $20 billion, set up by BP.


The BP fund was set up without knowledge or evidence of injury/loss of human life, apart from those who were on the rig at the time of accident. Yet in Bhopal, without knowing the size of the damage — for example, the number of people who died or assessing the levels of disability and the effects of long-term morbidity amongst the survivors — the full settlement for compensation was agreed at $470 million. This agreementbetween the government of India and Union Carbide was considered by the victims to be a violation of their human rights.


If international human rights laws and principles are to be applied, it is clear that there is a vast chasm between the current approach to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Bhopal victims and their environment. Transnational corporations must be under exactly the same set of obligations, no matter where their operations take place in the world. We support holding those responsible for the Bhopal disaster to account in the same way as those responsible for the BP Gulf leak.


Earlier last month, several Indian senior managers at the time of the accident in the Bhopal plant received two-year prison sentences and a small fine each, prompting an outcry in India that this disaster was treated like a minor traffic accident. The verdict has been described as "outrageous" and calls have been made for the former Union Carbide CEO, Warren Anderson, now 89, to be sent to India to stand trial.


We welcome the decision by the Indian government to review the plight of the Bhopal victims at this time, and to pursue the cleanup of the Bhopal toxic waste site by Dow Chemical. It may be late but better late than never.


(Further reading: Wikipedia page on International Medical Commission on Bhopal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/





Magistrate said he has passed the order as per lay. What is the problem now?


problem is not with the court but with the case which was pu forth by prosecution there.
Professor of Law

It is good that Government is reopening the case to provide appropriate compensation toBhopal victims at last.


For paying compensation, Govt does not have to go to court. Victims of Sikh killings of 1984 were paid without going to court. It is all eyewash. Govt even does know how many were killed/maimed for life.

Total likes : 1 times


" For paying compensation, Govt does not have to go to court. Victims of Sikh killings of 1984 were paid without going to court. It is all eyewash. Govt  "  - exactly anil sir, thanks.


no not at all.




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Search Forum:


  LAWyersclubindia Menu