Bhopal was a systemic failure. We need systemic solution of better checks and balances. And we need to stop believing the government.

Related Links
On the Coming of India's Civil War
The Credibility of Indian Democracy
IPL and the Dirt Under India Shining
Opposition to Civil Nuclear Liability Bill

A few days before the verdict that gave 2 year jail terms to 7 accused, I had written an article opining that the credibility of democratic governance in India is fast eroding and its implications are dangerous. The verdict and the questions that have arisen since have pointed to systemic failure in governance.

In the furore that has followed the verdict, the systemic failure of legislative, executive and judiciary of the Indian governance has been exposed. The theme that cuts across all these institutions has been the lack of accountability, the absence of checks and balances and absolute lack of transparency.

It took 25 years for the country to ask the question "who let Warren Anderson leave the country?". A set of muddled answers suggests that the CM of Madhya Pradesh and members in the central government were both involved. Warren Anderson's parting comments - only recently being shared - suggest arrogance based on knowledge, perhaps, that he would not be touched. Perhaps the US government was involved?

Why were the number of deaths so quickly and conservatively estimated? Who is accountable for that estimation? Why was the Indian government quick to reduce the liability from 3.3B USD to a much smaller 470M USD?

Recent RTI filings have resulted in documents showing that there was exchange of letters between the Indian ambassador to US and the CEO of DOW guaranteeing that the Indian government would not bring any charges against DOW (which has bought Union Carbide and has been willing to take on Union Carbide liabilities in the US but is unwilling to take on its liabilities in Bhopal). This, while the courts were still deciding on whether DOW was responsible for the liabilities of Union Carbide in Bhopal.

Further, it has come to light that multiple members of Lok Sabha and ministers have had other financial relationships with DOW which are in conflict of interest with their ability to legislate on the issue. Some of the members of the Group of Ministers who are to make a decision on justice to the victims of Union Carbide have already taken positions favorable to DOW. Outlook India reported

In a letter dated November 10, 2006, Chidambaram wrote to the Prime Minister about his visit to United Sates to review issues with the Indo-US CEO Forum in New York wherein he submitted a tour report mentioning his comments on Ahluwalia’s note. Referring to the matter of Dow Chemicals, and Ratan Tata’s offer for remediation, Chidambaram stated, “I think we should accept this offer” in his comments dated 5th December, 2006.

In December 2006, Dr S Jaishankar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs in note titled “Issues Emerging from Indo-US CEO’s meeting” underlies how Dow has “sought a statement from GOI (Government of India) in the Court clarifying that GOI does not regard Dow as legally responsible for liabilities UCC” and wants to avoid any “cloud of legal liability”.

In February 2007, Kamal Nath even wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the matter. In the letter, despite acknowledging the fact that the matter is sub judice he said “that a group under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary be formed to look” in the matter of the liability of the Dow Chemicals “in holistic manner in a similar manner as was done in respect to the Enron Corporation with respect to Dabhol Corporation”. The immorality of his suggestion lies in the fact that he totally ignores the Enron scandal that led to the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation, a US energy company.

While we cannot claim that there was corrupting influences in Justice Ahmadi's decision, numerous cases have been presented in the last decade pointing to corrupt justices even in the Supreme Court. Examples include the case against Justice Sabharwal and the recent case of a supreme court nominee who was suspended for evidence of graft.

Over 25 years, neither legislative nor executive agencies of the Indian governments - and their have been 8 governments spanning many political alliances - have made the effort to right the wrongs. The last version of the UPA government, in fact, had refused to release more funds to the victims of Bhopal and had refused to allow organizations of victims access to these funds.

While the accident site remains toxic and needs to be cleaned, while the posions continue to seep into groundwater and into the lives of neighboring communities, the state and union governments have claimed that it is a problem that has been closed. The central government has been more focused on ensuring that DOW receives no unfavorable press, that it continues to have access to Indian markets and Indian government agencies (perhaps easier access than the victims of Bhopal who are also citizens of India).

The PM and his colleagues are more concerned about ensuring that the environment to invest in India is seen as 'favorable', regardless of the questions of justice. This over-riding concern has driven them to reject Bhopal as a continuing issue; they have been unwilling to review the compensation. Compare this with the US government forcing BP to at least 20B USD in compensation already. 

We are forced to conclude that this is a systemic failure across all  government agencies and it continues. Political and bureaucratic leaders continue to make decisions under influence of financial and corporate lobbies from within the country and outside. There is no transparency in the influences behind decisions and there is no transparency in the deals that are made. All major political parties have been involved.

Thus we saw a BJP government that came to power in Maharashtra opposing ENRON sign in to an even better deal for ENRON.

The current UPA government continues to push for a limited liability bill that will guarantee that foreign nuclear reactor vendors will have little to worry about in case of accidents. The Indian taxpayer will foot the bill. Clearly, this legislation is against the people of India and is aimed at taking care of the interests of large companies.

Given this scenario where political leadership and bureaucrats are making decisions based on their personal interests, how do we know that any decision they take is for the benefit of the country? How do we know that Chidambaram - a former director of Vedanta - does not see personal benefit in using government forces to push tribal communities out of their land? How do we know that the POSCO deal is not being pushed to benefit members of Orissa government or the central government while the state only makes small percentage royalties (significantly below international market rates) and police forces are used to push people out of their lands?

Given this scenario, we need to make two key demands from government agencies to ensure that our democracy stays viable.

1. Transparency: We need more transparency, not less. We need all aspects of our government to be transparent, including the cabinet as well as the supreme court. In fact, we are asking more than RTI. We demand that minutes of all meetings involving officers of the government as well as its ministers - whether internal or with outside parties - be publicly posted. Given the collapse of credibility of government and its decision making process, we the citizens of India are forced to demand this off our representatives.

2. Civil liberties: we demand that the state and all its agencies hold constitutional rights sacred. We demand that all agencies of the state ensure that constitutional rights of its citizens, including those who are political dissidents and are engaged in opposing state policies peacefully, be respected. We also demand that any extra-state militia (such as Sulwa Judum) be treated as war criminals and all involved in setting these up also be treated the same way.

While the sentencing of the accused to two years of jail term is a caricature of justice, it has helped bring to light the systemic breakdown in Indian democracy. Fixing this breakdown will be more useful than extraditing Mr. Anderson.
 
It has shown us that our political leadership does not have the competence or the credibility to lead us. We must demand reduction in their powers and claim more oversight - just like we would with a child who is irresponsible - till such a time that the institutions of governance have shown that they can build a system that respects the power they are given by the citizens of India.

- Sanat Mohanty