7/29/2019 Story Without an End

1/1

EDITORIALS

march 23, 2013 vol xlviII no 12 EPW Economic & Political Weekly8

The Supreme Court has called it the worst stigma on the

entire nation. It was referring to the fact that 28 years

after the Bhopal gas disaster, where deadly methyl iso-

cyanate (MIC) from the Union Carbide plant killed thousands on

one night and many more in subsequent years, the survivors

continue to be slowly poisoned. Till today, there is no closure to

the tragedy that unfolded that night. In addition to the many

who continue to suffer from ailments caused by exposure to the

toxic gas, many more are now suffering the consequences of in-

gesting poisons from the contaminated waste that is still lying

in the abandoned plant. Court cases and continuous campaigns

notwithstanding, neither the state government of Madhya

Pradesh nor consecutive governments at the centre have dealt

with this tragedy with the urgency that is needed. With the pas-

sage of each year, and the marking of another anniversary of

the Bhopal tragedy, there is little progress towards justice forthe victims or an end to their exposure to toxins.

There are several parts of the Bhopal tragedy that remain

unresolved. Perhaps the most crucial, in terms of impact on the

daily lives of people, is the neglect by the state and central

governments in dealing with the poisonous waste in the

defunct plant. Last year, as a result of orders from the Supreme

Court that action must be taken, it appeared as if a solution

was in sight. A German company, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) agreed to lift 350 metric

tonnes of waste from the Bhopal plant and incinerate it. But the

deal fell through, partly due to opposition from within Germany

where the consequences of incinerating such waste are well

known. As a result, even as the Bhopal victims marked the

28th anniversary in December last year, the toxic pile remained

where it was with no solution in sight.

An illustration of the indifference of the state and the central

governments to the toxic crisis in Bhopal is the lackadaisical

manner in which the testing of groundwater has been done. The

survivors of the Bhopal gas tragedy have been pointing out for

years that the poisons from the waste in the plant have been

leaching into the groundwater. In 2009, the Centre for Science

and Environment conducted a survey confirming this. Yet, both

the central and the state pollution boards refused to accept thesefindings claiming that the clay layer running under the plant

prevented the poisons from leaching into the underground

water aquifers. Finally, in September last year, the Indian Insti-

tute of Toxicology Research confirmed that the groundwater

was contaminated with high levels of nitrates, lead and nickel

and that this had spread over 18 colonies in the area. Why did it

take so long to confirm something as basic as this? Surely it did

not require some special or high level of expertise to conduct

the basic soil and water tests. It is unconscionable that people

who survived the lethal MIC have been forced to live next to a

toxic pile and survive on contaminated water.

Earlier this month, the issue came up again in the Supreme

Court wherein it ordered that a trial incineration of some of

the toxic waste be done at the Pithampur facility in Madhya

Pradesh. The state government had resisted using this plant

for dealing with the waste arguing that the Central Pollution

Control Board (CPCB) had not certified the plants ability to

handle the waste. It is well known that even the most efficientplant cannot prevent some amount of toxic organochlorines

from being released into the atmosphere when this type of

waste is incinerated. This partly explains why the German

company pulled out. And the Pithampur facility would proba-

bly not qualify as the most efficient waste treatment plant in

the world by a long measure. Yet, what stopped the Madhya

Pradesh government from conducting a trial run, as suggested

by the Court, earlier?

The apex court has concluded that the tussle over where the

waste should be disposed of has been reduced into a matter of

political battle because of two different political parties at the

centre and in Madhya Pradesh. And it is probably right in

concluding this. If an illustration was needed of how politics

overrides basic humanity, this surely must be one. At stake is

the health of thousands of people who have suffered for almost

three decades. After the 4th March order by the Supreme Court,

there is now some hope that 10 tonnes of similar waste from the

Hindustan Insecticides Limited (HIL) plant in Kochi will be sent

to Pithampur for a trial run before the matter comes up again

for hearing in the Supreme Court on 6 May. But even if this hap-

pens, it is only the first step. Given the way this pile of poisons

has been tossed around, there are bound to be other hurdles

before it is finally cleared. Tragically, the Bhopal gas story re-mains a saga without an end because the people who could have

done something have simply stopped caring.

Story without an End

The continuing indifference to the Bhopal gas victims is unconscionable.

The womens movement has for decades targeted certain

institutions of and behaviour within the family such as

dowry and domestic violence. But it is now time to start

questioning the very structure of the Indian family the

monogamous, patrilineal, patronymic, and patrilocal family

which has been normalised by law. This is a daunting task,

not just because it will undermine the entire structure of

social, economic and political power in contemporary India,

but also because the Indian family provides, despite all

its problems, the closest of emotional ties for individuals.

Questioning the family involves questioning ones parents,

ones siblings and children; it involves questioning unfreedoms

which appear alongside intense love and affection. But unless

our present family form is critiqued and transformed, can we

really imagine a life free from coercion and violence, whether

sexual or otherwise?