IT HAPPENED again, for the 14th time in a row. As a annual national exercise, one more dirge was sung for Bhopal. The Federation of Indian Chambers Of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Union ministry of environment and forests (MEF) jointly organised the 14th commemoration of the Bhopal gas disaster on December 4, also called Disaster Prevention Day or Bhopal Day. Entitled "Roundtable on Bhopal Gas Tragedy: An Introspection", the meeting aimed to be a solemn reminder of the disaster and also sought to motivate industries to undertake preventive action. But the amazing fact is that even after 14 years, Bhopal continues to be a dark blotch in the history of industrial safety in India.
"It is time to prepare for coming date will notwait for disasters to happen," said Suresh Prabhu, Union minister for environment and forests. It is gratifying that the government is finally recognising the need for a proactive role towards disaster prevention, even though it has taken 14 worrisome years to seep into its consciousness.
Intriguingly, the message from various presentations is that India has world-class legislations on industrial safety. "Legislation in India is as good, if not better, as anywhere in the world," said R K Garg, former chairperson, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). However, a recent report on industrial accidents by MEE spins a different tale. According to this report, after Bhopal, there have been 119 industrial accidents in India killing over 1,000 and injuring over 6,000 people. Is this what world-class legislations do to ensure the safety of its people and the environment?
A disaster management plan is to be drawn up before a factory begins operations. For the first time, workers are statutorily accorded the right to be principal participants in safety management programmes. And again, for the first time, compulsory disclosure of information is open not only to the concerned authorities but also to the people living in the vicinity of the factory. But, along with these constructive laws, some legal flaws are tucked away in an obscure cranny. Here, the infamous Section 7B(5) is worth a look. Even as the government put up a semblance of a battle to make the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) pay for the Bhopal disaster, this incongruous provision was slipped into the law without any debate. This section absolves manufacturers, designers, importers and suppliers of industrial plants and machinery of responsibilities in case of an accident if the user of such a plant or machinerygives a written undertaking "to take the steps... to ensure... the article will be safe (without the risk to the health of the worker) when properly used." Says Usha Ramanathan, a law researcher at the New Delhi-based Indian Law Institute, "This law shall have the effect of relieving the designer and manufacturer from what is otherwise prescribed as a duty to ensure safety of the workers." What Ramanathan has to say cannot be questioned. Indeed, this provision only serves to place the company controlling the technology beyond the reach of law.
The minister remarked that "MEF is not willing to play therole of the traffic police to first allow to jump a red light andthen catch, but to prevent jumping". His theoretical perspective seems clear. But finding ways of bringing the issue to itslogical conclusion has eluded the authorities all these years.
People still wonder how the UCC was allowed to open shop inthe heart of Bhopal, In addition, there are umpteen exampleswhere a bad combination of industries has been allowed toshare close geographical areas in the past. Which means manyindustries, each one fraught with enormous destructive potential, are located in close proximity. Chembur in Mumbai has,for instance, two oil refineries, three petrochemical planfertiliser plant, a thermal power plant, a 10,000-megatonneammonia tank, the BARC nuclear reactors and several smallhazardous industries. Obviously, there is a lack of clearperspective on modalities on which combination of industriesshould be allowed to be established at close quarters. It isimportant that the planners know whether all such industriescan be located together or be spread out.
Then comes the issue of relocation, which is an inevitableand effective tool for mitigation of public affliction. But thistoo is not flawless for the following reasons:
When industries are asked to relocate, they close shop,leaving the workers high and dry. And it is mainly the workers,who come from the lower sections of the society, that suffer;
Part of the human settlement also relocates in the new site.In Thane, Maharashtra, for instance, industries were relocatedin 1961 to a remote area. By 1990, this area has substantialhuman settlements, both authorised and unauthorised.
Prabhu identified two problems with regard to industrialaccidents: location of industries and urban planning. Then, ofcourse, the problem of overpopulation was implicated. True,bad urban planning and overpopulation comes in the way ofreducing public affliction due to an accident. But this all themore calls for ways of making industries accident-firee. Thistarget can be reached faster than that of urban planning andoverpopulation. But, the country has a good history of 50years 'cluelessness' on how to tackle it.
The ministry should now put its own act together and recognise the flaws with direct legislations. For instance, considerable number of industries flout disaster management plans (DMPS) within the factory laws, surveillance premises, called on-site DMPS. Very few districts and participation have DMPS outside factory premises or off-site DMPS. These are glaring violations of rules. MEF should sort ensure the safety out these issues and find ways to ensure compliance. It should also force industries to create awareness among the workers and the public at large about the risks. A few decades of industrialisation is not a small time for such lessons. Else, badsafety record shall remain a stark reckoning and is likely toyield bad results in the era of liberalisation.
Another issue, conspicuous by its absence, is whether lawsare equipped to protect the interests of the workers and thoseaffected, both before and after the accidents. It is time to reviewthem, unless we want to wait for another Bhopal to happen tolearn what a toothless law can do to innocent citizens whileletting transnational companies walk away with impunity.
Ensuring industrial safety is not an unmanageable task.What is needed is a clear perspective, strict enforcement oflaws, surveillance and participation of all people. The industrymust cooperate as for its own sake. Unless this happens, Bhopalwill live on only in conferences and workshops.
The author is a researcher on health and environment issues and,a PhD in life sciences from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi