Bhopal Disaster Civil Action and the Right to Know Doctrine

Review of The Bhopal Tragedy: What Really Happened and What It Means for American Workers and Communities at Risk by M. Arun Subramaniam

Form

Morehouse, W., & Subramaniam, M. A. (1986). The Bhopal tragedy: What really

happened and what it means for American workers and communities at risk. Council on International and Public Affairs. 208 pp.

Introduction

The Bhopal Tragedy was one of the worst industrial disasters in the world. It killed an estimated 5000 to 30000 people and poisoned more than half a million. Had the disaster occurred anywhere but in the developing world, it likely would have been a much bigger scandal; however, because it happened in India and US courts refused to hear cases brought against Union Carbide it remained an Indian affair. The relevance of the book is this: it takes what was an “Indian affair” and conveys it as a much larger tragedy that could have and should have been prevented but was not because of negligence. It points a finger at the guilty who have gone unpunished because of they operate behind a wall of corporate power.

The book was written in 1986, two years after the disaster occurred, just as the first cases began to circulate the courts in the US but before they would be redirected to Indian courts. It is a book largely written in the cautionary tale genre, doubling as a work of journalism. The book is intended not just for American audiences but for all audiences around the world, because in a global society, all are stakeholders in the tragedy. The school represented by the author is that of the school of journalistic critique. The purpose of the book is to persuade the reader a tragic injustice was done to the people at Bhopal and that a similar injustice could be done to the reader in his own community if the world should permit the perpetrators to go unpunished. Unpunished, they will be sure to do it again. The book begins first by describing what happened at Bhopal in 1984, then moves on to discussing the impact of the disaster. It shifts to a demand for justice for the Bhopal victims and then describes the complex litigation ongoing. Another shift brings the topic home when the author asks whether a similar tragedy could occur in the US. The topic of prevention is then discussed and a call for citizen action is given.

Overview

The author approaches the subject of the tragedy with a certain amount of righteous indignation. The facts of the case are given, blame is placed, and justice is demanded. It is a work of activist literature as much as it is a work of journalism. It makes a call for social justice and warns one and all that what happened in Bhopal could easily happen in their own communities if the Big Industrialists are not held accountable for their actions. The author’s method is thus one of identifying the facts of the case and then using the lens of social justice to judge the guilty parties and advocate for change. There are no assumptions baked into the piece, but there is the sense of righteous anger that can seem like presumption to others. The main thesis of the work is that the Bhopal disaster could have been prevented but that through arrogance, neglect and detachment, Union Carbide failed to implement safeguards and conduct proper maintenance, which virtually guaranteed a disaster.

The book is structured into 9 parts including 7 chapters, a preface and an epilogue. A forward introduces the book and describes the Bhopal tragedy as the “Hiroshima of the chemical industry,” which is a reference to the bombing of Japan at the end of WW2. In other words, the book is not subtle and it is not structured so as to be so. Each chapter addresses a specific feature of the case, explaining what happened, why, the outcome and what needs to be done to prevent future like occurrences. That is perhaps the most important wording or turn of phrase in the entire book because it cuts through all the facts and figures and perceptions and alternate takes on the case (from what is said in the courts to what is heard and seen on the ground in Bhopal). It is a statement that is direct, blunt, and calculated to pack a tremendous punch. Hiroshima was the first place the US bombed with its new atomic weapon in 1945. The US selected a second target, Nagasaki, for destruction as well—but it is Hiroshima that the author refers to because it is Hiroshima that was hit first. Bhopal represents the first industrial chemical gassing accident to affect hundreds of thousands of lives and cause economic losses of more than $4 billion. But by placing it on par with the WW2 bombing, the author draws an equation between that deliberate attack that brought Japan to its knees and the Bhopal tragedy that might as well have been done on purpose for all the neglect and haphazardness that went into making it happen.

Evaluation

The author’s method is appropriate and on target. The book is not meant to be simply a journalistic effort in fact-reporting. It is also meant to be a call to action and thus belongs in a cannon of activist journalism, similar to the works of Angela Davis, written on the prison-industrial complex in the US. The author does not gloss over important details or exaggerate issues for an emotional appeal but rather describes the situation as is and makes a judgment on the matter.

The thesis is born out, but not every chapter deals directly with the thesis. Indeed, it is not entirely clear what the thesis is until the end of the book when it shifts to the matter of prevention. The Bhopal disaster could have been prevented and that is the overall point of the work, and the chapters that best support the thesis are the first three chapters and the final three. The middle chapter deals with litigation is almost like a tangent—however, it is not unimportant, for it shows that the law’s delay is a problem when it comes to addressing the guiltiness of those in charge at Bhopal. The US courts are shown as trying to sit it out.

The author selects the data from multiple sources: the sources include the residents of Bhopal who have their own stories to tell, the economic data that tells how much business revenue was destroyed by the accident, the court room data that tells the shape of litigation and the effect of appealing to the law for justice, and expert opinion from activists who can help to explain why citizen action is needed. The author makes use of all these different sources of data because (1) they are all relevant and (2) they help to add dimensions to the story. The information from the Bhopal residents helps to put a human face on the narrative. The statistics on revenue lost and the real cost of the disaster help to frame the tragedy in a way that is often unseen in tragedies of this nature—i.e., in terms of lost revenue, lost production, lost business activity. All of that helps to paint a unique picture. Then there is the legal drama surrounding the tragedy, which only further provides a reason to view those responsible for the tragedy with disgust. They are able to skirt the law and stave off prosecution and lawsuits because they are much mightier than the victims of the gassing. The judgments of the author are valid as they are rooted in logic, fact, sentiment, and an ethical framework that is situated in social justice and virtue ethics.

The evidence selected also supports the conclusions reached by the author, namely that citizen action is needed, since communities cannot trust themselves to the justice system for accountability. If there is going to be any accountability in the world it has to come via social justice, i.e., citizen action—protests, boycotts and the like. If people want to prevent a similar accident, they need to let Union Carbide know that what happened in Bhopal is unacceptable and the way they can do that is by hitting the corporation where it hurts—the wallet—since the law and justice system in the US appear to be uninterested in pursuing the matter. There is no evidence of over-generalization, faulty reasoning or false assumptions: the logic is crystal clear and one can follow it from the neglect demonstrated by the company in Bhopal to the way the justice system protects the corporation because of its wealth and influence at all tiers and spheres of Western society. It is ultimately a tale of how the elite govern themselves and get away with murder.

Evidence that might have strengthened the book would have been to go more deeply into the ties between the corporate leaders of Union Carbide and other corporations and organizations in the US. There is often a great deal of overlap among boards of directors and many people from government often end up seated on boards when they leave office. This would have strengthened the argument that it is not just Union Carbide that is to blame but that the entire system is corrupt as it exists to facilitate its own self-interest: if a few thousand lives are lost in a third world country here or there, what difference does it make to them? In fact, Hillary Clinton would be asking the exact same question to oversight when confronted with one of her own scandals during her time in office. Others have found the book to be very well-written, judging from reviews of Amazon, and it should be regarded as a classic of corporate negligence.