The Bhopal Gas Tragedy

<< Previous

The Tragedy Contd...

According to an epidemiological study sponsored by Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, in October 1989, 70% to 80% of the people in the severely affected communities and 40% to 50% in the mildly affected communities continued to suffer from MIC exposure related illnesses five years after the disaster. A house to house symptom survey in one community, conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation in Delhi University in early 1993, showed 65.7% people suffering from respiratory symptoms, 68.4% with neurological problems and 49% with ophthalmic symptoms. Among the women in the reproductive age, 43.2% suffered from reproductive disorders.

Union Carbide Takes the Offensive Following the accident, the GoI filed a compensation lawsuit against the UCC for an estimated US$3 billion. However, UCC felt that the GoI was to blame for the disaster. In December 1986, UCC filed a countersuit against the GoI and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The company charged the governments with "contributory" responsibility for the leak of poisonous gases, saying both governments knew of the toxicity of MIC but failed to take adequate precautions to prevent a disaster. Under the two sections "First Steps At Control" and "Contingency Planning and Experience Help," UCC listed all the things that it did immediately following the first call it got about the tragedy. The document said that vital decisions were made-the UCC facility making MIC in the US was shut down; a task force led by Warren Anderson was set up; and medical and technical teams were dispatched to the site of the tragedy "within 24 hours." The document also said that "Union Carbide had a contingency plan for emergencies."

However analysts felt that contrary to what was said in UCC's document, UCC did not have any kind of emergency plans in place at its Indian subsidiary. So much so, that when the accident occurred and people started pouring into the hospitals in Bhopal complaining about the various ailments, the hospital staff had no idea of what had happened or what to do.

UCC tried to defend its position by saying that it had only a 50.9% stake in UCIL. The company also said that all the employees in the company were Indians and that "...the last American employee at the site had left two years before." UCC maintained that it did not have any hold over its Indian affiliate. UCC further argued that the day-to-day working of UCIL was independent of the parent company and therefore it could not to be held responsible for the gas leak.

However investigations revealed that this was not really true. In spite of denials, it appeared that UCC had substantial authority over its affiliate. Many of the day to day details, such as staffing and maintenance, were left to Indian officials, but every major decision, such as the annual budget, had to be cleared with the parent company.

The Settlement

Within months after the disaster, the GoI issued an ordinance appointing itself as the sole representative of the victims for any legal dealings with UCC as regards compensation. The ordinance was later replaced by the Bhopal Gas Leak (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. Armed with this power, the GoI filed its suit for compensation and damages against UCC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Next >>