The BJP appeared to be on the defensive after news reports that it had accepted donations from Dow Chemicals, the company which had taken over Union Carbide, implicated in the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Party spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said the party was going into the details of the donation. "In most cases donations have been accepted on the face value and we have not verified who signed the cheque," he said.

After the incident came to light, Rudy said, the party would put in place a system to check the background of donors to avoid such embarrassment in the future.

Earlier, documents made public under the Right to Information (RTI) Act had revealed that the party took $ 2,500 from Dow Chemicals. The information was disclosed by the Election Commission. Incidentally, the BJP is one of the first parties to accept donations only by cheques.

Nearly 3,000 people had died when the deadly methyl isocyanate gas leaked from the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal in December 1984.

There have been nearly 15,000 deaths related to the incident since then.

Senior party leader M Venkaiah Naidu said the party was verifying if the donation was by Dow Chemicals and that even if it was the case, it would not affect the party's resolve to get justice for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Dow Chemicals has acquired the controversial firm Union Carbide

India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accepted a $2,500 donation from Dow Chemical, government documents have revealed.

Dow Chemical is the American firm which bought the controversial company Union Carbide in 2001.

A gas leak from the Union Carbide plant in the central Indian city of Bhopal in 1984 killed nearly 3,000 people.

There have been at least 15,000 related deaths since. Survivors still suffer from chronic respiratory illnesses.

The leak of tonnes of methyl isocyanate gas from the plant in Bhopal owned by Union Carbide, now a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, is considered one of the world's worst environmental disasters.

The information was revealed by the Election Commission of India after a freedom of information request on the funding of political parties and donations received by them between 2005 and 2007.

Senior BJP leaders said they would check party records before commenting.

Dow Chemical said the donation had been a one-off and broke no rules.

"It is a common practice in several democratic countries to give donations to political parties which is legal," a company spokesman said.

"Dow Chemical International Private Ltd made one such legal donation to the BJP in India. We have made no other political contribution."

'No justification'

Senior BJP leaders have often accused the Congress party of not taking action against those responsible for the gas leak.

Campaigners want legal action pursued against Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals and are angry that the BJP accepted the donation.

"Dow Chemicals, one of the biggest chemical companies globally, acquired a controversial firm like Union Carbide. Accepting a donation from them cannot be justified," Gopal Krishna of the Delhi-based NGO Toxics Watch said.

"It is a serious matter. If a political party behaves in this fashion, then they should be exposed," he said.

Political parties in India accept donations from individuals as well as from companies and industries.

But it is rare for a mainstream party to accept money from a firm which is mired in controversy.

New Delhi, May 22: A group of ministers will decide if US-based Dow Chemical should be made to pay for the clean-up of Bhopal’s air and groundwater pollution, a fallout of the 1984 gas tragedy.

The Centre has decided to refer the matter to the group of ministers after the ministry of chemicals and fertilisers and the commerce ministry failed to agree on the subject.

The chemicals ministry has written to the Union cabinet that it is against letting Dow walk away without paying for the clean-up of the toxic waste left behind by the gas leak from Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant in December 1984.

Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001, 17 years after the gas killed an estimated 8,000 people and maimed tens of thousands, while the contaminants it left behind continue to endanger the health of 20,000 people through their drinking water and food.

However, the commerce ministry feels that allowing Dow to invest in India without burdening it with liability from a past with which it was not actually associated would send the right signal to US investors.

The chemicals ministry’s stand is that the courts should fix corporate responsibility, and that since Dow had bought Union Carbide, the responsibility of the clean-up could be pinned on it under Indian corporate law.

It feels that a failure to fix responsibility would be a poor precedent for future global corporate take-overs that have a bearing on India.

An alternative proposal by industrialist Ratan Tata is not acceptable to the chemicals ministry, which represents the government in all legal cases relating to the gas tragedy.

Tata, co-chair of the Indo-US CEO Forum that has Dow president Andrew N. Liveris as a member, has proposed that Indian and US companies jointly set up a corpus to clean up the site. But the ministry says this goes against the principle of making the successor pay.

In response to a public interest litigation, Jabalpur High Court has already ordered Dow to deposit Rs 100 crore for the clean-up, and chemicals ministry officials say they support this. About 70 tonnes of poisonous residues have contaminated the soil and groundwater in the factory’s neighbourhood, and penetrated vegetation and animal tissues.

There have also been demands for compensation to the 20,000 endangered people.

Dow’s official stance is that the plant was owned by Union Carbide India — a joint venture between the US-based Union Carbide Corporation, the Indian government and private investors. Union Carbide sold its shares in Union Carbide India in 1994, seven years before Dow acquired it.

The plant is now controlled by the Madhya Pradesh government, and Union Carbide India has now been renamed Eveready Industries.

NGOs and associations representing the gas victims have been demanding that Dow pay for the environmental and health damage caused by reckless dumping of hazardous chemical wastes on the factory premises.

The NGOs accuse the Centre of being wishy-washy. Documents they have procured under the Right to Information Act appear to suggest that Union cabinet members would prefer a compromise that helps Dow invest in India.

New Delhi: A few shareholders of Dow Chemical Co. have complained to the US market regulator that the company did not disclose the risks to its investments in India due to the pending issues related to the former Union Carbide facility in Bhopal.

In their complaint, a copy of which is available with ‘Mint’, an institutional investor and eight other shareholders have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate and take appropriate enforcement action for the “dramatic, undisclosed information” related to Dow’s potential liabilities in India.

A gas leakage from the Union Carbide facility in 1984 had killed thousands of people. Dow Chemical, which acquired Union Carbide later, is facing demands from several quarters to compensate the affected people and pay for environmental damages.

India’s department of chemicals and petrochemicals had filed an application before the Madhya Pradesh high court, seeking Rs100 crore from Dow Chemical for environmental remediation at the Bhopal site.

“Dow Chemical has not notified shareholders of this pending application for remedial funds; most significantly, the company has never indicated in its shareholder reports that these remaining liability issues are an impediment to investing in India,” the complaint said.

Quoting documents from the Prime Minister’s Office, the complaint added that Dow Chemical’s $1 billion (Rs4,240 crore) in proposed investment may be at issue due to the failure to resolve the Bhopal issue.

Currently, Dow Chemical is in the process of investing Rs300 crore for a research and development facility in Pune and another Rs600 crore for a plant in Dahej along with Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.

DEBATE

The two issues that remain are whether Dow inherited Union Carbide's liabilities and why the government never cleaned up Bhopal after settling with Carbide

Scot Wheeler,
Director Communications, Dow Chemicals, Midland, US

‘Dow did not inherit Union Carbide's liabilities. Furthermore, Carbide settled its liabilities with the Indian government way back in 1989'

Let me start by clarifying a significant point. The Dow Chemical Company does not have responsibility or legal liability for the Bhopal tragedy or its aftermath. We do have deep sympathy for the victims of the tragedy in Bhopal and we, along with many others, ask the question today, "Why isn't this site cleaned up?"

For those unfamiliar with this situation, it is important — and also accurate reporting — to understand that The Dow Chemical Company never owned or operated the former Bhopal plant site and this situation is not Dow's responsibility, accountability, or liability to bear. The solution to this problem is in the hands of the Indian central and state governments as the site today is under the control of the Madhya Pradesh state government.

As there have been a number of inaccuracies reported by media regarding liability, I want to be very clear on this point. First, you should be aware that Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) was no longer doing business in India long before Dow acquired its shares in 2001. Also, contrary to claims made by some people, Dow did not inherit UCC's liabilities and does not have responsibility for them.

UCC remains a separate company. UCC has its own board of directors, its own financial reporting (you can read UCC's 10-K financial report to the SEC online), and its own employees. And, more importantly, UCC manages its own liabilities. Furthermore, Union Carbide Corporation and the former Union Carbide India Limited (now Eveready Industries India Limited) settled their liabilities regarding the Bhopal tragedy with the Indian government back in 1989 and this settlement was upheld by the Indian Supreme Court in 1991.

As I mentioned earlier, the former Union Carbide India Limited plant site is now under the ownership of the state government of Madhya Pradesh. This has been the case since 1998 and for whatever reason most of us do not know or fully understand, the site remains unremediated. As owners of the site, the Madhya Pradesh government is the entity that has the ability and, more importantly, the authority to ensure that the plant site gets cleaned up.

Finally, Dow India recognises the importance of India's economic development and sees the region as a high potential growth opportunity for the chemicals and plastics businesses. As a key component of our global business strategy, Dow India is focusing on bring new technologies to the region as well as making good use of local talent in the fields of chemicals sciences and technology. Dow's association with India is not new and, in fact, celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. Most recently in April, Dow Europe GmbH, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, and Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. announced the signing of a Joint Venture Agreement for the construction, operation and ownership of a 200 kilotons per year chloromethanes manufacturing facility in Gujarat. These are exciting business developments.We are confident about Dow India's future success and look forward to being a part of India's continued economic development.

Prashant Bhushan,
Advocate, Supreme Court

‘You can use any corporate strategy or veil, but liabilities and assets come together. Dow owns Carbide, so it needs to ensure it fulfils its obligations'

Dow Chemicals should not be allowed to conduct business in India for three reasons. Firstly they have purchased the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and when you have purchased a company, it does not matter what corporate subterfuge you seek to hide behind, you purchase its assets and liabilities. You can use any corporate strategy or veil but liabilities and assets come together.

Dow can continue to claim that UCC is a separate company, with its own board of directors, its own financial reporting and its own employees. Saying this and more are all part of Dow's corporate strategy. But the fact is that UCC was liable for environmental and other damage caused by the chemical disaster, and was responsible for cleaning it up. It didn't do so.

Since Dow has purchased it, it has inherited that responsibility. It just cannot turn its face away. When they purchased Union Carbide, it was with the knowledge of the Bhopal disaster legacy, and it cannot now pretend not to have anything to do with that tragedy.

As owner of Union Carbide, Dow Chemicals is responsible for making UCC take care of its responsibility. Since Dow says that UCC has its own mechanism to deal with its liabilities, then Dow should make UCC do its duty in this case.

So long as it doesn't do so, Dow is shielding an offender. In that respect, Dow Chemicals should not be allowed to do business here because it is unwilling to pay for the environmental clean-up of the dirt left behind by UCC.

And the second reason for not doing business with Dow is that it is a proven offender, having bribed officials in the Indian Government to get its pesticides registered. It did pay a heavy penalty to a district court in the US which, in essence, is an admission of its guilt. A company that is guilty of such conduct should be blacklisted. Why should such a company be allowed to do business in India?

A third reason why Dow Chemicals should not be allowed in India is because it is in the business of toxic chemicals. It is true that many chemical manufacturers are in business. But they should be allowed only if they sign a liability agreement for total responsibility for anything that may happen in future. They must accept strict liabilities for anything that may happen in relation to their business practices. This is especially true of Dow because it has been covering up the crime of another chemical company it bought.

It is true that taking responsibility for UCC's mistakes would lead to an unending list of liabilities for Dow. A way can be found to deal with that. But the simplest way is for Dow to just make Carbide do its job. It, after all, owns it.

For the last word on Dow's inheritance of 'successor liability' from Union Carbide, see Rajan Sharma's excellent recent article in Frontline - ed.

Story Comments

Posted By : Rupesh on 12 May,2008
Mr. Scot,if your claim about DOW not being liable for Bhopal is true, then why did DOW's CEO Andrew livres meet with the Finance Minister to discuss the bhopal liability? Also Newspaper reports have quoted the letters livres wrote to the ministers of various ministries and Ratan tata pleading for an out of court settlement and an unconditional burial of the liability issue for investing in India. What was the need for all this if DOW is not responsible and liable for Bhopal.Great piece Mr.Bushan

Posted By : nogjenkins on 11 May,2008
I can't believe Dow's raw nerve in saying that they wanted Union Carbide's assets but choose to leave behind their liabilities. If the tragedy had happened in the US, there would be no debate. It would have been considered a world-wide tragedy and the government would not have rested until the site was cleaned. But instead, Dow can hire a mouthpiece to glibly state that everything is fine in Bhopal. This second tragedy by Dow is even worse because it should how little a corporation cares

Posted By : PRAKASH on 10 May,2008
Mr.Wheeler, Don't you see the double standard here? If Dow does not inherit liabilities of UCC, what about UCC's asbestos liabilities here in the US, for which Dow has set aside money. Oh! that is right, I forgot that life of a US citizen has more worth than a Indian citizen, per your fellow Dow employee Kathy Hunt. Like Mr.Bhushan says, if a company purchases a company you purchase the assets and liabilities, not just liabilities in the US. I do not know where your brain is. Please no BS on BS

Posted By : nity68 on 10 May,2008
Dear Mr. Wheeler: Your response contains claims that are not borne out by facts. You mention that Union Carbide ceased doing business in India long before 2001. Indeed betwen 1994 and 2002, more than $20 million was earned by Union Carbide in India through a series of front companies. In 2005, you got caught for trying to pass off Carbide's technology as your own. Unethical companies cheat. Stupid companies like yours get caught too. In India, you will meet your match. Bhopal will finish you.

Posted By : bhopalmemory on 10 May,2008
The reason UCC wasn't doing business in India when Dow acquired it is that it was absconding from the country on charges of manslaughter for Bhopal. Dow acquired UCC knowing that it was under criminal charges. The notion that UCC is fully owned and yet 'independent' is preposterous, as is the notion that the state of MP's custodianship over the Bhopal site frees Dow from responsibility. The 2 pending court cases on water contamination at the site and calling Dow & UCC speak otherwise.

Posted By : percyf on 10 May,2008
To be fair to Scot, he is right about Carbide being a separate company with its own directors. Carbide has its own CEO, John Dearborn: it's pure happenstance that he moonlights as Dow's Geographic President for India. As for Carbide's Business Vice President, why shouldn't he make on the side as Dow's president for Asia Pacific? And before you mock, Carbide's board chooses to make all its products for just one customer simply because Dow pays such good prices. Totally separate companies. Hic.

Posted By : nalin on 10 May,2008
I am a supporter of business and industry but in my opinion the Bhopal case and all the dubious cover-up maneuvers are a massive international corporate crime and a national political disgrace. The citizens of India must reopen this case and bring all the unindicted to justice, especially those hiding overseas. After all, far more people died that night in Bhopal than on 911.

Posted By : nalin on 10 May,2008
I am a supporter of business and industry, but in my opinion,the callous post-Bhopal cover-up is a corporate crime and political disgrace. The citizens of India must re-open these cases and bring all the unidicted foreigners to justice? Many of them have been hiding behind a series of legal maneuvers and dubious back door political deals. After all, several times more people died in Bhopal than 911. Every MBA program should highlight this case under business ethics and corporate crime.

Posted By : Emily on 10 May,2008
Mr. Wheeler has failed to explain the motivation behind Dow's refusal to accept legal liability for what happened in Bhopal; if Dow were to do so, it would be a precident-setting case, worldwide. Other corporations would then be subject to laws that hold them financially responsible for the devastation they wreak on humanity and the environment. Sadly, profit takes precidence over life, even in the courts. Thank you to Mr. Bhushan for his detailed response. Someone must stand for justice!

Posted By : shanao on 09 May,2008
Dow cannot legally purchase a company, enjoy it's assets, and disregard it's liabilities. It is disturbing and offensive that you call your corporate spin "accurate reporting." Dow chose to purchase UCC, for better AND worse, knowing that the issue was anything but resolved. If a company's product gave your son or daughter cancer, would you allow Dow to purchase that company and continue to profit from that product? That is what Dow is doing to thousands of sons and daughters in Bhopal.

Posted By : s_kavula@yahoo.com on 09 May,2008
Scott, As a company that has bribed Indian Officials to sell pesticides "banned elsewhere in the world", you have no bloody right to be in this country. Period. You may have gotten away bribing officials, but in the eyes of the people in India, you are a shameless, unethical company. I wish to request everyone not to invest in DOW Chemicals and withdraw your money if you do hold any shares in DOW. BOYCOTT all DOW Products. skavula

Posted By : aquene on 08 May,2008
Mr. Wheeler, your arguments hold water like a seive. If Dow were to poison my family today, and be bought by another corporation tomorrow - would the liability disappear? Would my mother rise from the dead? or our family's terrible loss cease to exist? Would the guardian angel of government step in to pay for your corporate mistakes on the taxpayer dole, so you could continue to poison still more with your toxic products?


Posted By : SomuKumar on 08 May,2008
Dear Scot, Excellent remarks. You have proven to be great DOW employee and equally "good" collegue of Kathy Hunt who claimed "$500 is good for an Indian?". Even cold-blood murderer can't spit such venom in their words, like you guys do! Just makes me curious, how much life of kids and family members of DOW executive board costs? Is it same $500 or few extra bucks? We don't inherit liabilities but ofcourse inherit profits - lamest reasoning I have ever heard! Good job Mr. Bushan.


Posted By : dsethi on 07 May,2008
Thanks a lot Mr. Prashant for your detailed reply to these guys. Scot, I am really impressed with ur audacity to present this view point(pure BS)in a national dailiy here. Do you know there are about a 100 victims protesting against Dow at the in front of PMO. They do not have drinking water and communities are still counting the effected people- I would assume you know all this well thast why you are here. Every one knows that Dow is culprit here..You guys are still holding the red weapon..

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will shortly send a letter rogatory to the US authorities to question Dow Chemicals, which was fined by a US district court after its subsidiary DE-Nocil was accused of paying bribes worth Rs 80 lakh to Indian officials to register banned pesticides in the Indian market.

This comes six months after the CBI registered a case against six people including a retired senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Agriculture.

The case was registered by the CBI following a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discovery last year that DE-Nocil had bribed Indian officials between 1996 and 2001 to approve and register three pesticides — sold under the brand names Pride (NI-2s), Nurelle-D and Dursban 10G — that were banned under Indian regulations.

A letter rogatory is a formal letter of request to a foreign court for judicial assistance. In this case, the letter rogatory, which was recently cleared by the home ministry, is intended to seek help for the CBI to question Dow officials on the SEC discovery without visiting the US and provide access to key documents and statements of key Dow officials.

In a "cease and desist" order to Dow dated February 13, 2007, SEC charged Dow with violations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of the United States for letting a subsidiary use funds for illegal activities in a foreign country.

The order was passed after Dow voluntarily approached Commission staff with the results of an internal investigation of DE-Nocil.

The order describes DE-Nocil as a "fifth-tier subsidiary" of Dow Chemicals and said it paid an estimated $200,000 "in improper payments and gifts to Indian government officials at the state and federal levels" between 1996 and 2001 to register several "agro-chemical products slated for marketing in time for India's growing season".

The order said "none of these payments were accurately reflected in Dow's books and records". It added that "Dow's system of internal accounting controls failed to prevent the payments'' in violation of the internal control provisions of the FCPA.

The order said DE-Nocil's commercial vice-president, who later became a consultant to the company, and DE-Nocil's technical development leader, developed an improper payment practice to facilitate the registration of DE-Nocil's products to the CIB (Central Insecticides Board).

The payments were directed to the CIB official through "the use of consultants and unrelated companies" none of which were properly recorded in DE-Nocil's books.

According to the SEC order, RL Razak, former, advisor in the Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and storage in the Union Ministry of Agriculture, alone had allegedly received Rs 16 lakh for registering Dow's products.

The rest of the money was allegedly paid to the state government regulatory authorities by the company for a licence to distribute and sell these pesticides.

As a result of the registrations, Dow estimated that DE-Nocil generated $435,000 in direct operating margin from the accelerated sales of these products, 75.7 per cent (or $329,295) of which, based on Dow's ownership interest, went to Dow.

The order added that the payments were made without knowledge or approval of any Dow officials. Dow also undertook certain remedial actions, including employee disciplinary actions, the order said.

The SEC had simultaneously filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Dow alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Dow had agreed to pay a civil penalty of $325,000 which the SEC accepted.

The Commission took cognisance of remedial efforts by Dow and accepted its offer to make up for the violation.

The CBI had raided premises in six cities including factories that were making products for DE-Nocil (now renamed as Dow Agro Sciences India Private Ltd.), three consultants, homes of the bribe takers and facilitators.

Apart from Razak and the Managing director of the Mumbai-based De-Nocil who has been booked for "commission of offence of bribery, its abetment, criminal misconduct, falsification of accounts and criminal conspiracy" the CBI has also registered cases against Ramakrishnan, P Natarajan and Banerjee, consultants with the DE-Nocil, who had allegedly delivered the money.

CBI is also investigating the role of the Ghaziabad-based Ms Crop Health products Ltd and the Bharuch-based Agro Products Ltd, product formulators for the De-Nocil.

CBI sources said documents seized from the raided premises confirmed irregularities in the registration of the DE-Nocil products during 1996-2001.

On its part, Dow Chemicals has said the "issue has been thoroughly investigated and disciplinary action taken".

"Some individuals did not follow Dow's Code of Business Conduct and we will not tolerate employees who engage in unethical behavior. Once we learned of this situation involving a joint-venture subsidiary of Dow AgroSciences (formerly DE-Nocil), we took action," Scot Wheeler, director, communications, of Dow Chemicals told Business Standard.

However, Dow's statement also blamed the Indian officials concerned. It said: "During that period (1996 to 2001) Indian pesticide regulators demanded payments to advance pesticide registration applications filed by De-Nocil as the joint venture sought to introduce several crop protection products into the Indian market."

The statement also said these products were already being sold in many developed nations around the world and extensive scientific research attested to their safety for human health and the environment.

The statement, however, did not mention the fact that Dursban, one of the three pesticides being promoted in India, was banned for commercial use in the United States. In 2003, Eliot Spitzer, the then New York Attorney General, fined Dow AgroSciences $2 million for advertising safety claims about its pesticide products in New York between 1995 and 2003.

The penalty is the largest enforcement penalty ever obtained in a pesticide case. Dow said Dow AgroSciences has its own people dealing with the issue who would be in a position to explain this.

Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan said a company that has been a proven offender in its own country should be blacklisted.

Dow Chemicals is also the owner of Union Carbide Corporation, which it bought in 1999. The Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal was responsible for a lethal gas leak in 1984 that killed thousands of people.

Two decades ago, Bhopal saw one of the worst industrial disasters of the world when the deadly Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from the Dow Chemicals plant.

Thousands died and many more were disabled for life. Now, even after 24 years, the tragedy continues for the residents of Bhopal because even now, several children are born disabled - a direct fallout of the gas tragedy.

So now, a group of victims and activists from Bhopal are in Delhi to protest against the return of Dow, the owner of Union carbide.

People like Nida were not even born when the gas tragedy struck Bhopal 24 years ago. But this six-month-old is still paying the price.

These are the second generation victims of one of the most horrific chemical disasters of the world.

''The doctors had already told us that even years later, our children could be disabled at birth,'' says Kishwar Jahan, a Bhopal gas tragedy survivor.

The tragedy was deadly in the sense that it brought waves of problems and diseases.

After the tragedy, came the problem of poisoned water leading to another wave of disabilities.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling, many areas in Bhopal are still not supplied safe drinking water.

Many other promises about treatment and compensation are still undelivered.

For residents of Bhopal, the first blow came in 1984 with the gas tragedy. The second blow came when their children were born with abnormalities taking the effects of gas to second generation.

And the third, and perhaps most disturbing blow comes now when their arch nemesis, Dow, owner of union carbide, returns to India.

''The government has invited Dow to come into India without fulfilling their responsibilities towards the people of Bhopal,'' says Sathinath Sarangi from Bhopal group for Information and Action.

Now the victims want to put more pressure on the government and hope it will be enough to bring their fight back into the spotlight.

The government of Maharashtra has now given a go-ahead to Dow Chemicals to build a $100 million Research and Development facility in Pune. There are reports that indicate an unusual hastening and extraordinary facilitation of normal procedures to give a green signal to the company which still owes reparations to thousands of Indian citizens for one of the worst chemical disaster tragedies in history.

It is hard, even for a moment, to believe, that Dow Chemicals is not getting special favors from Indian government. Despite recent exposes of a Dow subsidiary paying off government officials to get approvals on poisonous pesticides, and despite Dow’s tainted history with its Indian companies, the government hasn’t come clean to people on if and why the approval process was subverted for Dow’s newest ventures in India. There is enough initial evidence suggestive of special favoritism that has led to Dow’s new plant in Pune:

1. The MIDC (Magharashtra Industrial Development Corporation) CEO approved Dow’s initial application in 48 hours.

2. The state pollution board approved Dow’s applications in a record time of a few months

3. The state allowed Dow to start construction on the site, way before environmental clearances came in.

4. The land in question is near Chakan, a town where the Maharashtra’s powerful NCP leader has been campaigning for an international airport for a few years. Needless to say, NCP is one of the parties sharing power in Maharashtra.

It has been reported that Dow’s plant in Pune is being set up to use hazardous chemicals. Seems we haven’t yet learnt any lessons from Bhopal’s terrible mishap 25 years ago. For the center and the state to pander to and serve a private corporation’s purpose and put the lives of millions of its citizens in danger with so much as a 48 hours of regulatory oversight, the whole episode has the stench of a Faustian pact of sorts. I am equally appalled by the docile ignorance of Pune’s sleepy young population who are so engulfed in making money, eating out, watching TV and disco dancing in the clubs, that they don’t see the lurking danger in their backyard.

NEW DELHI: The UPA government, it seems, has moved to implement a proposal backed by several key ministers, Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the Prime Minister’s Office that Dow Chemicals’ business be facilitated in India even while the government pursues a case against it in the Bhopal gas disaster.

The Maharashtra government has given a Rs 500 crore R&D facility of Dow the green light to be set up in Pune in what are seen to be questionable circumstances.

Without proper environmental assessment and project reports, the multinational chemical giant has been given permission to construct a set-up that would be using hazardous chemicals.

The government seems to have worked overtime to facilitate Dow’s entry. Papers secured through the RTI Act show that in September 2006, Dow asked the Congress and NCP alliance government to allot land for the Centre at Chakan village in Pune.

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation showed undue haste in getting a report on it in merely two days. The CEO of MIDC noted, "This is a prestigious project. Just get it examined from pollution point of view and put up in 7 days by October 3, 2006."

By April 2007, it handed over possession of land to the company.

In the same month, Dow applied to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for consent under various environment laws without submitting a project report or an environmental impact assessment. Dow’s application contained minimal information the RTI document showed. But the MPCB cleared the proposal in six months time and allowed Dow to even manufacture chemicals not just research.

When contacted by TOI, the state environment secretary and head of the high-powered committee set up by the state government, Shyamlal Goyal, refused to comment.

But soon serious protests broke out at the proposed site. Reacting to it, the government set up a high level committee headed by the state environment secretary to review the entire proposal. The villagers continued to protest.

The MPCB, in face of serious protests by the local groups and Bhopal tragedy activists, quickly retraced its steps and issued a revised consent letter this time asking Dow to get the mandatory environmental clearances from the Union environment and forest ministry as well as other statutory clearances.

But, even as it demanded that the company obtain the environmental clearance after submission of an impact report, a risk analysis, a disaster control plan and other documents that would help monitor activities on site, it allowed the company to continue construction. Under the Environment Protection Act, no construction is allowed till the clearances are given.

Dow did not want any record of the meeting to be made public. ed.

Date: 20th February 2008

Venue: IRCC Auditorium, IIT Bombay

Attendees: IITB faculty members (approx. 50)
Dr. Ramesh Ramachandran (CEO, DCIPL - Dow Chemicals
International Pvt. Ltd.)
Mr. Scott (Dow Chemical Company)
One other Dow representative

Moderators: Prof. D. B. Phatak, IIT Bombay
Mr. Ashwani Singla, Genesis Burson-Marsteller

=====================================================================

Prof. Krithi introduced Dr. Ramesh Ramachandran (CEO, DCIPL) and the moderators Prof. Phatak and Mr. Ashwani Singla (Genesis
Burson-Marsteller, consultant for DCIPL).

In his opening remarks, Dr. Ramesh gave a brief background of the
company and of the products it makes. He was at Dow headquarters in
Midland, Texas before coming to India and mentioned that he was very
proud of working for Dow and for the products they make. He mentioned that Dow virtually touches every aspect of daily life through the products that one uses. He also stated that Dow is genuinely interested in collaborations with IITB and briefly mentioned the potential collaborative projects with IITB.

Dr. Ramesh added that Dow has been in India for 50 years, but there
has been a burst of expansion in the last 3-4 years. They have their
manufacturing facilities in India at Lote (Dow AgroSciences) and Kalwa
(near Mumbai). Their R&D facility in Pune has several IITB alumni as
well. Similarly, they have a large engineering centre in Chennai.
Dr. Ramesh emphasized that the Pune and Chennai facilities are not
really back-offices for labs elsewhere, but were actually doing work
that is not really being done elsewhere.

Dr. Ramesh mentioned that the reason why he came back to India was to grow Dow in India, and University interactions was an integral part of
their programme in India. Having been informed by Dean R&D of IIT
Bombay that there were some concerns of faculty regarding
collaboration, they said that they would be interested in having a
conversation about these. Hence the meeting.

Prof. Phatak explained the format of the discussion, and stressed that
the purpose is to have a dialogue between IITB faculty and Dow to better educate ourselves at the end of the day.

Mr. Ashwani (the second moderator) introduced himself as being from Genesis, and indicated that he was a consultant to Dow. He stressed that the main aim of the meeting was not to solve any problem, but to have a dialog and to hear and understand each other's positions. Also, mentioned that this was a big step for a normally reticent company like Dow to attend this meeting to listen to concerns.

Prof. Phatak then opened the floor to the audience for questions and
comments.

Prof. Bhaskar pointed out that much of our concern is based on the
fact that Dow has in the past violated the laws of this country. He
asked what Dow's position was with respect to the pending court cases
in India. He mentioned a criminal case pending against Dow in the
Bhopal High Court, a civil case related to the contamination issue and
also a CBI inquiry against Dow AgroSciences for having paid bribe to
Indian Govt. officials.

Dr. Ramesh clarified that he didn't represent the legal department of
Dow and took exception to the way the cases where stated. He said that legalese are best answered by lawyers and he wouldn't comment on them. He mentioned that since the occurrence of the Bhopal tragedy in 1984, there has been a lot of misinformation and it is important to give facts their due. He went on to state them ...

- Dow has never owned or operated the facility in Bhopal
- The Supreme Court of India and Union Carbide reached
an agreement regarding the Bhopal disaster
- After the agreement, UCIL was sold off and Union Carbide left
India and stopped doing business in India
- Since, the original entity does not exist anymore and is not
related to/owned by Dow, the court cases do not apply to Dow
- Currently, the land is owned by the Madhya Pradesh Government and
Central Govt. of India.
- Regarding the Dow AgroSciences bribery case, he mentioned that in a
large company, there are cases of employees doing things that the
company is not always proud of. Dow proactively found out about the
case, proactively disclosed it, and took disciplinary action against
the concerned person.

Further. Dr. Ramesh added that there are very good reasons why people like him work for a Dow. He added that it was not the case that such people were working for Dow due to lack of other options.

Prof. Om Damani observed that Dow's washing off its liabilities in
Bhopal did not look correct. He pointed out that when Dow bought Union Carbide, along with Union Carbide's assets, its pending liabilities, including those related to contamination in Bhopal must have been taken over by Dow. He mentioned that Dow has been forced to assume liabilities of Union Carbide in several cases in the West. Then why was that only when it comes to cases in India (the Bhopal case), Dow was trying to wash its hands clear of the liabilities? He also quoted material from Dow's website and from SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission of USA) website to corroborate his comments, and asked for clarifications on the same.

Mr. Ashwani responded by saying that there seemed to be some confusion about Union Carbide India Limited and Union Carbide Corporation, and that these were distinct.

Dr. Ramesh referred to Dow's website for differences between all the
named entities. He gave an analogy of buying a flat where a tragedy
might have occurred 3-6 owners back. Why should it then be that the
current owner must have liability for the past tragedy when there was
no responsibility? He pointed out that the Supreme Court of India had
said that the case was resolved.

Prof. Phatak pointed out that although the Supreme Court of India had
initially said that all civil and criminal cases were resolved, it later clarified that not all criminal cases were resolved. These
cases are still pending.

Mr. Ashwani asked Mr. Scott to clarify on this issue at this point.

Mr. Scott (from Dow) added that the a $470 million settlement was
reached shortly after the tragedy. Several people and organizations,
however, felt that the settlement was not appropriate. The criminal
case is ongoing even today. The Indian Govt. tried to extradite
Warren Anderson, former CEO of Union Carbide, and several others in
the management of Union Carbide have been summoned in these cases.
However, the US Govt. had refused to hand Warren Anderson over to
India. After the settlement, Union Carbide Corporation sold its shares in Union Carbide India Limited to McLeod Russell, which subsequently renamed the company as Eveready. The proceeds of the settlement went towards building a hospital, etc. in Bhopal. After that settlement, Union Carbide left India and never did any further business in India. Seventeen years later, Dow Chemical Company acquired Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). Today, UCC is a subsidiary of Dow. It is a separate company with its own Board of Directors managing its own liabilities, but after profits and losses, the proceeds go to the parent company, i.e. Dow. Union Carbide remains a separate company today and Dow owns all shares of UCC, but does not manage any of the liabilities of UCC. UCC manages these liabilities.

Prof. Sharmila pointed out even before Dow acquired UCC there was
documented evidence of contamination in the Bhopal facility. However,
Dow has gone on record saying that during the take over there were no
UCC liabilities. How could they explain this discrepancy? She clarified that it was not just a case of talking about legality, but
equally important was talking about accountability.

Dr. Ramesh said that when a court case is going on, it is not possible
to isolate legality from accountability. Dr. Ramesh added that Dow
Chemicals and its employees live in communities where these chemicals
are being made. Remarked that some of the characterizations about
lack of concern for contamination are foreign to people like him. He
said that had Dow not been concerned about these issues, it would not
have been welcome as a corporate citizen in so many communities around the world. He reminded everybody and emphasized that Dow is a great company.

Prof. Phatak asked that if one forgets about legality, did Dow not
have the willingness and expertise to clean up the contamination? He
inquired about various community level activities that Dow has done to
show that it's a socially and environmentally conscious company.

Dr. Ramesh responded by saying that everybody would like to see the
site in Bhopal remediated. He pointed out that over the last 3 years,
there were two occasions when experts with enough expertise were ready to remediate the site. However, they were stopped. He questioned the genuineness of the audience's concern, and asked where its passion was when these remediations were being attempted. He said that technology and money were not constraints, but activists and some set of people were stopping remediation. Dr. Ramesh then went on to state about some projects where Dow has undertaken community activities, building schools, playgrounds, community centres, spending millions of dollars. He specifically mentioned about two projects, one in Saskatchewan, and the other in Midland.

Prof. Phatak raised the point of environmental consciousness, and
asked how much Dow was doing in this respect.

Dr. Ramesh mentioned about the Blue Planet project, where Dow's
commitment was above a million dollars. He also mentioned about the
Berkeley Sustainability Project. He then asked Mr. Scott to speak
about additional activities of Dow on environmental issues.

Mr. Scott mentioned about a project in Brazil, where ethanol and
polyethylene is being produced from sugarcane. Dr. Ramesh added that
this was probably the largest production of polyethylene from
sugarcane in the world.

Prof. Ravi Raghunathan commented that Dr. Ramesh's explanations were very strong in rhetoric when he mentioned about communities that had benefited from Dow's involvement. He pointed out that others might have different points of view because of the plight of communities in
and around Bhopal. He wanted to know what percentage of Dow's profits were being spent on environment related issues. He also pointed out that converting sugarcane to ethylene is not necessarily an environmentally or socially friendly thing to do. He referred to the Pachauri report, that has questioned such activities. Prof. Ravi also asked whether Dr. Ramesh felt proud about silicone breast implants, which caused so many individuals to suffer unknowingly.

Dr. Ramesh responded by saying that Dow is a for-profit company. He
said that we could look at Dow's Sustainability Report, and find what
kind of dramatic reductions could be achieved in terms of energy
usage by Dow. He did not quantify the percentage of profits that Dow
was spending on environmental issues. Instead, he said that an
alternative indicator was what kind of energy Dow was being used to
make its products.

In response to Prof. Ravi's comment, Dr. Ramesh said that he had not
seen the Pachauri report, but he believed that Dow's polyethylene
production from sugarcane in Brazil generated far less greenhouse
gases. He also said that his understanding was that the farmers and
sugarcane producers in Brazil have welcomed the project. Regarding
silicone breast implants, he mentioned that the use of silicone
implants is scientifically approved today. He said that this product
was voluntarily used and was not imposed. He reiterated that he was
very proud of all of these products and all that his company does.

Prof. Shishir Jha wanted to know what would be offered concretely by
Dow to remediate the contamination as part of "Polluter Pays"
principle.

Dr. Ramesh responded that as far as remediation is concerned,
activists had come in the way when some people wanted to remediate the site.

Prof. Shishir Jha clarified that the offer of remediation was actually
not made by Dow, but by the Chairman of the India US CEO Forum, and
this was part of an effort to help attract investment from US in India
(as part of the 123 Agreement). He wanted to know what Dow Chemical was doing about it.

Dr. Ramesh said that as long as the court cases were ongoing, Dow
Chemicals' hands are tied as far as the remediation is concerned.

Prof. Om Damani said that the reason why such remediation efforts were stopped earlier is the fear of patchwork remediation by somebody who is not really related to or accountable in the cleanup work. Therefore the focus can shift from the real party which should be
accountable to some other person/body.

Mr. Ashwani commented using words like "criminal" would be an
incorrect way to characterize anybody. He said that the purpose of
the dialogue was to hear each other, but not to find a solution.

Prof. Phatak clarified that as intelligent individuals, if we feel
that a criminal activity has happened, then it is useful to state the
position outright. He asked whether there was any thought process or
background preparation within Dow regarding what to do about the
contamination if the litigation is withdrawn tomorrow. Otherwise, the
current stand could be interpreted as Dow using the ongoing
litigation to avoid doing any preparation. He offered his apologies
that this might sound like a harsh statement, but clarified that this
was an important question to ask.

Dr. Ramesh said that this was a difficult question to answer in
business. He said that he lives in the current world, and the
litigation is not going away today. Prof. Phatak summarized the
response as: if the litigation were to stop today, Dow doesn't have a
concrete plan for remediation. At the same time, Dow doesn't appear
compelled to make a concrete plan as long as the litigation goes on.

Prof. Supratik made a couple of observations: (i) The mention that
activists were responsible for stopping possible clean-up of the
Bhopal site is misleading and side-steps reality. (ii) Also, asking
"where was the passion" when there was a possibility of cleanup by
entities other than Dow is inappropriate, without even knowing what
different people's involvement might have been. He then asked why, in
an academic institution, where students are an integral part of
everything (including research), were students (at least Ph.D. students) not allowed to be part of this meeting?

Mr. Ashwani stated that this was a first step and they would be happy
to have a conversation with everyone, to build a partnership.

Prof. Phatak re-iterated the original question and asked whether Dow
was open to subsequent meetings in which students would be present.

Dr. Ramesh clarified that disrespecting the institute was not their
intent. As far as students in the discussion are concerned, they have
tried to have them in some Universities, but their experience was that
the discussion gets very emotional and counter-productive and its gets
difficult to discuss facts.

Prof. Manjunath indicated that the two versions stated by Dow seemed
to be confusing: (i) This being a first meeting, Dow wanted to meet up
with faculty only, and subsequent discussions with students was ok
(ii) Based on prior experience, Dow preferred this format and not
involvement of students.

Prof. Phatak mentioned that in a negotiation, it is very difficult to
point out who initiated what, but mentioned that as part of the
format, Dow was keen not to have non-faculty members for the meeting. He also clarified that this need not be the only occasion for dialog, but there can be subsequent occasions for further discussion as well.

Prof. Sameer expressed his displeasure at only Dow being questioned.
He mentioned that IITB itself poured all kinds of chemicals down the
drain. Prof. Phatak acknowledged this point as important, but
reiterated that the purpose of this meeting was to get clarifications from Dow.

Prof. Khanna expressed his displeasure about the discussion. He
stated that the discussion thus far and even before (presumably on the
discuss-faculty list) had been about the Union Carbide accident in
Bhopal. He added that in the process, we were forgetting the main
issue of R&D ties between Dow and IITB. He asked if it was ok for Dow
to work with IITB if we put aside the Bhopal issue. He also said that
according to him, only a few faculty had raised the Bhopal issue, and
that it would be improper to give an impression that most faculty have
concerns about Dow.

Dr. Phatak clarified that it was a fact that the majority of faculty
members who cared to express their opinions on the faculty mailing
list were concerned about the matter, and that even Dow representatives were aware of this picture. He said that the reason
the Bhopal issue comes back again and again is because a terrible
thing had happened, and it has occupied the minds of a large number of
sensitive Indians.

Prof. Bhaskar mentioned about an unpublished Union Carbide Corporation funded toxicity research on Methyl IsoCyanate at the Carnegie Mellon University. He indicated that despite multiple requests by survivor groups for release of this information, this has not been given. He added that this information could have helped save thousands of lives over the last 20 years (approx 1 person/day). Currently, this information was apparently with UCC (100% subsidiary of Dow). He asked if this information could be immediately released to avoid/reduce further casualties? He also clarified that Dow has never categorically denied the existence of this information.

Dr. Ramesh & Mr. Scott responded by saying that they were not familiar
with this report/study. Dr. Ramesh said that they can go back and try
to find out details. Prof. Bhaskar requested a time-line to be given
for getting back with details of the report or denying the existence
of such a report. Mr. Scott stated that he could check but could not
commit to a time-line.

Prof. Bhaskar wished to put on record that his friend from ICJB
(International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal) has already had several
rounds of discussion with the former CEO of DCIPL regarding the
toxicity study report. But nothing had come out of it thus far.

All Dow representatives denied knowledge of any such
discussions/interactions. When Prof. Bhaskar subsequently mentioned
that the name of the person with whom communication happened was
Mr. Muthukrishnan, Dr. Ramesh said that Mr. Muthukrishnan was the CEO 7 years back. He couldn't comment on communication between ICJB and Mr. Muthukrishnan.

Prof. Phatak appreciated the need to look into the toxicity study
report if it existed. He also added that in an academic institution
even if a single colleague raises an issue which is important, it must
be considered and answers sought through discussions and meetings.

Prof. Anand Rao made an observation that several questions have been
side-stepped saying that there is no representative from Dow's legal
department. He wanted to know that if in subsequent meetings someone from the legal team would be present to answer such questions.

Mr. Ashwani clarified that as long as the matter is in the court, no
position could be taken. Given their constraints of working in a
corporate environment there might be questions for which they cannot
give answers. He mentioned that he had no idea of the toxicity study
report.

Prof. Phatak requested Dr. Ramesh to give some thought on whether
questions that overlapped with legal aspects could be clarified and
some useful/helpful information be provided to the community in the
future.

Prof. Om said that he was confused about the comments being made about legalities and cleanup of Bhopal. He pointed out that the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers had explicitly asked Dow to deposit Rs. 100 crores as an initial amount for cleanup in Bhopal, and that Govt. of India has submitted to M.P. court and N.Y. court that they want UCC (the 100% subsidiary of Dow) to pay for cleanup. He was therefore unsure about the legal obstacle, since the govt. was explicitly asking money for the cleanup.

Prof. Phatak suggested that since Dow's representatives present in the
meeting were not aware of this, it would be good to pass on the papers
to them. He requested Dow representatives to get back to IITB faculty
and clarify.

Prof. Om further observed that while several points were being made
about Union Carbide's (and not Dow's) liabilities, there were several
issues where Dow was directly involved, starting from Agent Orange to Dursban in India. He mentioned that while Dr. Ramesh indicated that the use of silicone breast implants was voluntary, people were actually misled by advertisements. He also expressed concern about the history of Dow's dealings and cited the Dursban case. In 1994, a settlement was reached regarding the safety and advertisements of Dow in this regard. Dow paid US$ 2 million fine in 2003 for advertising Dursban as "safe". The same Dow then bribed Indian officials about the same Dursban. He reiterated that the concern was not just about Union Carbide, but about the practices of Dow as well.

Prof. Om also pointed out that while the good life in Midland (Dow's
headquarters) resulting from Dow's involvement was being emphasized by Dr. Ramesh, there is a Jan 2008 statement by EPA (Environment Protection Agency of US) stating that EPA had to go to the extent of
stopping negotiations with Dow for cleanup operations in a case of
polluting a river 50 miles upstream of Dow's factory in Midland. Prof. Om remarked that such instances of violations of law by Dow even in the US make us really worried about what might happen in India.

Prof. Phatak requested Prof. Om and Prof. Shishir to compile the sources and websites for relevant information. These could then be sent to Dow for further clarification and feedback. Dow representatives agreed to this.

Mr. Scott asked everybody to take a look at Dow's website to read
Dow's position on several of these issues.

(Dr. Ramesh had a flight to catch, and so he wanted to take leave).

Dr. Ramesh thanked everybody before leaving for the opportunity to
have the discussion. He reiterated that the prime reason for them to
be here (in India) was to grow the company. Dow's interest to work
with the Chemical Engg. and Chemistry dept. at IITB is due to the
respect for the intellect, and they hope to do research and solve
problems (some could be those raised in this meeting today).

Dr. Ramesh added that at the end of the day, all of the audience were
potential Dow customers, and that it was important to understand what
the company stood for. He expressed hope that we can keep the
conversation going, and also added that we have to calibrate such
activities against what he was being paid to do, i.e. grow Dow's
interest in India.

Dr. Phatak indicated that a few more points could be raised, which
Mr. Ashwani could take back to Dow.

Mr. Ashwani agreed to this and clarified that Dow was only one of his
clients. He said that he might not be able to answer all questions on
behalf of Dow.

Dr. Phatak then read out three questions regarding R&D (from the list
of questions submitted to Dow) that had not been discussed thus far:

(i) what are the common areas of interest.
(ii) what are benefits for both parties and
(iii) how IITB & Dow can help with the situation in Bhopal clean up? Importantly, we would like to know why the interaction with Dow would be helpful to us? Further, would Dow be specifically interested in setting up R&D projects that will help society in general?

Prof. Ravi observed that Dow's stand didn't seem to fit well the
academic spirit of openness. They didn't want students in the
meeting, nor wanted the meeting to be recorded, and didn't want to
address certain questions like "what if the litigation was removed?"
because they are considered "hypothetical" He suggested that IITB
should re-look at whether we should have such discussions.

Prof. Phatak clarified that he had agreed to the format of the
discussion to get the dialogue initiated. He clarified that it was clear that this meeting was going to be centered around Bhopal, and
when such meetings are recorded and broadcast, it is always possible
to quote portions out of context. Further, Dow had an internal legal
imposition that they will not permit any recordings of their meetings. In the interests of initiating a dialogue, these conditions were agreed upon by IITB. He mentioned that Mr. Ashwani had earlier indicated that there was no reason for minuting the meeting. However, when Prof. Phatak clarified that there was an obligation to describe the happenings in the meeting to the large audience and to those who could not attend, Mr. Ashwani agreed.

Prof. Phatak then rose to make the concluding remarks. He thanked
everybody for participating and said that Dow had clearly heard the
concerns of faculty, and requested Dow to address them considering the sensitivity and passion of the people asking them. He requested Dow to come back with any possible feedback and specific clarifications. Dr. Phatak requested those who had asked questions to send him their questions, answers and their interpretations of the answers, so that the final summary could be prepared. He concluded by saying that there will be/can be more engagements and discussions with Dow in the future.

The meeting concluded with Prof. Om and Prof. Bhaskar thanking
Prof. Krithi, Prof. Kurien, Prof. Phatak and the Dean R&D's office for
arranging the meeting and giving the faculty an opportunity to
interact with Dow in this manner.

A factsheet on the Dow R&D project near Pune (Word doc)

Intro

DOW Chemicals International Pvt Ltd, which has recently released large advertisements in vernacular newspapers of Maharashtra - claiming that its premises at Chakan is an environment friendly Research and Development Centre only and not a manufacturing plant - may not be telling the complete truth. Information procured under the Right to Information Act (RTI) by Intelligent Pune, from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has revealed that the pollution control body has given its consent to use 20 chemicals, listed as hazardous (in the Schedule I of the manufacture, storage and import of hazardous chemical rules) under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), for manufacture for its research activities. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) too has rushed through the proposal as has been revealed in the file notings of its head honcho - this we got under Inspection of files under Section-4 of the RTI Act. Maps and records at the town planning and revenue departments show that the alloted 100 acres land to DOW is still owned by the government. Yet, DOW has begun its construction activity. Also, lack of transparency by DOW in dissemination of information to the villagers (who reside a stone's throw away) regarding its activities is throwing up suspicion. Activists are also questioning the large land allotted to it - does a Research and Development Centre require 100 acres? What exactly is DOW up to? Intelligent Pune invokes RTI and tries to find answers

Since the last few weeks, Dow Chemical International Private Limited, which has set up base on 100 acres of land at MIDC Chakan, about 40 Kms from Pune, has been indulging in hectic public relations through media. It has been giving half and full-page advertisements in leading Marathi dailies, reiterating that, being a R&D centre, it is not a manufacturing unit (this in bold). It further says that the R&D centre will be a zero-discharge centre and hence will be no threat to environment. The most stringent rules set by government or Dow itself will be scrupulously observed state the advertisements.

These publicity campaigns have been a sequel to protests by the villagers of Shinde Vasuli in Chakan, who live a stone's throw away from the Rs.300 crore plant.

Protests are growing by the day and more and more activists in Pune are joining the fray. The nucleus of the agitations, is that, going by the earlier association of the company to Union Carbide in Bhopal - the chemical killer that snuffed out thousands of lives in the year 1984 with many more thousands still bearing the hazardous after-effects -why has DOW been given another chance… and that too so easily?

The Government of Maharashtra has allocated 100 acres of land to DOW. The land where permission has been given to start a chemical-based company is in the midst of the Shinde Vasuli village and not exactly on its outskirts. A major tributary of the Indrayani river runs just 1..2 Kms away from this Multi National Company (MNC) compound. About 14,800 trees planted six years back by the social forestry department have been hacked to make way for construction of this centre, say villagers. The 7/12 extract of January 10, 2008 also mentions the number of trees existing inthe plot as 14,800 along with their number and names.

The villagers who are in extreme proximity to this chemical plant claim they have been kept in the dark about the nature of activities of the company. Hence, they are at war with this MNC since mid-January. The site is enclosed by a pink and yellow compound wall, about five feet high. An unfinished building stands at the centre of the site with iron beams exposed to the elements.

Shantaram Panmat, former sarpanch of Shinde Vasuli fumes at the very mention of the site. "How dare they come and construct that machine of doom here on our land? They started construction almost six months back but did not even take us into confidence. It is our fundamental right to know what is happening in our neighbourhood for we have the right to good environment. Then why is the government hiding the truth from us? We wish to know how clean DOW's intention is or is it another Union Carbide in the making. No one's telling us."

Since January 16, the villagers have been blocking the entry of trucks carrying construction materials for the site. Villagers say these trucks come in the wee hours of the night under police protection. Taking cognisance of the concerns of the villagers, a high level committee of experts has been set up. Headed by the secretary/principal secretary (environment), the other members include district collector of Pune, members from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), director, National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), director, University Department of Chemical Technology, Matunga and regional officer of MPCB. Construction activity is presently halted due to protests..

RTI unveils the veiled

This writer decided to invoke the Right to Information Act-2005 (RTI) to get access to the truth. The MPCB is the prime body to give environmental clearance for such a project. The MIDC is the body, which provides land and infrastructure. Both are required to scrutinise the proposal of this nature thoroughly since the outfit, even if it is a R&D centre, is of a chemical nature. As per the new notification, an environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) is mandatory.

The writer carried out inspection of files under Section 4 of the RTI Act at the MIDC, Pune office. The writer also invoked the RTI at the MPCB office to know what kind of consent DOW has applied for and what kind of consent has the MPCB given.

Information was gathered under Section (4) of the RTI Act wherein this writer and RTI activist, Vijay Kumbhar, undertook inspection of the file containing correspondence between MIDC and DOW. The file did not contain the crucial IEM (the new term for the project report), the environmental clearance from MOEF and also the Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Pune district collectorate mentioning the change of the zone of the land. When we again demanded these documents the officials stated they do not have them.

Government still the owner of the 100 acre land

Intelligent Pune procured the 7/12 extract of the 100 acres land from the Shinde Vasuli grampanchayat. While some part of it has been reserved for school, the remaining is cattle grazing land, owned by the government. The extract mentions that the social forestry department has planted 14,800 trees here. Construction work cannot begin unless the zoning is formally changed. Strangely, records at Pune's town planning department show that the 100 acres land still belongs to the government and is an agricultural land. The land zoning remains unchanged, which means no construction can come up there until the land zoning has been officially changed.

This writer also procured the possession receipt document under RTI from the MIDC. This is a legal document confirming transfer of land from the government to the MNC which clearly states that "The possession receipt by itself does not pass on the legal title of the plot to the person to whom the plot is handed over." As per the document, the plot was handed over to the MNC on April 9, 2007. The agreement is between the head surveyor of MIDC and Ravi Rao, director of Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd.

File notings under RTI

Some of the file notings under RTI reveal the hurry in which green signal was given to the proposal.Here's why-

SEPTEMBER 7, 2006: Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd formally requested the Pune's regional officer of MIDC for allotment of land in MIDC Pune on September 7, 2006. The letter states: ``We have filed a request for allotment of 100 acres of land at Chakan Industrial Area. This land is for a project to establish the 'Dow Knowledge Park', which would include a world-class Research and Development Centre. (Note the word 'include').

The file notings by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of MIDC on the same letter states: "This is a prestigious project. Just get it examined from pollution point of view and put up in 7 days by October 3."

OCTOBER 10, 2006: In another file noting, dated October 10, 2006, the CEO of MIDC (cannot decipher much of the content because the document is a copy of a faxed note and the wordings have been almost erased) but the noting by the CEO in ink states that: "This is with reference to the application of DOW. Please discuss. This is urgent. Ask RO, Pune to submit a report in two days about DOW." This same document has another file noting which says: "Discussed in LAC meeting. Details to be obtained from RO Pune as per discussion." This document also has yet another file noting which states: "Discussed with RO Pune. Report asked within two days."

What was the haste to give a green signal to this project when the certified copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of DOW Chemical International Pvt Ltd (November 1, 1999) attached along with this letter of September 9, 2006 clearly states the main objective of DOW is to manufacture and not research and development? The first paragraph states: "The objects for which the company is established clearly states in its first point: "To carry on the business as manufacturers of processors, dealers, stockists, distributors, consultants, collaborators, suppliers…. importers and exporters of chemicals (solid, liquid and gaseous), chemical compounds (organic and inorganic) in all forms of chemical products of any nature and kind whatsoever and all by products and joint products thereof including heavy chemicals, acids, alkalies,…"

RTI reveals MPCB's callousness too

Information sought by this writer on February 27 from MPCB was received on February 28-

1. River Regulation policy flouted?

If the MPCB's regulations are to be adhered to, then the DOW Chemical International Pvt Ltd CANNOT come up at Chakan at all. The Government of Maharashtra has formed a River Regulation Policy through its notification of July 15, 2003. The Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide Govt. Resolution (GR) No. MMV-2000/326/22/TB-3 dated July 15, 2000 has notified the industrial location policy from environment angle in river catchments of some prominent rivers of the state which have been polluted over the years, due to trade and sewage effluents. Accordingly, the river catchments are categorised as. A-I, A-II, A-III and A-IV based on the river water quality.

A-I river means: Three kilometres, on either side, from peak flood line level, industrial development is restricted. Up to five kilometres, green and orange zone industrial development can be undertaken. Between five and eight kilometres, any industrial development can be permitted with prior pollution controlling mechanism.

A-II: In this category, one kilometre, on either side from peak flood line level, no industrial development. Up to one kilometre, green and orange zone industrial development is permitted. Beyond two Kilometres any industry can be developed with prior pollution controlling mechanism.

A-III and A-IV: In A-III classified area, fisheries and wildlife related industries are permitted. In A-IV zone, the river side is suitable for agricultural and industrial usages.

According to V L Munde, regional officer, MPCB, Pune, permission to Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd was given because Indrayani River falls in the A-II category and its major tributary - the Shuda river is two kilometres away from DOW, hence any industry can come up beyond that. Villagers claim that the river is barely one kilometre away. However, the exact distance of the river from its peak flood line level up to the boundary of the plant needs certification of the executive engineer of the respective irrigation department, as per the River Regulation Policy. No such certificate has been obtained.

Intelligent Pune sent its team along with a civil engineer to assess the distance - we found that it is 1.2 kms from the river shore to the plot boundary of Dow. In order to ascertain the distance of the river Shuda, a major tributary of Indrayani River, from the compound wall of the Dow Chemicals R&D plant, we took a civil engineer to the spot. Armed with two tapes of 30 meters, the engineer measured the distance.

Due to the topography of the place, measurement was not easy. We went a kilometre from the compound wall in our car noting the distance on the odometer of the car. From there, we took out our tapes and measured the remaining distance, which came to be exact 210 meters (seven measures of the tape). To be doubly sure, on our return we started our measurement from the riverbed (the flood being not known to us) and measured the distance to the wall. It came exact to be 1.2 kms.

As we were going to print, the regional officer of MPCB, Munde, retracted from his statement saying that the River Regulation Policy is not applicable to River Shuda, which is not a notified river. However, Shuda is a major tributary of Indrayani and lies in its catchment area.

2. MPCB gives consent for use of at least 20 hazardous chemicals

Documents procured under RTI reveal that MPCB has given a 'go ahead' to DOW to use for its manufacturing plant at Chakan, at least 20 hazardous chemicals as per Schedule-I of 'Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules-1989' under Environment Protection Act-1986.

October 19, 2007: In his letter dated October 19, 2007, Sanjay Khandare, member secretary of the MPCB has granted Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd (Plot no A-1, MIDC Chakan, Phase-II, Taluka Khed, District: Pune) the consent for the manufacture of the following chemical products per month:

Polymers- 2,000 kgs

Catalyst organic/inorganic - 1,000 kg

Surfactants - 200 kgs

Aliphatic organic compounds - 500 kgs

Aromatic organic compounds - 500 kgs

Inorganic salts - 500 kgs.

The monthly quantity may not reflect the commercial nature of activity, but it involves manufacturing chemical products, albeit for Research and Development.

For the manufacture of the above products, the list of chemicals which are likely to be used by DOW and have been given a nod by the MPCB are:

Gases- Air, nitrogen, hydrogen, helium, argon, methane, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, acetylene, hydrocarbon gases, hydrogen chloride and others (150 regular cylinders (total)

Solvents- Methanol, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, ether, petroleum ether, toluene, acetonitrile, THF, DMF etc (1000 litres per month)

Halogenated solvents- Ethynyl dichloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform (500 litres per month)

Inorganic acids- Nitric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid and perchloric acid (500 litres per month)

Alkali- Sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, ammonia, calcium chloride (500 kgs per month)

Organic Reagents- Triethylamine, aliphatic/aromatic amines, phenols alphatic/aromatic acids, olefins, surfactants (500 litres per month)

Inorganic Reagents- Metals, metal oxides, metal nitrites/halides/carbonates, developed catalysts and oxidizing/reducing agents (250 kgs per month)

Commercial polymers - Polyethelene, polypropelene, polyurethanes etc (2000 kgs per month)

Cryogenics- liquid nitrogen and dry ice (2000 kgs per month)

General laboratory chemicals- Lewis acids, organic acids, inorganic acids, phoshazine bases, organic bases, inorganic bases, organic salts, inorganic salts (500 kgs per month)

Organic sulphur compounds- Alkyl sulphates, Alkyl sulphides (100 kgs per month) (also see box on page 11)

In case of accidents

In case of accidents, the MPCB in its consent letter states - "Whenever due to any accident or any other unforeseen act or even, such emissions occur or apprehended to occur in excess of standards laid down, such information shall be forthwith reported to Board, concerned police station, officer of director of health services, Department of Explosives, Inspectorates of factory and Local Body. In case of failure of pollution control equipments, the production process connected to shall be stopped."

Experts shocked

Maj Gen SCN Jatar (Retd), a petrochemical expert and RTI activist stated that, "The authorities should not have given final approval until the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report is made. The report should be made by a well known agency and local representatives of the citizens should be associated with its preparation.

Jatar further adds that: "With the background of Bhopal, it is surprising that the government has not laid adequate stress on the safety aspect. Here too, the government should hold up final clearance unless the company carries out a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), Escape Evacuation and Rescue Analysis, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) and Hazard Analysis. There are industry norms for conducting each of these analyses/studies. The results of the hazard analysis and other studies are used to identify unacceptable risks and select the means of controlling or eliminating them. The results are also used to update the existing Emergency Response Plan and Disaster Management Plan of the Pune District and Maharashtra State. The importance of these studies cannot be over emphasised. Here too, it would help if local citizen representatives are taken into confidence while conducting these studies to allay their apprehensions.''

According to a panel of environmental experts who scrutinised the consent by the MPCB, following are the comments:

``The list of chemicals given which are likely to be used at the Chakan plant include hazardous and dangerous gases as well as chemicals such as 1) gases - SO2, Acetylene, HCL. 2) Solvents - Acetone, ether, nitrite compounds, halogenetic solvents, and inorganic acids.

``Thus the safety-related issues arising out of handling, accidents and incidents involving above chemicals require proper storage, handling and emergency procedures. For this an Environmental Management Plan should have been demanded by the MPCB.

``There is inconsistency in the application. While DOW has given eight categories of hazardous waste, the MPCB consent does not reflect so . ``For any R&D centre - safety is the most important issue. When you are developing something new, possibility of upset or accidents has to be assumed with detail analysis of various probabilities. Safety vision in different scenarios is not given. The HAZOP (Hazardous operations report) has not been done. If an accident occurs, what is the preparedness? Details like which is the nearest hospital, how much area would be cordoned off, what is the buffer zone and so on.

"Government of India's Manufacturing, Storage, Import and Handling of Hazardous Chemicals Rules-1989 (MSIHC) as notified in EPA Act does not seem to have been adhered to. There does not seem to be adherence of the Chemical Accidents and Emergency preparedness (Rules-2000) for which the company needs to submit onsite and off site disaster management plan and that includes education to the neighbourhood residents. It is the fundamental right to know what is happening in the neighbourhood.

``As a precautionary principle - Environment Impact analysis should have been done by the company on its own when they claim they are a responsible corporate.

MPCB's green signal to DOW for trade and effluent treatment

MPCB's consent letter of October 10, 2007 states that trade and effluent treatment by DOW should be as per the stringent norms: under Section-25 of the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act-1974 and under Section-21 of the Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act1981 and authorisation/renewal of authorisation under Rule-5 of the Hazardous Wastes (management and handling) Rules-1989 and Amendment Rules-2003 (to be referred as Water Act, Air Act and HW (Mand H Rules respectively).

DOW in its Annexure- III of the application form talks about Research and Development (R&D)

It states: "The overall objective for core R&D is to carry out research and bring innovations on existing processes and products and at the same time develop raw processes and materials. The central themes for research will be on catalysis, organic and polymer synthesis, engineering and process science, new products development and analytical sciences and pilot plant facility.

After MPCB gave its consent, the MIDC, in its letter dated February 2007, signed by the Area Manager, MIDC, Pune, states: "You will have to submit Environmental Clearance from MOEF, Government of India as per new notification." The MPCB and MIDC offices do not possess this crucial document..

DOW's commitment

In its press release of January 2008, states: "The Global R&D Centre in Pune will conduct basic research. The initial investment in this global R&D centre is expected to be over Rs.400 crores. The centre currently employs over 125 research scientists and is expected to employ 500 top-class scientists when fully operational by the year 2010.

"Some reports have wrongly associated DOW with 1984 Bhopal mishap. DOW India want to set the record straight by correcting misconceptions in this regard. The Bhopal Gas tragedy occurred in Union Carbide Ltd (UCIL) plant in the year 1984. The DOW Chemical (DOW-US) never owned or operated the said UCIL facility in Bhopal in the year 1994. UCIL changed hands as a result Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) ceased to hold any shares in UCIL since the year 1994. Several years after the tragedy, in the year 2001, UCC became a subsidiary of DOW-US, a totally distinct and unconnected corporate entity. UCC as of date continues to be a separate legal entity.''

Ravi Rao, regional manager of DOW Chemicals International Pvt Ltd, Pune, DOW refused to speak to Intelligent Pune. An e-mail containing a questionnaire was sent to Nandkumar Sanglikar, senior leader, public affairs of DOW, Mumbai. On Tuesday, his colleague, Royston Dmello stated that, "I am nor finding the right person who has all the information that you want. Please give me a few days more." When told about the deadline for printing, he stated "It was not possible to meet it."

Why 100 acres?

Does a R & D Centre require such lavish land? A question that is raising eyebrows about its future intentions and not answered in the documents scrutinised under RTI.

(With additional inputs from Shrinivas Varunjikar)

BOX-I

Norms for hazardous chemical use as per EPA
Under the manufacture, storage and import of hazardous chemical rules, 1989, under the EP Act:
Hazardous chemical means:
i) Any chemical which satisfies the criteria laid down in Part 1 of Schedule 1(or listed) in Column 2 of Part II of this schedule
ii) Any chemical listed in Column 2 of Schedule II
iii) Any chemical listed in Column II of Schedule III

Site means:
Any location where hazardous chemicals are manufactured or processed, stored, handled, used, disposed off and includes the whole of an area under the control of an occupier and includes pier, jetty or similar structure whether floating of not..'

Under Section 17:
Collection, development and dissemination of information –

1) This rule shall apply to an industrial activity in which a hazardous chemical which satisfies any of the criteria laid down in Part I of Schedule I or listed in Column 2 of Part II of this Schedule is or may be involved

2) An occupier who has control of an industrial activity in term of sub-rule I of this rule, shall arrange to obtain or develop information in the form of a safety data sheet as specified in Schedule IX. The information shall be accessible on request for reference

3) The occupier while obtaining or developing a safety data sheet as specified in Schedule IX I respect of a hazardous chemical handled by him shall ensure that the information is recorded accurately and reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination. In case, any significant information regarding hazard of a chemical is available, it shall be added to the material safety data sheet as specified in Schedule IX as soon as practicable.

Despite such stringent norms, it is surprising that the MPCB let go DOW so easily.

BOX-II

MPCB has given consent to DOW to use the following hazardous chemicals falling under Schedule-I of the manufacture, storage and import of hazardous chemicals rules (1989) under the Environment Protection Act-1986, under Schedule I Part II [As per Rule 2 (e) (i), 4 (2), 17 and 18 for its R&D Centre

No Chemical Sl No in Part II Qty reqd per month

1 Nitrogen- 429 150 cylinders
2 Hydrogen-314 150 cylinders
3 Methane- 368 150 cylinders
4 Carbon Monoxide-111 150 cylinders
5 Suphur Dioxide- 587 150 cylinders
6 Ammonia- 31 150 cylinders
7 Acetone- 4 1,000 litres
8 Isopropyl Alcohol 334 1,000 litres
9 Toluene 628 1,000 litres
10 Acetonitrile-7 1,000 litres
11 Chlorobenzene-128 500 litres
12 Chloroform-130 500 litres
13 Nitric Acid- 423 500 litres
14 Sulphuric Acid-591 500 litres
15 Hydrochloric Acid- 313 500 litres
16 Phospheric Acid- 497 500 litres
17 Perchloric Acid- 478 500 litres
18 Sodium Hydroxide- 571 500 Kgs
19 Potassium Hydroxide- 522 500 Kgs
20 Triethyl Amine- 652 500 Kgs

(With Partha Sarathi Biswas and addition inputs from Shrinivas Varunjikar)

Pune, February 26 After facing road blockade for 40 days, the Dow Chemical Research and Development (R&D) centre took the help of State Reserve Police (SRP) to ferry three trucks to the construction site at Shinde village in Chakan on Tuesday. The villagers of Shinde and Vasuli had dug up the road to protest the setting up of the R& D centre and were preventing vehicles from plying to the construction site.

The trucks and a special SRP force van crossed the dug up road at around 4 pm, said Sunil Deukar, one of the villagers. “With only a few villagers at the entry point today, we were outnumbered. Besides with their use of the SRP force we could do little to stop them. But we will not allow the trucks to leave the village,” he said.

The members of Lokshashan Andolan, B G Kolse Patil and Vilas Sonawane, who are backing the villagers, said this was the first time that the company had used police support. “Our agitation began with the support of villagers on January 17 and since then construction work has been stalled with no vehicle allowed to pass through the village,’’ said Kolse Patil.

A State-level committee was appointed to look into the Dow imbroglio under the chairmanship of the environment secretary S K Goel. It met for the second time on Monday and is expected to release its report soon. Meanwhile, agitators from Lokayat submitted a memorandum to the committee expressing their firm protest against the company. Dow Chemical officers were unavailable for comment when contacted.

PUNE: A proposed Research and Development facility of Dow India at a village near Pune has raised environmental concerns among social groups who have launched an agitation to press scrapping of the project.

Notwithstanding persistent claims by the multinational chemical company that it has no plans to convert the R&D center into a manufacturing unit across the 100 acres of land it has acquired through Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) at village Shinde, the protest by locals and activists continues.

The Lokshasan Andolan, an umbrella organisation for other social groups opposed to the Dow project, said the agitation will be further intensified with staging of street plays and a Lok Adalat (mock trial) will be held to expose the company's plans on March 14 to be attended by its national convener P B Sawant, a former Supreme court judge.

A skeptical Justice (Retd) B G Kolse Patil, a former High Court judge, who heads the state unit of Lokshasan Andolan and is coordinating the agitation, that Dow India had clandestine plans to use the Shinde project for manufacturing processes which has found a mention in the MOU the company had signed with Maharashtra government.

"If they wanted an R&D unit, why did they not choose a location in the West?" he asked, claiming that the company had a dubious track record with many of its products facing a ban in Europe and America.

In an official statement, the company has refuted the allegations.

Pune, February 23 Activists protesting against the Dow Research and Development (R&D) centre in Shinde village in Pune district have proposed a Lok Adalat for a face-to-face hearing with company officials. Around 200 activists from “Remove Dow, Save Pune” movement, which many local organisations have also joined, on Saturday, gathered at Alka chowk with banners and shouted slogans against the company for five hours. With the company having issued huge advertisements in local newspapers, the activists have proposed a Lok Adalat on March 14. According to Neeraj Jain from Lokayat, retired High Court judges Suresh Hospet and and Justice GG Lone have given their consent to hear the case at Shramik Bhavan.

Jain said a summons will be issued to company officials for the same. Though the government-appointed committee report to redress the issue will soon be out, the activists want a public hearing and “do not want the company in the district.’’

A Dow holi has been planned at Pandavnagar at Wadarwadi on March 21 and a Tukaram beej programme on March 23 will see a Warkari morcha from Dehuroad to Dow in Shinde village, said Jain. Meanwhile, Hamal Panchayat’s Baba Adhav said that in the wake of skirmishes caused by political parties, a simple appeal against the company’s presence is falling on deaf ears.