BLOGS Dow Shalt Pay for Bhopal Just for the Record, and Those

BLOGS Dow Shalt Pay For Bhopal

Just for the record, and those who missed it earlier, thanks to a revival on Twitter -- and perhaps because of that the resulting emails today -- of the old Yes Men hoax/prank on BBC.

The Yes Men explain the background:

Dow claims the company inherited no liabilities for the Bhopal disaster, but the victims aren't buying it, and have continued to fight Dow just as hard as they fought Union Carbide.

That's a heavy cross to bear for a multinational company; perhaps it's no wonder Dow can't quite face the truth. The Yes Men decided, in November 2002, to help them do so by explaining exactly why Dow can't do anything for the Bhopalis: they aren't shareholders. Dow responded in a masterfully clumsy way, resulting in a flurry of press.

Two years later, in late November 2004, an invitation arrived at the 2002 website, neglected since. On the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, "Dow representative" "Jude Finisterra" went on BBC World TV to announce that the company was finally going to compensate the victims and clean up the mess in Bhopal. The story shot around the world, much to the chagrin of Dow, who briefly disavowed any responsibility as per policy. The Yes Men again helped Dow be clearer about their feelings. (See also this account, complete with a story of censorship.)

Only months after Andy's face had been on most UK tellies, he appeared at a London banking conference as Dow rep "Erastus Hamm," this time to explain how Dow considers death acceptable so long as profits still roll in. A life-sized golden skeleton named Gilda helped explain to the bankers that just because something like Bhopal is a "skeleton in the closet," it isn't necessarily a bad one: it may be quite lucrative, i.e. "golden." The bankers applauded and swarmed "Gilda" for free keychains and licenses for the Acceptable Risk Calculator.

Finally, on May 12, 2005, at Dow's annual shareholder meeting, "Jude Finisterra" addressed the Dow board to suggest the same thing he had on the BBC. Two minutes later, Mike addressed the board as if he were furious that Dow wasn't clamping down sufficiently on activists - not nuns and victims, maybe, but at least scoundrels like "Jude Finisterra." Asked if Dow would pursue him, Dow Chairman Stavropoulos answered, "If you help me to find him."

As Channel 4 reported:

Yet The Learner Driver Remains An Enigma

Rahul Gandhi recently turned 40, but has he come of age? The Economist notes the sycophancy with which his birthday was celebrated by sections of the media:

Today Congress stands ready to do the family¶s bidding, like a well-upholstered Ambassador car always at the front door. A second, even more impressive vehicle, known simply as India, boasts wheels of state, and its chauffeur is respectfully called ³prime minister´. It offers an exhilarating if often erratic ride (it belches smoke and lurches in unexpected directions, when it is not stuck in traffic). It is currently on loan to a loyal and honest retainer, Manmohan Singh, no mean driver for a man of his years. But this car is Rahul¶s heirloom. It is just a question of time before he asks for the keys back. A second troubling point has to do with all the recent references to Rahul¶s youthful age. Forty, after all, is not really that young. By then a man might be expected to have made his mark in the world, rather than be celebrating his coming-of-age. By the time they were Rahul¶s age, Mozart and Alexander the Great had both been dead for several years. At 33 Jesus Christ had preached, healed, died and risen. The comparison is not wholly unfair, since Rahul¶s disciples talk of him as India¶s saviour.

Read on at the Economist: The mysterious Mr Gandhi

(via Dilip D'Souza on Twitter)

Read Full Post | 3 comments FILED IN: Congress|Rahul Gandhi POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 30, 2010 AT 15:00 IST, Edited At: Jun 30, 2010 15:00 IST Is The UPA Suddenly Turning Reformist?

The Prime Minister insists that the decision to hike fuel prices "was much needed reforms" not taken under any pressure

Writing in the Telegraph, Ashok V. Desai* tells us not to believe any such thing:

The timing of the decision suggests a connection with the meeting of the Group of 20 last Sunday.

The recent camaraderie between the government and Reliance is relevant here. The Ambani brothers entered an agreement to divide up the Reliance empire in 2005. Soon they quarrelled, and their rows ended up in courts. The Central government quite gratuitously asked the courts to allow it to intervene, and did so systematically in favour of Mukesh¶s Reliance. Such uncalled-for and inappropriate favours are generally not made out of a generosity of heart; interests and influence are usually involved. The government¶s concern did not confine itself to the fraternal conflict; it spilled over, as will be seen, to the decision on pricing

Read the full piece *Please note he is not a "leftist". Nor is he a Hindutwit, as he always delights in describing the Hindutva-walas. He in fact was the chief consultant in the finance ministry from 1991 till 1993, when he helped Manmohan Singh with the reforms.

Joel Stein's article in the latest issue of Time magazine is being criticised in most circles as at least latently, if not patently and overtly, racist:

I am very much in favor of immigration everywhere in the U.S. except Edison, N.J. The mostly white suburban town I left when I graduated from high school in 1989 ² the town that was called Menlo Park when Thomas Alva Edison set up shop there and was later renamed in his honor ² has become home to one of the biggest Indian communities in the U.S., as familiar to people in India as how to instruct stupid Americans to reboot their Internet routers.

Read on here

Do you think he is just being nostalgic and perhaps a bit irreverent, with the humour not quite coming off, or do you sense shades of racism or at least a mild case of Raj Thackerayism masquearading as satire? Would it be equally kosher to be similarly 'jokey' about, say, the American Blacks or American Indians? Have people lost their sense of humour or is it really just not funny?

And what is this about Indians and the amount of cologne they wear that seems to be cropping up all over the place?

PS: And, oh, I am informed @thejoelstein has since clarified on Twitter:

³Didn¶t meant to insult Indians with my column this week. Also stupidly assumed their emails would follow that Gandhi non-violence thing.´

Clearly, he has not heard of the other Gandhians who have been in the news lately... Read Full Post | 6 comments FILED IN: Indian-Americans|Indians Abroad|Migration-Immigration- Emigration|USA POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 29, 2010 AT 13:17 IST, Edited At: Jun 29, 2010 13:17 IST A Clumsy Attempt At A Cover Up

Not that there was an iota of any doubt on Congress's complicity in l'affaire Anderson, but because the party continues to brazen it out, the sideshow carries on and on.

First they said ³the immigration/emigration records of 1984 are not available´ and the government was dependent on ³contemporary media reports´ for its knowledge of that controversial visit. More than enough "contemporary media reports" had already been documented recently, and only the previous day the readers¶ editor of The Hindu had dredged up old files to reveal G.K. Reddy¶s reporting from 1984 on the story.

But the Group of Ministers report continued with the charade, forcing The Hindu to once again point out on its front page today: The Group of Ministers report claims ³contemporary media reports also indicate that the Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, was briefed on the matter [of the UCC chief's arrival, arrest and departure] after Anderson left the country.´

But on December 7, 1984, TheHindu's New Delhi bureau chief G.K. Reddy filed a report, saying the Prime Minister's ³Principal Secretary Dr. P. C. Alexander brought the facts to his notice today while he was still in Madhya Pradesh, before the Centre intervened to secure Mr. Anderson's release and arrange for his flight to Delhi later that night.´

Clearly, TheHindu's ³contemporary´ report indicates that Rajiv Gandhi was informed even before Mr. Anderson left the guest house in Bhopal, and certainly before he left India, in direct contradiction of the GoM claim.

Not only that, The Hindu has also pulled out its issues of December 8 and 9, 1984 to show that the GOM¶s conclusions is ³either a careless misreading of the reports or, more likely, a clumsy attempt at a cover-up´:

The irony is that in attempting to provide Rajiv Gandhi with an unnecessary alibi for one of the many sideshows of the gas tragedy ² how Union Carbide Corporation chief Warren Anderson came toExclusive: Text of Group of Ministers report on issues relating to Bhopal Gas Leak Calamity be arrested and released so quickly on December 7, 1984 ² the GoM will likely ensure the late Congress leader and Prime Minister remains at the centre of political controversy.

The Hindu's G.K. Reddy had way back then talked about the ³deplorable lack of coordination´ between the Central and State governments. The sequence of events as they unfolded are clear to anybody who's followed the story

1, That Anderson was not in India and did not have to visit

2. That he visited on a clear undertaking of safe-passage.

3, Therefore, as per the central government's undertaking, he should not have been arrested in the fist place. But an election had to be won, and he was. And then equally imperiously released.

4. The above has been corroborated by Mr Rasgotra, the then foreign secretary, and the American embassy officials.

But because of this ³deplorable lack of coordination´, and because of their acting too clever by half, and trying to protect the holiest of their holy, the party has only succeeded in tying itself up in knots more and more, resorting to one subterfuge after another - and it continues even today. As the Hindu op-ed today also points out, more seriously:

The GoM report notes in paragraph 16 that an FIR was registered at the Hanumanganj police station on December 3, 1984 against Carbide officials which mentioned only Section 304-A (gross negligence) and no other section. But the reports by G.K. Reddy and PTI note that Mr. Anderson and others ³were arrested´ as soon as they landed in Bhopal from Bombay ³under seven different sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sections are: 120B (criminal conspiracy), 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 304A (causing death by negligence), 426 (mischief), 429 (mischief in the killing of livestock), 278 (making atmosphere noxious to health), and 284 (negligent conduct in respect of poisonous substances)´.

In fact the bond which Mr. Anderson signed in Bhopal prior to his release also noted:

³I have been arrested by Hanumanganj Police Station, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India under Criminal Sections 304 A, 304, 120 B, 278, 429, 426 & 92. I am signing this bond for Rs. 25,000/- and thus undertaking to be present whenever and wherever I am directed to be present by the police or the Court´.

Since Section 304 is a µnon-bailable offence', i.e. bail can only be granted by a judge and not on the basis of a bond, were legal corners also cut to ensure Mr. Anderson was released immediately?

Read the full Hindu op-ed

Read Full Post | 0 comments FILED IN: Bhopal Gas Tragedy|Congress|GoMs|Warren Anderson POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 26, 2010 AT 10:27 IST, Edited At: Jun 26, 2010 10:27 IST 'Saahab Behosh Ho Gaya'

Douglas Adams was right about the fundamental interconnectedness of life, the universe and everything. A few days back, we put up a link to Dom Moraes' piece on David Davidar, which has a story about the latter breaking a door down. And then this Saturday, I came across a slightly different version of the same story in Leela Naidu & Jerry Pinto's wondrous Leela, A Patchwork Life. The book also has a Foreword by Jerry Pinto which has a fuller version of the following story about Dom Moraes :

³Dom had written this really nasty piece about Midnight¶s Children,´ Salman Rushdie said when he heard that I was writing Leela Naidu¶s life. ³But when I came to Bombay, he left a note saying that he had been misquoted and that he wanted to meet to have a drink. I called Vinod Mehta up and he was very angry. µWhat does he mean misquoted? He wrote the piece. I still have his manuscript. Come and see it.¶

³But I thought, µIf he wants to make amends«¶ So I agreed to meet him for a drink in The President. We had a couple and then he invited me home to lunch. I said, µAre you sure? You know, it is very little notice.¶ He asked the bartender for the phone and seemed to have a heated conversation with someone. Then he slammed the phone and said, µLet¶s go.¶ That was very uncomfortable for me but I thought, µLeela Naidu, I might get to see Leela Naidu.¶

³And so I went along. Dom left me sitting in the hall and went inside. I could hear raised voices, a row in several languages. Then there was silence. I sat in the hall, feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Then Dom¶s major domo²I don¶t think there was another house that had a major domo²presented himself and asked what I would like for lunch.

³ µWhere is saahab?¶ I asked.´

³ µSaahab behosh ho gaya,¶ said the man. And then he wanted to know if I would like some fish. The terrible thing is: I never did get to see Leela.´

(the excerpt above is from Jerry Pinto's website; link thanks to Nilanjana Roy on Twitter)

For the record, the version in the book has Salman Rushdie saying that he "ate a chicken cutlet and chips in solitary spelndour wondering if Leela Naidu would show. She did not. [He] was then offered dessert, declined it, and fled. And [he] never met Leela."

And, of course, there is the "ruthless Ms Roy" on the sets of Electric Moon, but that is just a minor anecdote in a book filled with fascinating stories Read Full Post | 0 comments FILED IN: Autobiographies/Biographies/Memoirs|Dom Moraes|Jerry Pinto|Leela Naidu|Salman Rushdie POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 22, 2010 AT 03:24 IST, Edited At: Jun 22, 2010 03:24 IST Free Speech V/s Hate Speech

In the NDTV show Walk the Talk in March 2009 Dr Zakir Naik was described as the ³rockstar of tele-evangelism´:

³«but surprise of surprises, he is not preaching what you would expect tele- evangelists to preach. He is preaching Islam, modern Islam, and not just Islam but his own interpretation of all the faiths around the world.´

In February this year, the Indian Express, ranked him 89th on its list of the most powerful Indians in 2010, ahead of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen:

The evangelist, who wears suits and ties and preaches Islam in English, is a powerful orator. His sermons on Peace TV-English boast of a viewership of 100 million. The channel is aired in more than 125 countries and was launched in North America last year. Last year, he launched Peace TV Urdu, which has 50 million viewers. In the last 14 years, Naik has given 1,300 public talks, including 100 in 2009.

Power punch Naik¶s 10-day ³peace conference´ last November in Mumbai was attended by a million people. His lecture at the same conference was attended by around 2 lakh, including former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

What next He plans to launch Peace TV-Bangla by December and a news channel by 2012 or 2013.

He then recently appeared in NDTV's We The People show as a participant in March, and while he was apparently unhappy with the reception he was given, many thought that he had been treated with excessive reverence. He expanded on his experience in these videos. In the words of one fan, "He cleared informed there were 75 DVDs released of top American analysts and professors who proved that 911 was inside job." On Friday, Britain announced that it would not allow Dr Zakir Naik to enter Britain to deliver a series of lectures he was due to give in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England. Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May said in a statement, without elaborating:

³Numerous comments made by Dr. Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour´

The following has been cited as one of those "numerous comments":

³Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them « we don¶t know.

³But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don¶t know what he¶s doing. I¶m not in touch with him. I don¶t know him personally. I read the newspaper.

³If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.´

Writing in the WSJ, Sadanand Dhume contrasts the way Zakir Naik is treated in India and points out that only a handful of journalists²among them Praveen Swami of the Hindu, and Khushwant Singh²have questioned Dr. Naik's views² and wonders whether it has something to do with how "India accords extra deference to allegedly holy men of all stripes". But he also notes:

...most of India's purportedly secular intelligentsia remains loath to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted as sympathy for Hindu nationalism.

And goes on to argue, correctly of course:

Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply flawed.

Mr Dhume's piece appeared on June 20 in which he also argued:

It helps that Indians appear to have trouble distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. In a Western democracy, demanding the murder of homosexuals and the second-class treatment of non-Muslims would likely attract public censure or a