The editorial on the double standards of the United States in dealing with disasters affecting its citizens and those caused by American companies outside the country (June 22) is an eye-opener. It should act as a guide for the Group of Ministers dealing with the Bhopal gas tragedy. India should demand that the U.S. make the UCC (now taken over by Dow chemical) pay the Rs1,500 crore worked out as compensation package for the victims.
R. Suresh,
Sahibabad
The U.S., no doubt, practises double standards. But I believe it is our own politicians and bureaucrats who let us down on the Bhopal issue. Why did the government lose on the issue of jurisdiction? Why did it let Warren Anderson leave the country? Why did it let the case dealing with the largest industrial disaster hang fire for 26 years?
The Americans elect their President to protect their interests, which is what he did in the case of the BP oil spill. Expecting him to protect the interests of Indians shifts the responsibility from our own political leaders.
Capt. S.G. Rajaram,
Chennai
Within just two months of the oil spill, President Barack Obama has made the U.K.-based oil giant commit $20 billion, without a cap, to an escrow account for clean-up and compensation. If Washington's tough stand was aimed at protecting its citizens and ecology, its deafening silence on the Bhopal disaster was also meant to protect the interests of its multinational company UCC.
It would have been apt if the editorial had also exposed the double standards of our politicians and bureaucrats who played havoc with the lives of the victims in a number of ways — letting Mr. Anderson safely out, settling for a mere 15 per cent of the compensation originally sought, not challenging the dilution of charges against the accused, and freeing Dow chemical from remediation of the ‘ghost' site.
V. Priya Kannan,
Easton
President Obama has displayed his leadership skills by holding BP accountable and responsible for the disaster at the Gulf of Mexico. Why should the U.S. be accused of double standards for the masterly inactivity of successive Indian governments? New Delhi has woken up after 26 years to the grave situation posed by the Bhopal disaster — that too after the huge public outcry that followed the recent verdict.
A. Mohan,
Ruwi
The issue that seems to be overlooked in the debate on Mr. Anderson is — what could the government have done had he refused to come to India after the Bhopal tragedy? He came only on the assurance of safe return.
In 1984, we had no advantage of retrospect or much experience of different kind of politics but by 2010 we have enough precedent to understand how a government led by a different political party would have responded to the issue. After all, the Congress provided only a state aircraft to Mr. Anderson, not the company of a Cabinet Minister. Let us learn from the collective blunder of the past and move on to create a system in which we can respond to such a catastrophe with prompt and effective measures in future.
Shailendra Kumar Sharma,
New Delhi
