Activists of the Bhopal gas tragedy have expressed disappointment at the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) response to their letters, in which the panel made it clear that it “stands behind Dow” despite the company's controversial involvement in the tragedy.
Last week, two organisations — the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS) and the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS) — sent a memorandum to Jacques Rogge, president of the IOC, and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), requesting both bodies to rescind Dow Chemical's sponsorship.
They argued that Dow was “guilty of practising and condoning racial discrimination... of resorting to falsehood, bribery and intimidation to promote its business interests.”
However, in a response e-mailed to the activists by a member of the volunteering team for the London Olympics, the LOCOG has maintained that Dow was not responsible for the incident.
The LOCOG has defended Dow as a sponsor, saying: “Dow is an industry leader in terms of operating with the highest standards of ethics and sustainability... [it] has received several awards and accolades in this regard over the last few years.”
“We do not dispute that there are issues outstanding in Bhopal particularly in relation to the remediation of the site. However, as we understand it, these outstanding issues are not the responsibility of the Dow Chemical Company.”
The response letter, signed by a volunteer named Kaltun, further states: “The production of the wrap meets all of our criteria and Dow has been completely open about its work and the challenges it faces.”
“Having carefully looked into this issue and based on everything we know and have seen from Dow, we stand behind them both as a worldwide sponsor of the Olympic movement and as a supplier to LOCOG.”
Activists Abdul Jabbar and N.D. Jayaprakash, who drafted the memo, expressed shock at the LOCOG's response.
“We had taken great pains to point out that Dow had provided false and misleading information to the IOC and the LOCOG with a view to concealing the truth about the implications of Dow's acquisition of UCC.
Despite clearly and unambiguously refuting Dow's wholly untenable claims, it is shocking to note that, through this response dated March 3, the LOCOG is yet again trying to sanctify the falsehood that Dow has been desperately trying to spread to the world at large,” they wrote in a rejoinder to the IOC and the LOCOG.
The rejoinder further states: “If our submission was contrary to the truth, the LOCOG could have charged us with providing false information... However, the LOCOG has neither accepted the facts as stated above nor has it stated forthrightly that what we stated is hogwash. Instead of taking the trouble of verifying the facts from authoritative sources, the LOCOG is evading the issue by yet again choosing to become a party to the canards being spread by Dow.”
