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 “prime 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.
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  G-Summits|Oil-Gas-Fuel Prices|Reforms|Reliance Industries|UPA|
Mukesh Ambani
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 29, 2010 AT 23:59 IST, Edited At: Jun 29, 2010
23:59 IST
Before The Indians Came

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
— the town that was called Menlo Park when Thomas Alva Edison set up shop
there and was later renamed in his honor — 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:
“Didn’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 “the immigration/emigration records of 1984 are not available” and
the government was dependent on “contemporary 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 “contemporary 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 “Principal 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 “contemporary” 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 “either 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 — 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 — 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 “deplorable 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 “deplorable 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 “were arrested”
as soon as they landed in Bhopal from Bombay “under 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:

“I 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 ‘non-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 :
“Dom had written this really nasty piece about Midnight’s Children,” Salman
Rushdie said when he heard that I was writing Leela Naidu’s life. “But 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.
‘What does he mean misquoted? He wrote the piece. I still have his manuscript.
Come and see it.’

“But I thought, ‘If 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, ‘Are 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, ‘Let’s go.’ That was very uncomfortable for me but I
thought, ‘Leela Naidu, I might get to see Leela Naidu.’

“And 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 domo—I don’t think there
was another house that had a major domo—presented himself and asked what I
would like for lunch.

“ ‘Where is saahab?’ I asked.”

“ ‘Saahab 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 “rockstar of tele-evangelism”:
“…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 “peace 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: 
“Numerous comments made by Dr. Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable
behaviour”
The following has been cited as one of those "numerous comments": 
“Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them …
we don’t know.
“But 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.
“If 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 journalists—among them Praveen
Swami of the Hindu, and Khushwant Singh—have questioned Dr. Naik's views—
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
law suit. In India, it goes unchallenged as long as it has a religious imprimatur.
However, create a book or a painting that ruffles religious sentiment, as the writer
Taslima Nasreen and the painter M. F. Husain both discovered, and either the
government or a mob of pious vigilantes will strive to muzzle you. [Read the full
WSJ piece: The Trouble With Dr Zakir Naik]
But today's Indian Express carries an editorial which takes just the opposite view:
Words must be fought with words alone, not clumsy state action. Such provocation
is inevitable in the complex, variegated democracies we live in — in both India
and Britain, we could bump up against people whose positions worry us, and we
are free to debate, mercilessly mock, or ignore that opinion. But to declare it
unsayable is highly dangerous. Salman Rushdie, who has himself been singed by
such logic, has warned Britain of the danger of walling off religious matters,
saying that “the defence of free speech begins at the point when people say
something you can’t stand.” Zakir Naik talks of ideas that some might abhor, but
some others take all too seriously. Not permitting open discourse is to constrict the
free play of disagreeement and disputation. [Read the Indian Express editorial:
Talk is Cheap]
While words definitely need to be fought with words, and while sites like
NewAgeIslam have been waging a heroic battle, and while even the likes of Darul
Uloom Deoband and other mainstream Muslim bodies have spoken out and even
issued fatwas against Naik, others argue that all of this is very miniscule and hardly
effective given the large audience and viewership his TV channels command. Do
you think there is a wide enough engagement or a platform to counter the reach of
Dr Naik's Peace TV? How else should his words be engaged with? Do you think
Britain did the right thing by denying him the visa? How should India and Indians
tackle the challenege that Zakir Naik obviously poses?
  Read Full Post  |  67 comments
FILED IN:  Free Speech|Hate Speech|Indo-UK |Islam|Religious Affairs|
Secularism|Secularists|Visa trouble|Zakir Naik
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 21, 2010 AT 21:46 IST, Edited At: Jun 21, 2010
21:46 IST
Tornado Digvijay, Gale Rasgotra, Storm Narasimha...

...and perhaps even Irritating Disturbance Singhvi. Hurricane Arjun [Force 4] is

still to break, writes MJ Akbar:
Here are answers to the questions you no longer have to ask. First: how long would
deputy chairman of the planning commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, protégé of
the Prime Minister, ranking leader of the World Bank Alumni Association and
senior advocate of multinational corporate interests, have taken to send Rs 983
crores to Union Carbide or Dow Chemicals if Bhopal’s workers had killed the
plant, rather than the other way around? My guess is 983 seconds. Ahluwalia
would have probably sent the funds by wire.

The Madhya Pradesh government made a request for Rs 983 crores as additional
compensation for the rehabilitation of gas victims. Ahluwalia could not find the
money in 2008. When, in 2010, public anger at 26 years of injustice – not from
Carbide, or Dow Chemical, but from Indian courts and brazenly insensitive Delhi
governments – reached a crescendo, Ahluwalia discovered the money in 983
seconds, and released it quietly, a few hours before the first meeting of that
desperate vote-saving device called the Group of Ministers.
Why was there no money two years ago and why is there money today?
Read on here
  Read Full Post  |  1 comments
FILED IN:  Bhopal Gas Tragedy|Congress|Montek Singh Ahluwalia
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 20, 2010 AT 02:36 IST, Edited At: Jun 20, 2010
02:36 IST
Passing The Buck

Ever since the UPA came to power, from its first avatar onwards, one of its
distinctive features has been the game of passing the buck that seems to be
perpetually on. With two power-centres, and no clear sense of direction or strategy,
the Congress hierarchy and government often appear to be working at cross-
purposes. And how, for every crisis, the knee-jerk response seems always be to
announce yet another empowered group of ministers (EGOM).
Writing in the Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that while an
EGOM could be a useful mechanism for policy coordination and consensus
building, it "seems to now exemplify the pathologies of governance; it has become
a knee-jerk response to crises and often appears more like an elaborate mechanism
to evade responsibility than to produce results".
He reiterates that most of our recent crises - from Manipur to Telangana - have had
their origins in this chaos of the internal contradictions of the Congress with no
signal as to who exactly is in charge and will take responsibility, reconcile
differences and announce a firm decision:
Then there is a curious phenomenon. The normally reticent and restrained Sonia
Gandhi decided to intervene on two issues whose logic from the point of view of
governance is half-baked: the women’s reservation bill and the caste census. Both
these issues, in different ways, increased governance challenges. But while no one
doubts that she is the ultimate power, it only adds to confusion when no one is
clear why she chooses to assert herself on some issues and not on others. The
failure of anyone in this supposedly pro-poor government to try and convince us
that they take inflation seriously, is just one example where we are left wondering
why our leaders get agitated about some issues and not others. The same confusion
applies to the prime minister. Hence the sense of disarray.

... Both the prime minister and Congress president seem to be unmindful of one
important function of government. In times of crisis, or national anger or shame,
leaders perform two functions. They provide a reassurance that someone is clearly
in charge and takes responsibility, that someone has the capacity to reconcile
differences and be decisive. The second — and this is particularly the function of a
prime minister — they have the ability to send a signal that they truly care and are
listening. Instead, what we seem to get is a parcelling of responsibility off to this
collective group. Leaders give genuine reassurance, restore confidence and give
consolation. Does anyone imagine that an EGOM on Bhopal might perform that
function?
Read on at the Indian Express: Buck Stops With An EGOM
 
  Read Full Post  |  4 comments
FILED IN:  Congress|GoMs|Government Policy|UPA|Manmohan Singh|Pratap
Bhanu Mehta|Sonia Gandhi
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 18, 2010 AT 10:31 IST, Edited At: Jun 18, 2010
10:31 IST
Quiet Grace: Manohar Malgonkar, RIP

Jerry Rao remembers Manohar Malgonkar who passed away on June 14:

I first read A Bend in the Ganges when I was in college. I

remember it as a book of implausible and oddly enough, therefore very real
characters set in a time in history — the last days of the Raj, Independence and
Partition which were described with uncanny plausibility. The unusual focus on the
sexual desires of an older couple, the confused protagonist who betrays himself
and his self-professed ideals at every turn, the wisp of a girl who makes sure that
she avenges herself by treating a pathetic husband and an even more pathetic
would-be lover in a detached manner which is simultaneously sour and dulcet, the
layer on layer of cruelty (to use a Naipaulian expression) that Indians inflict on
each other while loudly, hysterically complaining about the British — all of these
have stayed in my memory at an astonishing level of detail. I cannot think of many
so-called classics where I can remember the plot, the situations and the characters
at such a granular level.
More here
  Read Full Post  |  1 comments
FILED IN:  Books|Jerry Rao|Manohar Malgonkar
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 18, 2010 AT 09:05 IST, Edited At: Jun 18, 2010
09:05 IST
Pew Survey: Indians Gloomier... But Optimistic?

For those who care for such things, the 22-nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey is
out for 2010 and has some interesting findings and very, very hurried comments --

Kenyans think more highly of the USA than Americans themselves, but there are
very few other countries who have that good an opinion of the USA - and this
when we are down by as much as 10%, which could be attributed to the
Obama/Afghanistan effect. If the poll had been done after June 7 Bhopal
judgement, it is anybody's guess what the figures would have been like.
And here, again, is a whopping 17% decline in US ratings -- blame it largely on the
David Headley and the US Af-Pak policy.
We are down, and gloomier, but this is still #4 optimistic reading in the world,
after China 87%, Brazil 50% and Poland 47%. Pakistanis rate thier country at 14%,
which is up from 9% last year. But, then, that might well be because the poll this
time excludes FATA, erstwhile NWFP, AJK and Balochistan.

This is actually the third best optimistic reading of one's country's economic
situation, after China 91% and Brazil 62%. Only 18% of Pakistanis, for example,
think similarly about their economy, as compared to 24% last year.
Only Germany (30%), Japan 26% and Turkey (20%) have a more unfavourable
opinion of China. 85% in Pakistan have a
favourable opinion.
More interactive stuff here
 Another interesting sidelight is people's
image of their country in the world:
After Indonesians, 92% of whom say
Indonesia is generally liked by people
in other nations, there are as many as
87% Indians who think that about India,
followed by Jordan (85%), China (80%)
and Brazil (80%). Only 40% Pakistanis
and 35 Americans have that view of
their countries
 
 Another interesting finding is the use of
military force:  In Asia, majorities
consistently agree that military force
can sometimes be necessary. Gandhi
would perhaps not be happy to learn
that India leads the pack at a surprising
 92%, although most in Pakistan (73%), Indonesia (72%), China (60%) and
Japan (57%) also agree with this position. In South Korea, more now (56%)
hold this view than did so in 2007 (43%).
 
 And, of course, 19% Indians also believe that Brazil will win the FIFA
World Cup, with Australia a close second at 14%
 
 Read the full report
  Read Full Post  |  3 comments
FILED IN:  Economy|India|India-China|Indo-US|Terrorism
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 17, 2010 AT 22:40 IST, Edited At: Jun 18, 2010
00:40 IST
L'affaire Anderson: Dan Kurzman

Dan Kurzman, a former foreign correspondent for the Washington Post and the
author of A Killing Wind, the story of the Bhopal accident, had a four-part series in
The Palm Beach Post. The third of these, published on December 1, 1987 details
the arrest and release of Warren Anderson:
Please click on images below to read from the larger images:
Also see:
I could not fight the newspaper for November 29 in Google archives, but see Part
2: on Nov 30, 1987
 Panicky Victims Stream toward deadly fumes  &
 Killing Fog Covered 25 Miles
& Part 4 on Dec 2, 1987:
 'Ambulance chasers' battle giant for gas victims &
 Lawyers waged bitter fight over where to hold Bhopal trial
Hat Tip: Off-Stumped
  Read Full Post  |  6 comments
FILED IN:  Bhopal Gas Tragedy|Congress|Madhya Pradesh|Arjun Singh|Rajiv
Gandhi|Warren Anderson
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 17, 2010 AT 15:29 IST, Edited At: Jun 17, 2010
23:29 IST
Upendra Baxi on Bhopal

Instead of adding these as a post-script to the earlier post on Professor Upendra

Baxi, thought would link some of his writings on Bhopal available on his website:
  Introduction - towards the revictimization of the Bhopal victims

 Mass disasters and multinational liability - the Bhopal case

 The bhopal victims in the labyrinth of the law

 The just war for profit and power - the Bhopal catastrophe and the principle
of double effect
 Valiant victims and lethal litigation the Bhopal case

 Writing about impunity and environment: the ‘silver jubilee’ of the Bhopal
catastrophe
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  Bhopal Gas Tragedy|Upendra Baxi
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 17, 2010 AT 02:22 IST, Edited At: Jun 17, 2010
03:22 IST
You Can Take A Punjabi Out Of Punjab...

Bhangra in the East Village from Derek Beres on Vimeo.

New York magazine reports:
While getting food at a Punjabi deli in New York's East Village, musician Derek
Beres (of EarthRise SoundSystem) dropped a beat on the deli case as the man
behind the counter burst into song.
In Derek Beres' own words:
Post-EarthRise SoundSystem gig, Duke and I hopped into a great Punjabi food
spot on 1st and Ave A, where he has a long history of jamming with the brothers
there.The saag is spiced perfectly, the gulab jamun not too sweet, and vocals ring
out non-stop through the night.
Links in separate e-mails from Sohail Sawhney and Anurag Sharma
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  Dance|Indians Abroad|Levity|Music |Punjabis|USA
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 17, 2010 AT 01:56 IST, Edited At: Jun 17, 2010
03:56 IST
Prior Sexual Harassment Charge Against Davidar

More details continue to emerge on l'affaire David Davidar. Quill & Quire reports:
Davidar, Rundle, and Penguin Canada are not talking to the press at the moment,
but one of Rundle’s more damaging claims against Penguin – outlined in a 19-page
legal filing sent to Q&Q by Rundle’s lawyer, Bobbi Olsen – is that the company’s
human resources department was aware of prior sexual harassment by Davidar of
at least one other employee, former executive assistant Samantha Francis. (Francis,
who still works in the industry, gave Q&Q permission to run her name in this
article.)

According to the claim, in summer 2008 Francis filed a complaint against Davidar
with vice-president of human resources Ann Wood, and also forwarded the
complaint to Allan Reynolds, president and CEO of Pearson Canada, Penguin
Canada’s parent company. Rundle goes on to state that Davidar showed her a copy
of Francis’s complaint and told her that Francis had since “come to her senses” and
recanted. Shortly after this conversation, Francis was promoted to paperwork
editor, reporting directly to executive editor of fiction Nicole Winstanley.
Approximately six to eight months following the promotion, Francis left the
company.
More here
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  Publishers|Sexual Harassment|David Davidar
POSTED BY Buzz ON Jun 15, 2010 AT 21:06 IST, Edited At: Jun 15, 2010 21:06
IST
Fali S. Nariman V/s Upendra Baxi & Ors

In Fali S. Nariman's recently released memoirs, Before Memory Fades, he

reproduces a fascinating exchange with Professor Upendra Baxi, occasioned by his
article in the December 2004 issue of Seminar on the 20th anniversary of Bhopal
[Mr Nariman was the lead counsel for Union Carbide Corporation] in the Supreme
Court:
In toxic torts, anger against the industrial enterprise believed to be responsible is
infectious, evoking strange responses. Affluent sections of society unaffected by
the tragedy – who share the rage of the victims – themselves do nothing to alleviate
the loss; they have heard people and the press repeatedly say that retribution must
come from the wrongdoer: the industrial or chemical company must be compelled
to pay. This results in a climate of opinion which favours the view that only
victims of natural disasters require public help and support: as to others, the
polluter (the perpetrator) should pay.
It was this aspect that was particularly adverted to by the Supreme Court of India
in the cases arising out of the Bhopal gas tragedy of December 1984. Whilst giving
reasons, on 4 May 1989, as to what prompted the court to accept the overall civil
settlement reached in February 1989 between (on the one hand) the Union of India
– (by statute, representing all claimants and appearing through its Attorney
General) – and (on the other hand) the Union Carbide Corporation with its
subsidiary Indian company – Chief Justice Pathak said:

‘It is indeed a matter for national introspection that public response to this great
tragedy which affected a large number of poor and helpless persons limited itself to
the expression of understandable anger against the industrial enterprise but did not
channel itself in any effort to put together a public-supported relief fund so that the
victims were not left in distress, till the final decision in the litigation. It is well-
known that during the recent drought in Gujarat, the devoted efforts of public
spirited persons mitigated, in great measure, the loss of cattle-wealth in the near
famine conditions that prevailed.'
Read on at Seminar
To this Professor Baxi responded with an Open Letter to Fali Nariman:
I had to regretfully decline the invitation to contribute to the Seminar issue [544,
December 2004] dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal catastrophe
because of my resolution not to share any public platform with Fali Nariman ever
since he assumed the UCC advocacy. I now make an exception because even some
movement colleagues have read his contribution here as offering a veiled apology
for his advocacy of an unjust cause and an unscrupulous client. No close reading of
what he now says remains necessary to dispel this strangely erroneous impression.
Instead, what we really get here is an elaborate apologia for the unconscionable
settlement that he so assiduously actually promoted.
Read on for this as well as for other responses and then Mr Nariman's reply here
After reproducing all of the above, Mr Nariman gives the last word to Prof Baxi --
the account in his memoirs concludes with a moving personal email from Professor
Baxi to Fali Nariman that the former wrote after the above, addressed to 'Dear
Fali'. It is a must-read  for anyone who is dismayed by how, as Prof Baxi notes*,
"honest differences of opinion in the Indian public culture almost all too often
remain mired and caricatured, often cruelly, in terms of personalised politics, a
tendency that I have combated all through, perhaps unsuccessfully in my
associational public life in India..."
There is one paragraph that I do wish to type out in full:
...I sincerely believe (and you may equally sincerely believe that I remain
mistaken) that your active defence of the UCC did a great harm to the protection
and promotion of human rights. To say this is not to attack in any way your
otherwise impeccable personal and professional credentials. Fali, you may say that
the matters end where your professional conscience begins. If more than 2,00,000
Bhopal victims and those acting on their behalf think otherwise, don't they also
deserve the dignity of equal respect?
And then, in the conclusion, the most important part:
I can only guess what you actually know in terms of the ringside view of
settlement orders. Obviously, we differ profoundly, concerning the architecture of
judicial perfidies or performance. I had hoped that your response, twenty years
after, would at least have been consistent to your understanding of human rights
responsibilities of a human rights lawyering, long since released of professional
privilege. Even state archives remain unprotected by a thirty year requirement of
official disclosure. I must now await a decade of life, against all available health
evidence to the contrary, of how the settlement orders eventually were
accomplished. But activist lifetimes even when perishable hopefully have an
appeal beyond individual longevity. I hope that future archival  retrieval will
respond much better to the many issues of contention between us.

What a long way of saying 'Thanks', Fali, ffor your animated rejoinder!

Much love to Bapsi and you,

Upen

Dr Upendra Baxi 
Mr Nariman of course doesn't respond, but simply prefaces a quote attributed to
Oliver Cromwell (in Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, ch 12) who had
commissioned his portrait to be painted by a leading artist of the time as a reason
for giving the last word to Prof Baxi:
Mr Lely, I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and
not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts, and
everything as you see me, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it.
*Interested readers may want to at least look up Page 247-250 in a bookshop or
Amazon/Google preview or  something.
Also See: Seminar December 2004 issue on Bhopal: Elusive Justice
In all of this, of course, it is useful to go back to what Pratap Bhanu Mehta
reminded us in the Indian Express recently:
The implications of this judgment are being pondered for sundry issues, including
India’s geo-strategic position in relation to the US. Much of this discussion has
focused on the political implications of this for the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill. But
for those who think that even such colossal suffering should be assessed through
the geo-strategic prism, the important question should be what this says about the
credibility of our own institutions to serve our citizens. There is no doubt that the
judgment has come again as a reminder of how fragile the authority of the Indian
judiciary is. The last few years have made a huge dent in the reputation of the
Indian Supreme Court on several dimensions, so much so that a propitious political
ground has been created for more political oversight and superintendence of the
judiciary. In terms of public reputation and authority the Indian Supreme Court is
probably at its weakest in a number of years, with greater clamour for its
accountability. The decision has again drawn attention to the fact that for all its
thunderous bluster, the Supreme Court has, at crucial moments, let the country
down. In a sense it has to constantly reclaim its legitimacy.

The legal twists and turns of the Bhopal case are enormous. Upendra Baxi’s work
should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in excavating how the law sent
justice for a toss in this case. A lot of the criticism of the Supreme Court in recent
times has focused on institutional matters: the reluctance of judges to disclose
assets, the lack of self-regulation within the judiciary, its failure to deal with
corruption cases, the lack of judicial consistency, the gerrymandering of benches,
the undue deference it consistently shows to top lawyers, the politics and lack of
transparency of appointments, and so forth. The more serious and consequential
critique of the Supreme Court should focus on its substantive failures in matters of
law and governance. Bhopal was an illustrative case of how the Supreme Court
could go seriously wrong.
More here
At least some of Professor Upendra Baxi's work is online and interested readers
could check out the PDF files available here
  Read Full Post  |  8 comments
FILED IN:  Bhopal Gas Tragedy|Abhishek Manu Singhvi|Fali S. Nariman|Upendra
Baxi
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 15, 2010 AT 02:52 IST, Edited At: Jun 15, 2010
02:52 IST
'This Is Not History. This Is Precedent'

Manan Ahmed has a forceful peace in the Express Tribune:

Gaze at it however long from the outside, little makes sense. Pakistan resembles a
house designed and built from the inside, piece-meal, with varied sub-standard
materials, by perennially distracted architects.
In the unfinished basement are the “minorities” — those deemed capable of
sanctuary but incapable of being seen above the surface. They are the Christians,
the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Ahmadis, the Shi’as, the Queers and the Transgendered.
All must remain silent, none can be heard. Remember when a blasphemy rumour
ignited Christian villages in Punjab, last year? Remember the cases of forced
conversions of Hindu families? Remember the kidnapping of Sikhs? Remember
the attacks on Shi’a processions and mosques? Those are the results when
basement-dwellers, silenced communities are seen or heard. 
Read on at the Express Tribue: The House on the Hill
  Read Full Post  |  2 comments
FILED IN:  Pakistan|Pakistan: Minorities
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 15, 2010 AT 00:55 IST, Edited At: Jun 15, 2010
00:55 IST
David Davidar Was 'Asked To Leave' Penguin

Earlier this week, on June 8, when news broke that David Davidar was resigning
from Penguin Canada as its president, he announced that he simply wanted to
return to India with his wife, Rachna, and focus on his writing career. Therefore, 
the press-release by Yvonne Hunter, Penguin vice-president of marketing and
publicity, came as a shock to most:
Lisa Rundle, former Rights and Contracts Director of Penguin Canada, brought an
action yesterday against David Davidar, the former President of Penguin Canada,
alleging sexual harassment. Ms. Rundle also made a number of claims relating to
Penguin Canada including wrongful termination.
Ms. Rundle was not terminated by Penguin Canada, but rather she advised the
company of her decision to leave after having declined to pursue other career
opportunities within the organization.
Mr. Davidar was asked to leave the company last month and his departure was
announced on June 8. Mr. Davidar will play no further role in the company.
Penguin Canada expects to appoint a new head of the Canadian company in the
near future.
Out of respect for the privacy of the individuals involved, the company will not
provide further comment at this time.
David Davidar himself responded with the following message: 
I was disappointed to learn today that Penguin Canada has made a public statement
about litigation commenced against the company and myself.
Earlier this week it was announced that I would be leaving Penguin Canada.  At
Penguin’s request, I agreed to publicly state that my departure was voluntary.  The
truth is that a former colleague accused me of sexual harassment and Penguin
terminated my employment.
I had a friendship with my colleague which lasted for three years.  I am utterly
shocked by the allegations.  I am dismayed that Penguin Canada chose to respond
to them by directing me to leave Penguin.  I intend to defend the allegations
vigorously in the courts, and  I am certain that the truth will prevail.
As I said earlier this week, I intend to pursue my writing career. I do not intend to
make further comment on the pending legal proceedings.
The Globe and Mall has more details of Ms Rundle's charges against Mr Davidar:
Ms. Rundle offers a sharply different account of the events in her statement of
claim. “Terminating Lisa for bringing to the table her complaints about the sexual
harassment and sexual assault she suffered at the hands of Davidar is particularly
reprehensible conduct on the part of the company,” it said.
The accusations are accompanied by quotations from several e-mail messages Mr.
Davidar allegedly sent to Ms. Rundle during the period in question. Last year, he is
said to have written that he “could do very little except think of [Ms. Rundle],” that
she was “utterly gorgeous,” “a vision in pink sipping a champagne cocktail,” and
that she should not be “stubborn” or “fight” him.
“Davidar over time became more and more intense with his persistent protestations
of lust and desire for Lisa,” according to the claim, “and in return she became
increasingly disturbed and afraid.”
The harassment allegedly culminated in an outright assault at the Frankfurt Book
Fair last October when, according to the claim, Mr. Davidar appeared at Ms.
Rundle’s hotel room door, “wearing excessive cologne, with buttons on his shirt
undone down his waist.”
“Lisa stood in her hotel room into which Davidar had bullied his way, with her
arms crossed, still near the door, and asked what he needed to discuss,” it said. “He
told her to relax and just let him come in. She refused and said she wanted to go to
sleep.”
Ms. Rundle claims she climbed on a windowsill to avoid her boss and again asked
him to leave. “He forcibly pulled her off the ledge and grabbed her by the wrists,
forcing his tongue into her mouth,” it said
David Davidar, who launched the Indian imprint of Penguin for the Anand Bazaar
Patrika (ABP) group, moved to Canada in 2003 as head of Penguin Canada and
was recently promoted as the head of Penguin International, a new division
overseeing Penguin’s activities in South Africa, India and the Middle East. He was
seen by many as being groomed to succeed Mr. Makinson as chairman of the
worldwide Penguin Group.
***
Also See: The writer as a young man: Dom Moraes
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  Books|Publishers|Sexual Harassment|David Davidar
POSTED BY Buzz ON Jun 12, 2010 AT 13:16 IST, Edited At: Jun 12, 2010 16:16
IST
Germany V/s Greece

Prompted by a WSJ book review:

"In a blissfully funny, vintage Monty Python sketch, there is a soccer game
between Germany and Greece in which the players are leading philosophers. The
always formidable Germany, captained by "Nobby" Hegel, boasts the world-class
attackers Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, while the wily Greeks, captained
by Socrates, field a dream team with Plato in goal, Aristotle on defense and—a
surprise inclusion—the mathematician Archimedes.

Toward the end of the keenly fought game, during which nothing much appears to
happen except a lot of thinking, the canny Socrates scores a bitterly disputed match
winner. Mayhem ensues! The enraged Hegel argues in vain with the referee,
Confucius, that the reality of Socrates' goal is merely an a priori adjunct of non-
naturalistic ethics, while Kant holds that, ontologically, the goal existed only in the
imagination via the categorical imperative, and Karl Marx—who otherwise had a
quiet game—protests that Socrates was offside.
...
Mr. Crowe first reminds us that the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was an
avid student of football—see his "Critique of Dialectical Reason," where he
remarks with undeniable wisdom: "In a football match, everything is complicated
by the presence of the other team."
Read on at the WSJ
The academically inclined might also want to visit the Wikipedia page and the
Script
  Read Full Post  |  0 comments
FILED IN:  Football|Football: FIFA World Cup|Levity
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 11, 2010 AT 23:59 IST, Edited At: Jun 11, 2010
23:59 IST
How Anderson Was Allowed To Get Away

Much anguish has been expressed about Digvijay Singh's remarks about American
pressure in the release of Warren Anderson, as if he was revealing some state-
secret. Bharat Desai in the TOI sums it up well: "Today, 25 years later, the entire
media is unravelling the 'mystery' behind the release of the Union Carbide
chairman Warren Anderson five days after the disaster, as if it this is some piece of
breaking news..." 
And what he goes on to say will not come as breaking news to anyone who
followed the happenings in those days when the media may not have been all that
pervasive, but the American pressure was an open secret:
Chief minister Arjun Singh had apparently not consulted the caretaker Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi before ordering the arrest of Anderson on December 7.
After the arrest, Rajiv Gandhi's powerful aide and cousin, Arun Nehru, telephoned
Arjun Singh and told him that US President Ronald Regan had called up the Indian
PM and 'requested' him to release Anderson immediately. Now, Rajiv Gandhi was
an Indian Airlines pilot, accustomed to taking only orders from air traffic control.
The job of prime minister was thrust upon him because of his mother's
assassination just one month before the gas disaster. He couldn't have resisted the
top man in the White House. 
Pranab Dhal Samanta in the Indian Express corroborates the Delhi and US angle,
but provides the following version of the sequence of events:
“Although Mr Arjun Singh had given directions to the Chief Secretary, he was
acting under the directions of Rajiv Gandhi who, in turn, was under pressure from
the highest levels in the US government,” Jain told The Indian Express. ...
Around 1 pm, Arjun Singh again called up the Chief Secretary for an update. And
here again, according to what Swaroop shared with his colleagues soon after the
conversation, the CM was insistent and said he had to give a “compliance report to
Rajiv Gandhi”. Later, Swaroop informed the core group members that Singh had
even told him to arrange for a state government plane to transport him to Delhi
upon release.

At that stage, the SP took the DM away and both discussed the matter. They
returned and informed the group that they had found a way to carry out Singh’s
orders. Thereafter, the orders were carried out. Additional Secretary M S Singh
Deo, who was considered close to Arjun Singh, is said to have met the CM the
next day after he returned from the rally. It was he who then disclosed to his
colleagues that Rajiv Gandhi had told Singh after US President Ronald Reagan had
personally intervened in the matter.

Moti Singh, on his part, still maintains that he was not aware on whose instructions
the Chief Secretary gave the orders. “Around 2 pm, I got a call from Chief
Secretary Brahma Swaroop asking us to reach his office where we were told to
release Anderson. I am not sure whose orders the Chief Secretary was following.” 
All of which of course squares with what the press reported at that time as well. As
the Express story points out, despite pressure from the CM, the state government
officials argued that it "was not possible" [to release Anderson] "after the police
had pressed charges against Anderson". 
"At that stage, the SP took the DM away and both discussed the matter. They
returned and informed the group that they had found a way to carry out Singh’s
orders"
What was the way? For a ready-reckoner, one may not need to go beyond Google,
and at least one diligent data-miner has already done the homework and
documented it on, yes, where else but Twitter. Following  some of the links
provided by off-stumped, using a basic Google news archive search, the spin that
the Congress came up with then is there for all to see, nicely recorded in the US
newspapers of the period available on line. The official US version is also
instructive:
The Pittsburgh Press, Dec 7, 1984:

The US Embassy in New Delhi said Anderson's release on $2000 bail was secured
after delicate negotiations between the US and Indian governments. He had been
held at Union Carbide's luxurious guest house.
"The Indian government was very helpful," said WIlliam Miller, spokesman for the
US Embassy in New Delhi....

A company statement issued at its headquarters in Danbury, Conn., said the arrest
violated an Indian government promise to provide Anderson with safe passage.

"Warren Anderson went to India fully expecting to be of assistance and was

provided safe passage assurances from the Indian government, " the statement said
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Dec 8, 1984: India ousting US Chemical firm official:

Police said Warren B. Anderson faced preliminary charges that included death by
negligence, criminal conspiracy, causing air pollution and killing livestock.

Anderson would be asked to leave India as soon as possible "because his presence
might provoke strong passions against him and because we do not consider his
presence in India desirable," said spokesman for the Madhya Pradesh state
government
In Washington, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the United States
made "some representations" to Indian officials through the embassy in New Delhi.
He said he did not know whether they led to Anderson's release.

...
The chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, Arjun Singh, said in a statement, "We are
convinced on the basis of facts already available that each one of them has criminal
liability for the events that led to the grave tragedy."
Anchorage Daily News, Dec 9, 1984:
Anderson would be asked to leave India as soon as possible "because his presence
might provoke strong passions against him and because we do not consider his
presence in the country desirable," said Sudip Banerjee, a spokesman for the
Madhya Pradesh state government
The Freelance Star, Dec 10, 1984:

Anderson, arrested on charges of negligence, homicide and criminal conspiracy,

was ordered released unconditionally by the state government because of concern
that the case might undermine US-Indian relations, according to press reports
Sunday. The Regan administration protested Anderson's detentio
Even the declassified CIA documents, available online  make it clear what has long
been known, viz. that the release was authorised by the central government. 
Document # 0000706, in what the US declassified papers describe as the EAST
ASIA BRIEF OCPAS EAB 84-281 FOR DECEMBER 1984, dated 8 December
1984, a day after Anderson fleed India and five days after the gas leaked from
Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant, speaks for itself:
  
If that was then, now is no better: the documents we put up on the site yesterday,
showing the stance taken by various Congress party bigwigs, including two
prominent ministers and the party spokesperson, arguing that Dow has no
responsibility for Bhopal, of course tell their own tale.
Post-Script:
Schenectady Gazette - 4 Dec 1987:

Children burned effigies of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the former chairman
of Union Carbide Corp during a protest yesterday marking the third anniversary of
the Bhopal gas disaster

... VC Shukla a dissident member of Gandhi's Congress party told the crowd the
government was playing a "dubious role" by considering an out-of-court
settlemtnt.

...

"A settlement cannot rule out kickbacks," Shukla said. There have been allegations
that members of Gandhi's party may have received kickbacks in defense deals
John Eliot in his blog, June 14, 2010:
On the escape of Anderson, I was there in Bhopal at the time – December 7, 1984 -
and later learned about what happened from both government and company
sources.

Arjun Singh, then the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal is the state
capital) heard that Anderson was flying into Bhopal from Bombay on a flight that
stopped in Indore. So he ordered his police to the airport without (fearing leaks)
telling them why, till the plane had taken off from Indore, when he told them
Anderson should be arrested on arrival.

Anderson had planned his visit as some sort of mercy and goodwill mission. As the
plane landed in Bhopal, he looked out of the cabin window and saw the police cars,
so said to Mahindra, who was sitting beside him, how good it was of the state
government to provide him with an escort.

He was immediately arrested and taken to the Union Carbide guest house on a hill
overlooking the city. Along with a crowd of Indian and foreign journalists, I stood
that afternoon at the guest house’s front gates waiting for Anderson to emerge.
Shame on us all, he was whisked out of the back gate without most of us seeing
him, and was released on bail after being held for just six hours. He was put on a
government plane to Delhi, and then flew to the US.

Although we did not know that afternoon whether Anderson was being flown to
Delhi to be detained there, we had no doubt that Singh, a leading Congress
politician, was acting on the orders of – or at least with the approval of Rajiv
Gandhi, the Congress prime minister. The government is now saying that Singh
sent Anderson out of Bhopal because he feared civil unrest if the executive was
seen in the city. But that does not explain why, presumably at the behest of the US,
Anderson was then allowed to leave the country.