Who Is Responsible for the Bhopal Catastrophe?

Who is responsible for the Bhopal Catastrophe?

"Our technology just can't go wrong and we just can't have such leaks."

Mukund, 1982

This statement is as just worrisome as the tragedy and a sound proofing of how biased we are in predicting the outcomes of our own decisions.

The real consequences of the new technologies may never be perfectly tested or proven in the short term. While they all serve humanity for a reason, sometimes they can be very destructive in the hands of people who are lack of sensitivity and ethical considerations. Technological disasters affect people who are put in a position of risk but disasters are mostly inevitable when the necessary control mechanisms are established and the possible negative outcomes are evaluated in a more sensible manner. The case illustrates the lack of controlling power and the willingness of the Indian government to play an active role in handling the situation. Primary obligations of the governments should be to ensure the transparency in information flow, tie companies with laws and strict regulations on the negative consequences of their damaging self-interested acts. Hiding real information about the technology and the serious faults in emergency training and systems are the faults of UCC. But Indian government's lack of control and experience plays a bigger role in the case.

Companies like Dow and Monsanto are one of the biggest players in chemical technology industry and they have always been criticized for the norms of their business. Sensitivity and the skepticism about the new technologies bring moral and ethical considerations from the society. While we still cannot easily foresee the possible effects of these new technologies, producer companies are behaving in a more self-interested manner. Companies are reluctant to reveal research findings and other real data about their products and manage the public concerns successfully. This reckless behavior combined with countless law suits and intriguing relationships with governments is making the problems seem more controversial and raises public temper toward such companies. In these situations, governments must play an active role and preserve individual rights and be responsible in revealing the pros and cons of the new technologies and decide whether or not to use them.

In Bhopan case, Indian government's lack of experience and control on the company acts resulted to a disaster. Businesses are usually profit motivated and in many times in order to gain more profit the business might neglect issues like environmental protection and production of harmful and dangerous products. Governments, on the other hand, are higher institutions which are responsible to reach out to the valid information, pass laws to protect the interest of employees and citizen and control business activities from harming the environment. Strict regulations must have been applied on UCC and adequate control of ongoing business should have established. When the government of India waived the standard requirements of safety because of the sophistication of the new technology and the company's potential for export, they have opened up the way for violation of the rights.

Governments' role also continues to protect individual rights and provide the necessary help to its citizens after the event. The fact that government agreed to make settlement with company show that GoI was not effective in defending individual rights. It is surprising to see the settlement has been perceived as a "fair and equitable" conclusion. We can argue how much was needed to cover the damages arise from the irresponsible acts of UCC and see 470 million as a fair settlement between two parties; but the problem is monetary punishments should not