New Delhi: Monday's verdict and sentence in the Bhopal Gas tragedy has driven home the unfettered complicity that betrayed the 20,000 people killed in the world's biggest industrial disaster.
Activists who've spent years in different courts fighting for justice are finally being joined by Indians everywhere who want to know why they were sold short- for a settlement of 470 million dollars with Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), which caused the tragedy.
Connecting the dots, NDTV is speaking to different bureaucrats, politicians, activists, and investigating officers who handled the trial that led to a nano-punishment on Monday - two years in prison for seven Indian executives of Carbide, who have been granted bail.
Warren Anderson, the American CEO of UCC remains safe in America, having successfully ignored repeated court summons. Anderson was in Bhopal days after the disaster and was accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Despite that, he was provided safe and immediate passage out of the city by the Congress government.
(Read: Bhopal gas tragedy: Questions over Warren Anderson's getaway)That was followed by a series of compromises - financial, moral and legal - in what should have been an unwavering and coherent battle against corporate negligence. In 1987, the CBI charged Anderson and other executives of Carbide with culpable homicide not amounting to murder - which, if proven, can lead to ten years in prison.
In 1996, however, the Supreme Court accepted a plea by the accused to reduce the charges against them to criminal negligence, which carries with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
NDTV's Sarah Jacob spoke to Former Joint Director of the CBI, G Ramachandran, one of the key CBI officers involved in the investigation into the case.
NDTV: Mr. Ramachandran, You headed the CBI team that was sent to Bhopal to investigate the cause of the leak. What were the findings of your report?
Ramachandran: When we took over, we found out that this plant was not operating effectively. It was not profitable. They were considering shifting it to Hong Kong. Therefore, everything was going to seed, there were minor leakages. Some labor unions protested against the dangers involved. They were ignored. All these evidences were collected -- whether the design was proper etc.
We found that the precautions that were being followed in the Virginia plant -- where everybody was geared to tackle a gas leak (with) very simple things. Everybody had a mask; the masks were to be dipped in water, etc. These were not at all followed in Bhopal. This was our case. Negligence is proved by not keeping sensitive fluid at the right temperature, not training the operators to do what needed to be done. Nobody was attending office. Some fellow was dismissed and nobody replaced him.
The alarm system was turned off because they said that people would think it is a false alarm. We proved negligence but then a controversy arose about whether it was homicide that amounts to murder or just an accident. The judiciary took the view that there was no intention to kill or harm. It was all legal skullduggeries. The law is peculiar.
NDTV: Why do you say skullduggery?
Ramachandran: Because when you go to the court, it is no longer in the hands of the CBI. People argue. There is a fine difference and it all depends on the capacity of the lawyers. What is homicide, what is negligence? Case law is very difficult to decide.
NDTV: Union Carbide initially claimed that it was sabotage. Is that also what your report found?
Ramachandran: No. The case was clear negligence Things were allowed to rust, the valves were not working properly. Their case was that it was sabotage.
NDTV: But the CBI report said that it was pure negligence?
Ramachandran: Yes, a rash and negligent act.