Remember, Remember, the 3rd of December

(An abridged version of this post appears in a letter published in Indiana Daily Student on 7th Dec, 2006)

1 Mississippi, bam! 2 Mississippi, bam! 3 Mississippi, bam, bam! That is how fast people fell and bled to death, 22 years back at Bhopal, India in the worst industrial accident in the world. Deadly methyl iso-cyanide (MIC) gas leaked from Union Carbide's factory and spread silently through the densely packed city of Bhopal in the dawn of December 3rd, 1984. Children, pregnant women, frail seniors, and healthy men - over 5000 in all - die the first day. 20,000 more succumb since then and 150,000 remain affected. MIC should be credited for being non-discriminatory and taking all in its wake.

The same cannot be said of Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemical. Their approach to the catastrophe smacks of environmental racism. Failing safety measures in the factory lead to the accident and Carbide was held accountable. But the settlement reached with the Indian government was well before the full effects of the gas was known and effectively paid $500 to each victim - several times lesser than what was spent to clean up each seal in the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska during the same period. To top it off, Carbide scampered out of the country without so much as cleaning up the tons of chemicals left at the factory. There lies the second tragedy. These toxic concoctions have polluted the ground water over 22 years and, combined with the exposure to gas, resulted in birth deformities in children born in that region. Talk about a ticking time bomb in the heart of a city!

The survivors of Bhopal have shown immense patience and resilience in fighting for their rights. Their non-violent protests against the top chemical company in the world and the largest democracy in the world are doubtless an inspiration from the teachings of Gandhi. Their demands off Dow Chemical are few and just: clean up the site, provide medical care to the affected, provide livelihood to the disabled, and stand trial. That 25,000 should die and not a single person stand trial is a blot on the democratic nations of India and United States. Dow thinks nothing of either shielding Union Carbide from the international arrest warrant pending against it nor wringing it hands and doing nothing as people continue to die from its poison. One can only hope that Gandhi and Martin Luther King are still relevant in this age.

Dow Chemical has a woefully inadequate fig leaf to cover their negligence. Their settlement did not cover future deaths. They did not cleanup the site. They are absconders from the law. And their history of environmental trespass is unmatched - Agent Orange, breast implants, and dioxin poisoning, to name a few. Whatever fig leaf that remains is blown away by Amnesty international's 104 page report of 2002 that does a complete review of the realities at ground zero and finds Dow Chemical unassailably accountable. 18 congressmen, the European Union, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, city governments in San Francisco, Seattle, and Cambridge, and the 150,000 survivors cannot all be wrong.

As the Bhopali's persist in their fight for justice, they serve as a poignant reminder that we, the people, need to be vigilant for transgressions by corporations and lawmakers if Bhopal is not to be repeated. We can but take a moment to remember the victims and apply whatever pressure we can on Dow Chemical to do the right thing.

Remember, remember, the 3rd of December,
MIC, negligence, and rot,
I see of no need why Dow Chemical's greed,
Should ever be forgot.

- Adapted from a rhyme on Guy Fawkes -

---

Learn & act!
www.studentsforbhopal.org
www.bhopal.net
www.thetruthaboutdow.org
www.indiana.edu/~aid

Nutcracker and the charm of ballet

I went to see Nutcracker, my first ballet, on Saturday at the IU Musical Art Center and, boy, was it exquisite! Classical music and musicals have been my cup of tea and IU is probably the best campus to be in if you enjoy the arts. Bloomington is a melting pot for the arts, what with a top ranked music school and a culturally aware community. I've been introduced to the joys of musicals here and cherished the performances of Les Misérables, Chicago, Phantom of the Opera, My Fair Lady, Fiddler on the Roof, and many more -- all by top talent who went on to perform at Broadway. I've been to a few operas and dramas and enjoyed their offerings. IU's summer musical festival showcases recitals and orchestras by students and faculty at IU, many of them free. The annual Lotus festival brings artists from around the world where they perform to packed crowds at this small town in southern Indiana. I've been taken closer to home through the carnatic music performances by Kadri Gopalnath, "mandolin" Srinivasan, "flute" Ramani, and T.N.Krishnan at Indy, Purdue, and Cincinnati , and the occasional concert at IU by the enthusiastic amateur group here.
So in the midst of all of this, one piece of artistic delight that I had not savored was the ballet. And my mom proved the ideal excuse for investing in a ticket to the Nutcracker. To be honest, I am not thrilled with dancing, possibly because I am not familiar with the nuances of this form of expression. There have just been a couple of occasions when I have willingly sat through Bharathanatyam performances - because the artist was a friend of mine - and been moved by it. But ballet was a novelty...and I was blown away by my first experience!
Tchaikovsky's 1892 ballet, the Nutcracker, is an annual performance at IU during the Christmas season (this was the 48th year!) and runs to a packed theater of 1500 seats at the MAC. What caught me most was the poise and grace of the dancers. Indeed, those adjectives could have been coined for just this performance. The artists seem to float on the stage, their toes barely skimming the surface in sync with the music. The flexibility of their motions would make a contortionist blush and the stamina required for some of the longer pieces is amazing. On a lighter vein, it requires supreme confidence and a strict fitness regimen to fit in those tights and dance!
Nutcracker saw tiny tots from 10 years old to more mature performers come together on stage, not to mention the dachshund, Ovid. There were a couple of pieces that I particularly liked. The Arabian snake dance duet by Howard and Sandhurst in Act II was one of sensuous grace. In the Waltz of the Flowers that followed shortly after, I could imagine daisies swaying to a breeze as the dancers waltzed in their shimmering attire. It was ethereal and, if for a moment, I was part of Clara's dream! And best of all, my mom thoroughly enjoyed it was all smiles :)
In all, a wonderful evening to cap off a solemn day that began with the Bhopal anniversary. Here's to all ballerinas and danseurs and their delightful art!

Are some animals more equal than others?

The other day, I saw an article on the International Herald Tribune that talked about an EU law to ban the trade in dog and cat fur. I welcome any law that protects the right of animals to live. But it did seem strange that the law picked out just fur from dogs and cats. How about crocodile hides or calf leather (suede) or fox furs or seal skin or mink pelts? To quote the pigs' commandments in Orwell's Animal Farm, are "All animals ... equal, but some animals ... more equal than others"? Are we practicing species discrimination?

Fur trade has a grisly history in the conquest of America with thousands of native Americans killed in the internecine beaver wars, in one the early instances of capitalist greed. Regardless of the animal, the cruelty meted out to them in trapping and killing them for their skin is inhuman. Especially when much better man-made and natural alternatives exist. So why this perverse pleasure in wearing the skin of a dead animal in the name of fashion?

I looked up the related US Customs law on the trade in dog and cat fur and some of the statements in its congressional findings is interesting. The law is motivated by the concern with improper labeling of fur products that may encourage unregulated trade in dog/cat fur. Fine so far - the right of the people to know what they use and free market regulations. But the findings go on to state that the trade in dog/cat fur is "gruesome" and that their fur is "ethically and aesthetically abhorrent to United States citizens". This sense of selective righteousness galls me. Are the beastly killing of seals in Canada or the fox hunting in the UK not gruesome? Is the shacking of calves in minuscule cages to completely restrict their movement for a "delicacy" called veal not gruesome? Is feeding of their fellow animals to cattle, engendering mad cow disease, not barbaric? Are people in the US have such a limited sense of righteousness that they find dogs/cats dearer than other animals?

Are dogs and cats more "personal" because they are common pets? I don't buy that. I have grown up with dogs all my life. I've had a lab, 2 dobermans, and 4 dachshunds, and for several years, a dozen stray cats had called our place home. While I can definitely say I'm more attached to "my" pet than other animals, I would not say that I prefer killing a rabbit or a seal instead of a dog. Killing without a over-powering need is just not right!

I was a vegetarian by religion and evolved into a vegetarian by choice. It was driven by a belief in the philosophy of ahimsa, literally, to "not hurt" in sanskrit. What loosely translates to being vegetarian in the practiced Hindu religion has more stronger meanings philosophically. It even includes non-violence as practiced by mahatma Gandhi; ergo his choice of civil disobedience. There are several studies that show a vegetarian diet to be healthier than one that includes meat and the energy transfer in the food chain makes consuming plants the most efficient. These lead to my abhorrence for leather, silk, meat, eggs, among others. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, wrote an eye-opening piece in NYT titled, An Animal's Place.

But two things have troubled me. Isn't milk against the tenets of ahimsa as is having pets? In the former case, dont' I deny the calf what is rightfully its mother's milk? How well are the milch cows treated in the process of milk "production"? It seems hippocratical that I am derisive of those who cannot give up meat but I myself continue to drink "animal" milk because I have been drinking it all my life. Indeed, milk products are my primary source of protein, in the raw form, as yogurt, buttermilk, and cheese, but alternatives exist for at least one of them - soy milk. Is it not easy for me to be vegetarian since I grew up one but find it hard to be vegan since I grew up drinking milk? Is this not the case with an average, meat-eating American too when it comes to being vegetarian? As to pets, is it fair to breed animals just for the pleasure having them as pets, cooped up in out homes, away from their natural environments? There is the easy excuse that the pets are treated humanely, frequently as part of the family or better. But is that right? Do we give them a choice? Would this question even arise if they had not been bred for sale? Is it fair to effectively make a domesticated specie such as dogs or cattle extinct in the name of ahimsa, for if dogs were not pets and cattle not for their milk or meat, they would not exist in the wild. Who rolls the dice on this?

To end on a light note, I'm a big fan on southpark and this discussion takes me to the "Fun with Veal" episode. As always, Stone and Parker play both sides of the story by showing the horrors of veal and comparing vegetarians to you-know-what in their colorful style.

In People I Trust!

To be more precise, I bank my trust on the power of people's protest. Yesterday, I was part of a group that was protesting Dow's presence at at a career fair at our school. Dow Chemical owns Union Carbide, that was responsible for the worst industrial disaster ever, 22 years back in Bhopal, India. After 25,000 deaths, 100's of thousands continue to suffer due to polluted ground water and lack of medical attention. Both Dow and the Indian government are to blame. To ascertain moral and ethical responsibility is easy. But the road to get the perpetrators to act is fraught with hardship. Here is where the power of protest is effective. However, a large dose of patience is recommended.
Growing up in India where strikes and hartals are common, I was taught to associate protests with lazy bums unwilling to do their job and always wanting more. This attitude was engendered from a comfortable and carefree life. This was the very same attitude that many Indians had to Gandhiji's freedom movement where he put civil disobedience to use, and the same people who welcomed Indira's emergency rule—India's brief affair as a dictatorship. In spite of this indifference, protests have worked and continue to do so. I see two things that can remedy this and get more people actively involved: awareness and the comfort zone.
While one of the ideals of any protest is to raise awareness on the issue, it is hard to gather the masses unless they know about the issue and care enough—an obvious boot-strapping problem. Once a degree of awareness has been raised and apathy overcome among a critical mass, the protest can begin.
Rabble rouser or the svelte diplomat? This was a debate we had at the 11th hour of our protest. Each person has a comfort zone for protesting and pushing them beyond this gives diminishing returns. A protester lacking conviction to their form of protest is like a deflated balloon. A friendly accosting of a stranger to talk about the issue can be as effective as a heated debate or wild shouting or something more adventurous. Such options make the protest more broad-based and credible.
In all, we had a satisfying time being out in the cold, talking to our peers about the "reckless negligence" and "diabolic disregard" that Dow continues to have towards human life and safety, and getting over 100 pledges from students not to work for dirty Dow. Getting under the skin of the Dow reps was the cherry on the cake! IDS and Herald-Times had good coverage of the event and the sunny day helped with nice visuals.
In closing, Carl Sandburg's poem, I am the People, the Mob, which I read at school, never ceases to inspire me. "When I, the People, learn to remember ... use the lessons of yesterday and no longer forget who robbed me last year ... then there will be no speaker in all the world say the name: 'The People,' with any fleck of a sneer in his voice or any far-off smile of derision." The mob—the crowd—the mass—has arrived!

Do you have an opinion? Think...and speak up!

"Is it really necessary to have an opinion in every issue?" Thus spake my friend when commenting on the "World's Shortest Political Quiz" I'd sent her. "Well, yes!" was my answer to her and I associated people without opinions to ones leading desultory lives. But her next question, "how committed are we to the view that we take?" got me thinking. Do we just have opinions to seem intelligent, regurgitating what we read in daily op-eds or hear at talks, or do we really spend time analyzing those statements and forming our own opinion (which may end up being the same as what we heard)? Are opinions formed without sufficient thought just voices clamoring for attention? Is it better not to have an opinion at all rather than parroting someone else's?
My guess would be that mimicking other's opinions may be the first step in learning to form an opinion. It at least gives you the chance to think about an issue. Sort of like doing a literature survey on a research topic. You survey may be largely based on other people's works, but you do spend some time learning about the other systems, analyzing them, and maybe critiquing them. But reading the literature is the first step. So to form an opinion, there is the assumption that some thought has gone into the proccess and the more thought that has gone in, the more informed the opinion is bound to be.
For all the claims of demoratizing reporting and voicing public opinion, blogs to me seemed like just another fad for people desperate to show they lead interesting lives. A Bridget Jones' Diary on every desktop. But of late, I'd begun to subscribe to a few blogs that were interesting and I would not have had the chance to gather information there through my usual news haunts. Which got me thinking again; are blogs the new way of disseminating information, moving from a Push style to a Pull style (a la pub-sub systems)? I've had the habit of forwarding articles I find interesting to a circle of friends. I sometimes wonder if they found it useful or irritating. Are blogs the politically correct way of sharing information in this age? Giving people the chance to either look at it or ignore it, without being afraid of stepping on toes? And maybe, just maybe, someone out there in the vast www may find the same articles I forward of interest to them too. And this blog is a naturally corollary of that train of thought.
Which brings me to an interesting post I saw in a NYT op-ed by William Saffire on how the 'Net is changing the mores of society "A change of address: The demise of 'dear'".

Enjoy!