The Road from Bhopal: Charting a Remedy Blueprint 40 Years Later

December 3, 2024
Abandoned gas plant in Bhopal

The dilapidated premises of the infamous plant where the Bhopal Gas Tragedy took place 40 years ago,

Bhopal Medical Appeal

By Vidhi Mago

On the night of December 4, 1984, 27 tonnes of deadly methyl isocyanate gas escaped from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, infiltrating the lungs of the city’s most vulnerable residents leaving only destruction in its trail. Thousands perished overnight, and half a million people were left with life-altering injuries. 

Four decades later, as rights holders still seek remedy, the tragedy remains one of the world’s worst corporate accountability lapses – a disaster that occurred long before the formal cataloguing of corporations’ responsibility towards people and the planet. 

The consequences of the disaster persist: Bhopal’s groundwater remains contaminated with chemicals that impair fetal development, cause cancer, and lead to brain damage. The toxic waste was never safely disposed of, and the abandoned plant site, decaying and laden with the weight of the past, has become an unwitting playground for children unaware of its deadly legacy. 

It was against this backdrop that I found myself just weeks into my role at the United Nations Development Programme, part of the organizing team of the UN Responsible Business and Human Rights (UNRBHR) Forum, Asia-Pacific’s largest gathering focused on business and human rights.

Among the many powerful voices at the forum, one conversation with Indira Jaising, renowned human rights lawyer and activist who has tirelessly advocated for Bhopal’s victims and survivors, particularly resonated. “It’s the memorialization and vigilance that is required to ensure enforceability of the systems we have put in place to protect human beings” that forms the key takeaway from the tragedy, she said. 

The Complexity of Responsibility

The question of responsibility for Bhopal is complex. It requires examining the delicate balancing act between the aspirations of a young democracy’s development goals with the right of every human to a life with dignity and justice. 

In its push for food security, India was transitioning from traditional farming to modern agricultural practices, with pesticides – like those manufactured at the plant in Bhopal – playing a crucial role. American chemical manufacturer Union Carbide Corporation established the Bhopal plant through an Indian subsidiary – UCIL, maintaining 50.9% ownership stake and substantial control over the plant’s licensing, engineering, construction, and the security manuals – a structure that later allowed it to distance itself from the disaster’s consequences.

The plant's establishment was marked by fatal oversights from the outset. Built in the heart of the city - barely a kilometer from the railway station and major hospitals - it ignored regulations requiring a 25-kilometer urban buffer zone. The handling of methyl isocyanate (MIC) proved especially negligent: while U.S. facilities stored MIC only briefly, Bhopal maintained three massive containers routinely exceeding safety limits. On the fateful night, one tank sat at 87% capacity - unrefrigerated and well above the safety threshold. Compounding these risks, cost-cutting had replaced skilled operators with undertrained staff, while the lack of automated emergency systems left residents unaware of the danger in their midst.

The aftermath brought what Indira Jaising calls Bhopal’s "second disaster." The actions following the explosion shielded the CEO of the Indian subsidiary from criminal liability and ultimately led to a settlement where Union Carbide paid a meagre $470 million – a pittance compared to the profound human suffering. In exchange, criminal charges against the company were dropped, and justice for victims remains elusive to this day. The corporate shell game, culminating in Dow Chemical’s acquisition of Union Carbide, exemplifies how companies leverage mergers and legal structures to evade responsibility for past wrongs. As Indira Jaising put it, “it was just a sale of shares. That’s all it took to avoid responsibility – sell your shareholdings and walk out.“

"The tools for corporate accountability are stronger than ever. We owe it to Bhopal's victims, their families, and future generations to use them effectively."

Tools for Change

I can’t help but wonder: could stronger international safeguards have altered the course of history? Today’s business and human rights landscape offers tools that didn’t exist 40 years ago. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) provide a framework for corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the State duty to protect human rights, and access to remedies for victims of business-related abuses. While the UNGPs recommend voluntary human rights due diligence, their limitations have sparked a global push for mandatory measures. This evolution toward legally binding human rights due diligence requirements, already enacted in several countries and under consideration in many more, creates new possibilities for holding corporations accountable. These developments, combined with the UNGPs framework, open fresh avenues for justice for Bhopal’s victims. 

One promising solution discussed at the UNRBHR Forum involves leveraging the Pact for the Future and Declaration on Future Generations as catalysts for remediation. These frameworks acknowledge future generations’ rights to a healthy environment, potentially creating new pathways to hold corporations accountable across ownership changes. In cases like Bhopal, where businesses evade responsibility by exploiting regulatory gaps and their economic leverage, legal principles such as ‘piercing the corporate veil’ become crucial. This legal concept allows courts, in certain circumstances, to look past corporate structures to hold shareholders and parent companies responsible for corporate actions. While Dow Chemical maintains it bears not liability as Union Carbide’s successor, evolving standards for business responsibility and human rights provide fresh perspectives for stakeholders seeking remediation. With these developments, combined with growing international recognition of corporate responsibility for environmental harm, stakeholders in India are better positioned now than ever to return to the negotiating table to demand meaningful remediation. 

Beyond Memory

This is not just the history of Bhopal. The tragedy that took place 40 years ago is a living reminder that frameworks and checklists mean little without genuine accountability – a challenge that persists even in today’s increasingly sophisticated regulatory landscape. As businesses increasingly embrace the language of human rights, we must ensure this translates into concrete action. This involves both proactive and reactive approaches to remediation. This journey requires multi-stakeholder collaboration, continuous monitoring, and robust systems for accountability. 

The tools for corporate accountability are stronger than ever. We owe it to Bhopal's victims, their families, and future generations to use them effectively. As important as the act of memorialization is, we must ensure that the legacy of Bhopal is not only measured by our memorials, but in our actions – in how we transform tragedy into tangible change. 

 

Vidhi Mago is an intern with the UNDP Business and Human Rights in Asia team.