04 March 2009, An Appeal
Readers of this mail are requested to respond to Shashi Tharoor at
tharoor.assistant@ gmail.com with a copy to the Plachimada Adivasi
Samrakshana Sangham/Plachimada Struggle Solidarity Committee at
neerajam2004@ yahoo.com0
An Open Reply to Shashi Tharoor
Dear Sashi Thaoor
Our ‘open letter[1]’ of 14 February mailed to you on 24 February was neither to elicit an answer from you nor to score political points but to “condemn your insensitivity and unconcern to align with the criminal Coca-Cola against the people of Kerala” as clearly stated by us in that letter.
Thanks for your reply of 26 February which we found in www.huffingtonpost. com[2] that indeed speaks volumes about whether you speak for Coca-Cola or not, though you ‘do not represent the company in any way’ but serve the Coca-Cola India Foundation. Unlike others in the Advisory Board of the Coca-Cola India Foundation, you hope to represent the people from the state of Kerala to the Lok
Sabha in the coming elections[3] and therefore accountable to ‘the people’. This makes all the difference from the rest of the members of the Advisory Board. The people of Plachimada too hail from your native district. Your reply out-rightly rubbishing the concerns of the people of Plachimada – primarily the Adivasis and Dalits – using selective and irrelevant arguments with imputed and contrived motives is indeed instructive enough.
The issues we raised are simple – the criminal liability of Coca-Cola in Plachimada. Here are some facts:
- Did the Divisional Bench of Kerala High Court pronounce that ‘the company was not guilty’? This is gross misrepresentation of the facts. What was the case all about? The operative part of the judgement of 4 April 2005 (not 7 August 2005 as you state) itself is self-evident of what the case was all about. This is in three parts.
(a) ‘the Panchayat was not justified in resorting to steps whereby renewal of licence for the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited was rejected well before a scientific assessment was made. The Panchayat had also no legal authority to cancel the licence for functioning the unit in the
Panchayat area for any of the reasons pointed out, at different occasions. The Panchayat is therefore directed to consider the application for renewal of the licence granted to the Company, for the coming year, or any block years, if such application is filed within two weeks from today. The Company will have the obligation to appraise the Panchayat that they possess licences issued under the Factories Act and clearance received from the Pollution Control Board. Within one week of such presentation, if the above two conditions are satisfied, the Licensing Authority of the Panchayat is directed to grant the licence …’
(b) ‘For the year 2005-06, taking notice of the average rainfall, that had been there in the locality, the Company will be entitled to draw groundwater, not exceeding 5 lakh of litres per day, without any right for accumulation in case of non-user per day.’
(c) ‘[…] There were no representations from any others, who posed to represent the general public Nevertheless, we feel that taking notice of the commitment to which reference and claim is made by the company, we have to direct that the company should actively involve in the community development programs for the people residing in the locality, especially in the matter of health and drinking water supply, at the supervision of the Panchayat. […] Since the early settlers and general public are apprehensive about the shortage of drinking water, this becomes an essential duty of the company. The factory is drawing water resources from the Plachimada watershed, and also perhaps from other regions of Chittur Taluk through suction.
Therefore, a reasonable amount of the water so drawn are to be utilised for benefit of general public, and as directed by the Panchayat from time to time. This work of water supply is to be undertaken, and commenced before 30th of June 2005. The restriction imposed for its own consumption will not be applicable when water is drawn for this additional requirement.
On Pollution:
Proven pollution by Coca-Cola and the consequent refusal of KPCB to issue license to operate is the cause of the closure of its plant at Plachimada.
The Judgement of the High Court of Kerala lifting the ban imposed on the Company in the matter of production was on 07.04.2005. With effect from 09.03.2004 to 07.04.2005 the Company was not under operation, and it resumed production on 8.8.2005 based on the issues ‘Consent to Operate’ Order no. W/09/137/2000 of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KPCB) with validity upto 31.12.2004. Coca-Cola submitted an application to KPCB on 20.09.2004 for renewing the ‘Consent to Operate’ with effect from 01.01.2005. This application was rejected by the KPCB vide its order 19.08.2005[4]
who stated unambiguously that “Since the functioning of the Company in the present manner causes severe environmental problems, including poisoning/contamina tion of well water, the undersigned, by invoking the powers conferred under Section 25(4), 27(2) and 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 refuses to issue the consent to operate and, by rejecting the defective application submitted by the Company to stop production of all kinds of products with immediate effect.” Amongst the reasons stated are:
- “Cadmium was found in concentration in the range 200 to 300 milligrams per kilogram in the sludge from your effluent treatment plant...much above the tolerance/ permissible limit for hazardous wastes which categorically establishes that cadmium bearing raw material/materials are used in the production process or effluent treatment. Shri.S.K.K Warrier, Area Human Resources Manager of the Company has unequivocally stated for the Company…to the Members of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee that …ground water is not at all contaminated and that it conforms to the standard of drinking water laid down by Bureau of Indian Standards; therefore the source of cadmium is some other raw material used by you; but your application does not contain the particulars of the source of cadmium and is therefore incomplete.”
- “[…] the Board had examined the sludge generated by the Company and it was found that it was containing the heavy metal cadmium at concentration of 200 to 300 mg per kg of sludge, which is 400 to 600% above the tolerance/permissib le limit. The sludge of the Company is still in existence and the same contains the above mentioned concentration of cadmium….the Company at no juncture informed the Board about the use of cadmium or its compounds in any nature/form during the course of production of its different products.”
- “[…] that the Board had conducted necessary studies in the areas in the vicinity of the Company and found the water of the well of Shri. Manikkam Chettiar and the water of the Common well of the Panchayat were contaminated by the seepage or spread of cadmium from the Company. In the meanwhile the Monitoring Committee…appointed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India …noticed that due to the operation of the Company severe pollution was caused to the drinking water source...Hence specific instructions were issued to the local people not to consume the well water. Necessary instructions were issued to the Board to issue proper direction to the Company to provide drinking water facility to the local people who are affected due to the operation of the Company and further to direct the Company not to discharge effluent of any nature, unless the effluent is subjected to
further treatment by using the advanced technology popularly known as Reverse Osmosis System. On the basis of the above directions issued by the SCMC, the Board”…ordered…”the Company to provide water supply to the people and to install Reverse Osmosis System or any alternate water purification system…the Company did not respond…the Board” directed “the Company to implement the directions of the SCMC. Though the Company had submitted its letter dated 22.04.2005 stating that it would provide water supply to the local community, no effective action was taken by the Company and no consent of the Board was sought so far to establish the reverse osmosis system or any other effective system for the better treatment and purification of the effluent treatment plant.
- “[…] the Board” pointed “out the deficiencies detected in the Company’s application dated 20.09.2004 for renewing the Consent to Operate and further” directed “the Company to disclose the source of cadmium detected in the sludge as well as in the water of nearly wells. The Company responded to the letter dated 07.05.2005 of the Board by the reply letter dated 19.05.2005 justifying the application for renewal of consent as if the same were free from defects and claiming that the Company was enjoying deemed consent….The opportunity provided by the Board to the Company to rectify the defects in the application was unavailed by the Company.”
On Depletion
The High Court through its Divisional Bench Judgement of 4 April 2005 actually imposed restriction on Coca-Cola to consume only up to 500,000 litres per day when the rainfall is normal, and lesser otherwise, with a total ban if the rainfall was 30 percent of the average rainfall. This was based on the findings and recommendations of High Court appointed Investigation Team constituted vide Order WA/2125/2003 of 19.12.2003. The production permit issued by KPCB to Coca-Cola for its Plachimada plant was for the production on 561,000 liters of soft drinks per day which is estimated to require 21 lakh liters per day. Coca-Cola was restricted to extract just 25% by the High Court ruling, and that too if the rainfall is average or more.
Further, the reported continued drying up of ground water in Plachimada despite (a) the Coca-Cola plant closure since 2004, (b) claims of recharge of ground water by Coca-Cola including rainwater harvesting and (c) rains in subsequent years whatever they may be, can then only point out to one thing - the poor recharge capacity of the aquifer which has been drained out of its accumulated water over centuries.
Who Benefits?
There is an estimated 3,870 in 8448 households[5] who are the most affected in just 2 wards in an area of 60.79 sq kms who form the main backbone of Pladhimada struggle according to a study by the reputed Centre for development Studies of Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. This study reports for instance, 94 % experienced water shortage for drinking and other household uses, 51 percent report reduction in quality of available water, “almost all the households there have reported that the water in their dug wells got polluted ever since the
year 2000” and “of the 33 drinking water dug-wells, water in 31 wells have become non-potable since the year 2000” (pg.51). The worst affected are the agricultural labour households and farming households (pg. 67).
79.4 % of the agricultural households reduced water consumption and 10.5 percent migrated to other places for work. In the case of farming households 72.1 percent reduced water consumption, 25.7 percent deepened wells, 10.6 percent dug new bore
wells and 22 percent resorted to organized action for water supply amongst others. The coping and mitigation and livelihood strategies adopted by the people include labour migration, increased loans, changes in crops, augmenting water through government initiatives such as supply of potable water in tanker lorries, assistance under drought relief, temporary ban on water extraction by Coca Cola, inter governmental discussion between the Kerala and Tamilnadu government on Parambikulam- Aliyar Project, Nellimedu Drinkuing Water Scheme, and selection of Plachimada under jalanidhi programme for supply of safe drinking water.
Your claims of the loss of ‘direct employment to 400 people and indirect employment to more than 5000 persons’ due to the closure of Plachimada plant,’ that ‘no one has benefited from’ our ‘continued protests,’ that ‘politics overrides the genuine needs of the people’ and Kerala has been deprived by the closure of Coca-Cola plant should be seen in the above light. A costing of the negative fall outs directly attributable to the Coca-Cola plant, some of which are listed out briefly, will also bring to light whether Kerala had a net gain or loss from the Plachimada plant with reference to ‘development and growth’.
Further, the Kerala State government is considering the appointment of an expert committee to assess the environment damage caused by Coca Cola Plachimada plant as recommended by the Kerala Ground Water Authority for purpose of computing compensation liability of Coca-Cola[6]
Will you now be able to apply your mind whether we were “questioning the Kerala High Court's conclusions”, what “the scientific basis for” our “continued charges against the company” and your studied conclusion “that they are politically- motivated”and whether the struggle of the people are for ‘the well-being of the people of Plachimada’ ? And you “with a heavy heart”..“deplore both the content and tone” of our letter?
Let our people decide what is good for them.
Velur Swaminathan, Secetary, Plachimada Adivasi Samrakshana Sangham
And
R. Ajayan, Convenor, Plachimada Samara Aikyadhardya Samithy
Mailed to Shashi Tharoor at tharoor.assistant@ gmail.com
R.Ajayan
Convener
Plachimada Solidarity Committee
Ph:- Res 0471-2730464
Mob- 09847142513
Res Add - Neerajam,
Kudappanakunnu,
Trivandrum-695043
Kerala, India |
