Insufficient relief for Kerala's endosulfan victims
For seven-year-old Sandhya and her siblings, totally dependant on their mother who ekes out a living by making beedis, the state government's relief package, announced nearly 18 months ago, is simply not enough. Many more suffer the same fate. P N Venugopal reports.
Seven-year old Sandhya had the first glimpse of the world around her in the first week of 2008. Born blind due to the deadly fallout of the hazardous pesticide endosulfan, this innocent girl belonging to Swarga village of Kasargod district in Kerala had her vision restored after two surgeries and prolonged treatment. This was the initiative of the teachers of her school and under the auspices of the Endosulfan Victims Relief & Remediation Cell of the Kasargod District Panchayat. Sandhya’s paternal uncle had died of the ill effects of endosulfan and her two siblings too are the victims of.
Sandhya is just one of the many in Kasargod district who are the living victims of the aerial spraying of endosulfan in the cashew plantations of Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK) for over two decades, till 2001. Endosulfan is recognised as being unacceptably hazardous to human health and the environment. It has left a legacy of deformity and malfunctions in various communities world over. Its use is banned not only in many European countries, but even in India’s neigbouring Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, it took hundreds of deaths, dedicated effort of environmental/public health activists and two decades to force the Kerala government to stop the use of endosulfan.
But it was only in August 2006 that the Kerala Government owned up its responsibility and disbursed Rs.50,000 each to the kin of 135 victims who had died. The Chief Minister V S Achutanandan also announced a relief package of Rs.50 lakhs to take care of the treatment of the affected and their rehabilitation. “We are now preparing a list of those who died after June 2006,” says M V Balakrishnan Master, District Panchayat President, Kasargod. And there have been many deaths too. Eight-year old Jumaila, of Chengala died in July, Mani (65), a resident of Ukkinadukawho in September, Lakkanna Rai, 55, of Velloor Sabrakaje died in a Mangalore hospital in December, Sangamulya, 70, died in January this year.
Opinion about the relief is divided. Some feel that not enough is being done for the endosulfan-impaired living and the easier way of compensating the dead is being adopted. “By all means, list out all those who have died,” says Dr Y S Mohankumar of Padre, who was one of the first to trace the deaths due to mysterious ailments in the district to the spraying of endosulfan. “But please don’t wait till they die. Treat the living.”
But that is exactly what we are doing counters, Balakrishnan Master. He reels out numbers. “Out of the Rs.50 lakhs allotted by the government we have earmarked Rs 37.5 lakhs for treatment. In a medical camp, 153 victims who had ailments of ear, nose and throat were treated. 162 were treated in another medical camp for the vision impaired. 103 victims who lost vision fully or partially have been treated. Certain serious patients have been treated in hospitals outside the state. Several surgeries have been done.”
Master adds that in the case of victims who were immobile, doctors visited them at their residence and charted out their course of treatment. Rs.12.5 lakhs is kept aside for implements such as hearing aids and although not distributed as yet, it is reported that orders have been placed.
Sudheerkumar, the convener of the Anti-Endosulfan Committee more or less agrees with the contentions of the district panchayat president. “They have done quite a bit of work. Many of the victims do get treatment.” But he points out that in such a massive tragedy treatment alone is not enough. Rehabilitation and nursing care has not been given equal priority. Many of the affected families have been deprived of their breadwinner either by death or by deserting. Paid home-nurses could help take care of such children while the mothers can go for work and eke out a living.
Sandhya and her siblings are totally dependant on their mother who ekes out a living by making beedis. Their father had left them after the three were born with physical disorders. Then there is four-year- old Anjana of Periya village, who was born with her urinary bladder outside her body. Her mother has to be with her all the time and also make a living. Is it not the duty of the state, which has owned up the responsibility, to provide assistance to the mother at least by providing nursing care, asks Sudheer Kumar. “In fact, the state should adopt such children.”
Dr Mohan Kumar too points out the lack of schemes for rehabilitation. He cites the example of the two visually-challenged sons of Easwar of Padre village. No treatment or surgery can ever give them sight. The two kids should get necessary support for learning Braille, Mohankumar says. Providing means of livelihoods to those who can work has also not been taken up. The PCK should be asked to register all those who are suffering and facilities provided for organic farming in side the plantations argues Sudheer Kumar. But the residues of the dreaded chemical has to be removed beforehand and no such moves are in the offing.
Another disturbing factor is that only Rs.50 lakhs had been allocated in the last year’s state budget for the relief measures. Several cases filed by individuals seeking compensation are currently pending in courts. One was disposed off last year, where the judiciary merely asked the government to hasten the disbursal of the allocated amount and did not go into the merits of the claim or the quantum of compensation.
The district panchayat had earmarked another Rs.10 lakhs from its funds. The money is almost over. And there are about 2000 victims registered till date. Balakrishnan as well as M Madhavan Nambiar, the coordinator of the relief cell was extremely cautious when they mentioned the preparation of a second list of those who have died. “We’ve not made any commitment that the relatives of those in the list will be provided with compensation,” they say. Money is the crunch. The district panchayat is working on a website which will contain the details of the gruesome tragedy and will make appeals to the global community for assistance.
But do the victims have to depend on charity? Are not the perpetrators out in the open? “But so far we do not have concrete and scientific evidence that will stand in a court of law which will squarely implicate the PCK and the producers of endosulfan,” says Balakrishnan Master. “We have to prove that they are the culprits.” But Dr.Sreepadi Khajampadi another early activist, disagrees. “It’s for the accused to prove that they are not guilty, ” he says.
The activists seem to have more or less withdrawn from the scene and the local politicians appear to have taken over. There are allegations that politics is playing its own role in deciding whether one is a endosulfan victim or not. There are also cynical comments about attributing almost every other death to endosulfan. But those who allege this are unwilling to be quoted as even they think that if some one is going to be benefited - after all, they are all so poor - they shouldn’t be deprived of the compensation. (The Quest Features & Footage, Kochi)
Filed under
Cite this article
P N Venugopal (2008) ‘Insufficient relief for Kerala's endosulfan victims’, India Together, 11 February 2008. https://indiatogether.org/endosulf-relief/
7 reader responses
Add a response
Poornima · 21 July 2008
A real eye-opener on the unpleasant issue of horse-trading. Thanks. I wish Advani & NDA could have put Nation before Party and supported the deal.
Gaurav Singhal · 21 July 2008
It will be very difficult to draw the line between whether a vote or statement by a member of parliament was under the influence of money/any other valuable consideration. Suppose even if it is known that a political party (like JMM in current case) has voted for the government in exchange of ministerial berths, how would it be proved in the court with the Prime Minister having an absolute prejudice over whom to make a minister? And by the same logic it can be proved that many of the UPA non-congress cabinet ministers would not have voted for the govt. if they were not given the cabinet berth. Not would it be considered wrong, i.e. that they have voted in influence of exchange of valuable consideration? The concept for Article 105 emanated from British Parliament where parliamentarians were given absolute immunity to criticize even the king if they felt so for the public good. Although today that immunity has taken a bad form, it will be difficult to draw a clear line between the misuse and proper use of that immunity. Although a change in law can be made, I am not sure whether it will be effective.
Cupid · 21 July 2008
The author blindly endorses the NCRWC's recommendation and blames parliament for not acting on it without recognizing the fundamental problems inherent in the proposed solution. Firstly I will outline a brief critique of the commissions understanding (or lack thereof) of political corruption. The commission defined corruption as 'accepting money or any other valuable consideration to speak and/or vote in a particular manner. For such acts, they would be liable for action under the ordinary law of the land.' This would be an apt definition for bureaucratic or judicial corruption but could the same be applied without alteration to members of the legislature? MP/MLAs are not free agents but are bound to go by the 'wishes of the people' which in effect amounts to the cumulative influence of various interest groups upon the candidate. Accordingly, they have an obligation to solicit support from various quarters as part of their responsibility to their constituents. This support could come in various forms such as (a) Direct contribution such as active contribution as a campaign volunteer (b) Indirect contribution in kind as in providing vehicles for party rallies and for the campaign, providing material for banners/posters or (c) Contributions in cash which could be used for a variety of purposes. Candidates seek and do receive support in all three forms. In economic terms, time and effort are as valuable as money and there is absolutely no difference between providing assistance in one way as against another. Look at it this way. Suppose a particular MP fighting for labour causes votes introduces a bill in parliament that favours increased minimum wage and better benefits for labourers in exchange for the active support of union members not only in voting but also in campaigning for his/her re-election. Now suppose that there is another MP fighting for management interests who instead champions legislation that would reduce the minimum wage, decrease corporate tax and advance the interest of corporate management in exchange for their support. Managers being much smaller in number than labour, wealthier in individual terms and far busier, rather than contributing to the campaign in person, they find it sensible to instead provide the candidate with money that he/she can use to hire the people/infrastructure needed to run his/her campaign. In practice, what is the difference between the two? None at all - both candidates are fighting for perfectly legitimate goals and both receive support albeit in different forms. And neither cause is necessarily morally superior to the other: better wages and benefits may be beneficial to existing workers but comes at increased cost to operating businesses which in turn may translate into lower new investment and reduced opportunities for potential new workers; a pro-corporate measure may well mean all the opposite things. In sum, neither outcome could be said to be morally or ethically any more desirable than the other. Yet, according to this definition of corruption that the commission proposes, the first candidate would be termed honest and his approach to re-election completely acceptable but the second who has received 'money or other valuable consideration' would be termed corrupt and prosecuted. Could this be termed honest or fair by any measure? I think not. Money, inter alia, is the lubricant that keeps the wheels of democracy turning. The Court's decision to apply the Prevention of Corruption Act to MPs as well this blanket definition of corruption that the NCRWC would have parliament adopt are so flawed that they ignore this reality completely. It is naïve to think that money can be kept out of the system as Justice JP Stevens noted, 'Money, like water, will always find an outlet'. What is necessary is not a bar on receiving money per se but ethical regulations on how to receive it and what needs to be disclosed about it. Secondly, the commission would define the exception to Article 105 as follows: "Nothing in clauses (1), (2) or (3) shall bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament, in any court of law, for an offence involving receiving or accepting, whether directly or indirectly, and whether for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person in whom he is interested, any kind of monetary or other valuable consideration for voting in a particular manner or for not voting, as the case may be, in a House of Parliament." If an MP votes/speaks against a bill unexpectedly defying the government's desire, under the current system, he may incur the party's disfavoUr and either lose his ticket for re-election or worse, be expelled from its primary membership. However, if the amendment is incorporated, he/she can be threatened with even greater retaliation by the government an open-ended investigation into his and his family's assets potentially leading to charges against him/her in court (remember that due process is the punishment in India). Is it a good idea to add this additional penalty to the political parties' already overflowing armory of methods to discipline their members? Are MPs to be reduced to little more than robots who will no longer be allowed to defy the whip even at the expense of sacrificing their own hard-won seats? The basic grievance of the commission is that the Supreme Court, in P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) chose to follow the dissent in US v. Brewster (1972) rather than the majority opinion by Chief Justice Burger. Even in the latter case, the Chief Justice did not overrule US v. Johnson (1966) where the US Supreme Court held that any speech delivered on the floor of the House could not be used as evidence against the legislator in any trial, a very basic form of protection provided in virtually every democracy including ours (under Art. 105). The wording of this exception that the commission proposes would take even that away. Instead of parliamentary immunity, they would then be conferred the Miranda rights that criminal suspects get ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you"), a good way to silence parliamentary attack and criticism. In summary, it is a good thing that the commission's half-baked ideas have remained on paper. In any case, under the current political conditions where even the faintest whiff of money is sufficient to scandalize any politician and his/her party, it is quite unlikely that the routine wheeling and dealing will happen to come under the public scanner all that frequently. Amending Art. 105 is thus unlikely to serve any real purpose. Instead of wasting one's energies on this, it would be far more worthwhile to push for reforming the system of political financing that we currently have.
Kannan Kasturi · 21 July 2008
It is not my intention to endorse a specific solution, but merely to point out the legal hurdle that exists in prosecuting MPs on corruption charges even if sufficient grounds exist for the same. It is for the Government and the law makers to come up with a solution.The point is that 15 years after a major scandal affecting the image of MPs, it seems there has been no progress. Some clarifications are also in order. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution while recomending that Article 105 be amended (to clarify that immunity did not extend to corrupt acts) did not provide any specific wording for the same. The commission also wanted courts to take cognizance of an offence only with the prior sanction of the house speaker/chairman.
unni krishnan atiyodi · 24 July 2008
A democracy, committing suicide will have criminals to represent them. Many MPs have criminal backgrounds and some of them are already in jail. They got elected by muscle power and coercion. People fear to exercise their franchise freely. It seems good people cannot survive in our society. Nepotism, bribery, redtapism etc. have become the order of the day. MPs can be purchased with money. Politics should not be the occupation of anybody. A diary and a villainous appearance have become the mark of a politician. Without any capital, they get divident! Illiterate ruffians build palatial houses and travel in airconditioned costly cars. People are cowed down. First these people must have a job other than politics. Let them make a living by working. No MP or MLA should be given the salary other than allowances. Life long pension for them, declared by Indira Gandhi has proved to be dangerous. We must make them disciplined. Otherwise we are leading to anarchy. U.K.Atiyodi
unni krishnan atiyodi · 3 August 2008
Now that the Leftists are after Mayavathi, the chances of Indian politics dwindling further is certain. Scruples evade personal gains. Prakash Karat and his cohorts have done a great blunder by joining hands with BJP and Mayavathi. The Leftists could have stayed aloof from all these people so that they can maintain their integrity to scruples. Now they also have proved their preference to ascend to power by any means. Definitely there are people in India who think logically before voting. Don't try to take them for a ride.
Rathi Menon · 2 October 2008
I have not come across any organised protest against the meagre compensation given to endosulfan victims in a state where even suicide cases are given more compensation and every political party makes mountain out of moles for any issue. Keralites should feel ashamed of it.