Protest Music

Why we got rapper Sofia Ashraf to make a video about Hindustan Unilever's Kodaikanal plant

An activist explains the background of the long agitation against the giant firm's controversial thermometer plant in Kodaikanal.

The spotlight on Hindustan Unilever's mercury legacy in Kodaikanal by Sofia Ashraf's viral rap video has prompted the company to do something it hasn't done in years. It has spoken to the media, and even put up a note on its website clarifying their stand about its thermometer factory. The debatable claims of the note aside, the fact that Unilever chose to break its silence is refreshing.



The virality of social media can be overwhelming, particularly for its producers. As one of the activists who helped produce the music video, I am under no illusion that a million views is a million people better informed. Many viewers are sure to have left with little more than “Unilever! Clean up your mess” ringing between their ears. Then there are others that are genuinely disturbed, want to help, to know more about the company's response, the government's response and activists' responses to those responses.

Now, as the wave subsides, there is space for sober recounting of what actually ails Kodaikanal and the veracity of Hindustan Unilever's online responses.

Early history

Mercury belongs to a category of toxins that are persistent in the environment. It can cross the placental barrier protecting the fetus from the mother's hand-me-down poisons, travel long distances on atmospheric currents and could build up to lethal levels as they travel up the food chain through processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification.

In the 1970s, US-Canadian efforts to clamp down such pollutants included eliminating their sources.

The thermometer factory in Kodaikanal originally operated in Watertown, New York, on the banks of the Black River. Until recently, the Black River continued to receive high mercury loading rates, according to a 2009 study of Lake Ontario's watershed in New York by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The report also mentions that broken thermometers were found on the banks of the Black River in Watertown.

In the early 1980s, this factory was shut down in New York and moved to the hill town of Kodaikanal.

The factory was allowed to be set up on the southern slope of a ridge draining into the River Vaigai – one of Tamil Nadu's major rivers. The site was ecologically and geographically contiguous with the Pambar Shola forests. Sholas are highly biodiverse sub-montane tropical evergreen areas, which along with the grassland complexes, are a keystone ecosystem for regional hydrologies.

The exposé

In March 2001, Kodaikanal-based Palni Hills Conservation Council and a quickly pulled together Tamilnadu Alliance Against Mercury invited other organisations, including Greenpeace, to speak about to Hindustan Unilever's actions in Kodaikanal. A prior investigation had established that the company had dumped empty mercury bottles in the woods behind its factory, and sold 7.5 tonnes of mercury wastes to a local scrap merchant.

On March 23, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, led by its dynamic chairperson Sheela Rani Chunkath, ordered closure of the factory for having violated the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Within weeks, she had set up a committee,  including members from ex-workers and local residents, to bring in public participation in the process of remediation.

In June 2001, the pollution control board and the committee ensured that Hindustan Unilever removed the wastes from the scrapyard to the factory. To this, more wastes were added. “In the days immediately after the factory was shut down, we were deployed to collect mercury from the drains and repaint the factory walls,” recalled an ex-worker named KP Murugaiah. “The plastering, the soil beneath the drains. . .they were all soaked with mercury. We dug up certain spots in the factory grounds where broken thermometers and wastes had been buried in the past.”

In 2003, again pushed by Chunkath, 289 tonnes of mercury wastes were exported to the US.

The committee took issue with the clean-up standard proposed by the company. In 2001, Unilever said it would clean the soil to a Dutch residential value of 10 mg/kg. Committee members wanted a more stringent standard because the contaminated area was part of and drained into the Pambar Shola watershed. But, Chunkath was transferred, and the committee was never convened again.

NEERI report

In 2007, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute – which was engaged by Unilever – submitted a report that argued that 10 mg/kg was unreasonably stringent. It recommended that clean-up be downgraded to 25 mg/kg.

The report's conclusion is telling:
“. . .techno-commercial aspects are also to be considered. . .The benefits likely to accrue out of stricter norms are to be compared against the additional cost [to Unilever] that may be incurred while undertaking such projects.”

The proposed standard is 25 times laxer than the standard in the United Kingdom where Unilever is headquartered.

Worker troubles

The environment had Chunkath to care for it, at least until 2005. The workers had no champion. It was only in 2001, that workers first became aware that mercury was a poison.

“We used to play with mercury,” said an ex-worker named T Kaviraj. “There would be puddles of mercury on the floor; we'd kick that and watch it scatter into tiny beads. Because it was noisy in the distillation room, whenever I wanted to call my colleague, I'd scoop up some mercury and fling it on him.”

The workers took their case to the Madras High Court in 2006. In court and on its website, Unilever has denied that workers were exposed to mercury or are suffering from related effects. The website highlights a Madras High Court committee report supporting its claims, but is silent about a 2011 Government of India report also submitted to the High Court that doesn't. That report found that Unilever had violated occupational safety norms, that workers were exposed to mercury, and many workers had been affected. The Committee recommended compensation. But the High Court has not heard the matter since February 2013.

Unilever's behaviour in Kodaikanal goes against its professed adherence to high standards of social responsibility. Unilever spends a portion of its annual Rs. 48,000 crore advertising budget in marketing itself as an environmentally responsible and caring company. What then stops the $58 billion company from addressing worker liabilities that are not likely to exceed Rs 1,000 crores?

***

In the note on its website, Unilever has denied these accusations. It says:
"Hindustan Unilever Limited did not dump glass waste contaminated with mercury on land behind its factory. Scrap glass containing mercury had been sold to a scrap dealer about three kilometres away from the factory, in breach of our guidelines. HUL immediately closed the factory and launched an investigation.

There were no adverse impacts on the health of employees or the environment. This has been confirmed by many independent studies. There was limited impact on the soil at some spots within the factory premises which required remediation.

With the necessary permits from the US and Indian governments, the recovered glass scrap was sent to the US for recycling in 2003. In 2006 the plant and machinery and materials used in thermometer manufacturing at the site were decontaminated and disposed of as scrap to industrial recyclers.

After extensive assessment and testing, final permission for remediation of the soil was granted in July 2008 by the statutory authority, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Preremediation work was started in 2009 at the site. However, in 2010, the TNPCB decided to revalidate the soil clean-up standard in response to NGO requests. Soil remediation work will commence at the factory site once the final decision is taken on the soil clean-up standard and consent is given by the TNPCB."

Nityanand Jayaraman is part of the Justice Rocks Initiative that produced the Kodaikanal Won't rap video, and has been involved in the campaign to make Unilever clean up and compensate since 2001.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.