ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
RECLAIMING A DIVIDED HERITAGE – BHOPAL AFTER UNION CARBIDE
Sub-theme 1: Heritage management
Author 1
Title:
Name:
Position:
Affiliation:
Contact Address:
Tel:
E-Mail:
Cultural Heritage without Borders
Sabbatsbergsvägen 6, Stockholm 11321, Sweden
+46 (0) 768808871
Fax:
diana.walters@chwb.org
Author 2
Title:
Name:
Position:
Affiliation:
Contact Address:
Tel:
E-Mail:
Dr
Bosse Lagerkvist
Senior Lecturer
Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg
P.O. Box 130, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
+46 (0)317864714
Fax:
+46 (0)317864703
bosse.lagerqvist@conservation.gu.se
Dr
Diana Walters
ABSTRACT (max. 200 words)
The decision to create a memorial on the site of the Union Carbide India Limited factory represents an
opportunity to mark one of the worst industrial accidents on record. The derelict site of the former
factory has acquired iconic status as a landmark in a thriving city and has come to represent many
things; shame, pain, embarrassment, anger, sorrow and ongoing demands for justice to name but a
few. Divisions and multiple narratives remain amongst the many and often divided stakeholders.
The process of heritage management offers an opportunity for participatory and inclusive practice in
the creation of a memorial / museum. This paper explores the case of Bhopal within the context of the
need for a broad interdisciplinary approach that embraces industrial heritage as a relevant force for
contemporary society and a contributor to the goals of active memorialization. The authors were both
participants in the modern Asian Architectural Network Workshop and Symposium in Bhopal in
January 2011 and are part of an international consortium of researchers supporting the architects
Space Matters who in 2005 won the governmentally initiated architectural competition for developing
the site.
KEYWORDS (3-5 words)
Industrial Heritage, memory, heritage practices, participation, stakeholders
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
Bhopal – the unclaimed legacy
‘Bhopal, capital of Madhya Pradesh, combines scenic beauty, historicity and modern
urban planning. (..) Bhopal today presents a multi-faceted profile; the old city with its
teeming marketplaces and fine old mosques and palaces, still bears the aristocratic
imprint of its former rulers, among them the succession of powerful Begums who ruled
Bhopal from 1819 to 1926. Equally impressive is the new city with its verdant,
exquisitely laid-out parks and gardens, broad avenues and streamlined modern
edifices’ (Leaflet Madhya Pradesh, no date)
It is difficult to know how many visitors to Bhopal leave with an impression of the city close to
the one beautifully crafted by the description in the tourism literature quoted above, but for significant
numbers of people there is one event for which the city will always be associated. No amount of
airbrushing or slick marketing can eradicate the memory of the events of the night in December 1984
when poisonous gas leaked from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) factory killing many and
blinding and maiming thousands more. The legacy of that night is not just that a new name was added
to an infamous list; Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Exxon Valdez and of course now Fukushima, but that the
human and environmental cost of the disaster is still being counted whilst governments and lawyers
spend millions in litigation and counter litigation. Bhopal is the site of the largest industrial accident on
record. How is it that an event on such a huge scale can still be unresolved over a generation later?
The site and the scars of that night remain clearly visible in the tangible and intangible heritage of the
city; memories and stories are testament to an ongoing human and environmental narrative that has
created a whole heritage seemingly absent from the official face of modern Bhopal.
In fact it is possible to visit Bhopal and not be aware of ‘the Gas Tragedy’. The physical
evidence is confined to the now derelict site, situated in the northern part of the city, which has grown
substantially since the establishment of the factory in 1969. As it was then, the UCIL factory site is in
one of the poorest areas, home to many thousands of predominantly Muslim families in a city run by a
majority Hindu administration. The area is busy and noisy, with a main road, housing, shops, small
businesses, schools and all attributes of thriving community life. To the north lies the main intercity
railway. The site is closed and patrolled by security guards. A stone wall, covered in graffiti and
slogans, separates the former factory from the hustle and bustle of daily life. Yet despite that, the
boundary fence to the rear is breached in several places and local families graze animals inside the
closed area, forage food and children use the space for games of cricket and other recreational
activity. The site is silent, except for the few birds and the distant hum of the constant traffic and car
horns. It is an eerie space, seemingly frozen in time. Gaining access to the site is actively
discouraged and involves a tedious bureaucratic procedure. Entering the site is like crossing into a
parallel universe; here two worlds exist side by side and the portal is a ruined entrance to a factory
that once signified a glorious revolution of opportunity and wealth for the very people over whom it
now casts its shadow.
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
The events of December 2 1984 are well documented (see, for example, Chouhan 1994,
Eckerman 2005, Dhara & Dhara 2002, Varma & Varma 2005) and various and conflicting accounts
exist of what happened and why. The debate is ongoing, both in popular narratives and in the lack of
an official account. Unresolved and protracted litigation between the Indian Government and Dow
Chemicals (the current owners of Union Carbide) about responsibility have cost millions and to date
reached no agreement. The paralysis about who was responsible and who should pay has meant that
the site has never been cleaned or made safe and that contamination continues, possibly affecting the
water used by thousands daily. Higher than usual rates of genetic defects in children are recorded
locally as well as instances of visual impairment, a known side effect of methyl isocyanate (MIC), the
main gas in the deadly cocktail released that night. This substance is the principal ingredient in the
production of the pesticide Sevin that was to form the basis of the so called ‘green revolution’ in India,
bringing wealth and prosperity to millions and creating jobs and security, and which overnight became
its deadliest enemy.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Illustration of the growth of population colonies surrounding the factory site, in 1969 and in 2011.
Bhopal is carrying with it the multiple narratives of many voices. The questions raised by the site
and the events associated with it go to the very heart of what disputed heritage means and also the
potential of intervention. The site represents both a past and a future, and many of the current issues
are around who can and should begin to answer these questions, and in so doing, what approach they
should take.
The situation today
Several investigations concerning the contamination of the UCIL site have been carried out, but
the presented results are often contested by different stakeholders. Three of the latest reports on the
contamination situation have been presented by the National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI 2010), by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT 2010) and by the National
Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI 2010). Peer reviews regarding these reports (2010) as well as
a critique of the NEERI and NGRI reports by Bhopal survivors’ organisations are also available (Gray
et al 2010). Reported polluting compounds include a wide spectrum of pollutants such as naphthol,
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residues, mercury, toxic organochlorines, volatile organochlorine
compounds, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene, and the
pesticide HCH. These pollutants are not due to casual effects of the gas leak, but are the
consequence of the production period of the factory from 1969 to the end of 1984 that resulted in
contamination in built structures, soil and ground water, and which pose an ongoing threat to the
environment and local population.
A remediation plan urgently needs to be drawn up outlining the most effective and expedient
method of addressing the environmental contamination on-site to render the site safe for reuse, by
using a risk-based assessment that tailors remedial action to planned end use. The most severe areas
of contamination are within the site in its southern part, southeast corner and northwest part, and the
exterior evaporation ponds north of the site (all due to their former function as dump zones). For these
areas on-site remediation of soil through a mobile directly-heated thermal desorption process would
be needed. This implies that soil does not have to be transported out from the site, but that the
process in full could be managed on-site.
Ecologically sustainable on-site methods of remediation could be used on large areas of the
site, including phyto- and/or bioremediation and the use of a spectrum of integrated remediation
approaches. Except for the most severely contaminated parts, the remaining land of the site could be
treated through phytoremediation using plants to remediate, contain or render environmental
contaminants harmless (Cunningham & Berti 1993, Salt et al. 1998). This minimizes physical
infringements at the site, which is an advantage both for remediation as such but also decreases costs
and makes the method well suited to combine with measures of landscape architecture, which can be
participatory and involve local communities. Examples of participatory processes might be planting
and harvesting, and in much later stages after successful remediation the possibilities for gardening
and park management could be community based and / or income generating activities.
Space Matters and designing of memory
In 2005 the New Delhi based architectural firm Space Matters won the Indian Government’s
national competition for designing a memorial for the victims. Six years later the design is still on the
drawing board as work cannot begin until issues around safety and decontamination are resolved. In
fact it was only in the spring of 2011 that the government decided not to simply demolish the buildings
and bulldoze the site; something that would have obliterated the physical evidence of the tragedy and
gone against the express wishes of many of the groups representing the victims and those seeking
compensation and justice. This changing approach towards the site could represent the tension that
Misztal describes as the duty to remember and the duty to forget (Misztal 2003). This basic dilemma
has become heightened by the several layers of opposing interests that the intervening years have
created, and a massive legacy of anger.
In their proposal Space Matters (2005) works with three layers of time where each layer
addresses a principal theme: the past – memory, the present – healing, and the future – deterrence.
Each theme is elaborated as a node for a number of different functions possibly housed in existing
buildings and structures, but also recognizing the need to add new structures to the site, as well as
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
integrating the site with the surrounding urban fabric. Their proposal is therefore not just a memorial
plan but also an ambition to address the needs of the local community, such as vocational centres,
community centres, laboratories, bazaars, greens, auditoriums, etc., thereby transforming the site to a
true urban resource for the development of the city of Bhopal. Central to Space Matters’ revitalization
proposal for the site is the preservation of what remains of the UCIL factory and its recognition as part
of India’s industrial heritage. This means that the industrial ruins need to be treated as historic (and in
this case legal) evidence of a crucial chapter in India’s modern history. The factory structures, reduced
to almost half their original size, would be preserved amidst a public space that comprises facilities for
education, interpretation, documentation and continuing research on related issues. This would be
undertaken once the structures were decontaminated in-site and the ground made safe for public
access; a process that itself could take several years. Bhopal is renowned for its parks and the
possibility to develop large parts of the UCIL site to public green areas through phytoremediation
measures that involves the local communities could be seen as an attractive option. It might however
also be a problem; as since 1984 the growing demand from many groups in Bhopal has been that
Union Carbide, later Dow chemicals themselves should decontaminate the site and its surroundings.
The process of remediation will therefore be an important and sensitive part of involving and engaging
different stakeholders.
A successful development of the commercial and societal values of the UCIL site has the
potential to increase the quality of life for the surrounding neighbourhood and for Bhopal in general. It
might also add to increased property values and enhance local environmental qualities. Through a
remediation and rehabilitation project, broader societal challenges of improved energy efficiency,
reduced consumption of natural resources, cleaner air, water and land and an overall reduced carbon
footprint could be addressed. These are ambitious and long term, but possible if the heritage process
itself is managed as a force for bringing together the bitterly divided stakeholders and communities.
Fig. 3. The MIC plant
Fig. 4. The Sevin plant
Structures considered to be preserved due to their historical and symbolic significance.
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
The proposal from Space Matters is built upon the complexities of a contested heritage, yet with
the central belief that any memorialization process represents an opportunity for reconciliation.
‘The conflict that ‘Bhopal’ embodies presents an opportunity to generate templates and
approaches with which various conflicts and challenges of the site can be negotiated.
This can contribute to our greater understanding of issues relating to sites with
marginalized and conflicting historical narratives. Conflicts in the contemporary past
play an active role promoting a problem-orientated critique of practices in play when
utilizing revitalization, re-adaptation and remembering makes critical and inclusive
perspectives possible, where memory processes and social structuring processes are
also given the possibility to participate in creative collaboration.’ (Bhopal 2011:2)
The actions of this young company since they received the award have shown that these are
not empty words. They have invested personally in a concerted effort to build international support and
interest and to engage the multiple stakeholders in an often politically fraught environment and also to
use the shell of the ruined site as a learning opportunity for the modern Asian Architectural Network by
organizing a highly successful conference and symposium in Bhopal in January 2011. The impact of
this remains to be seen, but there is now an international research group actively seeking funding to
assist the process of creating a memorial.
Industrial heritage and heritage processes
The act of heritage making encompasses choices of social and political importance. Ashworth,
Graham & Tunbridge (2007:2), amongst others, has emphasized the intrinsic politics of heritage in the
way that it is used to shape the ways that people represent themselves, and thus ‘conflicts of interest
are an inseparable accompaniment to heritage as practice and process’. Similarly, the question of
interpretation can be problematic at sites that not only carry legacies of pain, agony and conflict, but
also belong to the recent past. Such sites expose various ways of coping with such legacies (Logan &
Reeves 2008). Foote (1997) categorized public responses to violence and tragedy in the United
States as sanctification, designation, rectification, and obliteration and Lowenthal (2003) in a similar
way; to ignore, to erase, to celebrate, to transmute or to commemorate. Misztal (2003:18) also claims
that ’memories of past injustices are a critical source of empowerment.’ Faced with this theoretical
minefield, how can ‘the story’ of Bhopal be written and what role could heritage processes play?
The starting point is the recognition of the former UCIL plant as industrial heritage, reflecting an
area of professional practice considerably developed during the last five decades. The evolving
recognition of industries and their environments as heritage concerns not only the ruined remains of
the 19th century as worthy of historical narratives and preservation measures, but also contemporary
structures and environments of present industrialized society. Simultaneously the traditional view of
cultural heritage as purely material historical testimony is challenged. Traditionally, the ‘purpose’ as
voiced by the authoritative heritage discourse can simply be said to have been to preserve a
supposedly objective cultural heritage for posterity. Current thinking increasingly sees cultural heritage
as a living dynamic phenomenon and the preservation procedure of material structures, such as
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
buildings, often means change, redevelopment, redesign, reconstruction, or even construction.
Heritage work in this context stems to a greater degree from more or less formulated needs within
present society where the interpretation of a past is as imagined as the apprehension of a certain
condition in the future (Ashworth et al. 2007).
Concerning industrial heritage the perspective is broad and the results are diverse, ranging from
archaeologically/scholarly based storytelling to redesigned ‘disneyficated’ history into perceived
contemporary sentiments and commercial opportunities (Kennedy & Kingcome 1998). There are
several possible perspectives on derelict, reused or deserted industrial sites which could be subjects
for far-reaching research within a number of different disciplines. Here the standpoint is from
professional heritage practice.
Fig.5. Heritage practice as traditionally object-oriented sub-systems
Principally, natural and cultural heritage practices are performed through a broad range of
activities that comprise a number of operative measures but also the formulation of different
strategies, regulations, organizational forms, occupational groups and so on which in many situations
independently take decisions and measures within their own field. These practices have in several
cases been developed depending on what sort of object is in focus for the activities, and in a very
general sense the field could be divided according to ‘typical’ cultural heritage objects which can be
understood in terms of different social systems or contexts, which are exemplified by the boxes in
Figure 5. The activities within one box might have positive or negative effects in the other boxes.
Industrial heritage could for example be found within the four inner boxes at least. The artefacts could
be the production results of a certain industry but also the machinery and technical equipment
necessary for the production process, or the random but poignant evidence of human activities and life
in abandoned industries. Industrial buildings have long since been recognized by the heritage
profession for their historical qualities. Built environments and cultural landscapes, created and
shaped by industrial processes are gaining recognition as important aspects of industrial heritage
(Palmer & Neaverson 1998, Perspectives in industrial archaeology 2000). The success of performed
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
activities within these boxes of practices, are dependent in a broader societal context on more general
attitudes to concepts such as preservation, recycling or resource-economizing, and these attitudes are
in turn the consequences of ongoing socio-cultural processes in society. To reach sustainable
preservation solutions, these boxes need to be perceived as an interlinked system, where it is also
necessary to add a dimension that concerns a scale shifting from an individual level to a global
sphere, comprising individual remembrances as well as the consequences of industrialization for both
the western world and the developing countries. The case of Bhopal is an excellent example of how
these different aspects are intrinsically linked, despite the appearance of division and disagreement.
The question of what should be preserved and how it should be preserved, and the answers in
the shape of operative and tangible outcomes, are dependent on the principle question of why we
choose to do this within a broader societal context. Some of the answers might result in challenges,
small and great, for the heritage profession and long term consequences of its operational activities,
such as

There is a need to challenge and discuss one-sided industrial historical narrative represented
by the material remains of a specific plant.

Industrial heritage as simply aestheticized framings for new activities always needs to be
debated since intrinsic qualities might be erased or otherwise destroyed in a redesign process.

Industrial remains preserved as revered monuments of technical historical interest isolated
from the surrounding society might have an alienating effect on local communities.

Industrial development is characterized by three industrial revolutions where recent
development results in a growing number of derelict plants, which are increasingly subjects for
‘reindustrialization’ by the tourism industry. Is this the fourth industrial revolution and what is
the role for the heritage profession in this process of change?
On the other hand the designation of industrial heritage as cultural heritage could be regarded
as a process based on contemporary needs for historical understanding, economical development,
aesthetic desires, individual meaning making and possibilities to criticize present conditions, trends
and developments. In that case the production of heritage might be seen as a statement where
industrial heritage has the potential strength to:

Discuss inequality through historical and contemporary narratives.

Explore environmental pollution through cases from the past to the present.

Challenge swift trends in global economy by focusing on local conditions for, as well as needs
and possibilities to redevelop an industrial site in collaboration with industry and the area of
trade and business, thereby establishing possibilities for local economic development.

Provide resources for individual and collective meaning making, knowledge development, and
entrepreneurship through preserved and developed facilities (Bergström 2002, Hjelm 1996,
The Working Life Museums).
So, industrial heritage should not be seen as an isolated box in a system of different
conservation/restoration objectives. Instead it is necessary to understand industrial heritage in its
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
broader context as an arena for continuous change and development through ongoing socio-cultural
processes. In that process the historical narrative could be of increased importance not only for
museological interpretations and representations, but also for a local community where the historical
past could be intertwined with all sorts of societal development.
Final remarks: The process of involving the stakeholders
All of the above involves people, and engaging multiple stakeholders in meaningful processes is
bound to be problematic. Basic stakeholder analysis around the Bhopal site reveals a long cast of
actors embedded in a labyrinthine web of relationships based ranging from empathy and alliance to
open hostility and seemingly intractable division. Not only that, but several years of disappointment
and stalemate have created seemingly entrenched positions and understandable mistrust. Major
players include the government, both national and regional, who have legal responsibilities for health
and safety, and a range of groups representing victims, survivors and activists with multiple claims and
varying agendas. One key stakeholder absent at every occasion is Dow Chemicals. Repeated
attempts by several individuals and organizations have failed to illicit any response from the American
corporation who remain immovable and seemingly indifferent over their obvious procedural failures in
India.
For the government the fact that a decision not to demolish the site has been reached has been
widely welcomed. Intervention by the UNESCO office in New Delhi (2009), partly prompted by Space
Matters, may well have assisted this shift in mind set, from viewing the site as a post industrial scar on
the landscape to an iconic metaphor for a yet unwritten memory. The reorganizing of ministerial
portfolios that linked health with welfare for the gas victims into the Department of Gas Relief and
Rehabilitation indicates the government’s priority, and the now former minister revealed a deep
sensitivity to the wider issues of the site’s legacy when he attended the mAAN symposium and
contributed actively to discussions about possible approaches and outcomes. In his own words he
reflected that ‘this has been 25 years of war’ and that even when the government was openly abused
he felt that his primary role was to listen. That being said, there was little evidence of common ground
even on the extent of the contamination or the criteria for defining who was eligible when deciding who
was a direct victim of the tragedy. The details and the scientific power games have created a fog of
facts and statistics which make it hard to see how consensus will ever be reached between opposing
parties.
Within the stakeholders some voices are louder than others. Twenty six years has given people
time to organize campaigns based on deep knowledge and critical mass. A key player is the
Sambhavna clinic (The Bhopal Medical Appeal, 2011) which operates as both a free health centre for
survivors and an action group. Important documentation relating to the effects of industrial accidents
has been kept here as well as an extensive archive of materials relating to the campaign for justice for
the victims. Some efforts are now being made to digitalize this and preserve it as an invaluable
resource for ongoing and future research into the response to the tragedy. Whilst the process of
digitalization and preservation is welcomed by staff, themselves aware of the conservation needs of
the archive, there is also a clear limit to their willingness to open up the materials for general scrutiny.
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
With so much unresolved the archive contains valuable information and evidence about the tragedy
and the events leading up to it and information that could support the claims of many thousands of
people that illness directly from contaminated water continues. The activists, many of whom have
adopted the cause over a period of time, were clear that the responsibility for the tragedy remained
firmly with Dow Chemicals. ‘They must pay’, one woman stated. ‘If the government clean the site, then
they have done their (Dow’s) dirty work, they have got away with it.’ Equal clarity existed around the
site itself. ‘The site should be protected as a symbol for the whole world of what is wrong’, she said, ‘A
museum there would show how everyday lives of the people here are still affected, and it should show
how life was before the disaster.’
Another example of impromptu memory making is that of the Museum by Survivors (Remember
Bhopal, 2011) run by the Chingari Trust (2011). This organization, run by women in a street very close
to the Union Carbide site, was awarded the Goldman Environmental Award in 2004 (sometimes called
the Alternative Nobel Prize for the Environment). As with the previous example, it exists primarily to
alleviate suffering of the victims, but it also has a small museum comprising objects from people
affected by the tragedy. The collection is kept in a small room with no conservation or proper storage.
The objects are everyday and commonplace; a pair of glasses, a wedding photograph, some clothing,
a letter, but their significance is overwhelming. The fragility of human life in the face of global
development is somehow captured in the delicacy of these small manifestations of people’s lives,
scarred forever by the events of one terrible night. Given a formal setting, their museological
significance could reach millions of people and communicate intensely personal human experience
that Bhopal is.
Fig. 6 Some of the belongings of victims collected by their families in the museum
However, the conundrum of Bhopal goes beyond the power of the objects, be they a pair of
reading glasses or a derelict industrial building, and into the central question of whose memories are
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
to be preserved and how are they to be retold and for what purpose? The need to remember begs the
question about remembering what. If the spectrum that places memorialization at one end and living
heritage / eco museology at the other, then where would be the appropriate place to site the Bhopal
memorial? One thing is clear; consensus will not be reached. There are many in the city who were not
affected at all and who simply want the whole issue to go away. To them it is utterly irrelevant. But, if
the development of the site created an interest in Bhopal as a new destination on the growing ‘dark
heritage’ trail, then could that attitude change? If economic benefit and social stability were to come
from income generation and tourism, then arguably yes. To others, however, this would simply be
another layer of global exploitation from their suffering.
Heritage as a process offers the opportunity to bear witness. In many ways, it could be part of
peace and reconciliation, a paradigm that could be applied to conservation and museology questions
in Bhopal. Of course, the easiest option would be to create a memorial and possibly by doing so some
good may come to those who suffered, but here is an opportunity to build in reconciliation, or at the
very least, the space for encounter. To do this requires the development of a detailed management
plan, involving multiple stakeholders and with several outcomes. The site could become a focal point
for regeneration, for discussion, for bearing witness and for contemporary questions around
industrialization in one of the fastest growing countries in the world. It is possible that the site could
even become some kind of place for healing, where hidden histories and buried memories are worked
with as starting points for community projects and micro industries.
The complexities of these vast events are often reduced to bumper sticker slogans. ‘Never
Again’ was a constant refrain during the days of the mAAN workshop. It’s too simple, and a more
meaningful metaphor can be drawn from the landscape at Bhopal. The site, the buildings, the tangible
and intangible heritage speaks of a legacy that has a relevance far greater than that of a city in India; it
is a universal, global message that needs to be built here. Bhopal, twenty six years too late, is in fact a
timely reminder that in the face of rapid industrialization and technological revolutions, the basic
human needs of safety, shelter, water and food still guides our daily life and from all of these comes
our need to remember.
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
REFERENCES
References
Ashworth, Gregory J., Brian Graham & John E. Tunbridge (2007) Pluralising Pasts. Heritage, Identity
and Place in Multicultural Societies. London: Pluto Press
Bergström, Lars (2002) “Forsviks’s Bruk: A Tragic Industrial Closure or an Industrial Historical
Success?” In: The Construction of Built Heritage. Ed. Angela Phelps, Gregory J. Ashworth, Bengt
O.H. Johansson. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
BHOPAL2011. Requiem & Revitalization. 23 JAN - 04 FEB 2011 Students workshop & symposium.
Call for papers.
Chingari Trust. Helping hands with the survivors of the 1984 union carbide gas disaster Bhopal.
http://www.chingaritrustbhopal.com/index.html. (14 July, 2011)
Chouhan, T R et al. (1994). Bhopal: The Insides Story. Carbide workers speak out on the world’s
worst industrial disaster. New York: The Apex Press
Cunningham S. D. & Berti WR. (1993). “Remediation of contaminated soils with green plants – an
overview”. Vitro Cell. Develop. Biol. Plant. Vol. 29: 207-212.
Dhara, V. Ramana & Dhara, Rosaline (2002): “The Union Carbide Disaster in Bhopal: A Review of
Health Effects”. Archive of Environmental Health, vol. 57, no. 57, pp. 391-404
Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). The Bhopal saga: causes and consequences of the world's largest industrial
disaster. Hyderabad: Universities Press (India)
Foote, Kenneth E. (1997). Shadowed ground: America’s landscape of violence and tragedy. 1. ed.
Austin: Univ. of Texas Press
Gray, Stuart, Jarlath Haynes, Joe Jackson, Jurgen Porst (2010) Technical Review of NEERI & NGRI
Reports: ‘Assessment and Remediation of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Areas in and around
M/s Union Carbide India Ltd., Bhopal’ (NEERI) and
Hjelm, Fredrik (1996). Viskastrand återbrukas. Ett steg tillbaka är framtiden. Göteborg: Göteborgs
universitet, Institutionen för kulturvård, 1996:12
IICT (2010). Technical and tender document for detoxification, decommissioning and dismantling of
Union Carbide Plant (Union Carbide India Limited, Bhopal) for The Directorate of Gas Relief and
Rehabilitation, Government of Madyha Pradesh, Bhopal, India. Indian Institute of Chemical
Technology (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research), Hyderabad, India, February, 2010
Kennedy, Neil and Nigel Kingcome (1998) “Disneyfication of Cornwall – developing a poldark heritage
complex”. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 4:1.
Leaflet Madhya Pradesh, no date
Logan, William Stewart & Reeves, Keir (ed., 2009). Places of pain and shame: dealing with “difficult
heritage”. Abingdon: Routledge
Lowenthal, David (2003). “Tragic traces on the Rhodian shore”, Historic Environment, Sydney: Icomos
Australia, vol. 17, no. 1
Misztal, Barbara A. (2003). Theories of Social Remembering. Berkshire/Philadelphia: Open Univ.
Press/McGraw-Hill House
ICOMOS Thailand International Conference 2011
FULL PAPER
NEERI (2010). Assessment and Remediation of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Areas in and around
M/s Union Carbide India Ltd., Bhopal. National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, June
2010
NGRI (2010). Geophysical investigations to assess industrial waste dumped at UCIL, Bhopal (GAP
401 28(VSS)); Hydrogeological and simulation studies of aquifer around UCIL, Bhopal (GAP-40128(VSS)). The National Geophysical Research Institute
Palmer, Marilyn and Peter Neaverson. (1998) Industrial Archaeology. Principles and Practice.
Routledge.
Peer review (2010). Comments/suggestions received on the NEERI, NGRI and IICT reports related to
the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster
Perspectives in industrial archaeology. (2000) Edited by Neil Cossons. London: Science museum.
Remember Bhopal. http://www.bhopal.net/delhi-marchers/factsheets/memorialfactsheet.pdf
(14 July, 2011)
Salt, D. E., Smith, R. D. & Raskin I. (1998). “Phytoremediation”. Ann. Rev. Plant Phytiol. Plant Mol.
Biol. Vol. 49: 643-668
Space Matters (2005). Memorial for the Victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Bhopal, India. Single
Stage National Design Competition – Winning proposal.
The Bhopal Medical Appeal. Funding free clinics for Bhopal survivors. http://www.bhopal.org/. (July
14, 2011)
The Working Life Museums Co-operation Council. A national association of enthusiasts
http://www.arbetsam.com/english/english.htm (25 July 2011)
UNESCO Office in New Delhi (2009), Letter of Transmission with regard to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
Ref.: 3967/2009/DIR/YM. 20 March, 2009, Minya Yang, Director and UNESCO Representative to
Bhutan, India, Maldives and Sri Lanka
Varma, Roli & Varma, Daya R. (2005). “The Bhopal Disaster of 1984”. Bulletin of Science, Technology
and Society, vol. 25, no. 1, pp 37-45
List of Figures
Fig. 1-2 Produced during Bhopal2011 Requiem & Revitalization, Student Workshop by Unit 1
(Anupriya Goswami [India], Pawas Bisht [India], Laura Laudere [Latvia], James Ro
[USA], Andreas Nilsson [Sweden], Sanjeev Kumar [India], Angita Das [India])
Fig 3-4 Photo: Bosse Lagerqvist, January 2011
Fig. 5
After: van Gigch, John P., Jan Rosvall and Bosse Lagerqvist (1996) “Setting a
Strategic Framework for Conservation Standards” In: Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation. Stephen J. Kelley, editor. West Conshohocken, USA:
ASTM. PCN 04-012580-10.
Fig. 6
Photo: Diana Walters, January 2011