REFLECTIONS
| 215
Bhopal2011 and beyond
– building resilience through human rights and ‘critical discourse
analysis’ – facing ‘continuous disaster’
Hans Christie Bjønness
Dr. Hans Christie Bjønness is a Professor of development research at Department of Urban Design and Planning, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology. He has initiated M. Sc. and PhD programmes in Urban Ecological Planning. In this
paper, he talks about how the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, as the main industrial disaster in India as well as a place of ‘Pain and
Shame’, poses a challenge as to what difference we can make as heritage professionals and academicians in building resilience
in complex post-disaster situations. BHOPAL2011 – workshop and symposium, became a forum for critical academic
inquiry uncovering causes, creating awareness on the serious issue of the ‘continuing disaster’ affecting the poorer citizens’
lives. Memorialisation must have the objective of being based on real representations of the suffering victims, poverty
deprivation, exclusion, insecurity and ‘voicelessness’. Efforts must concentrate on building an epistemological framework
for taking a conscious ideological position. The author drafts the use of critical discourse analysis as a tool. BHOPAL2011
offered the perspective of ‘an in-between’. However, in the drafting of a R&D research proposal on Humanitarian Policy
presented here, the author argues for taking a position in favour of the weakest and the most vulnerable. Only this can
reflect a human rights position and the contribution to a real ‘site of conscience’.
The case of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, India’s largest industrial
disaster, asks us what our search for knowledge and
experience from practice can teach us. And how, if at all,
we are able to give anything back to the site and its people.
How can our quest for building relevant critical knowledge
contribute to a practice for the betterment of and dignity in
people’s lives? Are we able to contribute to the building of a
process for addressing the victims and their primary rights
and needs, and recognising their history? I want to question
our role and involvement in complex post-disaster situations
for the benefit of the most vulnerable victims.
The paper addresses the contribution of BHOPAL2011,
a recent women driven initiative in Bhopal.1 Both an
international students’ workshop and symposium, it
addressed the key stakeholders in Bhopal - in interest
of the gas victims and the urban poor. Their long time,
active engagement and concern is also closely linked to the
organizers’ background as the successful winners of a panIndia architectural design competition for a memorial for
the gas victims in 2005. The memorial has the potential of
being a ‘site of conscience’ which can directly represent the
victims and their stories and under local civil society control,
contribute to remembrance and resilience.
BHOPAL2011 became a forum for conflicting discourses,
informing us of the antagonism embedded in the relation
between the civil society representing the victims and the
Madhya Pradesh state. My main personal revelation in
participating in BHOPAL2011 was the understanding of
reality, and the extent of the ‘continuing disaster’. The urban
poor have been the most affected, and a safe environment
for them must be the main objective. The continuing
disaster and its interlinked aspects of neglect, severe health
effects and misuse of power have to be uncovered, told and
addressed. This is closely linked to the Humanitarian policy
with respect to the individual and to citizens’ human rights.
It concerns peace building at all levels in society.2 Stories
and memories of, first and foremost, the victims along with
other key stakeholders can bring forward new and diverse
216 | BHOPAL2011
perspectives contributing to contextual and analytical
knowledge. In our respective positions, we need to question
if our presence is contributing to the conflict or to mediation
and resulting in action benefitting the primary stakeholder,
the victims.
Dealing with ‘places of pain and shame’ and with difficult
heritage3 is possibly more relevant for our daily professional
practice than what we think. First of all, it brings forward
the misuse of power, serious violations of human rights
and sometimes neglect of the civil society. It also embodies
complex issues of national pride, nation building and identity.
Nietzsche in his ‘On the uses and Disadvantages of History
for life’ was early in highlighting the contested role of history
in this respect.4 It also concerns, in Foucault’s perspective,
our daily practice with the ‘real history’ and in building
constitution and civil society according to Habermas in
respect of universal human and cultural rights.5
UNESCO suggests: ‘Your Symposium may serve as an
excellent opportunity to exchange experiences from the
world over the role of cultural heritage as a democratic and
community-building force.’6 The workshop also raised the
issue that the site did not constitute ‘authorised heritage’
related to ‘authorised discourses’7, but conflicting heritage in
context of ‘sites of pain and shame’8 related to contemporary
history of the largest industrial disaster in India.9
The BHOPAL2011 workshop and symposium provided
the opportunity for a sharing and learning exercise between
the concerned students, faculty and the local, civil and
government bodies.10 The active organisers followed this up
with publishing and disseminating the outcome. The lessons
from the case of Bhopal have the potential to inform theory
and method in working with sites of such complexity, and
this publication stands to be of great value.
On Human and Cultural Rights
For the gas victims in Bhopal and the civil society in affected
areas, there exist dual perspectives linked to the past and
the need to address the present. It can be said that we need
to bring the past into the present – the gas tragedy must
not be forgotten. The human rights issues of the past are
not only about compensation, recognition of severe health
effects and rehabilitation, but also about the victims’ rights
to get their stories of suffering and neglect heard. It is about
the need to recognise and address the ‘continuing disaster’
of groundwater contamination and unsafe upbringing
environments along with rights to land and property
securing their tenure ship, basic shelter needs and safe
drinking water.
Irene Khan makes a convincing case that ‘putting human
rights at the centre of the effort to end poverty will help us
achieve this goal’.11 Poverty is the denial of human rights
through discrimination, state repression, corruption,
insecurity and violence.12 In her pledge for a new human
rights plan to address the poverty alleviation challenge,
Irene Khan stresses on the necessary commitment to achieve
results on the ground and states that the generally stated
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) are unable to do
that. Our main effort must be to bring forward the poor’s
representation of their own reality. Manheim states that
we are unable to represent the poor and that only the poor
can represent themselves in efforts of development.13 The
third point mentioned by Khan in the Human Rights Plan
to address poverty talks of the need to ‘set targets that speak
directly to the issues of power’. 14
Relationships between Human Rights and Cultural Rights
are mainly discussed in terms of ‘Heritage and Identity’15
and in relation to cultural diversity.16 In this context, I want
to bring forward the recent and relevant work of Farida
Shaheed to the challenges of working with multiple heritages
and with ‘heritage community’. Shaheed recommends in a
report on cultural rights to UN Human Rights Council, that
a community level dimension should be introduced when
it comes to Cultural Rights and the right to access cultural
heritage. She writes: “…from a human rights perspective,
cultural heritage is also to be understood as resources that
enable the cultural identification and development processes
of individuals and communities”. In the context of human
rights, cultural heritage entails taking into consideration
the multiple heritages through which individuals and
communities express their humanity, give meaning to their
existence, and build their world views’ (my italics). And
she provides ‘significance for particular individuals and
communities, thereby emphasizing the human dimension of
cultural heritage’.17
REFLECTIONS
Reference is also given to the Faro Convention, which
refers to the notion of ‘heritage community’, and consists of
people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which
they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain
and transmit to future generation’.18 Shaheed comments on
the societal developmental perspective: ‘This implies that
concerned communities may reunite people from diverse
cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds over
a specific cultural heritage that they consider they have in
common’.19 This is highly relevant in the case of Bhopal,
where the objective of a memorial must also be to unite
people over the common struggle for justice and resilience
following the Bhopal gas tragedy. Across religious divides,
mostly the urban poor and labourers, were the worst hit
and continue to be the sufferers. Furthermore, the Bhopal
gas tragedy indiscriminately hit across existing social
divides and created new classification in the post-disaster
vocabulary – the victims, the survivors, women, widows,
disabled children, ‘paani peedit’ (Hindi for water affected),
but what was common is that almost all were poor.20
Critical discourse theory towards memories
Possibly, the most difficult challenge we face is in
being able to bring forward the stories and memories
that can have an impact on human and cultural rights’
implementation and mediation in Bhopal for the benefit
of the victims. Thomas Brandt writes that one of the
overarching research questions arising in relation to
the planning of a memorial site and Union Carbide,
Bhopal plant is simply: What stories could be told at a
museum or a memorial site for the Bhopal gas tragedy?
The ‘authorized heritage’ must not dominate. The local
struggle towards resilience as well as the opposition of the
national government must be understood from all parties’
recognition that ‘heritage becomes a political resource’
around which stakeholders ‘interests negotiate and play
out political recognition and struggles for legitimacy’.21 (my
italics). Smith stresses the importance searching for the
main, and often underlying, root causes of the conflict at
hand. The researcher’s role will be to bring forward real
views representative of the discourses among the different
stakeholders and at different levels in society. 22
| 217
The method of Critical Discourse Analysis is, therefore,
central in addressing and bringing forward the victims
and the urban poor’s legitimate rights, as well as building
knowledge and representations which ‘frame shared
perceptions of the past’ of the victims. In the following
paragraphs I will illustrate this with quotes from the open
discourse at BHOPAL2011, and move on to critical discourse
analysis and its challenges in relation to the building of public
memory. During the two week workshop and symposium,
the participants were confronted with opposing views of the
past, the present and future with respect to the nature of the
disaster, responsibilities and on-site measures.
The content and language used in the discourse exposed
large gaps to be bridged between the acceptance of the
consequences of the disaster by the two main parties - the
state government and the civil society representing the gas
victims. A Madhya Pradesh state representative characterised
the situation in strong words: “It has been WAR here – literally
speaking - between the government and the civil society. This
has happened because a dialogue of reasonable character has
not taken place. It is hard to take a discussion when someone
abuses you. If it is by design or accident … Well, we have
different ways of addressing it”.23 This is in stark contrast to
another statement by a journalist and civil society activist:
“The immediate tragedy was followed by another – 26 years
of painful struggle on the streets, courts, college campuses
and corporate boardrooms. But there is a crucial difference in
the two tragedies. The gas leak rendered them passive victims.
The sustained struggle gave them agency and restored power.
Any commemorative project at the site must give the right
to the survivors to construct their identity”.24 New normative
perspectives have been brought into the situation regarding
the Right to Information Act by the Government of India and
the legal proceedings in Bhopal in 2010.
In the context of the Bhopal gas tragedy, it is important
to bring forward discourses at different time periods right
from the start up of the Union Carbide in the 60s up till
now. This should be brought forward in terms of the public
memory at the time, possibly through interviews with living
representatives.25 James Jasinski defines public memory as
“a body of beliefs and ideas that help the public and society
understand its past, present and by implication, its future”.26
218 | BHOPAL2011
The contextual situation is always at the centre, but opens
to diverse interpretations.27 Conducting memory studies,
especially targeting witness testimonies, also transmits
responsibilities. Ross Poole comments, ‘In so far collective
memory has a cognitive aspect, it makes claims about the
past. These may be confirmed or disconfirmed by historical
research. This does not mean that collective memory is
just bad history. It is more like history written in first
person, and its role is to inform the present generation
of its responsibilities to the past’28 – and I would add the
present and future. This is also a reminder to the educator
and researcher that bringing forward witnesses memories
commits us as professionals. We will become involved and
must also take responsibility in terms of the pledges of the
victims in support of their human rights.
The Bhopal Union Carbide disaster has possibly given
poverty an identity in India and internationally and has
exposed the vulnerability of the urban poor, in particular
women and children in critical disaster situations.
Furthermore, Marianne Hirsch and Leo Spitzer mention,
the second interpretive use of witness testimony to be the
development of ‘cosmopolitan ‘or transnational memory
cultures able to sustain efforts towards global attainment of
human rights’.29 Hopefully, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy also has
this effect in India and internationally to impart the necessity
of corporate and state responsibility in terms of practice of
human rights’ principles on the ground.
We must, with respect and care, enter into the past.
I would quote Dipesh Chakrabarty from his book on
memories of Partition in India in 1947, ‘Habitations of
Modernity’: “…what people do not even wish to remember,
the forgetting that comes to our aid in dealing with pain
and unpleasantness in life. Memory, then, is far more
complicated to the investigator-historian who approaches
the past with one injunction: ‘Tell me all’”30
Teun Van Dijk reminds us that it is necessary, in addition
to personal and group knowledge, to build cultural
knowledge for implementing critical discourse analysis
(CDA). He writes ‘Discourses are like icebergs of which only
some specific forms of (contextually relevant) knowledge
are expressed, but of which a vast part of presupposed
knowledge is part of the shared socio-cultural common
ground’.31 This is also stressed by Ruth Wodak in a critical
discourse-historical approach: ‘In investigating historical,
organisational and political topics and texts, the discoursehistorical approach attempts to integrate a large quantity
of available knowledge about historical sources and the
background of the social and political fields in which
discursive ‘events’ are embedded’32. Jan Nederveen Pierse
(2004) writes that discourse analysis in development ”means
a step beyond treating development as ideology, or interest
articulation, because it involves meticulous attention to
development text and utterances, not merely as ideology but
as epistemology”33 (my italics).
The use of discourse analysis in critical education and
research and development (R&D) efforts is essential in post
disaster inquiries. But we have to be careful to focus on the
fascination of making our inquiry into only narratives of
representations of social and cultural realities. Our concern
must be that discourse matters in bringing forward different
stakeholders’ understanding, based on their experiences and
class and thereby articulates the understanding of different
positions, as suggested by Foucault, of both ‘insiders’ and
us as ‘outsiders’. In the words of Habermas, this is necessary
in a dialogue in civil society to work towards a shared
understanding, not necessarily without internal conflicts in
the understanding of realities and representations; but which
can contribute to resilience for the victims and bring its civil
society and citizens their due rights, without antagonising
the government.
A call for humanitarian policy in development
and cultural continuity in Bhopal
A sustained recovery for the urban poor victims and an
address of the continuing disaster are interlinked and form
the prime areas of the research proposal titled Bhopal 2012
– 2015 Humanitarian Policy, Planning and Practice. Postdisaster recovery tends to focus on the immediate aftermath
of the disaster, and few studies look into long term recovery
and accumulated knowledge. It requires understanding
causes of changing livelihoods, in relation to embedded
knowledge in the society – both in terms of indigenous
knowledge and acquired knowledge, and in relation to
local potential for disasters and measures for disaster risk
REFLECTIONS
reduction.34 When addressing the objective of building
livelihoods, it is first needed to understand the diverse
bundle of entitlements poor households command.35
This is closely linked to Amartya Sen’s works on
‘deprivational poverty and freedoms’,36 his last work on the
‘Idea of Justice’37 and an understanding of ‘critical literacy’
among the poor.38 This forms the starting point for a more
comprehensive survey of social, human and cultural capital,
together with physical and economical capital or assets.
Social capital is also interpreted in its vertical dimensions
which could imply hierarchical relationships and an
unequal power distribution among its members and the
government.39 It is recognised that place relations of the poor
are essential for their survival through the critical networks
they have built.40 Evictions, as well as most resettlement, are
socially disruptive and have often severe gender selective
effects on the less mobile part of the household, the women
and children.41
The first objective in the research is to understand
the stakeholder environment where their interests and
contribution will be assessed.42 The first two research
objectives related to humanitarian policy, process and
practice are: (i) To contribute to livelihood entitlements and
coping strategies; and the building community resilience for
the affected community, and (ii) To determine the territorial
and spatial relations between community based stakeholders
and government networks related to disaster mitigation; and
to understand how they interact.
The third research objective as part of humanitarian
policy, process and practice addresses the memories of a
painful past, the post disaster struggle and efforts to rebuild
community: (iii) Bringing forward the relation of the
cultural legacy of the painful past of the disaster and long
term development initiatives in affected precincts.
The last research objective is related to planning, practice
and Risk Reduction Strategies in the future: (iv) To develop
an area based approach for integrated urban risk reduction
strategies, based on mapping the effects in the field of the
Bhopal gas tragedy, its continuing disaster and community
struggle and cooperation.
The research area is challenging and relevant. It
is challenging because it touches the core of ethical
| 219
considerations of our professional practice in cases of
emergency and crises and the consequent efforts in R&D.
It is relevant because it concerns humanitarian policy and
practice, which should form the core, both in post disaster
action and in risk reduction related to the continuing disaster
and future preventive action. The research objectives above
are related. For planning practice, mapping into the spatial
consequences of memory will provide insights for strategies
that integrate socio-spatial and environmental justice into
the disaster prevention and mitigation. Care has to be
taken not to contribute to ‘exclusion in efforts of inclusion’
(personal communication Professor Ashok Kumar, SPA,
Delhi). The research area significantly brings forward the
need to see planning ideology and policy in relation to a
well-informed, assessed and disseminated knowledge base,
and a responsive and responsible action on the ground.
Concluding remarks
We must continuously question our role, and involvement in
complex post disaster situations and how we contribute to
making a difference in the practice of human rights for the
benefit of the most vulnerable victims. Universities role will
always be marginal but can contribute constructively with
long term involvement with research and development efforts.
The intention of the architects at Space Matters, New Delhi,
to design for a centre of research along with the memorial
centre, has the clear mandate to build relevant knowledge
for the cause of the gas victims and constructive assistance,
and also building capacity for future risk reduction. This
must not be wishful thinking! The causes and the serious
consequences of the Bhopal gas tragedy will continue to be
discussed and should, by educators and researchers. They
must be explicit on their affiliations and interests, as well as
research focus. BHOPAL2011 created a constructive targeted
forum. In the process of post disaster recovery, we must never
forget our duty to contribute in building resilience through
human rights and critical discourse analysis – and to address
‘continuous disaster’.43 Our knowledge is not neutral. With
it, comes a necessary and continuous effort to contribute
whatever little to critical ‘cosmopolitan or transnational
memory cultures able to sustain efforts towards global
attainment of human rights’.
▪
234 | BHOPAL2011
Thakur, N. (2008). “Hampi world heritage site:
Monuments, site or cultural landscape”. Landscape
Journal, vol. 12, no. 5. New Delhi: School of Planning
& Architecture
UNESCO. 2008. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
<http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/>
Varma, P. K. (1997). The Great Indian Middle Class. New
Delhi: Penguin
Ward, John (1995). “Cultural Heritage Site Monitoring:
Towards a Periodic, Systematic, Comparative
Approach”. In Momentum, vol. 4, no. 3, ICOMOS
Canada <http://www.icomos.org/icomosca/bulletin/
vol4_no3_ward_e.html>
Why do people not visit Bhopal? Western
experiences with and perspectives towards sites
with catastrophe heritage (p. 194-197)
1. Blume, G. (2010). “Die Leiden von Bhopal”. Die Zeit,
12 Aug. 2010, p. 25
2. Comprehensive studies on the inadequacy of justice
(especially in respect with technological globalisation)
and its relation to the insufficiency of science in the
case of Bhopal are numerous; for a survey see Jasanoff,
S. (2007). “Bhopal’s trials of knowledge and ignorance”.
In Isis, 98 (2007), pp. 344-350
3. Schweer, H. (2009). “Die Chemische Fabrik
Stoltzenberg in Hamburg von 1923 bis 1945”. In
Wolfschmidt, G. (ed.). Hamburgs Geschichte einmal
anders – Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaften,
Medizin und Technik, Teil 2. Nordestedt: Books on
demand 2009, pp. 149-150.
4. For a detailed historical reconstruction of the relations
between Stoltzenberg and the German Reich military
authorities see the evidence provided by Schweer,
H. (2008). Die Chemische Fabrik Stoltzenberg bis
zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Ein Überblick
über die Zeit von 1923 bis 1945 unter Einbeziehung
des historischen Umfeldes mit einem Ausblick auf die
Entwicklung nach 1945. Diepholz: GNT 2008
5. Op. Cit. Schweer (2009), pp. 151-152.
6. Phosgene is very volatile with a boiling point of 8°C.
On wet surfaces, e.g. in the lungs, phosgene splits
to hydrogen chloride, with delayed but even fatal
physiological consequences for animals and humans.
7. Lütje, A. & Wohlleben, T. (1990). “Chemiefabrik
Stoltzenberg – Zwei Katastrophen ohne Schuldige?”
In Andersen, A. (ed.). Umweltgeschichte: Das Beispiel
Hamburg. Hamburg: Ergebnisse-Verlag 1990, pp. 135136.
8. Op. cit. Schweer (2009), p. 156.
9. Ibid. Schweer (2009), p. 155.
10. Op. Cit. Lütje/Wohlleben (1990), p. 136.
11. Op. Cit. Schweer (2009), pp. 154-158.
12. Op. Cit. Lütje/Wohlleben (1990), p. 145. The official
German permissions for the Techncische Pyrotechnik
Klasse T1 are still accessible: BAM-PT1-0103 & BAMPT1-0104 (accessed 23 Jan. 2011).
13. Ibid. pp. 145-147.
14. Scholz, E.-G. (2004). “Stoltzenberg-Skandal – zuerst
starb ein Kind”. Hamburger Abendblatt 7 September
2004
Bhopal2011 and beyond. Building resilience
through human rights and ‘critical discourse
analysis’ – facing ‘continuous disaster’ (p. 213217)
1. The full title: BHOPAL2011 Requiem and
Revitalisation. 23rd of January – 4th of February 2011.
The two initiators were Ms Moulshri Joshi and Ms
Amritha Ballal of School of Planning & Architecture
& Space Matters, Delhi. I am indeed thankful to the
architects Ms Amritha Ballal and Ms Moulshri Joshi
who invited me to join the struggle for financial and
institutional support and for participating in the mind
provoking and sharing exercise of BHOPAL2011.
In October 2011, linked to the URBAN INDIA
conference at NTNU, we met for a continuing joint
effort on research application within ‘Humanitarian
policy’. The BHOPAL2011 initiative with its workshop
and symposium and publication and dissemination
has been supported by the Research Council of
APPENDICES
Norway under its INDNOR research programme.
2. Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2009). Norway’s
Humanitarian Policy. Report No. 40 (2008 -2009) to
the Storting (Parliament). Oslo
3. Logan, William and Reeves, Keir (2009). “Places of
Pain and Shame”. Dealing with difficult heritage. Series
Key Issues in Cultural Heritage.Abingdon, Oxon
(UK): Routledge
4. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1874). “Unzeitgemässe
Betrachtungen” (in German). “Untimely Meditations”
(in English). Zweites Stück: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil
der Historie für das Leben (in German). Second Part:
On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life (in
English). Berlin: C.G.Naumann (Original publication
in German)
5. Flyvbjerg, Bent (1998). “Empowering Civil Society:
Habermas, Foucault and the Question of Conflict”,
in Douglas, Mike and Friedmann, John (1998). Cities
for Citizens – Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in
Global Age. Chichester, West Sussex (UK): John Wiley
and sons
6. Letter written by Armorogum Parsuramen, UNESCO
Representative for India to the Organising Committee
of Bhopal2011.
7. Smith, Laurajane (2007). “Empty Gestures? Heritage
and the Politics of Recognition” in Silverman, Helaine
and Fairchild Ruggles, D (eds. 2007) Cultural Heritage
and Human Rights. New York: Springer Science +
Business Media
8. Op. Cit. Logan, William and Reeves, Keir (2009)
9. Laurajane Smith (2007) writes: ‘Embedded in the
heritage management process are certain dominant or
authorized discourses that both draw on and underpin
the position of technologies of government. The
naturalization of these discourses also facilitates the
regulation of competing knowledge about the past
and conceptualizations about the meaning of nature of
heritage places and objects’ (ibid. page 163) (my italics)
10. Amritha Ballal (BHOPAL – emerging from the
shadow of disaster. Not published abstract for
presentation at the URBAN INDIA conference at the
| 235
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU) October, 2011) brings forward the focus of
the Bhopal2011 symposium and workshop within
three issues, urban environmental conditions,
memorialisation and dialogue with civil society. She
sees ahead and suggests who the key stakeholders are:
an emerging network of survivors groups, civil society,
urban planners, architects, scholars, researchers and
government officials. She proposes that they must
together attempt to meet challenges of contemporary
Bhopal.
11. Khan, Irene (2009). The Unheard Truth. Poverty and
Human Rights. New York /London: W.W. Norton &
Company. Quote of Kofi Annan in his foreword.
12. Khan, Irene (2011). “The Unheard Truth. Poverty
and Human Rights”. On – tube http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=u5IHv_4cJ90 (Accessed 1 December
2011)
13. Manheim, K. (1949). Man and Society in an Age of
Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
14. Op.cit Khan, Irene (2009)
15. Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter (2008). The
Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity.
Aldershot, Hampshire (UK): Ashgate Publishing
Limited
16. Silverman, Helaine & Ruggles, D. Fairchild (2007).
Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. New York.
Springer Science + Business Media. Langfield,
Michele, Logan, William & Crait, Máiréad Nic (2010).
Cultural Diversity, Heritage, and Human Rights.
Intersections in Theory and Practice. UK: Routhledge
17. Shaheed, Farida (2011). Report of an independent
expert in the field of cultural rights. In Human Rights
Council. “Promotion of all human rights, civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights, including the right
to development”. Seventeenth Session. Published 21st
March 2011. Geneva: UN General Assembly
18. Council of Europe (2005). “Framework Convention
on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. The Faro
Convention”. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
236 | BHOPAL2011
19. Op.cit. Shaheed, Farida (2011)
20. We must never forget to ask what do a woman’s
perspectives to human rights imply. (The Iranian
Nobel Peace Prize laureate interviewed Shirin Ebadi
interviewed by Nermeen Shaikh (2007) in The Present
as History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power. New
York: Colombia University Press.
21. Smith, Laurajane (2007). ibid page 159.
22. Brandt, Thomas (2011), Memo. Trondheim: NTNU
23. Statement made during the Bhopal2011 workshop 31
January 2011
24. Ms Rama Lakshmi, activist, journalist and
museologist in her speech on “Processes through
which Trauma and Social Movements are represented
in Museum Space”. 4 February 2011.
25. Bjønness, Hans Christie (2011). “Building
Memory of Heritage in multicultural Societies” in
Tomaszewski, Andrzej & Giometti, Simone (eds.
2011). The Image of Heritage: Changing Perceptions,
Permanent Responsibilities. Proceedings of International
Conference of the ICOMOS Committee for Theory and
Philosophy, March 2009, Firence: Edizioni Polistampa
26. Op. cit., Jasinski, (2001). “Sourcebook on Rethoric.
Key Concepts on Contemporary Rhetoric Studies”.
London/Delhi: Sage Publications. p.336.
27. Jovchelovitch, Sandra (2007). Knowledge in Context.
Representations, Community and Culture. London
and New York: Routledge
28. Poole, Ross (2008). “Memory, history and the
claims of the past”. Memory Studies 2008 1: 149, Sage
Publications
29. Hirsch, Marianne & Spitzer, Leo (2009). “The witness
in the archive: Holocaust Studies”. Memory Studies
2009 2: 151, Sage Publications
30. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2002). “Habitations of
Modernity”. Essays in the wake of subaltern studies.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p.115
31. Van Dijk, Teun (2001). “Multidisciplianary CDA: a
plea for diversity” in Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael
(2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
London. Sage publications. page 114
32. Wodak, Ruth (2001). “The discourse – historical
approach”. Ibid. Meyer (2001)
33. Pierse, Jan Nederveen (2004). Development Theory.
Deconstructions/Reconstructions. London: Sage
Publications
34. Sillitoe, Paul; Bicker, Alan and Pottier, Johan (2002).
Participating in Development. Approaches to Indigenous
Knowledge. London and New York. Routledge and
Jigyasu, Rohit (2011), “Socio-economic recovery”.
Unpublished article.
35. Griffin, Keith (1981) “The Poverty Trap”. Guardian,
25 October 1981 reviewing Sen, Amartya (1981).
Poverty and Famines. An Essay on Entitlements and
Deprivation. UK: Oxford Universtiy Press. Rakodi,
Carol (2002). “A Livelihood Approach: Conceptual
issues and Definitions” in Rakodi, Carol & LloydJones, Tony (2002). Urban Livelihoods. London,
Eartscan
36. Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
37. Sen, Amartya (2009). The Idea of Justice. London:
Allen Lane of Penguin Books
38. Freire, Paulo (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books Ltd
39. Groothert, Christian (1998). “Social capital”. The
Missing Link. The World Bank. Social Development
Family. Environment and Socielly Sustainable Network.
Social capital Initiative. Working Paper no. 3.
40. Hamdi, Nabeel (2010). The Placemakers Guide to
Building Community. London: Earthscan
41. Ballal, Amritha (2011a). “The spatial dimensions of
urban homelessness. Nizamuddin basti, Delhi.” Master
of Science in Urban Ecological Planning. Department
of Urban design and Planning, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim
42. Samset, Knut (1996). The Logical Framework
Approach. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation
43. The ‘continuous disaster’ and the urban dimension
have been elaborated in Bjønness, Hans C. (2012)
“Post Disaster Struggle. Towards socially responsible
APPENDICES
urban conservation and development. The case of
Bhopal Gas Tragedy” in Proceedings of Int. conference
of ICOMOS Committee for the Theory and Philosophy
of Conservation and Restoration, Firenze, March 2011
(Published in April 2012)
Post Bhopal2011(p. 221-224)
1. Moulshri Joshi cited by Rama Lakshmi. Washington
Post Foreign Service, 9 July 2010. <http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2010/07/09/AR2010070903209.html> accessed
28 May 2012.
2. Smith, Laurajane (2006). Uses of Heritage. Oxford:
Routledge.
3. Sevcenko, Liz (2010). “Sites of Conscience: new
approaches to conflicted memory”. Museum
International. Vol. 62. No. 1. Pg. 24. UNESCO
Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
4. Ibid. Smith (2006), p. 3
5. Sevcenko, Liz (2008). “To Recall is to Learn”. Inter
Press Service News Agency. <http://ipsnews.net/news.
asp?idnews=42854> accessed 5 March 2010.
Websites
Wikipedia, The Bhopal Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Bhopal Medical Appeal and Sambhavna Trust Clinic
http://www.bhopal.org/
International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
http://www.bhopal.net/
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation
Department (Official Website of Government of
Madhya Pradesh)
http://www.mp.gov.in/bgtrrdmp/
Bhopal: 25 years on BBC News’ website on the Bhopal
disaster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2009/
bhopal/default.stm
Students for Bhopal
http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/
| 237
Books
Amnesty International (2004). Clouds of Injustice.
Bhopal Disaster 20 Years on
Chouhan, T. R., Alvares, Claude, Jaising, Indira &
Jayaraman, Nityanand (2004). Bhopal: The Inside Story
Dembo, David, Wykle, Lucinda & Morehous, Ward
(1990). Abuse of Power. Social Performance of
Multinational Corporations: The Case of Union Carbide
Doyle, Jack (2004). Trespass Against Us. Dow Chemical
and The Toxic Century
Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). The Bhopal Saga: Causes and
Consequences of the World’s Largest Industrial Disaster
Fortun, Kim (2001). Advocacy after Bhopal.
Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders
Hanna, Bridget, Morehouse, Ward & Sarangi, Satinath
(eds. 2005). The Bhopal Reader. Remembering Twenty
Years of the World’s Worst Industrial Disaster
Lapierre, Dominique (2004). Five past midnight in
Bhopal
Mukherjee, Suroopa (2010). Surviving Bhopal. Dancing
Bodies, Written Texts, and Oral Testimonials of Women
in the Wake of an Industrial Disaster
Subramaniam, M. Arun & Morehouse, Ward (1986). The
Bhopal Tragedy. What Really Happened and What it
Means for American Workers and Communities at Risk
Weir, Davied (1988). The Bhopal Syndrome. Pesticides,
Environment, and Health