Knowledge wars, the newest game

A few weeks ago, when Telco's lawyers slapped a Rs 100 crore-damages notice on Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science a...

A few weeks ago, when Telco8217;s lawyers slapped a Rs 100 crore-damages notice on Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment CSE for their article describing diesel engines as engines of the devil8217;, it wasn8217;t just a case of a large corporate crushing small academics. With the Supreme Court hearing, at that very moment, a case asking for banning of diesel engines in the Delhi region, Telco felt it was all part of a grand attack on its Indica, a strong rival to the country8217;s largest-selling car, the petrol-driven Maruti.

During the court hearing, Telco8217;s counsel Fali Nariman even argued against the presence of Maruti8217;s joint managing director Jagdish Khattar on the Bhure Lal Committee which had recommended banning or reducing the number of registrations of new diesel vehicles.

The implication was obvious. While not imputing any connection between CSE and Maruti, Telco was alleging that Maruti was using its position on the Bhure Lal committee on Delhi8217;s vehicular pollution tokeep out the competition. It was a mean imputation and probably uncalled for, but it8217;s a war out there, with no quarter asked for and none given.

It8217;s not just Telco that8217;s at the receiving end of such litigation 8212; till Nariman effectively turned the tables on its rivals, it seemed certain the court would either ban only new diesel cars in Delhi or restrict their numbers. Company after company is increasingly finding itself at the receiving end of court cases, usually based on scientific studies8217;, even newspaper articles, that run down their product, usually on health or environment grounds.

Some of it seems compelling, like a few of the instances cited by CSE, but a large part is frivolous, appearing as if sponsored by rivals interested in delays more than anything else. Some samplers:

In the automobile case, CSE has argued, in a larger 35-page paper, that while advanced emission norms such as Euro-I and Euro-II made diesel engine emissions of particulate matter PM smaller, these go evendeeper into the lungs, and cause cancer. On August 27, 1998, the California Air Resources Board, says the CSE paper, formally designated diesel PM as a carcinogenic.

Studies done by specialists at the US Environment Protection Agency, CSE adds, also show that the major share of PM came from diesel vehicles. The citations continue 8230; Quite unfazed by this, the diesel-lot argued that the CSE study presents just one side of the picture. Petrol cars, they say 8212; even those with catalytic convertors 8212; give out a lot more carbon monoxide and benzene which is a known carcinogenic. Essentially, it8217;s your-cancer studies versus my-cancer studies, argued the diesel lobby!

While on cancer, that8217;s an argument omitted by a local tobacco major who was trying to rustle up support when Rothmans wanted to set up a fully-owned subsidiary in India some months ago. Instead, this local major put together a folio of newspaper articles citing the large global tobacco smuggling and the role of tobacco executives inthis.

A fourth of cigarettes sold overseas, the New York Times of August 26, 1997 is supposed to have said, pass through smuggling rings. And, on December 18, 1996, our local cigarette tycoon informs us, the Asian Wall Street Journal quoted the state-owned CNTC to say 99 percent of foreign cigarettes in China were contraband. In other words, the news items were evidence8217; that Rothmans would use its Indian base to do just advertising and marketing, while it would get smuggled cigarettes into the country from other Rothmans units abroad! The Rothmans case is still pending, though it isn8217;t too clear if the local tycoon8217;s newspaper studies8217; had anything to do with it.

Story continues below this ad

And, apart from opposing the 400 MW Maheshwar Hydro Electric Project in Madhya Pradesh on grounds of the dislocation it would cause, one of social-activist Medha Patkar8217;s supporters came out with a detailed scientific critique. Energy-efficient bulbs, he said, could slash demand and diesel-sets or solar power wereeco-friendly as well as a lot cheaper.

That8217;s great, but what he forgot to add was that there are no established solar plants above 1 MW anywhere in the world, that solar power costs Rs 40 crore a MW as compared to Maheshwar8217;s 3.9; that put-ting up solar panels uses up 5 hectares of land per MW which is the same as that used by hydro-power. Wind power uses up even more land and, in India, windmills draw more energy from the grid to start working than they actually contribute!

Similarly, in the case of the beleaguered Sanghi cement which wanted to put up a jetty at the Khauthar Bet in the Kutch district, a NEERI study was used to point out, in 1996, that the project would damage the environment. This was then refuted by both the Gujarat government and the Ministry of Environment, and it was only after Anil Agarwal8217;s committee said the project wouldn8217;t hurt the environment that it was cleared in 1998. A total of 9 scientific committees examined the Sanghi project before it got the final clearance,with a two-year delay.

But no one8217;s apologising for the delay in either this, or any other case. This is war, and any delay helps. Besides, the lawyers on even the losing side win, with each day of delay, legal fees mount. In the auto-emissions case, 104 lawyers were involved, and included all of the country8217;s top names from P. Chidambaram to Fali Nariman and Kapil Sibal. Welcome to the new knowledge wars8217;, the latest game in town.