it describes about timeline of plachimada agitation

1. Timeline of the Plachimada Agitation
Kiran A
HS18H023
In 1998, the Hindustan Coca Cola BeveragesPrivateLimited (HCCBPL),Coca
Cola’s Indiansubsidiary,acquired 34.4 acresland in Plachimada -a small hamletin
Kerala famous for its rice fields.By January,2000, the Perumatty Panchayatgranted
the company its license and soon enough, by March of the same year,the plant
became operational.(Mathews,2011)
Within six months of commencing production,villagersbegannoticing a drastic
drop in water levelsdue to heavy water usage by the plant. The Plachimada factory
had beenlicensed to produce 5.61 lakh litresof soft drinks daily with water used
from six differentbore wells and two ponds. The concomitant water scarcity,
brackish water supply and residual chemical sludge leftover from bottle washing
drove the villagersto protest. (Contributor, 2018)
In January 2001, a local school master, Narendra Nath noticed a suspicious lack of
childreninthe school and through some investigationdiscovered thatit was because
of water scarcity.He gathered more information to present at a district
environmental workshop. A reportbrought out by the IndianNational Trust for
Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) revealedthatseveral coloniesmainly
populated by SC/ST communities were the most severely affected victims.By the
same month, a sizeable protestbroke out under the leadership of Varadharajan,a
ward member,againstthe rising pollution, pervasive smell and unappetising taste of
well water which were causing several disease outbreaksin the village.The company
managementnegotiated toend the strike but still refused to keep their side of the
promise of providing distilled water for the villagers.(Contributor, 2018)

2. In March 2002, the villagersbanded together todrafta complaintagainst the
pollutersand addressed itto the District Collector, the Kerala State Pollution
Control Board, the Kerala State HumanRights Commission and the Chief Minister.
But on April 2, 2002, despite the numerous allegationsagainstthe plant, the Kerala
State Pollution Control Board renewed the company license till 2004. Soon, on
April 22, 2002, people such as C.K.Janu, leader ofAdivasi Gothramahasabha,and
Mayilamma,started the ‘Coca Cola Virudha Janakeeya SamaraSamithy’ (Anti-Coca
Cola Peoples’ Struggle Committee) and begantheir protestagainst the plant, with
over 1500 people,mostly adivasis,demanding the immediate shutdown of the plant
owing to the severe hazardsthatit consistently contributed.The protest took a new
track with them demanding the permanentclosure of the factory,and compensation
for all the troubles that it had created.(Bijoy,2006)
On 26th April of the same year,MorrisWilson, the General Manager ofthe Coca-
Cola Company filed a case against the leadersof the protest all while the plant
continued to drawmore and more water from surrounding regions with at least50
tanker lorriessupplying water per day.The leadersofthe struggle tried to organise
an all-party meetto discuss the situation but the suggestion fell on deafears as no
party save one - the CPI - attended.By June, another organisation, Jananeethi,also
started to demand the shutdown of the plant and compensation under the Polluter
PaysPrinciple.They had a detailed reportwhich recorded the severe environmental
damagesthe plant was causing.On the 8th of June, trade union leadersconducted a
meeting with CPI(M),Congress, BJP and Janata Dal which resulted inthe
unanimous decisionto preventthe closure of the factory on account of the job
opportunities it offered. They denied the allegationsabout pollution. On August 24,
the District Deputy Medical Officer of Palakkad visited Plachimada butdeclared on
further investigation that the well water was foul not because of the factory but
rather because of the ignorance of the people.The report said, “the solid waste
distributed by the company was good manure,therefore no point in taking legal
actions against the company”.The Kerala State Ground Water Departmentalso

3. stated that the plant cannot be the reason behind the pollution that the region
experienced.(Raghunandan,2017)
In November 2002, Yuvajanavedi released anenquiry reportheaded by Dr.A.
Achuthan claiming the governmentmechanismsfailed in preventing the over-
exploitationof water resourcesby the Coca Cola plant. By January of nextyear,the
Kerala State Ground Water Departmentalsopublished a reportdetailing the study
and analysisof wells in the regionand concluded that water levelshad dropped or
water quality had declined inseveral ofthem. On the 26th of January,2003, Medha
Patkar led the National Alliance for People’sMovement’sAyodhya march from
Plachimada,thereby drawing national attentionto the happeningsin Plachimada.In
April 2003, the Perumatty Grama Panchayatrefused torenewthe plant’slicense on
the groundsthat it was causing acute drinking water shortage in the Perumatty
Panchayatand nearby villages.The company decided toapproach the Kerala High
Court, who asked it to approach the Local Self-GovernmentDepartment(LSD) of
the State Government.
On June 5, 2003, the Center for Science and Environmentpublished a report
revealing thatthe presence of pesticide residue inthe cola products were beyond the
permissible limit.On July 3, 2003, BBC aired a programme titled,‘Face the Facts’,
which publicised the presence ofcarcinogenic substancesin the waste deposited by
the plant. Heavy metalslike Cadmium and Lead were found to be presentin the
solid waste that the company gave away asmanure.On the 7th of August, the Kerala
State Pollution Control Board confirmed the reportand ordered the plantto stop
the distribution of said solid waste, recover the manure already givenaway and find a
safe storage area for the same. The Plachimada Anti-Coca Cola Struggle Committee
carried out a protest march to the residence of K. Achuthan, Chittoor MLA, against
his questionable silence on the issue. Upon the newdiscoveries,the Perumatty
Panchayatissued another notice againstthe plant who approached the High Court

4. and once more got referred to the LSD. They also pointed out that the company had
violated the Land Utility Act of 1967 as it had used agricultural land for the
construction of buildings.On December 16,2003, a single bench of the High Court
decreed that"groundwater wasa public property held intrust by a governmentand
that it had no rightto allow a private party to overexploitthe resource to the
detrimentof the people.” But, it also advised the Panchayath to renewthe license of
the company if it found alternative sourcesof water. The company challenged the
decisionof the court by going to a division bench of the High Court, which
overturned the decisionof the single bench, allowing the company to extract water
till the next hearing of February 12,2004, but kept strict regulationson the extentof
usage (to be monitored through water metres).Alongside court proceedings,a
World Water Conference was organised near Plachimada onJanuary 23, 2004 and a
‘Plachimada Declaration’ wasadopted.
The Governmentof Kerala declared Palakkad Districtasdrought-affected and
demanded animmediate restrictiononthe plant’s groundwater usage on February
21, 2004 and soon, on March 9, 2004, the company stopped operations. However,it
resumed productionfor a short while when in June 2005, the High Court ordered
the Panchayath torenewits license.The plantignored all the stipulations placed on
it and restarted productionuntil August 19, 2005, when the KSEB rejected its
applicationon account of the concerning amounts of Cadmium presentin the
residual sludge that the plant produced.The Water Resource Departmentplaced
Plachimada inthe over-exploited category onNovember 19,2005, thus preventing
the further use of the land under the new rulesof the Kerala Groundwater (Control
and Regulation) Act.This ensured that the plantcould not continue operations even
at the insistence of the High Court.
On June 30, 2010, Chief Minister of Kerala V.S. Achuthanandanissued a statement
about the state cabinet’sintention to set up a legal agency “toassess the actual

5. compensation due to every applicantand issue orders to the company for
compliance.” By February 16, 2011, the cabinethad approved a draft bill (the
Plachimada Coca Cola Victims Reliefand Compensation Claims Special Tribunal
Bill), which was passed shortly thereafter to form a tribunal for securing
compensation and relieffor the environmental degradationcaused by the company
at Plachimada.However,in2016, the Presidentdisapproved the Bill and the Kerala
governmentaimed toreintroduce it with a few changes.By 2017, the 15th
anniversary ofthe Plachimada movement,anindefinite strike had started againstthe
delay inpassing and implementing the Tribunal Bill. They campaigned for the
prosecution of the plant for the violationof several Actsand corresponding
environmental degradation,and alsocompensation for damages.The case was finally
laid to reston the 13th of July,2017 when Coca Cola renounced itslicense by
stating in the Supreme Courtthat the party did not intend to operate the factory in
Plachimada.(Contributor, 2018)
Mathews, Rohan D. “Ritimo.” The Plachimada Struggle against Coca Cola in Southern India.
Accessed Oct 18, 2019. https://www.ritimo.org/The-Plachimada-Struggle-against-Coca-Cola-in-
Southern-India
Raghunandan, Gayatri. “The Wire.” A Look at the Legal Issues Plachimada's Struggle for Water
Against Coca-Cola Has Brought Up. Accessed Oct 18, 2019. https://thewire.in/law/coca-cola-
plachimada-kerala-water
Bijoy, C. R. “Kerala's Plachimada Struggle: A Narrative on Water and Governance Rights.”
Economic and Political Weekly 41 (2006): 4332-4339. Accessed Oct 19, 2019.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4418807
Contributor. “Ecologise.in” A timeline of the historic Plachimada agitation, from Keraleeyam
Magazine Accessed Oct 18, 2019. https://www.ecologise.in/2018/03/07/keraleeyam-plachimada-
digital-archive/

6. Coca-Cola and the Myth of Corporate Social
Responsibility
Cherene Aniyan
HS18H016
In a world where multinational corporations are emerging asone of the major actors
in development,there arisesthe need to question their priorities, goalsand
responsibilities. From their beginningsasprofit-seeking enterprisesthat functioned
according to the resourcesand demandsof the local economy,these organisations
have grownto such a state that no resource or marketin any part of the world is
necessarily outside their reach.In the state’s search for investmentand jobs, local
economieshave beenall too enthusiastic to host these enterprises.What getslost in
the music is the complete upheaval thatindigenouscommunitiesand ecosystems
undergowhen international mammoths decide toset up shop. Thisblog seeks to
analyse the role of corporations in developmentby looking at the Coca-Cola
company’sCSR campaign.There isa special focus on Plachimada and how the
incidentchanged the way communities viewMNCs’ ethics and duties. The Coca-
Cola company’sactions are explored by comparing the multiple lawsuitsand social
movementsagainstthem vis-a-visthe sustainability claimsmade by the company.
One significantchallenge hasbeenthe difficulty of arriving ata universally
acceptable definitionof Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).This is because of a
lackof consensus on the subjectsthat must be covered by it. Stakeholders’ opinions
vary from profitability and economic stability to environmental protectionto
workers’ welfare and safety. Ithas beendefined by the United Nations Industrial
DevelopmentOrganisationas “a managementconceptwhereby companiesintegrate
social and environmental concernsin their business operations and interactions with
their stakeholders”.

7. The conceptof CSR canbe traced backto the corporate philanthropy of early
AmericanCapitalism.The charitiesset up by millionaireslike the Rockefellers,the
Carnegie family and the Ford Foundation in the 19th century lead to the idea that
corporations have obligations to their communities that go beyond delivering the
goods and servicesthey are paid to produce.Today,many governmentshave
mandatory CSR schemesinplace that acteither as regulatory bodiesor enlistthe
help of corporations to meetdevelopmental goals.CSR activitiesare initiated by
companiesfor a variety ofreasons ranging from the obligationto comply with laws
that mandate it (eg.in the EuropeanUnion), to the desire for positive public opinion
or to meetorganisational ethical standards.
This concepthas attracted criticism from both sides of the economic spectrum.On
the right,it hasfamously attracted criticism from free-marketenthusiastslike Milton
Friedman.Friedmanargued thatcorporationsengaging insocially responsible
behaviour thatwent beyond legal obligations was unethical asit was equivalentto
“spending someone else’smoney” inpursuit of a social cause. He argued that an
enterprise thatinvested in pollution control beyond the mandated levelsor invested
in community developmentatthe cost of profits was taxing the consumers, reducing
the wagesof workers and causing a decline inthe returnsto shareholders(Friedman
1970).
On the left, many have argued thatenterprisesuse CSR schemesto divertattention
away from substantial claimsof unethical corporate behaviour.Corporatesalso
often fund scientific studies in key areasof public health that divertattention away
from the harmful effectsof their products. “Greenwashing” isanother major
criticism againstcorporate behaviour inrecentyears.Thisrefersto the practice of
spending more money on advertising asa pro-environmententerprise thanon
actually adopting eco-friendly productionpatterns. More than just diverting
attention away from bad behaviour,many enterprisesevenprofitfrom CSR schemes

8. in the way of increased profitsthat follow positive consumer attitudesto a
supposedly socially responsible brand.Another critique is that CSR is merely proof
of capitalism’sability to appropriate all criticismsagainst it and survive despite all
odds. When social movementsbeganto emerge inopposition to the growing power
of corporations in the affairs of local communities,CSR was used to convince
communitiesthat “business can save the world”. As corporations are primarily
profit-seeking enterprises,it is fair to expectthat they will moderate their behaviour
only in pursuit of the money trail. However,when corporations engage inbehaviour
that suspends the functions of entire communitiesand ecosystemsinto disarray
while claiming to be leadersof CSR movements,there arisesa need to question
corporate ethicsas a whole.
Coca-Cola is one enterprise that surfacesin most studies in most studies about the
role of MNCs in development.The brand grewasa result of acquiring thriving
companiesacross the world including Costa Coffee, Thums Up, Vitaminwater,
Powerade,Sprite,Fanta, Dasani, Smartwater,Minute Maid, Monster Energy,etc.
The business model consists of Coca-Cola producing the syrup concentrate which is
sold to bottlers holding a franchise with the company. Itis these subsidiary bottling
companiesthat then control the retailing,merchandising and distributionof the
famous Coca-Cola productacross the world.
The Coca-Cola Company is one of the largestconsumer goods companieswith an
aggressively marketed CSR campaign.Inthe company’swebsite,under CSR
objectives,it is listed that Coca-Cola “is committed to sustainable developmentand
inclusive growth and has beenfocusing on issues relating to water, environment,
healthy living,music, grassroots education,social advancementand promoting
gender equality and empowermentofwomen”. They release annual sustainability
reports and often partner with academic,businessand media conferencesas
“sustainability partners”. The company claimsanexcellenttrack record on
environmental issues, with a 138% water replenishmentrate in India.Recently,the

9. company teamed up with two Indianuniversitiesto setup the “Coca-Cola
Departmentof Regional Water Studies” to publish reports on water-related issues in
major Indiancities.
Despite its vigoroussustainability claims,Coca-Cola’s activitiesin many parts of the
world have beeninconsistent with their own CSR reports. Coca-Cola is known to
set up plants in areaswith predominantly disenfranchised or socially excluded
residents. Plachimada’sworstaffected colonies, for example,consists of thirty to
forty per cent tribalsand 10 per cent Dalits. Cultivable land is owned mainly by
Ezhavas,Muslimsand OBCs. Other notable examplesof this phenomenoninclude
Kaladera (Uttar Pradesh),Chiapas(Mexico),Turkey,Peru,Russia and Chile.In
Plachimada,a serious water crisis was reported merely six monthsafter the
Hindustan Coca-Cola BeveragesPrivate plantwasset up. The plant was extracting
half a million litresof groundwater daily. Productsbottled at the plant included not
just Coca-Cola, but also the many brands it owned like Limca,Maaza,Thums Up,
Kinley Soda, etc. Together,85 lorriesfull of carbonated drinksexited the factory’s
production line every day.
Soon, wellsaround the plantturned highly acidic,unfit for any domestic uses like
washing clothesor utensils, letalone drinking.pH levelsin wellswent as low as 3.53
(againsta normal range of 6.5-8.5), containing soaringly non-permissible levelsof
lead and cadmium,thus decimating surrounding croplands.In18 months, nine
farmer suicideswere reported ina 2km radius of the bottling plant (Anand 2005).
Coca-Cola responded to the media’squestions about their environmentally
hazardousbottling plants saying that groundwater levelswere rising due to its
rainwater harvesting projects.They alsoassured international reportersthat internal
investigationshad found that the quality of water metinternational safety standards.
The company started selling “free” fertilisersto the people (which were actually
hazardouswastes from the factory,containing high levelsof lead and cadmium).

10. Whenlab reportsshowed that the sludge was ladenwith toxic chemicals,the
company adopted novel modes to dispose of toxic waste that mainly involved
dumping the waste on roads and other property at night. Finally,whenprotests
against Coca-Cola started to emerge invariousparts of the country, the company
admitted that a water crisis was indeed brewing inPlachimada,butrefused to take
any responsibility for it (Bijoy 2005). Instead, they assured to supply drinking water
to the citizens. By then, the perceptionof Coca-Cola as a company that would
distribute carcinogenic wastesfrom their factoriesas fertilisersto impoverished
farmerstook hold across the nation. Whenfarmersstarted gathering atthe plant to
organise sit-ins and blockades,the company sought police protection to run the
plant as planned.Moreover,Coca-Cola and its affiliates have alsotried turning this
into a “Naxals-Vs-Development” issue.
With its actions in Plachimada,Coke hasshown the world how easy it is for MNCs
to flout local rules, to disregard local elected representativesand above all,to
bulldoze and intimidate civil society.What is worse is that the influence of capital is
often coupled with the ideology of capital so that evenindependentbodieslike the
judiciary oftenbuy into the “development” narrative peddled by multinational
corporations. The High Court of Kerala asked in one of its commentsas to why
agriculture had to be givenpriority over industrial activity.Moreover,before the
involvementof the BBC, most Indianmedia houses were sympathetic to Coke’s
cause,showing protests as simplistic anti-industrial paranoia stemming from rural
ignorance and typical tribal backwardness.Another important channel of Coca-
Cola’s arm-twisting is its funding of scientific studies to manipulate findings in its
favour. The “India Environmental Council” formed in 2003 by the advisory body of
Coke with former Chief Justice of India,B N Kirpal as chairmandeclared the
agitation as unfounded. The CJI evenmade a statementthat he hoped the HC
would make a judgmentinfavour of Coke after looking at the facts on a “scientific
basis”. The Coca-Cola sponsored TERI institute was also called uponto verify its
sustainability claims(Bijoy 2006).

11. The company has a long history of funding scientists, citing advancementofproduct
research asa claim.These scientists whose expertise range from nutrition,
sustainability and environmental science,oftengo on to produce research thatworks
in Coke’s best interests. One such incidentwas the increasing number of dieticians
who claimed that it was physical activity and not calorie intake that hasa bigger role
to play whenit comes to obesity. These findings conveniently followed the growing
international concernover Coca-Cola’s high sugar content that was causing obesity
and diabetesratesto skyrocket among consumers across the globe. The company
evensetup and funded a board called the Global Energy Balance Networkwhich
focuses on increasing physical activity among Americansinstead oftrying to push
down consumption rates. Independenthealth expertsdeny thisclaim,saying that
exercise haslittle impacton weight compared towhat people consume (Choi 2015).
Despite all their heavy-handedness,companieslike Coke have beenallowed to
expand productionsites into remote cornersof the globe due to local representatives
desperate for local jobs and investment.However,Coca-Cola’s trackrecord on
workers’ issues has beenlessthan stellar, with most of their labour being derived
from part-time workers hired on a contractual basis without legal protections or job
benefits. Infact, Coca-Cola’s strong anti-Union stance has beentakenso far that
many groups in nations like Columbia have accused the company of funding death
squads to threatenor silence union organizers.Giventhe sustained impoverishment
of local workers and the meagre taxespaid by companieslike Coca-Cola, states’
continued affinity for foreigninvestmentfrom MNCs is puzzling.
In conclusion, CSR is one of the countless ways in which capitalism adapts to
changesin public perceptionsof development.Although it was earlier criticized by
economists and other theorists on both sides of the political spectrum, companies
have found it extremely profitable tojump on the CSR bandwagon. Such initiatives
provide not only a perfectcover for unethical practicesthatgo against community

12. interests but if handled properly,caneveninfluence positive public opinion in
favour of the corporation. With the lines betweengovernance,businessand science
blurring,it has become increasingly easy for businessesto influence all three with
their constantly expanding capital.Thisraises immense challengesfor local
communitiesin their strivingsfor more equitable and sustainable accessto already
depleting resources.
References:
Anand, S. ‘Don’t Poison My Well’.News Magazine.Outlook India,16 May 2005.
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/dont-poison-my-well/227376.
Bijoy, C. R. ‘Kerala’sPlachimada Struggle: ANarrative onWater and Governance
Rights’.Economic and Political Weekly 41, no. 41 (2006): 4332–39.
Brodzinsky, Sibylla.‘Coca-Cola Boycott Launched after Killingsat Colombian
Plants’. The Guardian,24 July 2003, sec. Media.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia.
Choi, Candice.‘Coke as a Sensible Snack? Coca-Cola Works with Dietitians Who
SuggestCola as Snack’.Star Tribune.Accessed 17 October 2019.
http://www.startribune.com/coke-a-good-snack-health-experts-working-with-coke-
say-so/296404461/.
War on Want. ‘Coca-Cola: Drinking the World Dry’, 4 August 2014.
https://waronwant.org/media/coca-cola-drinking-world-dry.
‘Coke-Book-New.Pdf’. Accessed 18 October 2019. https://www.coca-
colaindia.com/content/dam/journey/in/en/private/sustainablity-report/coke-book-
new.pdf.
Association of Corporate Citizenship Professionals. ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility: A BriefHistory’. Web Page.Accessed 18 October 2019.
https://www.accprof.org/ACCP/ACCP/About_the_Field/Blogs/Blog_Pages/Cor
porate-Social-Responsibility-Brief-History.aspx.

13. The Coca-Cola Company. ‘CSR Policy - Coca-Cola India’.Accessed 18 October
2019. http://www.coca-colaindia.com/stories/ccipl-csr-policy.
Friedman,Milton. ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase ItsProfits’.
Magazine.The NewYorkTimesMagazine,13 September 1970.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080312125647/http://www.colorado.edu/studentg
roups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html.
Ganguly,Samrat.‘The Investor-State Dispute Mechanism (ISDM) and a Sovereign’s
Power to ProtectPublic Health’.Columbia Journal of Transnational Law38 (2000
1999): 113.
Gond, Jean-Pascal,and Jeremy Moon.‘Corporate Social Responsibility in
Retrospectand Prospect: Exploring the Life-Cycle of anEssentially Contested
Concept’. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Reader,2011, 1–28.
EcoWatch.‘How Coca-Cola and Climate Change Created a Public Health Crisis in a
MexicanTown’,18 July 2018. https://www.ecowatch.com/coca-cola-water-mexico-
2587884496.html.
McKibben,Bill. ‘Hype vs. Hope’. Mother Jones (blog).Accessed 18 October 2019.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/hype-vs-hope/.
O’Connor, Anahad. ‘Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away
From Bad Diets’. New YorkTimes(blog), 9 August 2015.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-
blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/.
Pirson, Michael,and DeepakK. Malhotra. ‘Unconventional Insightsfor Managing
Stakeholder Trust’.SSRN Scholarly Paper.Rochester,NY: Social Science Research
Network, 1 January 2008. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1088111.
Raman,K. Ravi.‘Community—Coca-Cola Interface: Political-Anthropological
Concerns on Corporate Social Responsibility’.Social Analysis 51, no. 3 (1 December
2007): 103–20. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2007.510305.
Sheehy,Benedict.‘Defining CSR: Problemsand Solutions’. Journal of Business
Ethics 131, no. 3 (1 October 2015): 625–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-
2281-x.

14. Thacker,Paul.‘Coca-Cola’s SecretInfluence onMedical and Science Journalists’.
BMJ 357 (5 April 2017): j1638. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1638.
The Coca-Cola Company. ‘Water Stewardship’.Accessed 18 October 2019.
https://www.coca-colaindia.com/sustainability-report/water-stewardship.
‘WhatIs CSR? | UNIDO’.Accessed 13 October 2019. https://www.unido.org/our-
focus/advancing-economic-competitiveness/competitive-trade-capacities-and-
corporate-responsibility/corporate-social-responsibility-market-integration/what-
csr.
Role of government
Anusha Vusirikala
CE16B019
In 1998, HCCBPL acquired 34.4 acresof land (mostly paddy fields) in order to set
up a bottling plantat Plachimada.OnJanuary 25, 2000, the Perumatty Panchayat(a
local governing body whose constituency includesPlachimada) granted permission
to beginbuilding the plant.The permission was granted keeping inviewof the new
job creationand as well as the local tax revenuesand all the major political parties
exceptfewcommunist partieswere in favour of this decision.The Kerala State
Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) granted the company a permitto produce
561,000 litres of beverage per day,with anaverage requirementof3.8 litresof water
for a litre of beverage.The primary source ofwater was groundwater from about 6
bore wells and two open ponds, and about 2 millionlitresof water per day was
extracted.
The panchayathad initially beenvery positive toward the factory,which was
believed tocreate jobsand also to contribute financially due to the rent paid for the

15. land lease and the increase of local tax revenues.Some panchayatofficialslater
admitted that the promisesof tax revenueshad initially stopped them from acting
against the company.Inthe interviewsmade for this article leadersand activistsof
the Anti-Coca-Cola PeoplesStruggle Committee and the Plachimada Struggle
Solidarity Committee stated that the relationto the local panchayatwas now very
good, but that there had beensuspicions of corruptionwhen the plantwas
established.One example isthe claim that the HCBPL contributed financially to the
electioncampaignsof some local politicians.Interviews with Parvadi,activistand
member ofthe Anti-Coca-Cola PeoplesStruggle Committee,K.V. Biju, Convenor,
Plachimada Struggle SolidarityCommittee,Plachimada,and Vilayodi Venugopal,
Chairman,Anti Coca-Cola PeoplesStruggle Committee,Plachimada,October
2008.The sentimentsof the leadersofthe panchayat,however,changed gradually
and already before the BBC-reportand the interventionby the KSPCB the
panchayathad decided tocancel the license under which the HCBPL was producing
On April 7,2003, the Perumatty Panchayatdecided notto renewthe license of
HCCBPL eventhough the panchayatdid not have the rightto modify the termsof
license.The secretary ofthe Panchayatcancelledthe license,stating the reasons of
excessive groundwater depletionand exploitationby the company. In other words,
the Perumatty panchayatwasdoing nothing more than upholding the principlesof
public trust and submitting to its constitutional obligationto protectnatural
resources,including groundwater,which it holds in public trust. This was
challenged by the company atthe Kerala High Court, which directed the company
to approach the Local Self-GovernmentDepartment(LSD) of the State
Government.On June 12, 2003, the LSD stayed the cancelationissued by the
Panchayat,stating that it had exceeded itspowers.Thisis the point where the case
took actually long time.
On July 25, 2003, the BBC Radio4 programme ‘Face the Facts’ reported the
presence of carcinogensinthe waste deposited by the plant. Thiswaste had been

16. dumped in the adjoining areason the pretextof providing fertilizer tothe farmers.
On August 5, 2003, the Centre for Science and Environment,based in Delhi,came
out with a reportthat showed that 12 soft drinks had significant amount of
pesticidesin them. On August 7, 2003, KSPCB confirmed the BBC report,and
ordered Coke to stop supplying waste to the adjoining areasand to immediately
recover all waste and store it in safe containment within the premisesof the plant.
In lightof these facts, the Perumatty Panchayatagainissued a notice to the
company,following which the company againpetitioned the High Court, which
againreferred them to the LSD, which againsided against the Panchayat.In
response, the Panchayatfiled a writ petition to the High Court challenging the
legality ofthe interventionof the LSD with the functions of the Panchayat.
Additionally,the Panchayatsenta list of 16 questions to the company and asked
them to appear on November 17, 2003, with all supporting documentsand reports.
The company arrived atthe meeting,but without any supporting documents, and
instead challenged all the allegationsmade by the Panchayatasbaseless
On February 21, 2004, the Governmentof Kerala declared Palakkad Districttobe
drought affected,and ordered animmediate restrictionon the company’susage of
groundwater.On March 9, 2004, the company stopped operations
new rulesestablished by the Kerala Groundwater (Control and Regulation) Act had
taken effect.And on November 19, 2005, the Water Resource Departmentincluded
Plachimada under the category ‘overexploited’,which preventedany further
extractionfor commercial purposes.In January 2006, the company began
considering waysof moving operations from Plachimada,and no operations have
taken place atthe plant since
On June 30, 2010, Chief Minister of Kerala V.S. Achuthanandanannounced the
state cabinet’sdecisionto set up a dedicated legal agency “toassess the actual

17. compensation due to every applicantand issue orders to the company for
compliance.” On February 16,2011, the cabinetapproved a draftbill, which was
passed shortly thereafter inthe legislative assembly,toform a tribunal for securing
compensation and relieffor the environmental degradationcaused by the company
at Plachimada and to adjudicate disputesrelating tocompensation to be paid by
Hindustan Coca-Cola BeveragesLimited for the damage caused by it.The bill was
prepared onthe basis of recommendationsof a high-power committee set up to
study the issue, which had estimated that the people in the area had suffered a loss of
21.626 millionrupeesdue to pollution and water shortage caused by the operation
of the plant.However,it was returned without presidential assent and eventermed
unconstitutional by the central governmentongrounds of legislative competence
Earlier thisyear,the speaker of the 14th Kerala assembly announced that the Bill
may be reintroduced with certainnecessary changes.The reintroductionofthe Bill
returns the loss occurred to the farmersand restoresthe glory and respectof our
IndianConstitution.
The Ministry of Home Affairs first sat on the Plachimada Coca-Cola Victims Relief
and Compensation ClaimsSpecial Tribunal Bill of 2011 for nearly four months and
then sent it backto the Kerala government.The bill should have beensent to the
president,instead, for her assent.The Bill, once enacted,would legitimise the
constitution of a special tribunal for securing compensationof 216.25 crore from the
soft drink giant.RTI said that bill was stuck betweenthe ministriesand the state.The
Bill was passed by the Kerala Assembly in February and wassent to the Union home
ministry on April 1, which later forwarded it to other ministries. Coca-Cola rejected
the bill saying the compensation should be paid by the National GreenTribunal and
NGT replied thatit is more than five yearsand so the National GreenTribunal
cannot be used to redressthe problem.Finally inJuly 29, 2011,Ministry of Food
Processing Industriesacceptsit.

18. In viewof the above situation,it clearly showsthe failure of the state in protecting
humanrights. The governmentshould have made significanttests before renewing
the license to preventthe advancementofthe case. Inthat case they would have
saved a lot of time,money and effort. In spite of that they could have given crop
insurance policiesto cover the loss incurred to the farmersand supply water to the
fieldswith the help of nearby damsand lakes. Drinking water can also be supplied in
cans since the drinking water is polluted.
References:
Berglund Henrick,Civil society and political protest in India—The case ofCoca-
Cola in Kerala,accessed August18,2017,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14736489.2017.1348086?scroll=to
p&needAccess=true
RaghunandanGayatri,ALook at the Legal Issues Plachimada'sStruggle for Water
Against Coca-Cola Has Brought Up,accessed August 20,2017,
https://thewire.in/law/coca-cola-plachimada-kerala-water
Roshan, MATHEWS D,The Plachimada Struggle againstCoca Cola in Southern
India,accessed July1,2011,
https://www.ritimo.org/The-Plachimada-Struggle-against-Coca-Cola-in-Southern-
India
Social Movement Against Coca-Cola
Toram Prasanthi Mounika
CE16B060

19. It was in the period of October 2001, the adivasisof Plachimada beganobserving the
change inquality of groundwater and the receding water table due to the operation
of the Coke plant. On a daily basisthe plantused to export about 85 carry loadsof
beverages,each containing 550-500 caseseach,and each case consisting of 24 bottles
of 300ml each.This huge productionrequired six bore-wellsand two open-wellsin
the factory compound that sucked out some 0.8 to 1.5 millionlitres of water
daily,which is a fairly large amount (Bijoy 2006 : 1) . Within two years,the people
around the plant experiencedseriousissues that they had never encountered before,
the change inquality of water due to contamination spread around 1 to 1.5 km
radiusof the plant and receding ofthe water table (Roshan, Mathews D 2011).
Water was tested in a laboratory which revealed that the water contained very high
levelsof hardness and salinity that makesit unfit for human consumption, domestic
use (bathing and washing), and for irrigation(Bijoy 2006 : 1).
There were large quantum of semi-liquid and dry waste generated,which was a
yellowish white granulated substance and had a faint sulphuric acid smell. There was
also a foul smelling hard darkgritty stuff mixed with fibres, piecesof fabric,
synthetic insulating material (Sudeesh 2009:5). Laboratory reports upon testing the
waste, found to have carcinogens,dangerouslevelsoftoxic metalsand known
carcinogens,cadmium and lead,were also found in the waste productpassed on to
local farmersby the Coca-Cola plant as fertilizer,which wasinitially sold and then
givenfor free.Large quantitiesof it was carried intrucks and disposed off in the
farmlandsall around and farmerswere misled to believe thatitwas a useful fertilizer.
The farm labourers, who were exposed to this material,had observed rashesand scars
on skin and skin disorders.Thisalso led to reductionin the production from the
crops. Some other heavy metals,including nickel,chromium and zinc,were also
presentat levelssignificantly above those expected for background,uncontaminated
soils and sludge(Bijoy 2006 : 1)

20. On April 22, 2002 Coca Cola Virudha Janakeeya SamaraSamithy’ (Anti-Coca Cola
Peoples’ Struggle Committee) launched the picketdemanding the immediate shut
down of plant owing to severe hazardsitwas causing to their lives(K M Sudeesh
2009:5).
The major and importantdemandsof the samithi were
1. An immediate shutdown of the coca cola plantin Plachimada
2. To ensure the availability ofsafe water
3. Steps to provide free health care for all the victims
4. Compensation for all the economic losses and damagescaused to health
The struggle was inaugurated inthe presence of C.K. Janu,known as the ‘black
pearl’ of Kerala,Chairpersonof Adivasi Gothra Mahasabha,who had vigorously
struggled throughout her life for the rights of adivasis(Roshan,MathewsD
2011).More than 1500 angry demonstratorsformed a blockade at the factory
gate,mostly Adivasis belonging to the Eravalar and Malasar (tribal) communities.The
police were called,and they arrested fewprotesters, dispersed the restof them, and
set up a police contingentoutside the plant.Inthe following daysseveral people were
arrested by the police on trumped-up charges(Bijoy CR 2006 : 1).
On the second day campaignleaderswere arrested accused ofusing a campaigning
vehicle and otherswere arrested and forcibly removed from the blockade huts
without any reason(SavaranSitisarn2012:2). Streetcorner meetings,postering,
issuing notices and fund raising were undertaken,public support rapidly
increased.Escalated tensionsfrom police led the villagersrespond with a torchlight
procession.(Roshan,Mathews D 2011)
On June 7th 2002 a rally of 500 people was held by the Samithy in the face of plant
security and police around the walls of the plant where 50 sacks of dung was thrown

21. on the walls of the plant and then was symbolically cleaned up.(SavaranSitisarn
2012)
June 8th the politicians denied any allegationsthatwater was contaminated by the
activitiesof the plant(SavaranSitisarn2012).June 9th, a rally and public meeting was
organised by People’sUnion for Civil Libertiesand National Alliance for People’s
Movementsin solidarity with the Samithy,where the police refused to permitthe
use of a microphone.They started acting provocative making rude remarksabout
the protestersand one of the protesters was beatenup and more than 130 people
were arrested.
On August 4th 2002,a mass rally was organised,called ‘the coca-cola monster’,where
more than 1000 people participated,starting the protest march about 6 km away in
the village ofPallimukku,walking and shouting slogans all the way until they
reached Plachimada ,where they held a massmeeting.This march was closely
watched by a massive police force all the time.Meetingswere held to encourage the
workers and temporary labourerstojoin the struggle and fight Coca-Cola for the
long-term benefit of themselvesand the society. They have alsofought for using the
factory premisesfor an ecologically safe productioncentre generating employment
and providing employmenttomore people than before.The National Alliance for
People'sMovement,led by Medha Patkar, launched the Ayodhya march from
Plachimada onJanuary 26, 2003, broughtthe agitationinto the national arena.
The media by and large ignored the the AdivasisLaunch Struggle Against Coca Cola
struggle and gave more light to Coke’s versionwith few of them arguing the case
for Coke campaigned thatthe protests were “politically motivated”.The questionof
‘development’ and the threatof unemploymentofthe Coke workers if production
is affected,were raised.The environmental friendly and social responsibility of the
organisation was harped upon. Despite all these and physical threats,the struggle

22. persisted with the Adivasi women, the mainvictims, forming the backbone of the
struggle.The struggle soon acquired supportfrom diverse sections, from the
Gandhiansto the revolutionary leftto the environmentalistsand youths from across
the state soon supported the struggle .Support campaignsemergedfrom different
parts of the country and internationally too.The people'sstruggle was finally fully
supported by the NG0’s like Sastra Sahithya Parishad and most of the political
parties
The media could no longer ignore the struggle despite Coke’s arm twisting.
Organisation then acknowledged thatthere was a problem with the water and they
were in no way responsible for it. They offered drinking water as well as started
rainwater-harvesting programmeswithinthe plant and as well as outside the plant.
Coke itself found that they had to organize water from elsewhere asthe wellswere
drawn down and aquifersdepleted.Thisby any meansdid not impressthe people
of Plachimada to set backfrom their movement
The struggle at Plachimada continued for a long as villagersseekto recover the loss
of livelihood and counter the extreme damagetothe water resourcesin the area.
The struggle representsthe efforts of the vigilantpanchayatin standing up for their
rights and confronting the governmentand a multinational company.The brave
people of Plachimada had thrown up many challenges.The strugglealso signifiesthe
power of the weakagainst a giantorganisation that could eveninfluence the
governmentand politics. It was also about the determinationof the people of
Plachimada tonot give up eveninthe face of terrible odds.
References:
Bijoy C R,”Kerala'sPlachimada Struggle: ANarrative onWater and Governance
Rights”,
Economic and political Weekly,no. 41 (2006):4332-4339

23. Roshan,MATHEWS D,The Plachimada Struggle againstCoca Cola in Southern
India,accessed July1,2011,https://www.ritimo.org/The-Plachimada-Struggle-
against-Coca-Cola-in-Southern-India
SavarinSitisarn,”Political Ecology of the soft drink and bottled water business in
India;a case study of Plachimada”,Master'sthesis,Lund University,2012, ECTS(30)
K M Sudheesh” RESISTANCE FROMBELOW' An Assessment of The Struggle
against Coca Cola Company in Plachimada,Kerala”,The IndianJournal ofPolitical
Science,no.3(2009): (839-852)