What's new

Very sad if India boycotted London Olympics: British PM

. . .
I want to see mary kom in Olympics she is quite inspiring
Better not boycott Olympics :argh:
 
. . .
Karan Thapar:Prime Minister, let’s come to what could be an issue that bedevils the relationship over the next four months. I am talking about Dow Chemicals’ sponsorship of the London Olympics. Now the Indian government has formally asked for Dow to be dropped as a sponsor. Do you as prime minister of Britain understand and sympathise with the sentiment behind it or do you oppose it?

David Cameron:But of course I understand the anger there is… the huge suffering that happened at Bhopal and afterwards, and in fact my heart still goes out to all those who suffered from that appalling tragedy… I can remember as a young man reading about that… and being profoundly shocked by what happened. But I think we do have to recognise two important points. First, Dow was not the owner of Union Carbide at the time, so this is a different company and a different business. Secondly and more importantly, the sponsorship of Dow for the Olympics is arranged and done by the International Olympic Committee. It is their decision making process. That is the case. And I don’t criticise their decision making process. So I think it would be tragic if the terrible thing that happened all those years ago over the Union Carbide were to somehow affect Indian participation at the Olympics. I understand of course the pressures on the rest today. But I do think for the two reasons I gave, I think it would be a very sad day.

Karan Thapar:This is I am sure you understand a very emotional as well as a very political issue in India. Let me first of all put to you how the Indian people view it. They say that the settlement that was reached in 1989 was based on the assumption that only 3000 people died and somewhere between 30,000-40,000 were injured. Since then, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) has established that over 20,000 died and the numbers injured is well above 2 or 3 hundred thousand. In these circumstances, the Indian view is that the Union Carbide and Dow, as the successor company that inherited its liabilities, has a moral responsibility to pay.

David Cameron:Well I think the point is that of course there are responsibilities for those who were acting for that company at that time. That is absolutely clear. Of course every successor company has a responsibility that it took on at the time. But I think to argue that that somehow overrides what ought to be the Olympics… This is about athletes coming from all over the world to compete and when Dow, which is a reputable company, has come to be a sponsor of the IOC and therefore the Olympics, to conflate those issues I think would be wrong.

Karan Thapar:Let me put to you what the Indians would say in response to what you have just said to me. They would put that for instance in 1999, when Dow acquired Union Carbide, it set aside a sum of 2 billion dollars to settle Carbide’s asbestos liabilities in Texas. They argue why can’t Dow make a similar settlement to take into consideration what’s happened in Bhopal. Not only have tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands injured but there’s incalculable damage to the environment that has never been catered for.

David Cameron:Well I think that’s a perfectly sensible point to make. And of course, there can continue to be discussions between the parties and Dow Chemicals as this issue continues. But would it be right to escalate that into something that becomes a row about a perfectly reputable international company that is the sponsor of the Olympics? I don’t think it would.

Karan Thapar:Is this not an ideal opportunity to force it out… to recognise responsibility that up till now Dow doesn’t wish to apologise. Because Dow would be embarrassed, this is an opening for people in India to force it out to recognise its responsibility.

David Cameron:Well it’s up to people to make their own decisions, to take their own choices… what I am saying is the British prime minister wanting to see the Olympics be successful. I am wanting to see the Olympics not used for industrial or political or other purposes... that I cannot see a problem with the IOC being sponsored by Dow. I think it followed perfectly reasonable processes. Therefore, I cannot complain about Dow sponsoring the London Olympics and therefore I very much hope that these two issues won’t collide at the Olympics. I don’t see why that should happen. But I can’t tell other people what to do. I can just tell you my own responsibilities as British Prime Minister and my own examination of this issue and I think I have said that position.

Karan Thapar:In the letter that the Indian government has formally written to the IOC, they actually gone one step further. They have challenged the point you have just made that Dow is a reputable company and a suitable sponsor of the Olympics. They point out that to retain Dow as a sponsor would make a mockery of the very ideals that the Olympics stands for.

David Cameron: Even if you take that view, then for the people to take that up with is the IOC. The IOC is above any one… It doesn’t belong to any country or to any government. It is an international organisation to which we… India, Britain and other countries are… as it were supporters and signatories to as it were. So even if you take that view, for the people to take that up with is the IOC, not with the British government and the Olympic Committee in London.

Karan Thapar: Because you are the prime minister of Britain, the argument that the Indian government is attempting to make with the IOC, they say that retaining Dow would be a conflict with the code of ethics of the Olympics and in particular with the integrity code. And I quote to you that integrity code, it says ‘The Olympic parties must not be involved with firms whose reputation, mark that word prime minister, reputation, is inconsistent with the principle set in the Olympic charter’. Surely Dow’s reputation in refusing to recognise the moral responsibility it has inherited from Union Carbide, means it’s not a fitting partner.

David Cameron: Well, I don’t take that view. But that is anyway, it is not view a for me but it’s a view for the International Olympic Committee.

Karan Thapar: As Prime Minister of Britain, are you worried that if Dow is retained as a sponsor, there is a possibility that India might end up boycotting the Olympics?

David Cameron: Well of course I don’t want that to happen. I want Indian athletes to come and compete. I think it is going to be fantastic Olympics this summer 2012, I want them to come. But as I say, my responsibilities are to make sure that the Olympics is properly staged, to make sure that we offer very warm welcome to people. Obviously people have a difficulty with individual Olympic sponsors, I don’t happen to share that view in the way you put it. But people can take that up with the IOC and they have to make their own decisions.

Karan Thapar: Now as you speak to me today hundreds of millions of Indians would be listening to you. What would Indian boycott mean to Britain?

David Cameron: I think it would have to be very sad. Britain and India are old friends and old partners. We very much enjoyed coming to the CWG games in India. We were looking forward to welcoming the Indian athletics here, it would be very sad. India’s got enormous merit to bring to the Olympics. As I said I have felt sympathy for those who were injured and killed in Bhopal. But I would argue even if you take the view, you have just expressed, still the boycott would not be the right action. By all means, take it up with the IOC, make the complaint but boycott would not be the right action. It would be very sad for Indian athletes, for India, for Britain and ofcourse it would be desperately sad. But I can’t tell people to come. As I have said I have fulfilled all my responsibilities. I very much hope that Indian athletes and Indian government would come.

Karan Thapar:Were the Indian government under pressure with lobbies, NGOs or public opinion in the India to boycott, would that affect the relationship? Would that be a souring note?

David Cameron:Well it would be the very sad day because this is going to be a successful global event. We want the world’s best athletes to come and compete in Britain and I think if this was to be caught up in these industrial and political issues, I think it would be very sad for all concerned. But no doubt my focus is going to be making sure we deliver successful Olympics.


UK also had boycotted the Moscow's Olympic 1980 on political issue.
 
. . .
There would be absolutely no difference if India particpates or not. There would be no difference in the top table medal tally given that it would be a China versus US match. No effect on number of spectators as the fake and corrupt bollywood style cricket is not an olympic game. But the Indians would lose as this is an opportunity for them to learn how to organize a worldwide event with clean and safe stadium, clean water in the swimming pool, clean canteen and Olympic village etc. just like for the splendid and never equal Beijing Games. The shameful Delhi Commonwealth Games were a shame not only for India but for humanity as a whole with faecal waste contaminated water in the swimming pool, human defeacation in the Commonwealth Games village, collapse stadium roof, athletes suffering of dysentery after consumption of contaminated food and water etc.
 
. .
Only technically..just a few posts ago he claimed to be Pakistani.

I am British of Pakistani origin. So I have allegiance to both. Clearly it would be good for all to come But if Indians want to make a statement by not coming- I say no big deal- I for one amongst many will not miss or care.
 
. .
Can't blame others when we had the culprit in our hands but let him go due to congress pressure :disagree:
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom