Skip to main content

India joined Pakistan, supported Russia, to oppose listing of asbestos as hazardous

The Asbestos Network of India (BANI), which claims to be running the asbestos free India campaign, has said that Government of India has maintained “studied silence” on India's role on white chrysotile asbestos at the United Nations.
Quoting an official press release of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFFC), Government of India, BANI said, has maintained “studied silence about India's role with regard to white chrysotile asbestos at 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.” The theme of the meeting was Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste.
The BANI statement said, “An Indian delegation of the MoEFFC, and comprising other ministries such as agriculture, chemicals, and electronics and information technology participated in the meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 29 to May 10, 2019.”
The Government of India press statement “feigns ignorance about its own position on Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.”
Worse, the statement said, “India joined Pakistan to support the position of asbestos producing countries like Russia to oppose listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals unmindful of domestic law and scientific findings. This silence is the silence of embarrassment it feels for having adopted a scientifically untenable position.”

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.