Tear gas story

                 

           Industrial licensing throws up another bizarre case 

It can happen only in India that embraced industrial liberalization in mid-1991 and later underwent many reforms:  A leading company applies for an industrial licence that has both civilian and defence applications. The key regulator says it should not be given licence as it is an arm. The Defence Ministry says the product in question is a dual use item, which does not require a defence industrial licence.

The irony is that the inter-agency discussion over the application has overlooked the fact the company is already manufacturing and marketing the same product to different Government entities for over two years. The opposing regulator had earlier approved the product from the technical angle! 

The company has flaunted its unlicensed product on its website and in the annual report. It says it acquired the technology from a Defence laboratory. The only other manufacturer, a government entity, is producing the item for decades without a licence.

 An inter-ministerial Industrial Licensing Committee (ILC) discussed the case twice last year but deferred it for want of comments from all relevant authorities.  It is yet to take a fresh call on the application.

According to authoritative source, ILC has, however, not yet been informed of the fact that the company is already producing the item for which a licence has been sought. And this fact is already available in public domain. It would thus be a case of post-facto approval, if it is given. 

The product, that is subject of the licensing row, is the tear gas shell, dubbed as mob dispersion device (MDD). The applicant is BSE-listed Premier Explosives Limited (PEL), a company that also produces propellants for the Space Department.

The bureaucratic rigmarole in this case started in March 2012 when PEL applied for industrial licence to manufacture one million MDD/year in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh.  In the same month, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) turned down PEL’s plea for trial manufacture of tear gas shells .

The Explosives Section (EC) of the Department of Industrial Policy (DIPP) has agreed with PESO. EC believes that MDD is used for offence or defence. A MDD is fired with a weapon. It thus comes under the definition of ‘ammunition’ covered under Arms Act, 1959.

An authoritative source quoted EC as telling ILC that “it is desirable not to permit manufacture of such ammunition in the factory licensed under the Explosives Rules 2008.” 

The Department of Defence Production (DDP), on the other hand, has not shown any such concern. It has stated twice - in May 2012 and May 2013,that the manufacture of MDD does not require a defence industrial licence.

ILC, which considered PEL’s application twice in 2013 (in June and October) has been deferring a decision by harping on the fact the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Andhra Pradesh Government have not yet given their comments on the application. 

PESO-EC combine’s argument might not cut ice with the case at ILC as PEL manufacturing tear gas hand grenades, which are not fired with a weapon. Moreover, these grenades cannot be thrown back by the rioters at the police as they burn while releasing the tear gas. 

Unlike conventional tear gas shells that use certain chemicals, PEL’s product is based on oleo-resin (OR), a concentrated extract from red chillies.

PEL has listed several advantages of its MDD. It says: “The OR laden smoke causes irritation to eyes, nose and throat of the persons inhaling it. It will make the person to quickly retreat from the site. The OR vapour are not soluble in water. The wet cloth or water cannot be used as a defence by the mob. The irritation caused by OR laden smoke, however, like the effect of hot chillies is temporary and goes away.”

Another advantage of PEL’s MDDs is that OR is more irritating than ammonia gas, which only causes eyes to burn. There is no permanent damage from OR gas if a person inhales it. The company affirms its product is not lethal. 

PEL’s annual report for 2012-13 says: “our tear gas shells, introduced into market in 2011-12, have been finding wider acceptance by various government agencies, clocking higher revenues.”

Prior to PEL’s foray into MDD business, Border Security Force’s (BSF’s) Tear Smoke Unit (TSU), Tekanpur in Madhya Pradesh was the sole producer of a variety of tear gas shells. It operates under administrative control of MHA.

TSU stared its operations in mid-seventies with technology sources from Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Ordnance Factories. Prior to setting up of TSU, police forces relied on imported tear gas shells for controlling unruly mobs.  The Unit, which has several innovative products to its credit, presently has expertise in manufacturing 60 types of munitions.

                                   ends