Sunday, October 5, 2008
SIngur biggest Blunder
Tata gone out of West Bengal. The Vexing questions tails: whom to blame for this fiasco?
And what will be implication of this in future of development of West Bengal?
Will it be tantamountous to the stalling of Industrial activity, the situation preavailing in Bengal post-independece; or will the effect be of temperory implication?
Youth of bengal need this answer.
I will try to put my point of view and try to answer each of this.
Blame: MB or WB.
Lets jump to past of west bengal. A national hero.
Pre-Independence West bengal was most industrialized in India, in fact in Asia rest except Japan. Thanks to British. Calcutta was Industrial Hub. The adjoining area was biggest industrial area in Asia. Jute and cotton industry has biggest chunk. Politically also the west bengal was spry. Be it the issue of division of bengal or any other instance, you name it bengal was harbinger for most of the political activity, most stilted amongst all states. The Red revolution and rise of soviets affected their tenets. The establishment of Communist Party and socialist thoughts were all ingrained in Bengal first. Even Subashji was much influenced of socialist ideologies (tough he remain conviced that industrialization can only drive permanent growth).
Post independence India was in dilemma about the whether to adopt capatalist system , or socalist system. The inherent confusion invariably arouse because rise of soviet union as second super power. India decided to remain capitalist although included many system of the soclialist ideologies. But most politically trenchant people could not come out the idea of communist ideas. There were not wrong but there path was invariably different what Indian constitution has chosen. They kept there ideology that time and they are keeping there ideology now. There are belligerent fighter, always remain skeptic of any capitalist. Unfortunately TATA was in wrong end.
This skepticism is not a new concept in India. The conflict is inherent. The problem is that Socialist is always myopic and capitalist work on ideas which is really hard to digest. The symboitic relationship was always difficult to perceive by any socialist. The skepticism was there in Sardar Sorvar Bandh in Narmada. There are many instances. But there was really funny situation in Bengal. The communists were supporting a capitalist, Tyro politician was trying to get saw mileage in it. She might be sincere in her effort. She might be fighting for the framers. But considering the fickle Indian politic its a distant possibility. Even if she is sincere. I would say she is myopic.
There are two aspects in this. First peoples are grossly divided in TATA issue. According to Govt most of peoples are ready to give there land for proper compensations. This includes all those landowner who have considerable chunk of land. This farmer give there land in contract basis to landless worker. This peoples are getting handsome sum of money as compensation. They are least effected from transition of their farmland. Those who oppose are mostly those landowner who have very small chunk of agricultural land, mostly rely on the aforesaid contracts for their living. They are demanding higher compensation with alternative job opportunities. Those who absolutely oppose any govt acquisition of farmland is minuscule. The last group has to be said really dogmatic, they are blinded by the short term skepticism. Here comes the job of vetrans to allay their fear. But MB has done a exact opposite of this.
Those who think the industrialization is some evil, and rustic life is really charming. I have to say just one thing, they have never lived in village. The rustic life charming is only romatic language. Its the field of the hardship. Most of them lives dependent in the nature for future. The one bad rainfall and they are doomed. India have two types of farmer largely. Small farmer with small land, using primitive techniques. Other have large land using newer technologies by taking loans. One failed crop and they are finished. There life is same a somebody has put his entire salary in stake in poker. Agriculture is least profitable and least reliable business. But most of farmer view lands as their mother. And they should be after all it only mean for bread (forget about butter). So they are always cataclysmic about it, whenever question of acquition comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)