Column : The aftermath of Singur

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

The Singur drama has finally come to a close with the exit of Tata Motors. It is now time for the ‘what ifs’ and the apportionment of blame. Ratan Tata has—with the graphic metaphor of Mamata Bannerjee pulling the trigger—identified the proximate cause of the death of the Nano venture at Singur. However, it would be an error to stop just here, without making an attempt to unfold the combination of forces that led to the final demise, lest wrong lessons be drawn from the Singur saga.

The business media and the chambers of commerce have been quick to paint the picture in terms of “politicians versus progress”. This is both an incomplete and inaccurate characterisation. Firstly, no large business in India functions or can function without close contact with the politicos, so blaming politicians as a class is hardly fair. Most of today’s major business houses have prospered largely by manipulating the political system both during the license-permit raj as well as today’s SEZ-raj. “Progress” is fine for politicians, as long as it serves their self-interest—just as it is for the business houses in India. No complaints, that’s how both capitalism and democracy are supposed to work, but let’s drop the “above politics” pretensions of India Inc.

Now consider this. The Left Front has been in power for over a record three decades in West Bengal. Every public organisation, from the auto-rickshaw union to the professors association in Bengal is infiltrated and controlled by party cadres. The Big Brother’s hold on the legislative assembly as well as in local bodies is near-absolute. In this situation, if an opposition party can sustain a high-pitched campaign for close to two years, there must be genuine and serious grass-root discontent that fuels it. No amount of political manipulations can pull this off.