Did Tatas Give Up Too Soon
The deadlock scenario in Singur over the Nano Project has allowed itself to be in a situation where, now, there will be NO Winner, no matter what they negotiate upon.
Is Tata simply threatening withdrawal or are they really serious. I suspect a bit of both. I think the outgoing chairman is very keen to see the Nano on the road within his tenure.
As things stand this is the situation:
Investment - 1500 Crores.
Investment by vendors – 500 Crores
Land – 400 Acres.
Employees – 700
Disputes – Return Land To Farmers.
Result – Stupidity
What are the people who are protesting really wanting? Do they really want their land back? If they were to get it would they be dismantling the factory and to grow crops there? Are they going to return the compensation paid to them? Are they really going to give up the jobs they were offered? Is this land really worth the violence? Is industrialization so bad for agriculture? Do these people on the street represent the majority?
I can understand and empathize with the farmers who certainly have an emotional connect with their property, in most cases, ancestral. Of course they are attached to it. It's their life. They probably, some of them, haven't seen beyond their land, all of their lives and happily so.
Therefore the reaction or some sort of protest should have been anticipated by both the Government and Tata. However what is appalling is how its been dealt with.
Mamata Banerjee, the voice of Singur, - wants farmer's land back. I still don't know what the Left wants. One never knows what they want. However one thing about them is very consistent – whatever it is that they want, they only want that. Negotiation to them appears to mean as if it were a way to get what you want and not getting what you want inspite of others also getting what they want. Really strange, isn't it?
The way things stand, it is now more a conflict between two political entities, rather than an issue to be resolved. It has become positional and irrational. No one wanted a solution because solutions are not voted upon, issues are. Until of course the Tatas decided to call it a day. This has basically led to a revival of negotiations and mediations and apparently resulting in a solution of sorts. Last I heard was some 200 acres being returned to the farmers as a compromise.
My question is this – If you were going to settle a 400 acre conflict by dividing it into 200 each. What the hell were you waiting for? And how much brain does it actually consume to come up with a solution such as this? And who has gained anything in this?
Sadly and historically, conflicts like these are rarely about people. They are mostly perpetuated by leaders assuming certain perceived issues. The issues are then gallantly presented in a speech. Obviously because Issues = Votes. Reinforced and ensured.
If it is really such a big issue and a real one that is close to heart and so non negotiable for the farmers – Why settle for 200 acres. Tata is willing to go anyways. Let them. They will find land and states everywhere. The farmers won't. Now that you are getting what you want - Why give up Ms. Banerjee?
A mix of industry and agriculture was sought for Bengal. Nano was the signature for that. Why did things go wrong? They didn't actually. Just a few people probably identified an opportunity. Not that, going to West Bengal, Tata would have been surprised by all of this. So why are they pulling out?
I think for a number of reasons. More than the opposing voices, they are probably sick of the inability of the supporting ones. They, I believe are also keen on rolling the car into the market as soon as possible and as promised. They want to especially have a good lead time between them and the next car of the same price by the competition. Understandably so, they thought of this first. Also I believe Mr. Ratan Tata is personally involved in the project and would like to see it through before he bids Good Bye. The question really is are they giving up too soon? The answer is Yes.
What is required in these situations, from a third person's perspective (though Tata is not exactly a third party) is solutions that make leaders redundant. How does that happen? – By solving the problem.
Let me give you a few examples – When land was being acquired for Metro in Delhi – the compensation paid was so adequate that no one objected. No owner felt that he or she could have got that value in the market. Moreover all conflicts were or are still being handled at the grass root level itself. No politician had the guts to say – "Forget metro – preserve your house." - Or - Even our private builders acquire agricultural property to convert it into money making apartments. How come the farmers don't revolt then?
Look, the Nano, is a big project for West Bengal. It does a lot of things for them. They want it. Given that it is generally good for the state. Given that the project will stay there forever. Given that West Bengal will eventually earn a lot in revenues through the project. Given the employment it provides and the 'brand' for openness to industrialization it gives to the state – Couldn't there have been a more proactive solution?
Couldn't someone have told the farmers – directly – and out of genuine concern - that they are happy to allot them 800 acres (twice over) of even a more fertile land in a nearby village. How much would it hurt West Bengal. One years of Nano's revenues, at best two years? Couldn't Tata have provided the farmers a share in the Nano project - This was done in the Kochi airport in 1999 and worked. Couldn't the Left have deployed their best IAS officer at Singur at the very onset to be in constant touch with the locals and their concerns such that everything was known? Couldn't Tata now offer the farmers a small share of 1500 crores in cash?- They are willing to waste it!! And this would certainly make leadership redundant. Couldn't the government instead of enforcing curfews and rallies engage a mediator that would be neutral? Couldn't they have done this sooner? Did they have to wait for a pull out by Tatas?
Any of this would have easily made the leader redundant as it has gone beyond what promised in the first palce.
For all the genuine concerns and I don't have much doubt that they are genuine. couldn't Mamata Bannerjee instead of her fasting and all the other antics, have shifted focus to a more winning solution for the farmers where they can get more rather than just 400 acres?
In the midst of reality, though, as it stands there isn't a winner. Not the Tatas (lose 200 acres). not The Left (irreparable damage to reputation), and not even Mamata (she gets half) and certainly not the farmers who would have been promised the moon by now to keep the agitation going. Its sad because all of them could have been. The Tatas could have been as planned and on schedule. Mamata could have gotten the farmers far more than they gave up and Left could have portrayed a great image by lets say, giving twice over to the farmers. They would have industrialized as well as increased the agro-base.
Instead Mamata only wants land from Tatas and no other - why? Why do you want land from within the Tatas premises? Why can't you take and rather give to farmers, much more from outside?.. Maybe the issue stays alive. Left obviously doesn't have an answer. They aren't too known for their negotiation skills anyways. Working together and collaborate a solution isn't a strength possessed by our politicians, I guess. Having said that, I do believe that Tatas, given their history and conduct, have rushed in too soon and lost an opportunity to perpetrate a solution where the leaders could actually have been made redundant. It's not their job, I know, but at least they have the wisdom.
Hopefully, sanity will prevail and the meaning of victory will change to collective rather than selective.
yours,
Chetan Walia
Is Tata simply threatening withdrawal or are they really serious. I suspect a bit of both. I think the outgoing chairman is very keen to see the Nano on the road within his tenure.
As things stand this is the situation:
Investment - 1500 Crores.
Investment by vendors – 500 Crores
Land – 400 Acres.
Employees – 700
Disputes – Return Land To Farmers.
Result – Stupidity
What are the people who are protesting really wanting? Do they really want their land back? If they were to get it would they be dismantling the factory and to grow crops there? Are they going to return the compensation paid to them? Are they really going to give up the jobs they were offered? Is this land really worth the violence? Is industrialization so bad for agriculture? Do these people on the street represent the majority?
I can understand and empathize with the farmers who certainly have an emotional connect with their property, in most cases, ancestral. Of course they are attached to it. It's their life. They probably, some of them, haven't seen beyond their land, all of their lives and happily so.
Therefore the reaction or some sort of protest should have been anticipated by both the Government and Tata. However what is appalling is how its been dealt with.
Mamata Banerjee, the voice of Singur, - wants farmer's land back. I still don't know what the Left wants. One never knows what they want. However one thing about them is very consistent – whatever it is that they want, they only want that. Negotiation to them appears to mean as if it were a way to get what you want and not getting what you want inspite of others also getting what they want. Really strange, isn't it?
The way things stand, it is now more a conflict between two political entities, rather than an issue to be resolved. It has become positional and irrational. No one wanted a solution because solutions are not voted upon, issues are. Until of course the Tatas decided to call it a day. This has basically led to a revival of negotiations and mediations and apparently resulting in a solution of sorts. Last I heard was some 200 acres being returned to the farmers as a compromise.
My question is this – If you were going to settle a 400 acre conflict by dividing it into 200 each. What the hell were you waiting for? And how much brain does it actually consume to come up with a solution such as this? And who has gained anything in this?
Sadly and historically, conflicts like these are rarely about people. They are mostly perpetuated by leaders assuming certain perceived issues. The issues are then gallantly presented in a speech. Obviously because Issues = Votes. Reinforced and ensured.
If it is really such a big issue and a real one that is close to heart and so non negotiable for the farmers – Why settle for 200 acres. Tata is willing to go anyways. Let them. They will find land and states everywhere. The farmers won't. Now that you are getting what you want - Why give up Ms. Banerjee?
A mix of industry and agriculture was sought for Bengal. Nano was the signature for that. Why did things go wrong? They didn't actually. Just a few people probably identified an opportunity. Not that, going to West Bengal, Tata would have been surprised by all of this. So why are they pulling out?
I think for a number of reasons. More than the opposing voices, they are probably sick of the inability of the supporting ones. They, I believe are also keen on rolling the car into the market as soon as possible and as promised. They want to especially have a good lead time between them and the next car of the same price by the competition. Understandably so, they thought of this first. Also I believe Mr. Ratan Tata is personally involved in the project and would like to see it through before he bids Good Bye. The question really is are they giving up too soon? The answer is Yes.
What is required in these situations, from a third person's perspective (though Tata is not exactly a third party) is solutions that make leaders redundant. How does that happen? – By solving the problem.
Let me give you a few examples – When land was being acquired for Metro in Delhi – the compensation paid was so adequate that no one objected. No owner felt that he or she could have got that value in the market. Moreover all conflicts were or are still being handled at the grass root level itself. No politician had the guts to say – "Forget metro – preserve your house." - Or - Even our private builders acquire agricultural property to convert it into money making apartments. How come the farmers don't revolt then?
Look, the Nano, is a big project for West Bengal. It does a lot of things for them. They want it. Given that it is generally good for the state. Given that the project will stay there forever. Given that West Bengal will eventually earn a lot in revenues through the project. Given the employment it provides and the 'brand' for openness to industrialization it gives to the state – Couldn't there have been a more proactive solution?
Couldn't someone have told the farmers – directly – and out of genuine concern - that they are happy to allot them 800 acres (twice over) of even a more fertile land in a nearby village. How much would it hurt West Bengal. One years of Nano's revenues, at best two years? Couldn't Tata have provided the farmers a share in the Nano project - This was done in the Kochi airport in 1999 and worked. Couldn't the Left have deployed their best IAS officer at Singur at the very onset to be in constant touch with the locals and their concerns such that everything was known? Couldn't Tata now offer the farmers a small share of 1500 crores in cash?- They are willing to waste it!! And this would certainly make leadership redundant. Couldn't the government instead of enforcing curfews and rallies engage a mediator that would be neutral? Couldn't they have done this sooner? Did they have to wait for a pull out by Tatas?
Any of this would have easily made the leader redundant as it has gone beyond what promised in the first palce.
For all the genuine concerns and I don't have much doubt that they are genuine. couldn't Mamata Bannerjee instead of her fasting and all the other antics, have shifted focus to a more winning solution for the farmers where they can get more rather than just 400 acres?
In the midst of reality, though, as it stands there isn't a winner. Not the Tatas (lose 200 acres). not The Left (irreparable damage to reputation), and not even Mamata (she gets half) and certainly not the farmers who would have been promised the moon by now to keep the agitation going. Its sad because all of them could have been. The Tatas could have been as planned and on schedule. Mamata could have gotten the farmers far more than they gave up and Left could have portrayed a great image by lets say, giving twice over to the farmers. They would have industrialized as well as increased the agro-base.
Instead Mamata only wants land from Tatas and no other - why? Why do you want land from within the Tatas premises? Why can't you take and rather give to farmers, much more from outside?.. Maybe the issue stays alive. Left obviously doesn't have an answer. They aren't too known for their negotiation skills anyways. Working together and collaborate a solution isn't a strength possessed by our politicians, I guess. Having said that, I do believe that Tatas, given their history and conduct, have rushed in too soon and lost an opportunity to perpetrate a solution where the leaders could actually have been made redundant. It's not their job, I know, but at least they have the wisdom.
Hopefully, sanity will prevail and the meaning of victory will change to collective rather than selective.
yours,
Chetan Walia
What happened in Kolkata was Sad Political melodrama. Next to observe is how Mr Modi bakes his cake by propogandizing whole story. Worst part is now W.B. has earned a poor reputation and will take time to wash off this stain, and invite investments.
Reply to this