My good friend Ratan

A letter supposedly addressed to the West Bengal CM, Sri Buddadeb Bhattacharya, by Sri Ravindra Kumar, Editor, The Statesman, was posted in a Yahoogroup, by Mr L, alongwith the comments 'In case there are still some Ratan Tata fans left, here's some interesting reading'. I responded as below:

Hi L

I am sure that was targeted at me. Let me not disappoint you. Indeed, I am a greater fan of Ratan Tata today, after reading what you had forwarded.

After some three decades of continuous rule, brainwashing people on the virtues of a spartan existence, the Marxists (so-called) in West Bengal suddenly realised that they could not carry on the bluff any longer, particularly with the onset of the information revolution, leading to increased awareness amongst the people and resulting aspirations, including even of the Bhadralok. They realized the limitations of an agro-based economy in fulfilling these aspirations, and started looking more seriously at developing industry. Even a Prakash Karat started elaborating on the need for large-scale manufacture as compared to the ‘small is beautiful’ ethos one would have expected him to espouse. But, they had done everything quite the opposite in the past, and it wasn’t going to be easy convincing the industrialists that they now meant business. No one was prepared to make any real big ticket investment in the state, yet.

Now, here’s where Ratan Tata needs to be complimented for reading the situation well, and using the opportunity to extract the best deal for his company under the circumstances. He is after all a businessman – going by your own quote of a few months back. He had very successfully launched the cheapest and totally indigenous car, and after conquering a large chunk of the domestic market, was keen to capture a similar chunk of the international market, for which the price was a major factor. He had to keep it low. And, as far as the Marxists were concerned, they decided that their best bet towards taking the state along the industry path would be to woo the Tata’s, who generally had a fair image, and that thereafter, things will follow automatically. So, it was a win-win situation for both.

Only, the Marxists goofed up, and badly too. Even though they had come back to power with an even bigger majority on their new ‘industrialization platform’, they had not done their homework well, and things just went totally wrong. They then went on to compound the wrongs by committing even bigger wrongs in Nandigram, the arrogance of having been in power for so long possibly playing a role there. Hopefully, they have learnt their lessons now, and will come up with the needed correctives. But, when you have been carrying on a bluff for so long, it is not easy to switch to talking straight, I guess. That’s quite the tragedy here.

The first sentence in the 2^nd para above, I expect, is going to be interpreted as an advocacy for consumerism. If that charge comes from someone like Ms K (to cite just one example), who shoulders so much responsibility and manages it all at the lowest cost to her organization, traveling mostly by BMTC buses, etc, I’ll accept the charge. But, if it comes from people who enjoy all the good things in life, but would like them denied to the masses, well, I would term that plain hypocrisy. Incidentally, Ratan Tata’s name doesn’t figure in the list of billionaires in India, inspite of heading the largest industry house, and I am told he generally travels in his Indica, often driving it himself. Narayan Murthy and Azim Premji are on the billionaires list. But, quite like Ratan Tata, they also do not believe in leading an ostentatious life, but definitely believe in leading a comfortable one, and are not the least apologetic about it.

Statesman was, and possibly is, very highly respected for its editorial content, etc. But, if they choose to rest on their laurels, rather than re-inventing themselves to compete in today’s world, even while maintaining their impartiality, they may find the going difficult. Also, more newspaper production is as much, if not more, damaging to the environment as producing cars, the newsprint coming after all from the felling of trees.

If you ask my personal opinion, though, I would have liked Tata’s to produce more and better buses rather than cars. Not that I don’t like cars, or that I don’t like others owning them. But, very simply because that kind of a growth is just not sustainable. And, Tata’s would have been happy to move along those lines, had the government driven policies in that direction. Also, the Singur kind of development is what Mr Swaminathan Aiyer had very correctly termed ‘crony capitalism’ in his column written during the thick of the controversy (I had passed on the link to the group also), and he had suggested a few viable alternatives. Many other economists had like-wise given their suggestions, too. The debate can be about which of those routes to pursue. But, if you have decided that industry itself is bad for this country, as well as the world, and want to remain steeped in the romanticism of the past, well, fair enough. But, what’s the point condemning the Tata’s? You should be targeting the governments.