This blog is written and owned by Saurabh Gupta
Nano (Lakhtakia) has remained in the news channels, summits and discussion forums worldwide for various reasons; be it the cheapest car tag, car for poor tag, India's technology showcase tag, Tata's promise to poor tag or the dispute over the farmer's land.
This story brings in the foreground the other side of the emerging Brand India, where some States are not ready for the change or atleast the political leaders are not ready for the change. It's the beauty of democracy which gives us the right to get the public cooperation and turn around things, and India is a living example of this concept. I would also like to bring up that if we really want things to move as planned by the government then we should move to the concept of Communism like China, but do we really want that? I would vote for 'No' as we cherish Freedom - freedom of words, thoughts, ideas and we believe in the same. I am sure that Tatas would have done great job for the future of Bengal, no doubt about it but is it only Future that we should invest in? I want to quote an example out here to give a lateral picture of what I am thinking - I always used to curse people who steal National property but never thought why they do the same. Some do it for fun and I still curse them, but there are some who are hungry and hunger comes before National identity; they steal because they are struggling with their Present. They laugh at these speeches because they are not sure about their Present and leaders are busy planning for Future. The leaders are putting money for Future but are they fulfilling the dreams of the Present? I don't know the answer to this question because all of this is politically driven but I think its a good mathematical problem as to what proportion of the national funds should be used for Future and what for Present?
Nano (Lakhtakia) has remained in the news channels, summits and discussion forums worldwide for various reasons; be it the cheapest car tag, car for poor tag, India's technology showcase tag, Tata's promise to poor tag or the dispute over the farmer's land.
This story brings in the foreground the other side of the emerging Brand India, where some States are not ready for the change or atleast the political leaders are not ready for the change. It's the beauty of democracy which gives us the right to get the public cooperation and turn around things, and India is a living example of this concept. I would also like to bring up that if we really want things to move as planned by the government then we should move to the concept of Communism like China, but do we really want that? I would vote for 'No' as we cherish Freedom - freedom of words, thoughts, ideas and we believe in the same. I am sure that Tatas would have done great job for the future of Bengal, no doubt about it but is it only Future that we should invest in? I want to quote an example out here to give a lateral picture of what I am thinking - I always used to curse people who steal National property but never thought why they do the same. Some do it for fun and I still curse them, but there are some who are hungry and hunger comes before National identity; they steal because they are struggling with their Present. They laugh at these speeches because they are not sure about their Present and leaders are busy planning for Future. The leaders are putting money for Future but are they fulfilling the dreams of the Present? I don't know the answer to this question because all of this is politically driven but I think its a good mathematical problem as to what proportion of the national funds should be used for Future and what for Present?Let's discuss Singur plant story, Tatas are finally planning to move out of Bengal and Singur plant is shut. Somewhere over the net, I read that its a black day for Bengal and India, and I will say Yes & I might support No too. Ratan Tata said it right that if Bengal doesn't need them then they will go away and they stood by their words. It's the decision taken by the State of Bengal to not support Tatas and they will see impact of the same in coming years, but who knows they might be happy with it. Mamata might get people's support and become CM, people would feel happier with no industrialization in the State and Tatas would get a better deal in other State. So, in the end everyone might feel happy, except the current CM who wanted the change but didn't check whether the time is right or not. You can't bring a change until the time is right. Among all of this chaos ,what will happen to the youth of Bengal. What about their Future? No issues, people move to other places if there are gaps in the system. IITians used to move to US in 80s & 90s for the same reason. People from all over the country come to Maharashtra for the same reason. We might see the Bengal government after 15 years cribbing about brain drain problem. But what should a good leader do in between all this bullshit?
Some weeks back I was given a brain teaser, when this whole Singur issue was connected to Indian partition issue in 1947. Jinnah's role was assumed to be played by Ratan Tata who is interested in Nano project only, Nehru's role was assumed to be played by Mamata Banerjee who is interested in West Bengal only, Nano plant was assumed to be Pakistan which either stays with Bengal or go away (with Ratan Tata), West Bengal now was assumed to be India and Mahatma Gandhi's role was assumed to be played by Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. I didn't know that answer then as I wasn't sure whether moving out of Bengal (or parallely having a separate country) was a better solution or not, but in the end its about safety of our people and in democracy people come first. So, Bengal people decided against Singur and Tatas are out. People call 14th August 1947 as a black day for India and we are still fighting because of that one decision. Gandhi in 1947 was looking for peaceful lands which didn't turn out as planned. Same might exist over here too, but living in the same land and fighting is not the solution. I don't know whether it is right or not but I am sure that there exists many dimensions to this whole story.
Will this have impact on India shining story?
Some weeks back I was given a brain teaser, when this whole Singur issue was connected to Indian partition issue in 1947. Jinnah's role was assumed to be played by Ratan Tata who is interested in Nano project only, Nehru's role was assumed to be played by Mamata Banerjee who is interested in West Bengal only, Nano plant was assumed to be Pakistan which either stays with Bengal or go away (with Ratan Tata), West Bengal now was assumed to be India and Mahatma Gandhi's role was assumed to be played by Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. I didn't know that answer then as I wasn't sure whether moving out of Bengal (or parallely having a separate country) was a better solution or not, but in the end its about safety of our people and in democracy people come first. So, Bengal people decided against Singur and Tatas are out. People call 14th August 1947 as a black day for India and we are still fighting because of that one decision. Gandhi in 1947 was looking for peaceful lands which didn't turn out as planned. Same might exist over here too, but living in the same land and fighting is not the solution. I don't know whether it is right or not but I am sure that there exists many dimensions to this whole story.
Will this have impact on India shining story?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment