Re: Multiplication of success in Singur against ecologically hostile Nano
By stating that,
"We do not need Nanos as we do not have guarantees for the future supplies of energy. Loss of ecologically sustainable livelihoods and agriculture can not bartered in the name of common good that is not common at all.",
Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam has questioned the fundamental premise on which the dominant developmental paradigm and the global market system stands. Dr. Alam needs to be congratulated for raising this dimension of the Singur debate.
However, I would like to go a step further. Let me ask: Would we have welcomed Nanos if there was a guarantee of energy supply? May I ask why do we need Nanos at all – whether we have guarantee of energy supply or not? Why not focus on efficient public transport systems? Imagine, what would happen to Mumbai if most of the suburban train daily commuters start traveling in Nanos! No one would get to work and the vibrant Mumbai will begin to decay!!
Whose interest do private cars serve – corporate capital's and that of the upward mobile middle class? This is why Mamta asking for return of land to the farmers is perceived by the media as 'obstinacy' ('zidd') while Tata's insistence on not giving up 400 acres of fertile paddy land was seen as something in 'national' interest – the 10-15% upper middle class being equated with the 'nation'!
The ruling elite probably feels threatened by Dr. Alam's call for 'common good'.
This debate on the development paradigm needs to be taken further. The debate was initiated by Gandhiji one hundred years ago through his 'HIND SWARAJ'. With global warming, climate changes and poisoning of everything we eat - combined with increasing impoverishment, disparity and violence - the spirit of 'HIND SWARAJ' has become more relevant today than it was ever before!
- Anil Sadgopal __._,_.___
Replying to this email will send an e-mail to 7000+ members of Jharkhand Forum.