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
