10-21-2008, 02:35 PM
Praful Bidwai -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nano from Gujarat: Legitimising Moditva?
In addition, Tata may have been influenced by ... law and order 'stability' <b>(however despotically this might be imposed by an authoritarian communal government).</b>
At any rate, by deciding to go to Gujarat, Tata has bestowed unprecedented legitimacy and respectability upon Modi and his ghastly brand of politics. Nothing expressed this as eloquently as the mutually admiring body language in the two men's interaction and by Tata's distinction between the 'Bad M' (Mamata Banerjee) and the 'Good M' (Modi).
Last year, Tata had famously told businessmen: "You are stupid if you are not in Gujarat." Until the Nano project, the Tatas had limited investments in Gujarat through Tata Chemicals in Mithapur.
Now, by relocating the Nano factory, Tata has finally put his imprimatur on Modi's 'leadership' of Gujarat -- <b>although Modi presided over a terrible pogrom of Muslims in 2002.</b>
...(then a lots of kachra on why Tata have bad ethics anyways, bad on environment, bad on labour issues etc)...
In effect, the decision will be interpreted as an invitation to forget the haunting reality of the <b>massacre of 2000 Muslims in 2002 sponsored by the state.</b> (Why dont they make that number 2002, it would be more memorable.)
This was the worst carnage of its kind in Independent India -- and a major assault on secularism and democracy, <b>from which Gujarat has still not recovered</b>. (Only way it can recover is by voting Modi out one guesses?)
Indeed, the victims of the carnage continue to be denied justice and live in fear and insecurity, with scores of cases under TADA and POTA and all manner of harassment, including fake encounters in which DCP Vanzara has been involved.
The recent report of the Nanavati Commission has only added insult to injury by declaring the burning of a train coach at Godhra a planned conspiracy instead of an accident, and by giving a clean chit to Modi. (For a detailed critique of the Nanavati report by Ahmedabad-based lawyer-activist Mukul Sinha, visit nsm org in )
Tata's endorsement of Modi is in line with a long process of the Indian industrialist class gradually reconciling itself with Modi-style Hindutva, helping erase the memory of the Gujarat pogrom, and 'normalising' Hindu communalism.
This is happening at a dangerous moment in India's evolution, when Hindutva attacks on the religious minorities are rising, whether in Orissa and Karnataka, or in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, while the minorities face ethnic cleansing or are victimised in the name of fighting terrorism.
The Indian State has shown no will to stop this and bring the culprits to book by upholding the law of the land.
As the latest National Integration Council meeting showed, even Naveen Patnaik is willing to implement a ban on the Bajrang Dal, if the Centre orders one. But will the Centre muster the courage, or duck the problem of communalism like the Tatas have done?
<b>India's survival as a pluralist secular democracy hinges on this issue.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nano from Gujarat: Legitimising Moditva?
In addition, Tata may have been influenced by ... law and order 'stability' <b>(however despotically this might be imposed by an authoritarian communal government).</b>
At any rate, by deciding to go to Gujarat, Tata has bestowed unprecedented legitimacy and respectability upon Modi and his ghastly brand of politics. Nothing expressed this as eloquently as the mutually admiring body language in the two men's interaction and by Tata's distinction between the 'Bad M' (Mamata Banerjee) and the 'Good M' (Modi).
Last year, Tata had famously told businessmen: "You are stupid if you are not in Gujarat." Until the Nano project, the Tatas had limited investments in Gujarat through Tata Chemicals in Mithapur.
Now, by relocating the Nano factory, Tata has finally put his imprimatur on Modi's 'leadership' of Gujarat -- <b>although Modi presided over a terrible pogrom of Muslims in 2002.</b>
...(then a lots of kachra on why Tata have bad ethics anyways, bad on environment, bad on labour issues etc)...
In effect, the decision will be interpreted as an invitation to forget the haunting reality of the <b>massacre of 2000 Muslims in 2002 sponsored by the state.</b> (Why dont they make that number 2002, it would be more memorable.)
This was the worst carnage of its kind in Independent India -- and a major assault on secularism and democracy, <b>from which Gujarat has still not recovered</b>. (Only way it can recover is by voting Modi out one guesses?)
Indeed, the victims of the carnage continue to be denied justice and live in fear and insecurity, with scores of cases under TADA and POTA and all manner of harassment, including fake encounters in which DCP Vanzara has been involved.
The recent report of the Nanavati Commission has only added insult to injury by declaring the burning of a train coach at Godhra a planned conspiracy instead of an accident, and by giving a clean chit to Modi. (For a detailed critique of the Nanavati report by Ahmedabad-based lawyer-activist Mukul Sinha, visit nsm org in )
Tata's endorsement of Modi is in line with a long process of the Indian industrialist class gradually reconciling itself with Modi-style Hindutva, helping erase the memory of the Gujarat pogrom, and 'normalising' Hindu communalism.
This is happening at a dangerous moment in India's evolution, when Hindutva attacks on the religious minorities are rising, whether in Orissa and Karnataka, or in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, while the minorities face ethnic cleansing or are victimised in the name of fighting terrorism.
The Indian State has shown no will to stop this and bring the culprits to book by upholding the law of the land.
As the latest National Integration Council meeting showed, even Naveen Patnaik is willing to implement a ban on the Bajrang Dal, if the Centre orders one. But will the Centre muster the courage, or duck the problem of communalism like the Tatas have done?
<b>India's survival as a pluralist secular democracy hinges on this issue.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->