Email
Print
ShareAn intriguing postscript to the shift of Ratan Tata's dream project to manufacture the Nano to Gujarat has been the almost total silence of the secular brigade. Most of the time Narendra Modi has been a lightning rod for them and even his claims of having created a Vibrant Gujarat have been pooh-poohed. When it became known that he would not be given a visa to go to the US, they cheered. When the Nanavati report came out and gratuitously cleared his name, they jeered and scoffed. Yet, here was the country's most respected businessman setting up shop in Gujarat and singing hosannas to the 'good M', and not a peep. How come?
It could be argued that this was just a business decision and business and politics are separate, but is that really so? First, though Ratan Tata was not among those who ever publicly made his views known after the Gujarat riots, fact is that given his background, it is reasonable to assume that he was upset, even disgusted. The business community generally stayed diplomatically silent, apart from a few well-known names but within their own closed circles, many expressed their disapproval of what had happened in Gujarat.
Second, though Modi loses no opportunity to hail the many merits of Gujarat and takes credit for them, the fact is that the state is a laggard as far as heavy duty manufacturing is concerned. It is strong on small enterprises, pharmaceuticals and big petrochemical projects. Most of the big companies were set up long before Modi came on the scene.
Whatever his governance skills and the claims of billions of dollars worth of MoUs that have been signed, the big domestic and foreign investors have of late stayed away from Gujarat. This may not necessarily be because of Modi, but lack of social harmony does play some role in investment decisions. You don't want to sink in millions into a place where a riot may break out suddenly.
Therefore, Tata's resolve to leave West Bengal and go to Gujarat must have come as a godsend to Narendra Modi. A prestigious project in more ways than one, toplined by the biggest name on the Indian business firmament -- what more could he have asked for? It vindicates him as a chief minister and manager and it almost cleanses out any blot on his name. From now on, his regime's lasting legacy will not be Gujarat 2002, but Ratan Tata 2008. He must be silently thanking Mamata Banerjee for sending the Nano his way.
So why did not Modi-baiters get into the act and snipe at him and also at Ratan Tata?
Why did they not ask him to reconsider his decision? Why no expressions of anger on the web or via SMS campaigns? But let's turn that question around -- should there be any reason for anger? Should business plans be in any way affected by extraneous political factors? An investor needs mainly a place where the infrastructure is good, which is well connected, the labour force is peaceful and skilled and where the company can get on with the job. Clearly, despite Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's promises and commitments, those things were not available in West Bengal. Mamata Banerjee and a handful of her followers were terrorising a big Indian multinational. Modi will ensure that the Tatas do not suffer in Gujarat.
Should any opprobrium attached to a democratically elected government's name be considered by businessmen? Riots have taken place in other Indian states, including Maharashtra. Under Hitler, Germany's industrialisation proceeded rapidly. China, which is not even a democracy and whose repressive policies are routinely attacked by the US government gets a lot of investment by American companies. Dotted all round China are magnificent industrial parks, SEZs and gleaming factories with all the marquee names of the world. The board of directors, when they visit China do not get into politics -- they just want to know about the investment climate. Their commitment is to their shareholders and to maximisation of profits. If the Tatas had doggedly stayed on in Singur, they would have got bogged down in dealing with a bunch of goons with no help from the incompetent government to sort out the issue. Moving out was the only solution -- in fact, Ratan Tata has showed the way to industrialists who can now tell governments, fulfil your promises or else, Hasta la Vista baby. After that it was a question of going to the destination which offered the best opportunity to make up the lost time; nothing else quite compared to Gujarat.
I doubt somehow that the secularists have rationalised it this way. They probably have just been left surprised at Modi's swift action and by Ratan Tata's swift acceptance. Tata's respectability factor and statusensures that no one is likely to challenge him. He has taken the most level-headed, rational step; it is good for his company and will be good for Gujarat. It is difficult to argue with him on this point. Indeed, his decision opens the doors for others to follow; there will be many more big ticket investments coming to Gujarat soon. Secularism doesn't figure in this equation at all, so protesting would have been a waste of time.
Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net
