Strikes may force Tata factory to shutdown - 23 Aug 2008

[littlepakistan]

Industry will provide more jobs for the people than agriculture.

[Sonyoooo3]

First price for Tata Nano was $1.700; then comes $ 2000; then comes $ 2.500 and comes no one will start buying the car because soon the price of the tata nano car parts will be just the same with a normal car and to repair a car also cost. Just a cheap propaganda the next time you know it is not that cheap. Greed i can see not cheap...........

[parthsna]

It was not supposed to be $1700. That was how western media translated it. The target was to make a car cheaper and better than the present cheapest car in India, the Suzuki 800. TATA hinted Rs100,000 and the media caught on to it. Then TATA decided to stick to Rs100,000, and it is still Rs100,000 plus taxes. Since the value of Rs vs $ is constantly changing, the price in $ will keep changing. When NANO europe version in launched, it will be manufactured there and will be priced in Euros.

[santoshmbbs]

India has very strict environment protection and control laws in entire asia some are more strict than japan. The thing is we already lost all of our manufacturing industry to south east asia and China now Tata is so depressed that it want to move this plant out of India. well i think we really are a failed state we cannot protect any industry. Software sector in will be more than india by 2020 then we can be on western streets again begging i love beggar india......

[8data]

these are all good comments for diverse economy of India the real criminals and always have been are the Brits all geopolitical and land problems stem from them and as a man of anglo-american heritage and diplo-brat bacground who travelled throughout the subcontinent from 1993-1996 i am sorry guys many bad decisions were made that linger to the political detriment of this day and have pitted people of the same family against each other and will probably never end

[mimeNo9]

I don't understand why these ugly factories aren't relocated to the barren Thar Desert instead of destroying the lush, verdant farmlands and forests of Bengal.

[appatel]

What? 20,000 dollors per acre? Do you know it does it mean? Windfall !!! The communist crooks pocketed these money and now they want to kick out Tata. Tata is most professional corporate. Communist are #1 enemy of humanity.

[ummzahra]

Civil disobedience guys. SHUT THE FACTORY DOWN!

[congiestale]

Where ever you have BJP this is bound to happen.

[Nephilim145]

Bengal is communist?? I didn't know that.

[NPegasus]

Yes, West Bengal is a democratically elected communist government. The ruling political party believes in Maoist principles and hopes to bring in a peasant led growth. They have suddenly discovered to follow the China model. But reversing decades of arcane policies overnight is challenging.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

anyone following the "china model" is not a maoist. i do not know much about maoism, but i can tell you that it is anti-capitalist, something china is not. like stalinist soviet union, china has regressed into state capitalism and acted as a global counter revolutionary force; this should not be confused with any brand of socialism.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

competing with the capitalist world on their terms makes the competition one and the same with the capitalist. there must be a disassociation in practice from this brutal reality if the human race is to survive the threats of environmental destruction and mass nuclear holocaust, created largely by the forces of capitalism who seek hierarchy and domination throughout the world.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

playing the old european game of conquer and profit will make the human race self-terminate. many humans are becoming a biologically non-viable organism, instinctually running to fear and hate, and fighting the natural instincts of nurture and cooperation genetically inbedded in all humans (ex. the family instinct). the human race has been developing down the path of capitalist society, one that has been proving non-viable for sustaining human life on earth.

[NPegasus]

China has long shed its communist ideals & adopted a pragmatic approach. It has now become the "Peoples Republic of Capitalism" -so runs the joke. I did not imply to say anyone who follows chinese model of growth is a maoist.

The Indian communist political parties drew inspiration first from soviet union and after its demise; from China. In India such parties are getting marginalized. But some elements in Indian society still remain who want to bring a maoist style peasant revolution in India.

[HeadRattling]

Bengal has gone from bad to worse. Its a good leason for anyone thinking of investing in this backward state.

[teemuruskeepaa]

Oh dear, good buy the Air Car.

[300ZXturboXX]

Good Loard .. People are getting stupider every day.. Commonsense says if there is a shortage of food in the world why stop food production to make care.. There aren't any shortage of cars. Instead of building Tata industries in Bangal (who is not really indians, they are mostly bangali) why don't they go build that shit in there capital.. see where iam going with this??

[FarangBalls]

cause they got a good deal on the land. you can pay the poor local people shit for their valuable land. its unjust but happens all the time.

[yu255673]

...WTO forced countries to abandon their agriculture programs for years and years, this may be linked with the current food crisis...Its quite stupid to think that Bengalis only belong in Bengal or according to your asssumption in Bangladesh...Utter and iilogical nonsense...3 countries were created based on this line of thinking...You might consider the effects of having so many cheap cars on the road with the already congested roads...Please stop the hate...S.Alam...

[SamHj08]

This affects me how again...?

jk

[abarzilai664]

That's interesting, the Communist minister of industry for Kolkata has thrown out his copy of Das Kapital and picked up "The Wealth of Nations."

[AirelonTrading]

This reminds me of the Interstate that was to go through Huntington West Virginia. There were protests. And an uproar. And finally? The "people" won. The Interstate was diverted to nearby Barboursville.

Now Huntington is a ghost town, and Barboursville is booming.

The Rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The reason for that, is because the rich keep doing what makes them rich; and the poor keep doing what makes them poor.

[jakob0815]

a true middle class car XD

[ikran2007]

indai is becoming more like the west.taken poor ppl land might get u rich and maybe happiens but one day all that u have taken may be gaiven back but not by choice but force in front of allah.

[KarlMarxObama]

My oh my those are some awesome tata;s!

[1warpig]

Not so New World order. Been happening since the industial revolution. Capitalist "progress" making the rich richer, and poor starve.

[RUlegaleagle]

a standard narrative, quite sad. But how many farmers are there? Why can't hey just be fairly compensated and given a place to live and work elsewhere? Someone is getting paid, and someone is being cheap...

[NPegasus]

A sad narrative indeed! In this case, Tata Motors is not at fault because it has simply leased the land from the state of West Bengal at a hefty price. It is the responsibility of the state to rehabilitate and compensate the farmers fairly.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

just because tata paid the state and employed them with their capital does not erase the injustice they are perpetrating by taking the land of peasants and ruining their lives for the narrow profit and gain of tata owners, while exploiting workers at the same time. its obscene immorality, to promote the luxury of a few owners, over the suffering of the defenseless. no lease or classification of tata can erase the effects of tata's actions and the responsibilities it should deal with.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

an injustice is and injustice and a crime is a crime; calling something taking part in the injustice a private business does not make them innocent, in fact, in this case the business is overwhelmingly the main cause.

and yes, the state government is at fault too, but its just unrealistic to think that some farmers have more political sway than tata. the capitalist government is almost a non factor when looking at the wealth of tata compared to the farmers.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

india is not the bourgeois democracy of the US, life comes cheaper, poverty is rampant. bourgeois class has not won a revolution there and will never fight for the poor, they will only fight to keep favor with foreign capital holders (american, etc.). the government does not have to protect any kind of citizens rights to keep its power, only the right of capital to produce profit.

[NPegasus]

Your claim that India is not a bourgeois democracy is laughable. Unlike in the US,in India,it is the poor who vote in large numbers. They have good political clout & they vote governments in & out. Contrary to your claim,the Indian govt. has managed to protect its peasants in ways such as scaling back free trade zones, opposing the unfair WTO agriculture laws among others. There is a definite need to do more.

Labeling any capital investment as callous and a ploy to cheat the poor is misleading.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

first, to understand the term "bourgeois democracy" you must understand the difference between "bourgeois" and the poverty stricken masses. "bourgeois" is middle class small business owners, not the poor masses or the capitalist class (large captial holders). such a class does not exist in india, a british elite has been replaced by a domestic one, the fact that elections are held does not change the objective condition of indias poor masses.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

of course, "scaling back free trade zones, opposing the unfair WTO agriculture laws among others" are great achievements and a testament to the political struggles of the poor masses within a third world capitalist democracy, but this does not magically transform india into a "bourgeois democracy" in which no substantial bourgeois exists.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i did not label all capitalist investments as ploys to cheat the poor. i was making the assertion that in this case there are injustices created by tata's ambition (in more ways than one), and that this does not cease to be an injustice that tata is responsible for because someone calls them a private business and claims that private businesses are somehow incapable of creating injustice, or that they should be allowed to. there is no magical disassociation of guilt for private capital.

[NPegasus]

For a substantial bourgeois - as you say - to exist in a developing country takes time. India is no exception.

Meanwhile the Indian democracy atleast gives voice to its people to express their concerns or frustrations

[NPegasus]

The middle class(why limit to the small business owners) exists in India & it is growing by leaps & bounds. Your comment may have been true 60 years ago when the British elite were replaced by western educated Indian elite. Because India had so many poor people to begin with followed by bad economic policies the poor out number other classes.

The objective condition of poor is going to change thru careful economic reforms;the elections atleast give the poor the right to exercise their say.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

what you say may be true, and i believe that anti- so called "free trade" practices (i.e. limiting and controlling foreign capital investments) are the sole reason for indias limited economic successes; which can easily be taken back by providing india as again a fertile playground for western economic powers. indians democratic say means little when western investors legally own most of what the people need to survive.

[NPegasus]

You are out of sync with the India's growth story & global business. Please read up some facts before making assumptions. Contrary to your belief, India's economic growth is based on domestic consumption & not FDI's. China, not India, experienced economic successes thru FDI's & cheap exports to western countries.

In 2008, speaking of who owns whom is redundant. For eg: When Tata motors gobbled Jaguar/Land Rover, Indian investors won over the initial resistance from western democracies.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

chinas growth was due to the fact that they were able to control FDI's through their state capitalist system, not leaving their markets to balance in relation to stronger markets when they were much weaker. i have already said, india's success is due to the fact that it discarded its neo-liberal program. but economic growth is adversarial to social justice in a capitalist system. i do not believe it should be sought at this expense; as it is in china and the old state-capitalist soviet union.

[NPegasus]

China & India adopted economic growth models that aligned with their styles of governance.I think it was inevitable.

There is no causal relationship betn Eco.policy & social justice;because social injustice can exist in non-capitalist system. An attempt to transform economy creates social displacement & turbulence. This accentuates the need to address disputes & anxieties;fast. China/India do not have robust judiciary to counter the surge of new disputes. As a result,we see anger & protests.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if you simply accept that so-called "industrialization", in order to compete in the world's marketplace, is a goal to which social justice and eco-sustainability should be sacrificed, the next question regards the values of "industrialization" and why it should be preferred. those who are benefiting are a highly concentrated group of owners, at the expense of the poor and individually powerless.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the mindset behind seeking a healthy eco-community is inherently tied to social justice, regarding altruism and common goals; not the demands of "rational" self-interested individuals seeking to impose their interest at the massive expense of others for a narrow individualized benefit. as "rational economics", or capitalism, progresses, the eco-community is closer to destruction, the ultimate injustice. the more inter-relation and common interests are recognized, the less injustice should result

[jklasdfjdfksl]

you are judging india's success on its ability to conform to the so called "rational economic" system and "gobble up" other competitors (in this case the competitors were the peasants). my position is that this system will not be good for india, creating massive injustice deprivation and death in the owning class' rush to economic growth, and is unsustainable in the long run as means for globalization.

[NPegasus]

Gobbling up companies was a response to ur grotesque comment that western investors own others. It was to assert that investors are alike-go east or west. The issue under discussion is about buying land. It has happened in every society. Let's leave up to the Indians to judge if their economic growth is sustainable, shall we?

Because it happened in India, it was reported and the voices of farmers were heard. Had it occured under state capitalism, it would have not been reported or discussed.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

western investors, mainly US, own capital reserves that far exceed any other sect. they literally own most of the world. to the extent india has stopped its neoliberal policies, some capital has been put back into the hands of locally grown elites. i take the moral judgment that domination is wrong, even if it comes as a result of capital ownership.

[NPegasus]

In global marketplace,investors are not limited to the west. As a result, to decide ownership is difficult. Contrary to ur belief, US run trillions of dollars in deficit. China, Saudi Arabia among others now holds surplus dollar reserves.If they choose to dump US dollars for Euro; it will be catastrophic.

The struggle with the influence on govts thru capital ownership exists everywhere; be it democracy or state ownership. Because it is morally wrong,it has to checked thru people's voices.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

first off, i agree it is morally wrong for capital ownership to have such weight in government, but that is the natural tendency in any capitalist government. to believe that capital power will be realistically checked by the peoples voices is not true in most cases. in places like the US, freedoms are defended in the form of the masters (ex. expanding ability to buy healthcare) the population is essentially "bought out" and distracted from their common interest in a sustainable eco-community

[NPegasus]

I agree that the innocent must get justice. However, your allegation that Tata Motors as criminals is wrong. If you may not know, Tata Motors is one of the socially conscious business groups in India today.

Fyi, Tata Motors did not go to the state to set up the plant; it was the other way around.

And, it is realistic to think the peasants have voice - if not an influence - in the govt. If the wealth of Tatas had more political sway that the peasants; the project would not have been stopped.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i never claimed tata was criminals, in fact, they obtained the land of the farmers through legal means, namely , the government forcibly repossessed peasant land and allowed tata to destroy other peasant lands to carry out their construction. this has been a case of the government catering to big capital over the expense of a few peasants. if the plant has been closed, then it is due to the mass struggle and political organization of peasants, not the "bourgeois democracy"

[NPegasus]

In a densely populated country like India, acquiring land is a sensitive issue. Be it building a plant or a dam. All developing countries go thru this struggle. I do not buy the argument that a bourgeoise democracy succeeds in offering checks & balances to all govt decisions and there is no need for mass movements in those societies.

Indian democracy atleast puts some fear in the govt. In this case, the ruling political party risks loosing its power in the next state elections.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i do not think a bourgeoise democracy provides all checks and balances, but it does sustain personal liberties that are formed in the image of the rules/owners (ex. all races have a right to buy house anywhere, if they have enough money). indian democracy may have its good aspects, but it has also proven easily susceptible to US pressure and bribes regarding the nuclear deal, despite massive oppossition, and this video did not do anything to reassure me.

[NPegasus]

Indian masses know that they need power & electricity. The Indo-US nuke deal is favored by majority of the Indians. However, this issue was hijacked by the marginalized communist political party by threatening to pull out from the coalition govt. The media coverage gave a wrong perception of a massive opposition. The bribe scandal is yet to be proven. We will see how that goes.

By law, India offers strong personal liberties; but will take few more years to be a strong bourgeois democracy.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the representative democractic system institutionalizes bribes through various interest groups who have high leverage over politicians. buisness groups dominate the interest group community because of their economic resources and highly centralized core of self-interested "rational actors". they are essentially allowed to buy government policy and democracy become minority ruling the majority. is it really a surprise that US nuclear industry wealth can influence indian democracy?

[NPegasus]

What you write are the ills of democracy. I do not write-off the unfair influence few small interest groups can have in the govt. It is largely seen in the US where corporations are strong and election funding is not transparent. For India & Indians, this is new.

Your example of the US-Indo nuke deal may be true;but it is not detrimental to India or the US. Indians see it as an opportunity to generate power and enter nuclear commerce. US sees it as a way to revive its nuclear energy business.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the problems with nuclear energy are many, from cancer causing radiation to nuclear waste that has no way to be disposed and is already poisioning the global eco-community.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

this deal is a perfect example of rational self-interest undermining the global eco-community.  it undermines the NPT and threatens to serves as an example of the self-interested benefits to be gotten by developing nukes outside of the NPT. rational society, dealing with the common interest of disposing of nukes, breaking down. this deal promotes nuclear proliferation and increases the likelihood of nuclear destruction, in the 21st century's return to "wild west" capitalism.

[NPegasus]

You've digressed from the core topic of discussion. However,let me briefly address your comment on US-Indo nuclear deal. I believe all countries have the right to access nuke power for generating energy. The NSG countries r a club which is undemocratic. NSG countries have mocked the NPT by proliferating nukes to 'friendly' countries. Without signing NPT,India has not resorted to proliferation. If u rightfully care for NPT, why not first hold the NPT signatories accountable for their misbehavior?

[NPegasus]

No source of energy when harnessed to run the planet is free of costs-tangible or intangible. I support alternate sources of energies instead of endlessly burning fossil fuels. However, it is premature to know the hidden costs behind the supposedly 'clean' energies until they are deployed on a mass scale. For instance, some may argue that when billions of cars will run on fuel cells they will emit water vapor instead of CO2. This may alter the humidity of our cities/towns & cause climate change.

[NPegasus]

I am a realist. The peasants must get a fair deal however; India sorely needs investments like the Tata Nano.

I believe this story has pinched some raw nerve in you. Your notion that big businesses are source of all injustice and evil is misleading. The local governments must have social safety nets for its poor before embarking on big industrialization schemes.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

of course, welfare capitalism is preferable to third world sweat-shop capitalism; but a sustained system of welfare capitalism that protects certain liberties acceptable to capitalist society is not likely to come from top down (handed out by the government and the investors), it must come from the bottom up.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

investment does not necessarily lead to prosperity for the poor masses; (ex. plenty of US investment in mexico lately). to state this as a realistic need depends on whose needs you are talking about; ( ex. it is a realistic need for US agribuisness, but not the once vast mexican agricultural sector).

[NPegasus]

Economic growth led by capital investment and/or domestic consumption has been able to lift people out of abject poverty. It may lead to temporary social displacement but the benefits eventually follow for all.

I believe Mexico has free trade agreement with the US. In that case, the bi-lateral trade and investment will continue until either party finds the practice to be unfair.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

your are talking about an idealist world, latin america has long been largely run by US-friendly despots or pseudo democratic rulers who support the rights of US investors over their own people; popular movements have met blood coups, terrorist wars, and the worst atrocities you can imagine, all coming from the halls of power in washington in order to support the rights of capital investment. foreign capital investment develops investors money, not the nation it exploits.

[NPegasus]

The US committed atrocities in Latin America to defeat communism/socialism from its backyard at any cost. In my view, when two democracies deal with each other they can agree to disagree to some extent. Eg: India-much to US chagrin-has stayed away from getting involved in Iraq because of its large Muslim population.

In 2008, rational economics has largely triumphed over ideology in many countries. Be it India, Chile or the US; now every country protects its interests to access resources.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

"rational economics" is an ideology with many underlying concepts and assumptions that create behaviors that are incapable of dealing with common problems (ex. global warming). its an outdated jungle mentality, that has not place in a world of surplus, where no scarcity should exist. "rational economics" is talking about a rational individual interest, when applied to a society as whole it creates an "irrational society" (with sociopath corporation leeching off the public).

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if you are implying that latin american movements did not have democratic support, you are ignoring the fact that the popular participation in those movements far surpasses democratic action in the "democratic countries", who promoted their message with death on a massive scale, directed at priests, hospitals, etc. i dont think anyone should want to sponsor that kind of "democracy", and the promotion of that "democracy" has produced mass-murder on a level that would make hitler blush.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

it is irrational for private investment to care about the long term grown of its host country, what matters in the marketplace jungle is the short term profit, for which the non-owning classes are subject to the whims of the owning class. a "rational economic actor" has no objective rational self-interest in seeing long sustainability of its host population, they are simply a means to narrow short term goals. any common interest is merely incidental and is sure to be very short-lived.

[NPegasus]

Both private economic actors and the state are required. The balance is also critical. When either one dominates the economic & social space; the people suffer.

Because of unfair influence of corporate lobbyists in the US govt, the state has outsourced its functions for short-term gains. On the other hand, when the state replaces the marketplace, a 'license permit' culture is developed. This stifles creativity & entrepreneurship in the masses while granting monopoly to a fortunate few.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

personally, i think there should be democratic control. a bottom up economy and polity. you are framing all your ideas in a frame of hierarchy and domination that you seem to assume as the only way. creating innovation and entrepreneurship does not have to come through "rational economics", which provides incentives towards aggressiveness and mutual disregard in order to accomplish this goal, while crushing the creativity and possible input of vast masses who do not have the capital to play.

[NPegasus]

You got a wrong impression that I am thinking from a frame of heirarchy and domination. From beginning, I am of the view that democracies allow controls on the actions of the state & pvt actors. You wrongly assume that rational economics means big companies crushing small businesses & ponzi schemes among others.

Rational economics also means good entrepreneurship. With access to new ideas,new markets & global capital, it is getting easier to start a socially responsible business than before.

[NPegasus]

The problem of inequity (surplus/scarcity) resulting from globalization is real. It is widely felt in developing countries. However, rational economic policies do not lead to irrational societies.

In the US, it is the failure of the govt that allowed favoring interest groups at the cost of the masses. No wonder, corporations have become a bogey for everything evil.

Not to forget, the green technologies of the future will also come from the same corporations which people like to hate.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the clean energy technologies were developed in the 70's and 80's (solar, wind, etc.). the main reason they have been irrationally ignored is because energy corporations have vested interests in cheaply exploitable fossil fuels that turn massive short-term profits. this creates the irrational society on a global scale. if india and china succeed in developing in the way the west did (e.g. rational economics) the global eco-community will be unable to sustain human life.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

it is not in the rational interst of US or chinese capital to sacrifice its profits in order to promote global sustainability; this is the rational self-interest at work. europe, although responsible for breeding this sociopathic and destructive ideology out of profit and conquest wars, has decided that rational self-interest can only go so far; as the example of nazi germany and wwII showed the world. unfortunately the US has been rallying the world around forgetting this lesson of the past.

[NPegasus]

Although the clean energy technologies were developed in the past decades,they were not used to mass produce 'green' products for number of reasons, such as 1) Lack of ancillary technologies,2) Wrong govt policies owing to unfair influence of interest groups,3) Availability of cheap fossil fuel making it difficult to switch consumer behavior.

The growth of western societies is energy intensive.who denies it?It is common sense to diversify energy sources not only in the west but also elswhere.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

again, you are putting up a smoke screen trying to hide the major players: the capital owners. they direct the government policies with capital power and influence, they kept the fossil fuels flowing because it was in their short term profit interest, and in the US public transportation takes a back seat to auto industry subsidies. you cannot turn around and blame the consumer for making the only choice he has had in the past: to buy a car. this process is not controlled by consumers.

[NPegasus]

Please tell me how is this different from what I said before - Wrong govt policies owing to unfair influence of interest groups.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

once the consumers control the means of production, then they can be blamed for what technologies they chose to develop. demand is easily manufactured by limiting the spectrum of possible choices and setting up a lifestyle (ex. no public transportation, everyone buys a car and their lifestyle is then tied to needing fossil fuels. the consumer did not have a range of possible choices and choose fossil fuels, the spectrum of choices was imposed on them by the owners of the means of production.)

[NPegasus]

You say that the choices are imposed by the owners of means of production & there are no 'real' choices for consumers. If u looked around; u will perhaps reconsider what you just said.

In the US, I personally know people who have 'chosen' to live off the grid, grow own fruits/vegetables, use public transport whereever possible, recycle & use green products. Before you comment that this is a small group of people; let me tell u that it is a big number & it will continue to grow.

[NPegasus]

Unlike to your belief, India's attempt to transform itself is a bottom-up effort. In India, decades of lopsided economic growth has resulted in present difficulies.

Liberties in capitalist societies are attained when per capita incomes of the citizens rise to global standards. Without good infrastructure, education etc this cannot be achieved. Until then the governments has to pitch in to offer support to its citizens.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i cannot argue with your "decades of lopsided economic growth" due to ignorance and i agree that changes are needed, but massive privatization that will weaken civilian power, including government in a very distanced perspective, certainly is not the answer. this will only turn india into a playground for foreign investors who will flush millions of indian lives down the toiled to achieve short term profit.

[NPegasus]

Indians have seen the era of the Asian Tigers-rampant privatization; followed by economic turmoil. As a result, India has charted its path of controlled privatization-opening sectors such as infrastructure to foreign investment while protecting other sectors such as retail & agriculture. There are host of public-private partnerships which do not allow weakening of the civilian control.

In the video, small section of farmers have opposed the project;others have happily accepted the compensation.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

in the US, the liberties came from the "bourgeois revolution", in india, another dynamic may be developing; but india's bribe-prone government (including from US nuclear tech) and profit-hungry, cheap labor source seeking, capitalist elite class may have other plans. the objective state of affairs are something any realist should examine before attempting to legitimize injustice as necessary.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

realism does not have to mean ruling out any option that is not supported by the worlds powerful, namely capital investment gaining preference over the lives of the poor masses. realism can mean observing the world and making a moral judgment about how things should be, not taking what is happening as automatically the best and only way to go about things. that realism is robotic rubbish.

[NPegasus]

I am not ranting idealogies based on views of others. I have lived in India I say this with some degree of confidence that capital investment is required in that country. Both rights of the farmers and capital investment are equally important.

In India, the agricultural productivity is dropping and the poor farmer has more mouths to feed than he can afford. It is immoral not to persuade him to think of alternatives for his future generations.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

in fact, foreign capital investment, to create the software industry for example (which is praised as successful globalization) is good in itself, but opening up india to investment and oppressive and aggressive "trade" (flooding the market with cheap foreign subsidized goods) is the cause of the harm for the farmers who cannot make a livelihood with the table stacked against them. this has caused many to flee the countryside for shanty towns in cities.

[NPegasus]

The Indian govt is following a path of slow & controlled privatization. But in a big, diverse & unequal country like India, everyone cannot be satisfied. Today, there are plenty of public-private partnerships which do not allow investors to wield direct control. There is also an attempt to protect the weaker sections of the society. However, I wonder how long the govt will be able to protect them because economic growth brings social displacement,which is unfortunately burdened by the poor.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

slow and controlled privatization is making sure that slowly, and in a controlled manner, the investors are satisfied. the population takes a backseat to this peculiar and unjust form of "economic growth". privatization and undemocratic economic tyrannies are not the only path to development. the type of irrational society created by "rational economic" has proven to be unsustainable and sorely out of touch with any kind just or humane human progress.

[NPegasus]

Your view is clouded by a monolith American experience where corporate lobbyists wield unfair influence in Washington. With neo-cons in power one starts to equate privatization with tyranny. Comparing US to India will be misleading. India's socialist experiment lasted for 5 decades. In return, Indians got red tape & bureaucracy. Now, Indians want jobs & increase in per capita incomes. Privatization & investment is imperative. Let the Indians decide if the economic growth is just or sustainable.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

maybe they should be able to decide to the extent they are affected by the so called "raising of per capital incomes". the farmers in this video had no kind of imput as to whether their income and needs for survival would be destroyed for the benefit of investment, and they were the ones directly affected. as far as jobs, this story is similar. peasants like this end up in massive slums throughout all of indian cities, with no jobs, and live wretched lives for the benefit of "investment".

[jklasdfjdfksl]

this has nothing to do with so called "neo cons" in the US, the democrats are also first and foremost advocates of private capital concentrations, its a hallmark of capitalist democracy. are you really trying to argue that india has higher levels of freedom than the US? these populations are considered disposable once they no longer have their land (some kind of capital interest or direct/indirect control), and the level of disposable people in india far exceeds that in the US.

[NPegasus]

In some cases, India has demonstrated higher levels of freedom than those seen in the US. It may be a surprise for you but it is true.

The population at the bottom of the pyramid is seen as disposable in state controlled capitalism; where a closed politburo decides what is good for a state above the interest of such farmers.

Just because such incidents are is reported in democratic societies you assume that corporations are after them.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i agree, there are things better about representative democracy that party rule, but that does not mean that any representative country is representing its people. similar to chines state capitalism, these issues are reported and recorded, then the government simply allows the company to crush the people destroy their livelihoods. the end result is the same.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

some kind of attenuated input by the farmers affected did not save their land, the state acted in the interest of the party with more influence. naming a country democratic does not lessen the injustice here. if india has demonstrated such things, i am very happy for indians, and i hope their success in this field grows. but that is not seen in this video, or in the growing and massive slums of indian cities; their interests have not been represented, decisions were made that destroyed them.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if those indians affected by such land grabs had direct democratic control over what they need to survive, we would not see such injustice. attenuated representative democracy allows powerful business interests to crush small farmers, who do not have the capital reserves or the influence to be represented.

[NPegasus]

We know that the voice of farmers is heard & the plant is stopped. The farmer's woes must be addressed and/or they must be fairly compensated. If you believe this an example of selling out to corporations(?)& signs of a weak Indian democracy-they are your views. Every society which underwent industrialization had to deal with the issue of buying land. The ground reality is that there is equal number of successful land transfers as there are unsuccessful ones. It depends on how it is executed.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i am not saying that india should not progress, i am just challenging the results of this so-called progress and the way it is carried out. because something has happened a certain way throughout history does not justify its use when empirical evidence is showing that the past course of development in history is threatening mass nuclear holocaust and the permanent destruction of the global eco-community. of course there is not only one way to development, and a new way must be found

[jklasdfjdfksl]

because there were displacements in the past does not support an argument as to why displacements should continue to occur, rather than including those displaced in the development. i believe that you cannot force someone to give up their lives for the self-interest of another, pay them some money that wont last long, give them a rehab course, then wipe your hands clean as they head to the slums. there must be a break from the past developments of domination for a suitable development.

[NPegasus]

If the farmers did not have any input as to what would happen to their land; we will not be seeing this video. The core issue is about buying land in return for fair compensation & rehabilitation. If it did not happen the resistance is natural.

Any other argument is digression of the core issue. Loosely connecting the issue of buying land to living difficult lives in the cities is no different than one saying because it rains; there are floods. There are many other factors at play.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

indian peasants should not have to rely on al jazeera's to get a voice, but i am glad this video was created. i should have been more clear, when i was talking about the farmers having no voice, i was referring to those in the video whose land was taken or ruined without their consent, and as a result could no longer provide for their families with their land in that area. this is a familiar story with largely similar results.

[NPegasus]

A free media lies at the heart of democracy. It is their duty to uncover such stories. I am sure you know it. Al-Jazeera,among others, covered this story after the farmers protested and the car plant was stopped.

The issue of buying land for industralization has happened in every society. It is not new. The families of farmers in the video must be either compensated & rehabilitated or accomodated by changing plant layout.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

again, if this happened, it is a good result and a testament to popular mobilization, but it is largely atypical (see indian slums) in a society where business is assumed to have a right to injustice and exploitation from the start for the sake of so-called "economic development". then i asked the question, "development for whom?", certainly not the mass of former peasants forced into the growing slums. we are now rehashing issues already addressed.

[NPegasus]

You've constantly digressed from the core issue of discussion-buying land in return for compensation & rehab. Every other attempt seems like making an argument for the sake of it. Ur argument becomes choppy when u link core issue with every other topic; democracy in US & India,US-India nuke deal,climate change,evils of pvt actors,unsustainable growth, migration,media among others. These points may be good; but seem irrelevant. I can respond; but with due respect, it is not some pissing contest.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the core issue i began with was the injustice created from the forced seizure of land, compensation and no-compensation, which made the farmers in the video essentially helpless and angry. you originally responded by saying the video must have pinched a nerve and that the farmers were sufficiently represented in indian democracy to allow the injustice. i disagreed and we branched into other indicators about indian democracy. the conversation enveloped more issues as it went.

[NPegasus]

For India, the notion of nationhood is fairly new. I will not directly compare India to the US. Despite its flaws, India has done better than few other countries which got independence from colonial rule in the same era. With time, things will change for better.

In the US, the bourgeois revolution has not happened overnight. Since independence, the US has its fair share of dysfunctional govts, social oppressions, and comparative trade advantages (read cheap labor) with Europe among others.

[1776freedomfighter]

Tell Ratan Tata to pay those farmers a fair price for their land instead of ripping them off. Screw big business and the horse they rode in on. More government corruption - its happening all over the world. Can you say NWO?

[tombstonetom]

Sounds like there are a lot of easy inexpensive ways to resolve these problems.

[divinejudge1]

power to the people, down with government