The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

PERSPECTIVE

A Tribune Special
Politics of ‘Bad M’
The incorrigible rebel drives Nano out of Bengal,
says Swati Chaturvedi

A newspaper editor once invited firebrand, crypto Luddite Mamata Banerjee to his genteel home in Kolkata. Surrounded by intellectuals and the haute-bourgeoisie, an uncomfortable Mamata told him she needed to leave because in her words, “I don’t like people like these’’. However, anxious not to give offence, she told the horrified host, “don’t take it personally baba, feed me a peda” and popped a whole sandesh in her mouth before stomping off.

As the editor recalled later, “she was just not open to meeting people or an exchange of ideas. It had to be her way or the highway.” And, there you have quite literally the woman who put the world’s cheapest car out of the highway from Bengal.

In Ratan Tata’s immortal words, when he bid “tata” to West Bengal and probably sounded the death knell for industrial investment, she is the ‘Bad M’ who has made Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi the ‘Good M’ and added immensely to brand Gujarat.

So what makes Didi tick? Whether it is tilling at the Communist windmills, flinging papers at the Speaker on the floor of the House, organising mahajots muttering darkly about Communist cadres “out to get her” or even her now-love-now-hate relationship with Sonia Gandhi, the one quality that stands out is “inconsistency”.

Mamata has never been faithful to a cause, an ally or ideology. Says a former supporter bitterly, “why let the truth stand in the way of a good agitation?’’ Mamata has also never been consistent in her support system. While conspiracy theories do the rounds about how Rahul Bajaj funded the entire anti-Tata Singur agitation, he told The Tribune simply, “I am known as a kanjoos. I would never spend my money and I have had nothing to do with the whole Mamata agitation.”

Quite apart from Bajaj’s legendary tight-fisted approach, he can be believed for a reason — insiders and those involved with the anti-Tata movement say that Mamata had lost control of her motley band of luddites long ago. Her army was a strange crew of professional agitationists, sundry non-functional NGOs and communist bashers. Their was no question of a solution because to these people it was quite literally “no retreat no surrender and to hell with jobs and prosperity.”

Despite West Bengal Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi and Chief Minister Buddhadev Bhattacharjee’s attempts at all sorts of pliant compromises, Didi’s rag-tag army was sure an inch of land given and Didi would lose. Says a West Bengal Minister, “she has tunnel vision and a blind hatred for all Communists. Every time she came for meetings she tried to launch in to a political harangue. The nuts and bolts of the deal, the jobs it would create, the ripple effect it would have to build brand Bengal never interested her.”

And Ratan Tata, a principled man, had the courage to walk away. This fazed her because till date she was used to unprincipled political deal-making with the Congress or the NDA as the political cookie crumbled day by day.

The day of political reckoning could be as near as November when a series of civic elections will be held in West Bengal and Didi will see exactly what price she will pay for turning the clock back on Bengal’s development.

However, Mamata is her usual self, blaming Ratan Tata and her other enemies in almost alphabetical order. That is the one thing about her that is coherent and organised — the list of enemies. Though the order keeps changing.

As she told a Congress leader after Ratan Tata’s statement that she was holding a gun to his head. “All this is nonsense! I wish I had a real gun. These Communists are the people who kill and I get the blame.” The Congress leader was incredulous, wondering if she was serious or was like the queen in Alice in Wonderland who kept ordering “off with his head”.

Mamata has always clung to the heady image of a rebel without a cause. Her political ideology, if it can be termed that, is blind opposition to the Communists based on extremely personal affronts. She is a kind of Bal Thackeray of Bengal. While, she opposes the Communists, what policies she supports remain a mystery. She has supped with the NDA. As a Union Minister, she, along with Jayalalitha, gave Atal Behari Vajpayee nightmares. At the same time, she always maintained a back channel with Sonia Gandhi.

Significantly, after her latest misadventure, she went running to 10 Janpath and sought solace. Insiders say that she also got some limousine liberals to intercede for her with Sonia Gandhi, who held her up as a goddess of bleeding hearts.

After the Congress party cravenly vacated all the political space in West Bengal to the Communists, Mamata took advantage of the vacuum. While the Congress party only produces cigar-smoking, drawing room leaders, more comfortable in the rarefied corporate world that Singur, Mamata was their only hope.

Says a political analyst, “the one thing the lady has is political courage and also bagfuls of physical courage. The Congress made a tall mass leader by vacating all space to her as part of their policy of cutting all regional leaders to size. Now the chickens have come home to roost.”

An example of this is the public spat between 10 Janpath loyalist and West Bengal Congress chief Priya Ranjan Das Munshi and Union Commerce Minister Kamal Nath. Munshi snubbed Kamal Nath when he tried to support Tata.

Munshi’s, a rootless leader foisted by the High Command on Bengal, seeming concern for the party was displayed as his wife, a local MLA, jumped in and angrily defended Mamata. Says a Union Minister, “forget the country or the party, if Munshi can get Mamata help his wife elected to the State Assembly, he will be happy.”

Munshi is stoutly pushing for an alliance with Didi. Selling the party on the mantra “only Mamata can take on Buddha”. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, votary of development and liberal economics and friend of Buddha, watched helplessly while his party extended its all-out support to Mamata.

Most analysts are of the view that the development consensus that had acquired a certain unanimity in the country, with even the recalcitrant Communists coming around, has been fundamentally disturbed. If you can drive out Tata and a potentially world beating product, then really what do politicians care for development?”, says a JNU political scientist.

Gujarat currently has a GDP growth rate of 12.5 per cent and is the state in the country with the maximum number of SEZs and notably the only state in the country with flexible labour laws. As Tata said on record, “if you are an industrialist you will be foolish if you are not in Gujarat”.

Contrast this with Bengal with its endemic shutdowns, hartals and fleeing capital. And, pity poor Buddha who tried to change it with a paradigm altering investment by getting the Nano to Bengal. He had to face opposition not only from the hardliners within but the redoubtable Didi.

Her indignation knew no bounds when the Nano came to Bengal. And each time Buddha and Tata posed for photographs and the CII hailed Buddha as an enlightened Chief Minister, Mamata threw a fit.

Says a Trinamool party Rajya Sabha MP: “We would find her brooding with the press clippings.” He reveals that on one occasion she was so upset that at a meeting with the Congress party which would ensure that we would have got an extra seat in the Upper House, she voluntarily gave away the deal and kept criticising the Prime Minister’s closeness to Buddha.’’

So was the entire Singur agitation a result of a personal peevishness. Not entirely, say Didi watchers. Carried away by some of the accolades of the pink papers and the triumphalist India growth story press, Buddha did try to ride roughshod over some of the farmers in the land acquisition.

Explains an economist, “Why should the state get in to the business of acquiring land?” Why couldn’t the land be acquired on a 99-year lease? The moment the government gets in to land acquisition, there is bound to be corruption and somehow Nandigram, the entry of the Salem group and Singur got mixed up in a potent red-hot curry.’’

This initially powered Mamata and led force to her agitation but, later when Buddha overcome his almost visceral antipathy to Mamata and came back to the negotiating table, it was a little too late. The agitation had already slipped out of her control.

When the so-called breakthrough was announced and there were many happy photo-opportunities, the Tatas were non-committal. They had witnessed the agitation on the ground and sensed it had slipped out of Mamata’s hands. They felt they had no choice but to exit since Ratan Tata felt that he had a promise to deliver.

This seems to be a pattern with Mamata. Upping the ante in a shrill, take no prisoner’s way and leaving no escape route. Recall her tenure as a Minister. “She would repeatedly exasperate even the calm and almost Zen-like Vajpayee. She hardly ever attended office. Made ridiculous policy statements and then would throw diva-like tantrums.”

Recalls her Cabinet colleague. The day after her actual resignation after umpteen threats, the late Pramod Mahajan who had borne the brunt of placating her actually toasted her exit from the Cabinet at a dinner party.

Didi has had a stormy life. Even with her family she has had frequent quarrels. She often left her home and sulked and then been persuaded back. Even at her much-publicised exhibition of paintings, which was supposed to give her an image makeover, a typical didi-diva tantrum almost derailed the show.

And the Trinamool spin-doctors were left scratching their heads. How to repackage a kinder, softer Didi? The dilemma persists to this day. A meeting was arranged with Mamata and a journalist by a party leader. Mamata was cold and huffy and kept drawing attention to her bathroom slippers asking, “have you seen any other mass leader wearing this?”

The reporter was taken aback. She tried to ask her some questions about her policies. Mamata retorted huffily, “I am a mass leader. You elite English journalists will never understand me”.

The disconnect between what is expected of a modern leader with even Lalu Prasad Yadav repacking himself as a liberal reformer who has turned around the Indian Railways, and Mamata’s old school and outdated agit-prop approach is telling.

Be it industrialisation, job creation, civic reform and labour reform, Mamata persists in her Luddite beliefs. She does not use a computer, calling it a waste, and feels that it adds to her image as a leader of the masses. But does it or is she the face of the modern- day Don Quixote who, along with her band of Sancho Panzas, drove the Nano out of Bengal?

OPED

Blunted poll weapons
Congress should look beyond job scheme, debt relief
by Vijay Sanghvi

The Congress party will, no doubt, claim in its campaign for the next Lok Sabha election total credit for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and debt relief provided to rural areas as the great gifts for rural development. Yet, both programmes are glaring reflections of the misconceived strategies for rural development as both were merely direct cash transfers without creating assets for sustainable incomes to beneficiaries for long durations as the end result.

The Congress has little to claim on rural development front. Mahatma Gandhi had asked rulers on transfer of power from British to look to villages as they were the real strength of India. But Nehru preferred a different model based on the Soviet experiment of focusing on metal and machine with all available capital. His swing towards urban-oriented development of huge industrial infrastructure led India to continue with a begging bowl in hand for food grains to feed hungry millions.

Rural development was treated merely as a routine administrative function as it was during the colonial rule. Till 1962, the concept of the poverty line was not only not understood but was also not defined. Only after a dramatic presentation of facts in the Lok Sabha, Nehru had to define the poverty line.

But more than that was the impact of the neglect of agriculture till 1966 when Indira Gandhi introduced the Green Revolution that was to make India self-sufficient in food grains production in less than a decade. It left the rural development unattended for two decades with nearly half the rural population eking out a livelihood. Their distress was reflected in high infant morality and natal fatality, more children born with underweight masses to women suffering from malnutrition. Millions were going to bed with half belly or no food at all.

The political compulsions of gaining votes in rural areas that arose with a declining vote base, successive regimes at Delhi introduced several programmes with a declared purpose of removing poverty. But most of these were direct cash transfers - be they for construction of rural houses, self-employment generation or other development works. These schemes turned into typical bureaucratic drives to meet statistical targets. No attention was paid to see whether the family receiving funds from the Panchayat under housing schemes was capable of such construction with designs, materials and mason's skills. Families used funds for their daily consumption rather than constructing houses.

Similarly, the assistance for self-employment schemes ended up in more indebtedness as no one verified whether families had access to suitable technologies for production and markets for viable disposal of their produce. Apparently, every one in government believed that micro financing would work wonders even without specific conditions required for success. Direct cash transfers failed to translate into creating enduring outcomes but the statistical data did not reflect it. It went to show only how families were supported.

Another distortion got introduced in rural development concept when the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was persuaded to directly transfer funds meant for anti-poverty programmes to Panchayats bypassing the state administration. The idea behind the move was to deny credit for programme to the state governments belonging to different party.

However, without creating political mechanisms for ensuring proper utilisation of cash for sustainable and enduring outcomes and without social mobilisation for strengthening and monitoring mechanisms and institutions, it was a huge wastage of resources.

Under the NREGS, every poor family was assured a minimum wage of Rs 6,000 a year whether he got work or not. Does the concept not convert the scheme into a direct cash transfer without attending to the basic purpose of development initiative? The local population has no involvement in the selection of works and worksites. Social mobilisers or technical personnel were absent and clerks and babus were made to function as a contractor who usually underpaid labour. The Congress also did not have its rank and file supervise even these tasks by keeping the administration under political pressure.

Many social activists who had initiated the scheme and spurred the Congress president into accepting it have carried out supervisory survey to audit the implementation of the scheme in different states. They have certified its proper implementation in many areas but only in terms of payment of wages and maintenance of records. Not in terms of outcomes that the scheme generated as they had not even looked at those aspects.

The Congress leaders are confident that writing off of debts to the tune of Rs 72,000 crore this year would yield electoral dividends for the Congress. But this is again a case of direct cash transfer for one time to meet immediate cash needs but without providing an alternative for sustainable income generation scheme for the future. There are no other inputs for improving productivity in their farms through soil enrichment, better seeds or irrigation facilities and effective protection against crops' damages by various causes.

It also does not take into account the psychological impact both on those farmers who have paid off their loans and also on non-agricultural small units including home owners in the small sector who were unable to pay back their debts. For them the write off debts scheme presents a picture of injustice.

Except perverted minds, no one wants to lead a life only on doles even if it is named by glorified terms such as direct cash transfer. Self-dignity is also the aspiration of every human being. Work that would provide him dignity would make a happier individual. The anti-poverty programmes would succeed only if they are more than mere cash transfers.

As Samir Shah, an economist who lives and works among the tribals of Central India wrote recently from his experience, "they (anti-poverty programmes) need strengthening of people's institutions, extension of appropriate technology, skill development, leveraging markets for the poor and wise and adequate public investment. Only then can sustainable livelihoods be generated and end visualised to both poverty and anti-poverty programmes."

The person in search of a daily bread is not politically conscious character who has time or even a mind to worry about different aspects of programmes for poor. But a man with slice in his hand and looking for butter for his slice is a politically conscious animal. Such soul not only reads newspapers but also has access to view television networks even if he does not own one set...

For him a very contrasting but very dismal picture of performance of the Congress-led UPA government emerges with shiny automobiles raising waves of dust while drivers busy attending to the mobile conversation on one hand and farmers Vidarbha committing suicide due to their insoluble indebtedness on the other. He knows that the government was walking on the path of economic reforms that bring prosperity to the upper class while his life remains chained to doles handed out.

When a person is smarting under relative poverty and picks up spade for day's work, he wants his wages and not a dole. This feeling would blunt the edge of the NREGS as a political weapon for the Congress during the elections. Surely, the party would need to look for other effective weapons with sharp edges.

On Record
We do need second generation reforms, says Dr Virmani
by Bhagyashree Pande

Dr Arvind Virmani

India should pat its back for being conservative in opening the financial sector reforms. However, in a year of global slowdown we will be achieving a target of 8-9 per cent growth as our savings and investment rate is good, says Chief Economic Advisor Dr Arvind Virmani.

Cooling of the oil prices will help contain inflation. However, we need to move to the second generation reforms so that our growth targets are achieved smoothly, Dr Virmani says in a conversation with The Sunday Tribune.

Excerpts:

Q: How will the US financial crisis affect India?

A: There is going to be a direct and indirect effect of the crisis. Directly it will affect the banks that have branches abroad and have exposures to those markets. But according to us the impact on these institutions is minimal, as these branches are small though there will be some effect on profit.

In India, there are subsidiaries running of international institutions and they will be pulling out from the country or their activity could be lessened. As regards the indirect impact, there will be an impact on foreign fund flows in the equity markets. This will affect Indian companies who are looking at raising funds from abroad and from investments of foreign entities and will also affect their expansion plans.

On the debt side, there could be a negative impact in the short run as there will be uncertainty. But the good part would be that there could be greater flow of deposits from Non-resident Indians who would consider India a better place to park funds.

Q: What will be the impact of the falling commodity prices on Indian economy?

A: Commodity prices have cooled down in the past 3-4 months, especially that of crude oil, the uncertainty as regards where the price will head next is over. This will have a positive effect on the Indian economy as 70 per cent of our oil imports last year were at around $80 a barrel.

However, in July this year, the prices shot up to average $130 a barrel and this created an uncertainty over where the prices will go and how will the foreign exchange be used. This price fall will help better the trade deficit. Consequently, inflation will also be contained in months to come.

Q: If there is demand fall from the US, our major export market, and Europe, will it not affect India's trade and deficit?

A: I am bullish on demand from Middle Eastern countries. They will make up for the demand fall from the US, Europe markets. There was a rising demand from Mideast due to rising oil revenues of luxurious items but now that the bubble has burst there is a greater chance that there will be more demand for goods from countries like India as the developmental projects there will still proceed further. That will make up for the fall in Western demand which will be painfully slow.

Q: What will the growth prospect in the coming year, given the uncertainties?

A: We will see a GDP growth of around 8 per cent in a bad year. For the past five years we have seen a growth of somewhere around 8-9 per cent. Our savings and investment rates have gone up and there is a fundamental change in the Indian economy.

However, this growth rate will not come easily. We will have to do more reforms in sectors such as oil pricing, sugar, fertiliser, power and electricity, etc. clear the bills pending in Parliament so that the roadblocks are cleared and growth can be achieved.

As yet, we were witnessing growth that was due to reforms carried out in 1990-91, but going ahead we do need second generation reforms as I have mentioned.

Q: Do you think that India's conservative approach in the financial sector reforms have helped?

A: Well, I must say thanks to the former RBI Governor, Mr Y.V. Reddy for his conservative approach in opening the financial sector, this has actually paid off. Every central bank in the world including us will draw a lesson from this financial carnage.

What we need to do is that we should think of standardised products for the financial market and then move fast on reforms once the dust is settled.

Profile
India’s most successful skipper
by Harihar Swarup

It was indeed the last innings of a great captain, the most successful skipper India ever had. Saurav Ganguly, who led India to victory in 21 of 49 matches, announced his decision to retire from international cricket. His decision to quit was expected but not so soon. He surprised the cricket world by declaring last Tuesday that "India-Australia will be my last series". Saurav himself does not know what would be his retirement plans. "I don't know. Let's us finish the series first …"

His debut in one-day cricket was initially disappointing. He made one-day debut as a 19-year-old young man in Australia in January 1992 but discarded as his performance was not up to the mark. Luck smiled again on Saurav when he was recalled for test tour of England in 1996. Hidden talent in him sparkled as he stuck hundreds in his first two tests before regaining the one-day spot in partnership with Sachin Tendulkar to become the world's most successful opening pair.

Saurav was named captain in 2000 after Sachin quit the job. He made the mark having won India record 21 tests as skipper, including a sensational 2-1 comeback effort at home over Australia in 2001. As another feather in his cap, Ganguly led India to the 2003 World Cup final in South Africa, but poor fitness and batting form saw his omission from the one-day side in late 2005. Rahul Dravid took over as captain.

Throughout his career, controversies had dogged Saurav. Back in 1992, he was dumped from the team, branded as Maharaja who did not carry his drinks. As early as 2005, he was set aside after coach Greg Chappel alleged he wrecked the dressing room atmosphere by being manipulative. And, even in 2007, he was accused of putting himself ahead of the team's interest by playing for his bat manufacturer rather than his country. The theories were eventually proved wrong but the damage was done.

Perhaps, never before India saw a popular cricketer as Gauguly. He has been called by many names - Lord Snooty, Prince of Calcutta, Divisive force, Dada - and so on. Bengal is mad after him. Whenever he is dropped from a match, Kolkata goes on the rampage and life comes to a virtual halt.

Ganguly has been quoted as saying, "can't play with gun to my head all the time". "Being constantly on trial has hurt me emotionally. I am bound to feel bad".

Few know that initially Ganguly's first love was football and cricket came next. His elder brother Snehashish Ganguly was an established cricketer of Bengal. Seeing his brother in cricket field, Saurav asked his father to get him enrolled in a cricket coaching camp during the school holidays and he showed extra-ordinary talent.

Saurav would have been just another right-hand batsman, had it not been for his brother who was a left-hander. Convenience was the only reason for Saurav to bat left-handed as he could then use his brother's cricket gear.

It was ironic indeed that he replaced Snehashish when he was dropped from the Bengal cricket team. This event marked the beginning of a glorious cricket career. Known as a deeply religious person, observing fast every Tuesday, Saurav was born in a wealthy family of Kolkata. His father, Chandidas Ganguly, is a baron in the printing industry. Saurav is happily married to his childhood sweetheart, Donna, an Odissi dancer, and prefers a quiet evening with her at home.