The Hindu Business Line : Where the nation comes last

Be it India’s showing at the Beijing Olympics, the controversy over Tatas’ plant at Singur or the unrest in Kashmir, these apparently unrelated episodes seem to have one common thread — lack of concern for what is good for the nation, says P.V. INDIRESAN.

It is the weakness of the state that stands out in each of the three cases.

On the same day that the Beijing Olympics concluded, with India close to the bottom of medal winners, Mr Ratan Tata hinted at the possibility of the Tatas withdrawing from Singur.

Kashmir is a different question altogether. Several persons in India, such as Ms Arundhati Roy, have come forward with the argument that it would be best to hand over the Valley to Pakistan. Having visited Pakistan recently, I can say neither is that country in a particularly good shape.

The ‘no pride’ factor

All of these three factors have different reasons but in truth they all stem from the same cause — absence of pride in the nation. Commentators have been happy that India has achieved three Olympic medals; they have glossed over the fact that what the country has done is way behind tiny countries such as Jamaica. It was satisfaction enough that the country had achieved its first individual Gold; more could be hoped for the future.

The fact that the winner of the Bronze Medal had no coach — the government had decided that he could have either a coach or manager but not both — the fact that the authorities decided to send the manager and not the coach — was conveniently glossed over. It was satisfaction enough that an Indian had won a bronze medal.

In Singur, the opposition came from local and national political leaders. The threat from Mr Tata that he will pull out had no effect. He must return 400 acres he had acquired, was the demand.

The fact that the land was to be used for housing ancillary industries was irrelevant. The fact that landlords had been offered compensation but had not accepted the same was deemed irrelevant. Land should be returned and there would be no argument about it.

It could be argued in good faith that agriculturally less productive land could have been chosen than what Singur offered. However, once the land had been allotted, and it had been put to industrial use, the issue became which use helped farmers better — agriculture or industry. For the agitators, that kind of argument made no sense. Land must be returned, became the cry.

In Beijing, the Indian Gold medallist was so rich that he needed no help from the State. The Bronze medallists were so poor that they had next to no support from the State. However, once they won, they were feted by political leaders from their State and from outside too. As the saying goes, it is always nice to hold the tail of the winning bull.

In both cases, there was (and there is) no concern what would be best for the country. The issue is personal — what would be good for me; it is not whether the agitation is the best way of handling the situation. After Independence, Mahatma Gandhi had declared that Satyagraha should no longer be used to demand some benefit or other. Nobody listened to him then; nobody does so now.

With elections barely a few months away, opposing the government — or supposing the government will do all that is necessary — has become urgent. All political parties are one in agreeing that they need to put together vote banks of their own.

Any argument that world class performance requires selection of elites, each one the most appropriate for the individual task for which he or she competes, would be declared redundant. Any preference shown for individuals of exceptional merits would be deemed irrelevant.

Dithering on course of action

Thus, we have three issues where the Indian government is dithering about what should be done. It is possible that the situation would have been better if the Prime Minister had intervened in each case, and had taken a decision about what should be done. He has not done so; he has let matters drift. Of the three matters raised here, those that are concerned with the Olympics are the ones that appear simplest to rectify.

Out of a billion people in the country, there must indeed be a score of them who should have the skill to win medals. Even if we do not go so far as China did, and find the best prospect for Kayak in a place where no Kayak had ever been seen, we should still be able to find some twenty or more medallists.

In the case of Olympics, we need to identify prospective candidates, train them in the sports they can perform best and then launch them. It requires skill and application. It also requires substantial amounts of money and effort.

Who the prospects are for the next Olympics we do not know now. That they are there, and that it requires effort, systematic effort, is all that we can say now. In the case of Singur, we just do not know what can be done except to ask Ms Mamata Banerjee to cool off. Her demand that 400 acres of land be returned is unacceptable because they are not all in one piece and are distributed all over. The case would have been different if it had been taken up seriously a couple of years ago. Now, the Tatas have next to no freedom to do what they like, nor does the State government have any freedom.

In Kashmir, the situation is no different either. There are separatists who think (and possibly believe) that the Indian government is in such a poor state there that a little push is all that is required to shove it off. In the last elections — which appear to have been organised fairly — separatists did not dare to contest. It is doubtful whether they are any more willing to do so now. They see elections as a hindrance than as the means to secure what they want.

Weakness of State

These three apparently unrelated episodes have one feeling in common — lack of concern for what is good for the nation. If those in charge of national sports had been truly concerned about the nation’s prestige, India would certainly have won more medals.

If Ms Mamata Banerjee had real concern for the welfare of the nation, she would not be setting Singur on fire. If the people in Kashmir had been truly concerned about the nation’s welfare, the State would not be in shambles the way it is today.

It is the weakness of the state that stands out in each of the three cases. In the case of the Olympics, it is possible to think of non-state organisations identifying the best teams in each case. In the other two cases, it is the state, the one at the Centre, that holds the primary responsibility. We have a democracy that is so badly structured that practically anyone can claim to have a ‘national party’ of his or her own. We need to reconsider what a national party should be.

A national party should be one that promotes the nation’s welfare in a systematic manner. There could be several different ways of doing so but they should all be concerned about the nation at large. The mass of people are evidently not very good at making such a selection. We need, therefore, a more educated group of people who would first make a shortlist of a few persons, and the electoral mass may then be invited to choose one among them.

(To be continued)

(This is 233rd in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article was published on August 18.)

(The author is a former Director of IIT, Madras. Feedback to blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Economy | Vision 2020

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
All’s not well

PM’s call on deaf ears

Where the nation comes last

J&K: Call for firmness and imagination

The true face of China is still unclear

Taming of the Kosi

Lessons from Singur

Creating resources