[Ricky_63]

If the NANO pulls out of WB whose gain is it ? WB will loose big time in terms of labour employment at the plant, taxes, ancillary units (employment). The Reds do not see that the benifit of the whole excercise is going to come to it's own population. Are they afraid to have their population earning a decent living WITHOUT the govt contribution ?

I think the only looser in the whole deal is the population of WB & the only gain is for the so called politicians, wonder what they will acheve from the whole excercise. Political mileage - one word PATHETIC

Here is Rattan Tata trying to do for WB what Maruti did for Haryana-but the vested interests. The less said the better.

Farmers have risen against state governments because they acquire land at dirt cheap prices and sell the same to developers at $$$$$$$$, that is not on !! The farmer deserves to get the real worth of his land & WHY NOT it is his land.

Correct me if I am wrong !!!!!


P.S.
Has any one ever thought why REAL ESTATE in Calcutta is still the cheapest of all Metropolises??? THINK

[Ricky_63]

Originally Posted by Aditya

Just heard in the news (NDTV 24x7) that the Maharashtra CM, Vilasrao Deshmukh and the Orrisa CM, Navin Patnaik have said that Tata Motors is welcome to set up their Nano plant in their respective states. They'll be given a "red carpet welcome".

Any chief minsiter in his right mind would welcome the TATA NANO. Because they see it as an oppurtunity to create employment / get revenue / generate money for the 'janta' / ancillaries et al for the state.

Any one in his right frame of mind would think likewise.

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There seems to be some sort of hero worship attitude that Mr Tata can do no wrong. Of course, I don't know him, although I can say that once was enough, and I'll not buy his product again, but I doubt that he is any angel among businessmen, who are interested, mainly in their own pockets.

This is not about the person Ratan Tata but the group called Tata. They have, time and again, preferred to walk away from a deal rather than get it 'fixed'. What the have lost in $ from those deals, they have gained in respect.

This is not personal hero worship and yes many consider them to be an exception to the general rule about businessmen that you just quoted.

[Glass]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom
There seems to be some sort of hero worship attitude that Mr Tata can do no wrong. Of course, I don't know him, although I can say that once was enough, and I'll not buy his product again, but I doubt that he is any angel among businessmen, who are interested, mainly in their own pockets.

Yes, TATA evokes a lot of sentiments and pride.
If it were the Ambanis and a deal involving Reliance, there would hardly have been so many feelings, I guess.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Whatever... but there seems to still be a major amount of denial going on here that people are losing heir homes, and a major amount of hiding behind assertions that it is the state government that has dealt with the farmers, and that is nothing to do with Tata, group or person.

[Tstag]

By contrast Jaguar and Land Rover workers cheered when TATA bosses toured the UK car plants. Local people were very happy to have Ratan Tata invest. I can't believe WB doesn't want something like this. Car plants generate so much money for local economies.

[greenhorn]

The sheer irony of it all. Indians don't want Indians setting up shop on their own land , while the British welcome them. The Quit India movement has come full circle

[srijit]

Nick, you might take a look at these links to know why most people look upon Tata with favourable views.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Tata Steel was established by Indian Parsi businessman Jamshedji Nusserwanji Tata in 1907 (he died in 1904, before the project was completed). Tata Steel introduced an 8-hour work day as early as in 1912 when only a 12-hour work day was the legal requirement in Britain. It introduced leave-with-pay in 1920, a practice that became legally binding upon employers in India only in 1945. Similarly, Tata Steel started a Provident Fund for its employees as early as in 1920, which became a law for all employers under the Provident Fund Act only in 1952. Tata Steel's furnaces have never been disrupted on account of a labour strike and this is an enviable record.

Source: Tata Steel

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

At the turn of the twentieth century, the Tatas wanted to build a steel plant in India. Jamshedji Tata went to Pittsburgh and asked geologist Charles Page Perin to help him find the site to build his dream -- India’s first steel plant. The search for a site rich in the resources needed for the plant, namely iron, coal, limestone and water began in April 1904 in today’s Madhya Pradesh.

The prospectors, C. M. Weld, Dorab Tata and Shapurji Saklatvala, took nearly three years in a painstaking search across vast stretches of inhospitable terrain to find a suitable location. One day, almost by accident they came across a village called Sakchi (now part of Tatanagar), on the densely forested stretches of the Chhota Nagpur plateau, near the confluence of the Subarnarekha and Kharkai rivers. It seemed to be the ideal choice and the place was selected.

Early development work was undertaken by Durrell & Co, a civil engineering firm run by Lawrence Samuel Durrell, the father of the naturalist Gerald Durrell (who was born here) and the novelist Lawrence Durrell. Commissioned by the Tata family in 1920, Durrell was responsible for building a tinplate mill, a brick-making plant, an office building, a hospital and over four hundred workers’ houses.

Jamshedji’s plan for the city was clear. He envisioned far more than a mere row of workers hutments. He insisted upon building all the comforts and conveniences a city could provide. As a result, many areas in the city are well planned and there are great public leisure places such as the Jubilee Park.

While building this beautiful city, Jamshedji Tata had said ...

"Be sure to lay wide streets planted with shady trees, every other of a quick growing variety. Be sure that there is plenty of space for lawns and gardens; reserve large areas for football, hockey and parks; earmark areas for Hindu temples, Mohammedan mosques and Christian churches."

What the city looks like today is a testament to his visionary plans. Jamshedpur is the only city in India without a municipality. The responsibility for its conservation and maintenance is entirely assumed by Tata Steel, very likely a unique situation in the world.

Legend has it that in the late 1980s when the state government proposed a law to end the Tatas' administration of Jamshedpur and bring the city under a municipality, the local populace rose in protest and defeated the government's proposal. In 2005, a similar proposal was once again put up by lobbying politicians. The target audience was the working class. A large majority of this sided with the government and set up protest meetings outside the East-Singhbhum Deputy Commissioner's office. However, the objective was never achieved and Jamshedpur remains without a municipality till date- and the quality services continue.

Source: Jamshedpur

[headers]

wow, that IS some great news. Have been to Jamshedpur way back in 89 where i had a tour of the TISCO and TELCO plants. Have always admired that city.

Ofcourse, there is a stark difference in the areas controlled by the companies and the business areas - read Sakshi town!

Never realised that that city never had a municipality!

[snaronikar]

Today's paper is indicating that 4 other states are interested in getting this project if WB backs out-Punjab/Orissa/Maharastra/Uttarkhand. Somebody's (WB) loss is other's (state's) gain.

But at present, the indirect employment it is providing to people shouldnot be forgotten. This project is giving employment to thousands of indirect workers like component suppliers, equipment suppliers, the house keeping people, the maintainence people etc etc the list goes on.

The suppliers are also worried about this as many people has already invested in their new plants/expansion of existing plants specifically for manufacturing the components for Nano. The more the delay it is, the harder will be for these suppliers.

The below is the article from TOI Nano suppliers worried over pullout talk -India-The Times of India

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Whatever... but there seems to still be a major amount of denial going on here that people are losing heir homes, and a major amount of hiding behind assertions that it is the state government that has dealt with the farmers, and that is nothing to do with Tata, group or person.

If you've studied any attempt at land acquisition by the government in India, you will realize that what was nobody's land until the acquisition suddenly becomes everybody's.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I willingly take on board all the good stuff about Tata, and I have no problems with that (even although I'm not a fan of their cars!). I would, in general terms, so much rather see an Indian company, especially one with a good reputation for labour relations, take over the world, than see India open its arms to be taken over by the USA.

I never even inferred that Indian farmers are killing themselves because they are being driven off their land by industrialists. Those who are in this dire state would, I'm sure, be only too glad to sell out. Although small units may have an impact, I think that, apart from struggling with nature in the forms of draught, etc, the real reason for their troubles is the move towards cash crops, and the eternal march towards excess use of expensive chemicals and the control of seed supply; farmers are not permitted to keep a percentage of their grain to plant for next year's harvest, they must buy seed again and again from the agri companies, and then of course they must buy the chemicals that this seed needs to grow. The priority of Indian farming should be to feed India, not to increase the profits of MNCs. It is not at all a suggestion to reject science and modern advances, I am saying that India, as both an agricultural nation, and a nation of a vast number of mouths, must get the balance and the priorities right. The government of India should look after its people, very many of whom are farmers, before all else.

What I said was that it is wrong to convert good, profitable farm land for industrial use when India has so much land that is not good, fertile and profitable. Would you tear down a successful factory and replace it with a paddy field? I doubt it, but people seem to think that replacing good farms with factories is a good idea.

Whilst you are remembering the employment and indirect employment provided by industry, you completely forget the employment provided by farming. It just does not happen that farm labourers move easily into industry; what happens is that Industry brings a lot of its workforce with it and the local people are left out.

[snaronikar]

I'am not sure of the above comment on "local people left out" because major industrial units who have set up their plants have given opportunities to the local people. Eg: BIAL, TKML etc. In case of TKM, they have built a school in the nearby village and is arranging all the aminiteis for the village kids to attend the school. Similarly, many of the pvt and public sector companies has adopted the villages for giving them a better access to education/medical facilities and other forms of life.

In this case, I'am sure that tata's as their reputation goes, might have agreed to give employment opportunities to the locals alongwith other benefits. This tussle (or stand off) is only to gain the political mileage by one party over another.

[lawdgawd]

All sides are justified somewhat in this issue.

The farmers who are protesting -

It has long been normal on WB that the party settles people on someone else's land (which sometimes is not cultivated, sometimes is). They live there comfortably and till the land. The owner is out of the picture. They have no legal rights to the land. But it ahs practically been theirs. When government buys the land, it has to be legal, and the money goes to the real owner. And the people who stay there protest as they lsoe everything now.

Tata

In India, companies cannot go to farmers and buy large tracts of land. Has to be bought by the government only and handed over to the company. So you can imagine the level of money to be made by those in power in that process. If companies could, they would negotiate directly with the land owners.

Mamta

Apart from the political benefits which she thinks will come to her, there is a genuine grievance there. Someone will use that opportunity.

Communists

Communists took people for granted. The people who they had settled / occupied the land were all CPM voters and supporters. One day when CPM told them to up and go, they turned to the other side. CPM ditched them. Plus, the part does not like opposition, and went all out to teach the turncoats a lesson.

In the end, Tata doesn't want conflict, but the local CPM leadership in Singur and some at the top are focused on teaching those who did not obey them a lesson above everything else.

A company / plant needs a peaceable environment, but the WB govt is realising it only now.

Other interested parties

Those who wanted to sell their land to the government for the project and were not approached! Bengali friends tell me this! They are pissed and want to create trouble.

Originally Posted by Steeroid

If you've studied any attempt at land acquisition by the government in India, you will realize that what was nobody's land until the acquisition suddenly becomes everybody's.

antique laws give squatters more property rights than the owners or the govt itself.
add to that politicians and agents out to make a quick buck off a soft target and this is what results.

here in kerala the situation is worse.
the common refrain of people opposing projects here is that- "you are making a profit out of the land, why shouldnt we get a share?" this would actually be a valid argument if they owned the land in the 1st place.

in some parts of allepey, if you want to sell your own land, you have to give the neighbours a share, or give them some of the land. its not legal, its not fair, its just mob mentality that has been fostered by the communists.

give the landowner a share of the profits. but why give the others a share? where is the fairness in that?