When I read the newspaper reports about Tata'a shifting their Nano car making plant to Gujarat, I was filled with mixed feelings. On the one hand was the moral question whether it was proper for the Tatas to put business before morality and thus lend legitimacy to the Modi regime where even today muslims are treated as second class citizens and deprived of jobs and social services besides being victimised at every possible turn. Further where the government has not yet come to terms that all citizens have to be treated fairly. The number of times the Supreme Court has passed strictures against the Gujarat government would have put lesser mortals to shame. However, the present dispensation has become so thickskinned that nothing matters. And the Tatas who have a strong reputation for upholding public morality have caved in to the lures of the Gujarat govt. On the other hand I recognise the rights of businessmen in keeping business and statecraft separate.
Here is an article written by our very own goa settled Rajiv Desai. Some food for thought for all of us. Whither went ethics? by RAJIV DESAI The decision by the Tata Group to relocate the Nano plant in Sanand is of concern to liberal Gujaratis. The logic of business is to be competitive an d profitable; as such, the move makes sense. The company was right to choose the business-friendly state and get down to the task of making the revolutionary Nano car, which promises to put India on the global map of the auto industry. Nevertheless, it just does not sit comfortably with liberal sensibilities in the communally-polarised state. The triumphal note that Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi sounded at the media event to announce the pact appeared to be a new form of propaganda. He followed it up with a series of television interviews in which he positioned himself as a spokes-man for the new India. Modi is a politician and, some might even argue, a cynical one. It doesn’t take rocket science to see through his new effort to buy respectability. We can explain away Modi’s posturing as the way of an ambitious and ruthless politician. What is more difficult to accept is the Tatas’ decision-making process. It is plausible that the decision was made on the rebound after the embarrassment and the financial costs of the shenanigans at Singur. Given the formidable reputation of the Tatas, did no one consider the possibility that the decision could sully that standing? The Tata Group has sizable commitments to corporate responsibility programmes. They stem from the conviction of senior management that their methods of conducting business should be ethical. These laudable programmes have won prestigious awards and wide recognition. The Nano project is also driven by the same larger vision: to provide affordable personal transport to the emergent middle class. While some companies are recognised for their socially conscious practices, others are disparaged and their efforts often dismissed as hollow public relations ploys to whitewash the ethical questions raised by their operations. For all the years that such companies have fretted about corporate social responsibility, their notion is largely a putative expense to divert attention from issues surrounding their business practices. Milton Friedman made sense when he famously argued in an article written 38 years ago that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. Friedman’s piece stirred a major controversy at the time. Not just his idea of corporate responsibility but all his work on monetary theory was dismissed as a handmaiden of powerful multinationals. It was the time of Woodstock and Vietnam; big business in the West was viewed with hostility in the media, in the academy and in the liberal mainstream. In India, given the socialist mindsets in politics at that time, business was seen a milk cow: favours and cash in exchange for licences and permits. With the dawn of the Reagan-Thatcher era, governments ceded space to the private sector. That was when views about corporate social responsibility began to change. If the private sector has unfettered access to markets, land, labour and capital, many scholars and analysts argued, companies must consider the larger social entity in their decision-making. Seen in that light, the Tatas’ decision to relocate the Nano plant in Gujarat raises many questions. Modi is like a chameleon in his relentless pursuit of power. Starting out as a fiery Muslim basher, he went on to pose as the champion of Gujarati pride; now he pushes himself as a business-friendly leader. Modi’s culpability in the communal mayhem that followed the Godhra incident was clearly established. His effort to gain absolution by setting up the kangaroo Nanavati commission was clumsy. It’s in the past. He has changed, the cheerleaders say. But who can forget that Modi built his political career by fanning the flames of religious bigotry? In the end, there is a growing belief that the Tatas’ move, though legitimate, helped Modi in his whitewash campaign to emerge as a national leader. As a result, this highly respected company’s commitment to social responsibility appears somewhat weaker. The writer is a public affairs commentator. -- Hyundai to launch the i20 in India. Catch the exclusive preview on ZigWheels.com http://www.zigwheels.com/b2cam/newsDetails.action?name=Emb11_20080731&path=/INDT/News/Emb11_20080731&page=1&pagecount=2&utm_source=indmail&utm_medium=footer&utm_content=tracking&utm_campaign=Nletter_07oct2008_ZW
