Comments on: Why Nandigram? Why SEZs? Why?…because of You and I…all Indians http://www.bloggernews.net/15302 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:12:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Ranjit Goswami http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-7444 Ranjit Goswami Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:24:21 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-7444 "Cumulative FDI into China is about $650 billion" - states 'China's Economy: Problems and Prospects(2007-2-14)' @ http://www.danmex.org/spansk/tekst.php?id=327 “Cumulative FDI into China is about $650 billion” - states ‘China’s Economy: Problems and Prospects(2007-2-14)’ @ http://www.danmex.org/spansk/tekst.php?id=327

]]> By: Ranjit Goswami http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-7440 Ranjit Goswami Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:12:04 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-7440 As that $175 trillion (or even more $469 trillion figure) sounded close to impossible, I started crosschecking. And now I believe in cited source, there exists a gap between billion and trillion; these two words may have been interchangeably used at least once in my citation (Reference 1 'Foreign Direct Investments To and from China’ by Philippine APEC Study Center Network). On page 7, it's $469 billion and on page 50, it's $469 trillion. $175 trillion was stated on page 3 and again on page 50. I have been trying to find out actual FDI flow in China which would be more than $ 2-$4 trillion by now (my guess), may even be little higher but likely to be still in single digits. I acknowledge this slip (in my citation, and it's my responsibility to check my citation as well; more so when it's closed to impossible). It's so gross that it should hit any. It did hit me too on that day itself…I should have double-checked. My sincere apologies… more so on what I stated on Indian democracy based on that reference (irrespective of the Nandigram incident in the background). However the broader point of less capital investment for chemical hub, and closed to 25% Indian land needed to bring in equivalent of Chinese FDI may still stand valid. As that $175 trillion (or even more $469 trillion figure) sounded close to impossible, I started crosschecking. And now I believe in cited source, there exists a gap between billion and trillion; these two words may have been interchangeably used at least once in my citation (Reference 1 ‘Foreign Direct Investments To and from China’ by Philippine APEC Study Center Network). On page 7, it’s $469 billion and on page 50, it’s $469 trillion. $175 trillion was stated on page 3 and again on page 50. I have been trying to find out actual FDI flow in China which would be more than $ 2-$4 trillion by now (my guess), may even be little higher but likely to be still in single digits. I acknowledge this slip (in my citation, and it’s my responsibility to check my citation as well; more so when it’s closed to impossible). It’s so gross that it should hit any. It did hit me too on that day itself…I should have double-checked. My sincere apologies… more so on what I stated on Indian democracy based on that reference (irrespective of the Nandigram incident in the background). However the broader point of less capital investment for chemical hub, and closed to 25% Indian land needed to bring in equivalent of Chinese FDI may still stand valid.

]]> By: Ranjit Goswami http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-5707 Ranjit Goswami Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:24:01 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-5707 Yes, people should ideally have a right to sell their land. Without getting involved in any controversy, reports of willing landsellers in Singur varies (and this happens when Government, Police Forces lose their credibility; in India they lie so often that we don't know whom to believe; and that's the case with opposition also. In WB, this has reached a point over Nandigram where as of now, only CBI and media is having some credibility). Credibility of Singur project is getting mired because of such attempts by an incompetent Government and administration to hide its various failures - and then lie even more when those lies are out in the open. I believe in any meeting, if Tatas speak for themselves after their own independent verification (and that's what I suggested in my academic publication earlier, because now things have gone bad to worse; if Tatas worked from day 1 rather than administration; it would not have happened so, probably), credibility would be more. Take for example, Government 1st said it was mostly mono-crop land, and very little is multi-crop. And only recently, in one TV channel it was pointed out that as per same Government records, Singur land is supposed to be most fertile in WB. Initially I didn't believe that, but they talked about two Government records, from undivided Bengal (pre-1947) to post-independence records. Having stated above, it doesn't mean that because of democracy and debate, we don't move forward. And that's why I ask for policy-research so that we learn from these mistakes, and don't repeat them. And demographically speaking, it's more likely that in Nandigram, tillers/local villagers mostly own the land unlike in Singur where the land-owners mostly migrated from Singur - to Kolkata or even overseas; and they therefore got an opportunity to sell their land. This has been stated by Prof. Abhirup Sarkar of Indian Statistical Institute in various local TV channels. And Economic Times today (19/3) carried a report showing in Nandigram, inspite of having a pharma shop there, the owner mostly relied his sustaining income from his agricultural land only. Yes, people should ideally have a right to sell their land. Without getting involved in any controversy, reports of willing landsellers in Singur varies (and this happens when Government, Police Forces lose their credibility; in India they lie so often that we don’t know whom to believe; and that’s the case with opposition also. In WB, this has reached a point over Nandigram where as of now, only CBI and media is having some credibility).

Credibility of Singur project is getting mired because of such attempts by an incompetent Government and administration to hide its various failures - and then lie even more when those lies are out in the open. I believe in any meeting, if Tatas speak for themselves after their own independent verification (and that’s what I suggested in my academic publication earlier, because now things have gone bad to worse; if Tatas worked from day 1 rather than administration; it would not have happened so, probably), credibility would be more.

Take for example, Government 1st said it was mostly mono-crop land, and very little is multi-crop. And only recently, in one TV channel it was pointed out that as per same Government records, Singur land is supposed to be most fertile in WB. Initially I didn’t believe that, but they talked about two Government records, from undivided Bengal (pre-1947) to post-independence records.

Having stated above, it doesn’t mean that because of democracy and debate, we don’t move forward. And that’s why I ask for policy-research so that we learn from these mistakes, and don’t repeat them.

And demographically speaking, it’s more likely that in Nandigram, tillers/local villagers mostly own the land unlike in Singur where the land-owners mostly migrated from Singur - to Kolkata or even overseas; and they therefore got an opportunity to sell their land. This has been stated by Prof. Abhirup Sarkar of Indian Statistical Institute in various local TV channels. And Economic Times today (19/3) carried a report showing in Nandigram, inspite of having a pharma shop there, the owner mostly relied his sustaining income from his agricultural land only.

]]> By: KVS http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-5417 KVS Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:36:56 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15302#comment-5417 Do people have a right to sell their land?? At Singur over 95% of the land in question was sold willingly by the land owners. The demonstraters were the landless labourers. The question arises, heartless though it may be..what right do they have to stop the project?? But I am not sure whats the status at Nandigram..do the tillers their own the land or not? Do people have a right to sell their land?? At Singur over 95% of the land in question was sold willingly by the land owners. The demonstraters were the landless labourers. The question arises, heartless though it may be..what right do they have to stop the project??
But I am not sure whats the status at Nandigram..do the tillers their own the land or not?

]]>