Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/tatas-cite-bill-omissions-8432.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tatas cite bill omissions | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Tatas cite bill omissions

-The Telegraph

 

Tata Motors has said the Singur land-return bill does not state the reasons for the transfer of the Nano plant, breaking its silence to portray a vivid description of the agitation that preceded its pullout without mentioning either Mamata Banerjee or her party.

The Tatas added that “appropriate steps” would be taken after studying the bill that mentions Tata Motors “abandoned” the project. The bill was passed in the Bengal Assembly today amid an Opposition walkout. ( )

Tata Motors also sought to reply in detail to an assertion in the bill that people in the area around the Singur site had not benefited, no employment opportunity was generated and no socio-economic development took place.

The response came in a carefully crafted statement that, sources emphasised, was not from Ratan Tata’s office but from the automobile company. The sources suggested that the Tatas wanted to stick to the specific points and avoid a replay of public fencing marked by statements such as “good M and bad M” (apparently differentiating between Mamata and Narendra Modi) and “despite Mamata” (an alternative name suggested in jest for the Nano).

But the statement did refer to an appeal made by Tata, without naming him, in Calcutta in 2008 to ensure a congenial atmosphere for the project to come up in Singur.

The Tata Motors statement dwelt on the reference in the bill to “non-commissioning and abandoning” of the project”.

“The bill mentions ‘non-commissioning and abandoning’ of the project by Tata Motors and goes on to state that ‘no employment generation and socio-economic development has taken place and people in and around the area have not benefited in any manner…’. The bill does not state the reasons for stoppage of operations and shifting of the plant,” Tata Motors said.

The statement did not mention who drove the company out but gave such a detailed account that it left little to the imagination. “Tata Motors wants to clarify that the operations of setting up and commissioning of the plant were conducted under very difficult conditions, amidst violence, disruption of activities, damage to property, threats to personnel.

“An appeal was made on August 22, 2008, for a congenial environment, which was rebuffed with an escalation of hostilities through a blockade on the highway, more incidents of physical assault and intimidation of personnel. Therefore, Tata Motors did not find the situation congenial to continue its operations and, there being no guarantee of a safe and peaceful environment, had to reluctantly close operations on October 3, 2008, and eventually moved out.”

The statement referred to the investments the company as well as prospective vendors had made in the Singur project, giving a sneak preview of the possible figure Tata Motors could cite if and when it applies for compensation. The company put its investments in immobile assets at Rs 440 crore and that of the vendors at Rs 171 crore.

According to the bill, only Tata Motors will be eligible for compensation, not the vendors who will be repaid the lease premium after deducting rent arrears, if any. Unlike the Tatas, most vendors had not entered into a formal lease agreement with the WBIDC, the then custodian of the land.

“The company had invested nearly Rs 1,800 crore in establishing the plant. All the equipment had been installed in the plant and trial production had begun. The company still has buildings, sheds and infrastructure on the plot on which it has invested about Rs 440 crore. As for the vendor park, 13 vendors had constructed plant buildings while 17 others were at various stages of construction. The vendors had invested about Rs 171 crore,” the Tata Motors statement said.

The statement indirectly contested the claim in the bill that no benefit accrued from the project. “In keeping with the tradition of the Tata Group, Tata Motors began a comprehensive community development programme at Singur in December 2006, even before the plant’s construction began, comprising development of employability, self-employment of the community, health and education. Eventually, about 767 individuals were trained.

“About 102 health clinics were run, treating over 17,000 patients till the activity was forcibly stopped. Adjacent schools were supported with necessary infrastructure. Men and women in the area were supported to acquire means of self-employment,” the statement said.

The company also reminded Bengal of the loss of prospective job opportunities. “Had the project been allowed to flourish, the plant would have initially directly employed 2,000 persons, and in a cascading manner created employment in excess of 10,000 jobs amongst the vendors and service providers in the vicinity of the plant, as can be seen at the new location of the project,” the statement said.

Tata Motors ended its version by stressing that it pulled out with extreme reluctance. “It was an immensely painful decision for the company to pull out the project, forced by the circumstances that prevailed,” the statement added.