Re: Multiplication of success in Singur against ecologically hostile Nano
Dear Anjali deshpande
When you asked that why Mamta Banerjee and Medha Patkar did not demand land for land when the acquisition began. You asked that both this must answer.
Answer to No. 1: There is no denial that you or others need not only Nanos but all other luxuries below the sky. But how can you justify that in order to do so, all others including the poor persons should make scarifies for you or your comforts. Remember, at Singur, with each Nano purchased, excise duty is to be paid by the people of West Bengal, and not only that all the people of the state from the poorest of the poor is also required to pay the corporate income tax on the income earned by the Tata Motors singur plant.
Answer to No. 2 : Do you know that the farmers whose land has been offered on the platter to Tatas, wer not at all consulted at any stage and even after the deal was inked. This is the root cause of trouble that without taking the farmers in to confidence or taking their consent or involving them in to the duologue process, every thing has been done at their back. Yes. I am talking to you the real incidents that has taken place in the largest democracy of the world. Who are we to decide whom the farmers choose to be their leaders? When you talk land for land at this juncture, where were you when the farmers were in great trouble. No body denied to join the movement demanding land for land.
Is is ridiculous to see such remarks which are just like putting locks when the horses have run out of stable.
Mamta Banerjee and Medha Patkar did not demand land for land when the acquisition began
i certainly have no fondness for gandhi's programme. it is impractical to say the least.
Replying to this email will send an e-mail to 7000+ members of Jharkhand Forum.