Developments across the world, recent and in the past decades and centuries, have shown that growth and prosperity cannot come by pampering a select few and hoping the elite will then write a larger and more inclusive narrative
Mamata Banerjee has won the battle of Singur. She has actually won her war of self-vindication. The Supreme Court verdict has legitimised her political philosophy.
It had a simple beginning when Tatas were looking for a suitable piece of land for their Nano project in 2005. The Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led left regime, which had earlier driven out most industries and then wanted to refurbish its image, wanted to help Tata Motors set up a project in West Bengal. The Tatas were shown land in Kharagpur and Singur, and the firm chose the latter. The Government went out of its way to acquire and hand over the land to Tatas.
This is not an isolated incident. Over the years, for so-called development of industry, mining and infrastructure, the interests of farming, forestry, environment and especially ethnic folk and tribes, have been ignored.
The theme of the economic impact of British imperialism on India was raised by British Whig politician Edmund Burke who, in 1778 began a seven-year impeachment trial against Warren Hastings and the East India Company on charges including mismanagement of the Indian economy. Contemporary historian Rajat Kanta Ray argues the economy established by the British in the 18th century was a form of plunder and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India, depleting food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal. In post-independence India too, dams, mines, steel plants and nuclear plants were pushed through unjustly.
Africa had been ravaged and chopped up and divided by the colonial powers — Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. It was the European squabbling for African, Asian and West Asia colonies, and their tremendous wealth, that was a significant cause of the first World War. Africa has historically been vital to the industrialisation of Europe as a source of natural resources and human labour. Modern Europe owes its development to the exploitation of Africa’s natural resources. Post-independence, the old colonialists simply resorted to buying off corrupt African leaders and continued to rape the continent. Few Africans benefited except the elite.
The African Economic Outlook 2011 report has found that African states experienced high economic growth during the 2000s due to good macro-economic management, growth in trade, and foreign investments in oil-rich states. However, this growth did not coincide with poverty elimination, because it was not linked to activities and economic sectors that affect the poor.
The costs of hosting the World Cup in South Africa were sought to be justified by the economic growth the event was supposed to generate. Expenses now are expected to surpass original estimates by 757 per cent. The expected growth in infrastructure and small local businesses has not come anywhere close to offsetting the funds that were been diverted from long-term priorities such as healthcare and education. Fifa and international corporate sponsors such as McDonald’s and Coca Cola are the biggest beneficiaries of the event, with much of the local South African population unable to even attend the matches.
International development can also cause and accentuate inequality between the richer and the poorer factions of one nation’s society. For example, when economic growth boosts development and industrialisation, it can create a class divide by creating demand for more educated people in order to maintain corporate and industrial profitability. The popular demand for education, in turn, drives the cost of education higher through the principle of supply and demand, as people would want to be part of the new economic elite. Higher costs for education lead to a situation where only people with enough money to pay for education can receive sufficient education to qualify for the better-paying jobs that mass-development brings about. This restricts poorer people to lesser-paying jobs and technological development makes some of these jobs obsolete (for example, by introducing electronic machines to take over a job, or creating a series of machines such as lawn mowers to make people such as gardeners unemployed).
The US uses the humanitarian hand-wringing, the dogma of democracy and capitalism and neoliberal economics, to camouflage its quest for hegemony. It is powered by oil, military supremacy and international finance. For the oil weapon to be effective, the US needs to control much of it, everywhere and all the time.
The very recent happenings in the UK and the US show that the working class, old and poor, was badly impacted by globalisation; it saw jobs go and wages drop. In many areas, the people also faced onslaughts from alien identity and culture. Further, in the EU, for example, Brussels mostly disregarded indigenous UK public opinion, and was not on the same page. There was, therefore, a felt need to restore decision-making and political dignity from the clutches of remote bureaucracy and politics. All of this made Brexit happen.
A similar example is brewing in the US. Protectionism is raising its ugly head there too. US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, riding on the waves of such populist anger, may even win the race to the White House, eventually.
The point to note is that, development must be inclusive in all respects — particularly in a multi-cultural and multi-occupational society. There is no justification for giving gains to one section at the cost of the other. Such moves boomerang.