Away from the top

Sir — India has nothing to lose from Shashi Tharoor failing to make it to the post of the secretary-general of the United Nations (“US blow to India’s UN post race”, Oct 4). This post may have been a politically coveted one, but it was not likely to be a safety valve for the nation when it came to combating global terrorism. Even if Tharoor had been the choice of the majority of UN member countries, it would still not have ensured a permanent seat for India at the security council. The UN has practically been reduced to a body of no importance at worst, and a stooge of Washington at best. In the present world scenario, issues such as education, health, and environment have lost out to terrorism on the UN’s priority list. Both the Iraq war and the recent US-sponsored Israeli attack on Lebanon have proved how ineffectual the UN is. The US veto against Tharoor’s candidature shows up Uncle Sam in his elements. While the United States of America pretends to be friendly with India, it will never encourage India to rise to a position of power. As the UN is forced to play along with the US’s whims, India should always remain on its guard with the latter. One never knows when Washington will change its colours.

Yours faithfully,
Subhankar Mukherjee, Burdwan

Sir — The veto powers of the US have finally ended India’s dream of having an Indian at the UN’s top job. This has made it clearer than daylight that the US is least interested in strengthening India’s position in global politics. Perhaps the US is afraid that India’s rise in the UN would be disastrous for its hidden agendas. Shashi Tharoor should thank his lucky stars that he has been saved from turning into a puppet in the hands of George Bush. India should not harbour dreams of scaling the UN’s highest post as long as the body remains under the US thumb.

Yours faithfully,
Arvind K. Pandey, Allahabad

Sir — Is the election of the UN secretary-general of any significance anymore? It is obvious that no one listens to the UN except the poor third world countries. Maybe that is why developed and powerful countries like the US, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France or Germany never field their candidate for this post. Why is India so desperate to have an Indian as the secretary-general? It is far more important for India to try to secure a permanent membership of the UN security council. That is where our lobbyists should concentrate their energy.

Yours faithfully,
Sukanta Das, Calcutta

People’s land

Sir — The West Bengal government, just before the all-party meeting on October 4 on the Singur land acquisition for Tata Motors, announced that instead of the 1,053 acres announced earlier, it will acquire 997 acres of land from the farmers and there will be a reshaping of the area from which it will be done. By changing its earlier decision, the government has tacitly admitted that it was giving away cultivable lands to the industrialists. While industrialization is not inherently evil, citizens can surely demand that before large-scale takeover of land, agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, and other interested parties must be given complete information for assessment. The assessment should be based on: a) technology audit: on the basis of level and lifetime cycle of the technology to be implemented. If land is acquired for housing of equipment and of the employees, then the number of employees must be mentioned. There should not be a blanket reference to the main and ancillary industries and of land transfer taking place. If ancillary industries are involved, plots should be distributed after assessment on a case-by-case basis; b) environmental and ecological audit; c) social audit; d) rehabilitation measures, and so on. Only when there is such transparency in the deal can friction between the government and the public be avoided.

Yours faithfully,
Santanu Datta, Calcutta

Sir — It would be interesting to know how many possible sites other than Singur had been shown to Tata by the government of West Bengal. Tata is a thoroughly professional corporate house, which is also known for its philanthropic activities. It is unbelievable that it would have rejected any other offer, choosing marginal cost benefit over the interests of poor farmers. It seems likely that Singur is the government’s suggestion to Tata and not the other way round. The left is trying to extract political mileage out of the issue. The development of the state is only incidental to the process.

Yours faithfully,
Chandi Das Roy, Calcutta

Sir — There is no doubt that the chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, is desperate to industrialize West Bengal (“Tatas Push, Buddha Preaches”, Sept 29). Faced with the ultimatum given by the Tatas, he made it plain that meeting the Tata group’s demand for land by the end of this year was more important to him than the pleas of the farmers. If the Tatas are allowed to go ahead with their project in Singur, three to four hundred people might get employment, but three to four thousand farmers would be deprived of their livelihoods. The opposition parties are not against industrialization in Bengal. They want industries to be set up on uncultivable lands, not on multi-crop land. The small-car project in Singur, or its fruits, would not help the conditions of the people living below the poverty line. This is what happened in Bihar and Orissa, when heavy industries were built there.

Yours faithfully,
Sudhindra Nath Sengupta, Calcutta