Downward spiral
When Thomas Friedman wrote last year that the introduction of the Tata Nano “people’s car” was a Bad Thing, many interested parties quickly came to defend the project, claiming that Friedman and others concerned about deploying thousands (perhaps millions) of inexpensive cars into India were being elitist and insensitive to the needs of a developing nation on the brink of superpowerdom.
Although Friedman may indeed be a little too simplistic in his bold claims about the world being flat in general, the specific problems he highlights about the Nano are quite real, and claiming that he doesn’t know what he is talking about because he is American, or because he is not Indian, or because he is relatively affluent avoids discussing the issues in depth. While Vivek Sharma’s popular response attempts to cover the main criticisms, he ends up accepting the truth of the Friedman’s argument with the added qualification that other contributing factors should be addressed as well. Without any defenses that stick, we (or the Indian government, or Tata itself) are stuck with some very real problems that need to be addressed.
The simple version of Friedman’s claim is this:
- the Tata Nano is cheap
- cheap cars will make car ownership possible for many people who currently can only afford motorcycles
- cars are bigger than motorcycles and more polluting
- India already suffers from dense vehicle traffic and excessive pollution levels
- therefore the Tata Nano will exacerbate existing problems for the sake of increased car ownership
Throw in safety concerns and the government’s inertia in developing road infrastructure throughout the country, and you have a problem worth considering deeply. Not because “the West” (or Mr. Friedman) knows better, not because it is jealous, not because it values the environment more than individuals, but because the Tata Nano makes significant tradeoffs that should be recognized and addressed more comprehensively by everyone involved. Unfortunately, however, any large democracy (India proudly points out that it is the world’s largest) is ultimately too ungainly to respond effectively, and with the incredibly wealth disparity, money will continue to have the final vote, either through corruption or simply through its popular appeal in the public’s imagination and the sway it has through that.
If the success of Bollywood is any indication, India is a country of dreamers, and Friedman’s article was not a renunciation of their dream. It was instead a call for them to dream about solutions that do not ignore the very real problems that already exist. Dreams that allow the country to leap over the suffocating bind of shortsighted initiatives. The potential is well recognized, but appropriate guidance and support is still somewhat thin on the ground, so profit-driven corporations and vested political interests can still step in and determine the direction of things.
On the trucks that storm along the highways, there are two frequently-spotted messages painted on the rear bumper: “Horn OK Please” and “India is Great”. You have to be here in order to understand the context for the first message. The second, in its ubiquity, embodies the country’s idealism. One of India’s great strengths is believing in its ability to move into a prosperous future. One of its greatest challenges is not allowing that belief to be harnessed and directed in ignorance of the consequences.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.