There are evidences where the state has not been able to protect the stakeholder interest after the investors have moved in. Mainly because the MoUs (if not well formulated) are open to interpretation and the investors try their level best to push their own hidden agenda. The ongoing tussle regarding POSCO needs to be settled properly by developing a robust MoU through proper stakeholder participation. Otherwise, “Mineral Resource Discrimination will lead to Human Resource Discrimination”. However, with a robust MoU in place, Mineral Resource Development can lead to Human Resource Development.
Quoting B.Muthuraman, Managing Director of Tata Steel, from a Wall Street Journal article titled Indian State Digs In Over Iron (11 May 2005): (Quote) "India needs to be careful with our iron or we will run out in less than 50 years. Exporting iron ore is a national crime." (Unquote) The Gopalpur project of Tata was shelved because it was made to appear that the environment lobby was against the industry lobby. However, did the industry do enough to promote green manufacturing concepts? Isn’t it possible to develop products and processes keeping good design-for-environment principles in view? Further, as some may say, the unfortunate Kalinga Nagar incident has put industrial development within the state on reverse gear. However, did it stop the Industry (such as Tata) from not exploiting the existing mineral resources of the state?
The PLAC concept has been adopted by NALCO since the mid-1990s. However, has it allowed real brain power from moving into the manufacturing activities in and around the mother plants? The committee’s functioning has been dictated more by the surrounding power-hierarchy than by the stakeholder expectations. I have come across interesting initiatives from the ancillary promotion cell often being ignored by the higher officials. Should this mistake be perpetuated?
Captains of Orissa-Inc have often suggested that the lack of a world-class golf course detracts serious professionals from moving into the state. I hope they are not making it as “the” cause. Have they done enough to see that the employees (knowledge worker or otherwise) are not asked to keep their brains outside the factory gates? World-class manufacturing requires promotion of world-class thinking.
Professor Shoji Shiba was in Mumbai to make middle and senior executives unlearn the “need to produce and produce more.” While the go-east policy is moving industry into our state, I hope India Inc. will be encouraging greater brainpower in manufacturing. The results can be even more striking if it is adopted in a poor state like Orissa. However, sustained development through innovation would not be possible if an environment tuned to measure efficiency is adopted. Rather, Orissa needs manufacturing to be more responsive. The upcoming initiatives in the state should, therefore, focus more on boosting the brainpower in manufacturing.
India needs to go beyond being a back office to the globe. Quoting Michael Dell (ET; 31 Oct 2007): "Technology users in the western world benefit every day from the work of bright, talented Indian employees and their constant innovation. But more than serving as the world’s software writer or back office, India is harnessing the productivity, efficiency, and innovation benefits of IT as a foundation for global economic competitiveness. I see industry working, with great commitment, with India’s government to build on this progress, and to help further democratise access to technology, so that more Indian citizens enjoy even more of technology’s benefits with an ever-decreasing impact on our environment. That is our shared responsibility. By harnessing these forces — the democratisation and simplification of technology, we can make a positive impact not just on our economies, but also our planet."
{An edited version of this post appeared in the "letter to the editor" section of The New Indian Express}
