In Defense of Oscar Fernandes—the tale of lynched CEO | N.R.Mohanty

Published on 03-10-2008 In General

Viewed 707 times

In Defense of Oscar Fernandes—the tale of lynched CEO

The Oscar Fernandes saga last week is an instructive example of the nexus between the big business, big media and big politics. It showed how big business is so insensitive to the cause of the poor, how it can coerce the big media to toe its anti-poor line and how it is capable of putting pressure on the big politics to stamp out any pro-poor voice within it.

What was the fracas about? Oscar Fernandes, the Union Labour Minister -- in his reaction to the killing of the CEO of a Noida-based multi-national corporation allegedly by the retrenched employees of the organization -- told the media that while he condemned the violence and condoled the death of the CEO, he would appeal to the owners and the managements of the companies to treat the workers with compassion. He added that this killing was a warning to the proprietors to mend their ways to prevent such occurrences in the future.

There was a whale of protests from the business houses and the burden of their argument was that the minister was defending and propagating violence as a means of conflict resolution. And the big media joined the chorus.

But how could big business and big media argue that the minister was defending the violence? After all, some television channels had clearly shown that Oscar Fernandes had condemned the violence and condoled the death of the CEO, L K Chaudhury. When the business houses realized that the first part of the minister's statement would nail their lie, they persuaded the news channels to drop that part from the telecast. In most of the channels, thereafter, appeared the sanitized version: no reference to the minister's condemnation of violence or condolence over the death, but only the 'warning' to the managements to 'behave or perish'.

One could see the same pattern the next morning. Almost all the big newspapers had blacked out the first part of his reaction which would have undermined the very basis of the tirade by the big business. The big media did not only lend a helping hand to the big business by withholding the relevant information from the viewers and the readers, it also began an orchestrated campaign on its own to endorse the stance of the big business. The result was that the big politics too fell in line. A group of senior ministers, in the absence of the prime minister who was abroad, met and took cognizance of the grievance of the big business and the big media and asked the labour minister to render an apology, which he dutifully did.

And, pray, what was the grievance? That the minister, by issuing the 'behave or perish' warning, has endorsed violence as the legitimate means to settle disputes. How 'logical' was this argument?

Let us recall another similar argument.

The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, while addressing the chief ministers two years ago on how to tackle the Naxalite problem had said: True, we need to strengthen our law and order machinery, in terms of both the personnel and equipment, so that we are effective in the anti-Naxal campaign. But the Naxal problem should not be seen merely as a law and order problem. We need to address the very social and economic disparities in our societies that draw the people to the violent cult of the Naxalites.

Singh urged the chief ministers to take effective socio-economic measures to ensure that the poor are not hitched to the bandwagon of the Naxal groups.

If we carry forward the current business-media logic, the prime minister too was condoning the Naxal attacks as the consequence of iniquitous social and economic system; and by saying that the Naxal menace was bound to rise, if the state did not take corrective measures in the socio-economic sector, the prime minister was legitimizing the use of violence to claim one's rights.

But, surprisingly, the big business did not raise its voice then. This was because the prime minister placed the onus on the state governments to take the corrective measures. And also because the big business is affected very little by the Naxal threat as the main targets of the Naxal violence are the government institutions and officials. As the big business did not protest, the big media too did not make a hue and cry about it.

The Oscar Fernandes statement has had a striking parallel with that of the prime minister. The only difference was that Oscar put the onus on the private business houses. He told them that the violence should not be seen ONLY in the law and order terms; it should also be taken as reflective of deep economic grievances. If the grievances are not redressed, then such violent incidents may recur, he said.

Since the onus was on it and the consequences were also to be borne by it, the big business roared at the Oscar statement. And since the big media is big-business-driven, it followed suit.

But Oscar Fernandes would have many takers among the common unskilled wage earner who would yearn for a sense of equity and distributive justice within any organization. Why is it that a man in the top management would get more than a 1000 times salary of someone at the bottom of the pyramid? But when the profit level shrinks, it is the latter that would invariably be shown the door? If the reduction of expenditure is the objective, then won't it be more equitable for the top brass to take a 10 per cent cut in the salary till the situation improves?

But the top business management does not want to compromise its own interests. It would make those in the lower rung of the ladder to pay the price. But if it thinks it would get away with such injustices all the time, then it is mistaken. There will be times when the anger of those perennially at the receiving end will explode and, for a change, the habitual tormentors will be at the receiving end.

The Indian media reported a statement by Indo-Italian Chamber of Commerce chairman, Diljeet Tituss: "If we go by Oscar Fernandes's statement, then he should be lynched in his constituency if he does not perform". Mr. Tituss is perhaps not aware that many Italians are now baying for the blood of the Mafiosi which has become a major political player in southern Italy.

Tituss should not forget that the big business has not hesitated to shed blood when it came to serving its own interests. If he has some understanding of the European history then he should know that it was the big business which had fanned resistance against and set the mob on Charles I and Louis XVI, the kings of England and France respectively, as the royalty was an impediment in the untrammeled growth of the newly resurgent capitalist class.

That is the double standard of the big business: it would embrace violence and even glorify it when that suits its interests but would condemn it when it becomes a victim of the same violence. Willingly or unwillingly, the big media and the big politics have become its active accomplices in this diabolical game.

0 Comments

Blog

Print