Most green versus un-green debates are ultimately social issues, and thus political issues too. The ferocious and often violent arguments traded over Singur were never about “No-no to Nano”. All parties there were pro-Nano, but differed only over the mode of land acquisition. Since the un-greenliness of Nano did not enter or inform our collective awareness, it may be unfair to demand of the Tatas as a mere profit-seeking industrialist group a higher level of green-consciousness than the rest of society.

The social context of the environmnetal debate is deeper than may be immediately perceived. Granted the nano-car is hostile to the environment, is the mid-sized or the larger car any better? Are we, as members of the society’s elite and privileged class, willing to first give up our BMW and Mercedes and Tata-Sumo before we talk of the Nano?

As Sukumar Ray might have said:
aamraa jaabo mercedes’e, choRbo shadaa plane’e -
tomraa jete chaaile pare bolbo “kalaa ei ne”..

How about motor-cycles and scooters? Do we wish to eliminate them too? If not, it may well be argued that the Nano is no more than a four-wheeled motor-cycle and should therefore be allowed to co-exist with the two-wheeled variety.

Technology has given us a lot of benefits over the last couple of centuries; unfortunately, it has also ended the holocene epoch and brought about the anthropocene era where man’s inventions have a profound impact on the global eco-system. We need a serious debate at the civic society level about these concerns – a debate which may be pioneered by, for example, the IIT’s and/or the IIM’s which may also fund much-needed research. Once some form of consensus begins to evolve about how to balance material and social progress against consequential environmental damage, it may then be possible to involve wider groups like political parties, chambers of commerce and industry, etc., and look towards specific action.

To expect the Tatas to enter the debate before it has even commnenced may not be fair to them.