Bajaj Effect: End of the Tunnel?

Bhaskar Majumder

I knew Bajaj by scooter, tube light and so on. Since past few days I came to know more – knowledge of course is never-ending. But Bajaj has probably shut down certain allegations and opened up new allegations. After all, the public sphere cannot operate in a vacuum. More so, the economically unemployed but politically overemployed persons need the dark tunnel more to show the light at the end of the tunnel through allegations and through showing the right way to the innocent people.

Post-BE I came to know that the poor sugarcane farmers waiting to get huge sum from Bajaj, as alleged by one honourable MP. Also it is alleged how he could instigate the silenced industrialists to raise voice and so on.

But what is BE? It is Bajaj Effect. It is not yet a syndrome – for his peer groups are still silent for the very reasons what Kaushik Basu penned in his recent book ‘Beyond Invisible Hand’. Basu pointed at transfer of benefits between power and walkers on power corridors, if I recollect what I read. If Basu is to be accepted seriously, the Bajaj also is probably one of the walkers. How could a walker raise public voice that too in front of the heavyweight Minister? This needs explanation.

But before that I must mention that raising voice in the public domain that too by a stalwart like Bajaj has ended the probability for many to be labelled as “Urban Naxals’’, “Deshdrohi” and all that. Hopefully, in spite of non-payment or delayed payment or part payment to the sugarcane growers, Bajaj is not a man on the street. His voice has been taken seriously by people on both the sides of the table assuming it is not a round table.

This “Abhoi” brings people often charged with sedition through the media trial or on road, not to be taken more seriously than what is due, to refresh their heart. This means, Bajaj Effect is refreshing. Why? The reason is, he talked sense in the public domain that is rare in an otherwise gossiping nation. In my understanding Bajaj is no man’s man, notwithstanding the fact that his first name matches with one innocent political master of the land. Here I agree with Classical Economics that capital is faceless and nobody’s representative. So Bajaj was/is person-neutral. Still then if any Mathadhis accuses him as Rahul-man like Bahul-Bajaj, then the answer could have been he may be as well Shah-jada if his capital is protected. By this I do not dare to undermine any of these stalwarts.

My point is simple. If any voice frees the Aam Admi from the voice-bondage or voice with silencer fixed, then that is welcome relative to un-freedom. However, un-freedom must not lead to anarchy or human disaster. I believe any sane person’s voice is not meant for anarchy.

Now I come to the central point. Why do I feel concerned for Bajaj Effect? The reason is Derozio who told, ‘’question everything’’. However, he did not tell “Question everyman”. What silence I have been observing in the Heartland since past two decades of my intensive existence as an innocuous academician has got nothing to do with the political masters – it is embedded in the socio-cultural system that evolved perhaps since the Ramayanic era. It is like Ramayankatha – one narrates and others listen silently and some women shed tears for Sita Mayaa’s Vanavas that made Rama Purushottam. My understanding is, Bajaj did not question that eternal silence.

Bajaj is also post-70 and hence had responsibility to talk sense. And he did. Breaking silence may not suit all. Also, there are both the slokas in Sanskrit literature: (1) “Hitang Manohari Cha Durlavang Bachoh”, (2) “Satyam Bruyat, Priyam Bruyat, Maa Bruyat Satyamapriyam”. In my understanding, (2) was violated by Bajaj, and (1) was reinforced. Here, of course, priority comes in speaking in the social-political-economic domain. What is on the priority agenda of B may not be on the priority agenda of A. If A and B are both to be listened on a common public pedestal, then silence does not help.

Did Bajaj matter at all? It seems, yes. He addressed Him who matters. Hence it mattered as a derivative. The problem proliferated; people came to learn from his voice. Who are these people? These are at best the top 5.0 per cent of India’s population who got University degrees, have some time to ponder over and related privileges. As I knew in my adolescence, Bajaj meant scooter and tube light, most of the innocent people in India know like that only. Still then a section seems to be concerned why Bajaj opened his mouth. More so, a fish in water does not suffocate; only when it is caught and drawn from water, it suffocates or dies. Was Bajaj the fish or the person who caught fish?

Whatever the identity is, fish in water does not make sound (or we the human beings do not hear it) and nose forced into water makes the person soundless-breathless. The social platform requires both water and fresh breathing – I mean water and air. After all, these are the major constituents of human body. In the institutional frame, most of the components are delinked in India, may be elsewhere also. Apart from links among corporate-government-entertainment-cricket, the links are non-existent or marginal like between academia and industry, between dalits and pundit, between academia and financial institutions and all that. Bajaj Effect may aim at opening up some such gates.

It took centuries for mankind to come to make sound meaningful. If public conversation is lost or if Bajaj Effect reaches a blind lane, then it is not Bajaj loss but it is national loss. Bajaj at least reminded us the past in our present. Let us respect that.          

Bhaskar Majumder, Professor of Economics, G. B. Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad - 211019

Back to Home Page

Dec 9, 2019