Tata ad obscures tribal plight

Values Stronger than Steel, is the tag line for a new ad campaign by Tata Steel. There are two ads which are being repeatedly aired on prime time television. The scope to influence public opinion is immense in this space.
 

The two advertisements have a testimonial format. One showcases Bachendri Pal (the Everester), where she tells us of the support Tata has given her and the ‘can do spirit’ that Tata inculcates. The second ad has the testimonial of a tribal woman, who is now a modern pant-shirt clad driver in Tata Steel. The woman tells us that she is now better respected in society and is able to hold her head high, all thanks to Tata Steel.  Following this a screen reads “this is not advertising”. The ad ends with, “This is life @ Tata Steel.”
 

The ad showing the tribal woman has to be seen in light of the faceoff between corporates who have been attempting to exploit the mineral wealth of the hinterland and those opposed to them. The Tatas, along with other corporations, have had to face intense criticism following a plethora of allegations of malpractice. The debate has revolved around takeover of tribal land for industrialization and mining and the displacement and loss of livelihood that this has entailed. Industrialization in the tribal regions has been particularly brutal and corporations have been accused of several atrocities against tribal communities. There has been stiff opposition from various sections of society - tribals, Maoists, civil society, and even political parties – and this had often meant loss of life.
 

With this backdrop, one can see that the ad is bang in the middle of the issue of tribal development. The ad shows us the testimonial of a tribal woman employed with Tatas even as it clouds the truth about the plight of the tribal people. This is achieved through the heartwarming story of the tribal woman claiming to now get “samman” (respect or acclaim). A tribal woman who has learnt to drive proclaims a proximity with the corporate world and encourages a dubious but obvious generalization.
 

The subtext helps us understand how facts are being used to reframe truth. The subtext raises a few critical questions. Is the employment of tribals as drivers or in any other menial, semi-skilled work development? Does menial employment in factories in any way compensate the severance of tribals from their habitat and their way of life? The valuation of the labour of tribals in the capitalist mode is negligible, low paying and dispensable. On the other hand, the tribal habitat that has been the sole preserve of the tribal people is of extraordinary value to industrialization.