Think, Dear Editor

Just the day before yesterday, I had written "against eminent domain," citing an unthinking editorial in the Indian Express. Well, two days later, the editors of this newspaper are back on the same subject, but this time pretending to be on the side of the Property owner, for their editorial of today concludes:

...it is good that the landowner is being placed at the centre of the debate.

However, the editorial in question is actually on the side of our The State. The editors have written in favour of a "Haryana model" for just compensation in which the landowner will receive, per acre, Rs. 20,000 per year for 33 years, with an annual increase of Rs. 600, which is exactly 3 percent - while inflation rages at well over 10 percent. What will Rs. 20,000 buy in 33 years time? If I look back to 33 years ago, the year 1977, a litre of petrol was Rs. 3.50 then (it is over Rs. 50 now) and a motorcycle cost Rs. 5000 (it is over Rs. 50,000 now).

The editors hail Mayawati for applying the Haryana model of compensation to land acquisition cases in UP.

Let us not forget that this Haryana model of compensation will also involve the use of FORCE. The landowner will simply have to accept the "annuity" proposed by The State. Nothing will be voluntary.

My question to the editors of the Express is this:

Would you sell your prime property to me if I offered you similar terms - that is, Rs. 20,000 per acre for 33 years with an annual increase of 3 percent? Or, would you demand cash down?

Quite obviously, no editor of any paper would sell his land on such ludicrous terms. Thus, today's editorial in the Express is hypocritical. It recommends a medicine to farmers that the editors themselves would never swallow.

One further point: Would not the acceptance of such terms amount to accepting a "post-dated cheque drawn on a crashing bank"? Our The State is broke. The Haryana government, like the UP government, is broke. At the Centre, Chacha wants to borrow 3,50,000 crores. Will these governments even be there 33 years hence? And why should the taxpayers of tomorrow pay their debts?

The editors are not performing their most important function - which is, to THINK!