It is heartening that the decade-long people’s struggle in Singur has finally yielded result (“Return land to Singur farmers: SC”, Sept. 1). Acquisition of land has long been a tool in the hands of the establishment for ‘colourable exercise of power’. Thus, justice to the poor was imperative. However, it is interesting that the two-judge Bench differed on whether the land in Singur was acquired for ‘public purpose’ or not. Public purpose is perhaps the most used, and yet least defined, term in public administration. On the one hand, it is true that industrial growth would mean new employment opportunities, thus providing an impetus to socio-economic development. However, today, we have more refined indicators of development and the employment factor cannot supersede other factors such as damage to ecology and biodiversity, and the loss of traditional ways of living.
Sachin V.K. Jadhav,Washim, Maharashtra
The Supreme Court’s verdict has come as a huge relief for the hundreds of farmers of Singur, and is surely a victory for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who has been fighting for this cause for a while.
However, what is to be seen is how and in what shape the land will be returned to the farmers. If the land was made vacant to set up industrial units, the government should suitably compensate the farmers so that they can use it for farming purposes again.
Also, private sector companies and the state-owned industrial sector should draw a lesson or two from this judgment — they should not use the phrase ‘public purpose’ when they set out to acquire the lands of poor peasants. What public purpose is served in depriving people of their livelihoods?
S. Nallasivan, Tirunelveli , Tamil Nadu
The term ‘public purpose’ needs clarification. The Tata project would have created employment and boosted industrial activity in the State. But acquisition of agricultural land, that too without the consent of the farmers, undermined public interest in terms of right to life and livelihood. The farmers would have worked as casual labourers if the project had been approved, at the mercy of labour contractors. Further, lack of education for an industrial job would have resulted in them being exploited further.
Dattatrey Kedare,Nashik, Maharashtra
At the outset, this is a victory for all those farmers whose fertile lands were taken to build Tata Motors’ factory. Ms. Banerjee also has the right to feel vindicated now. This judgment should be a lesson not only for West Bengal but also for other States. Industrialisation should not be done until every landowner is sufficiently compensated and given alternative sources of income.
Also, now Ms. Banerjee is happy but she also says that her State will emerge as the number one industrial destination. I’m not sure how this is possible given that companies will only shy away from West Bengal now. She will have to learn the art of maintaining a balance between politics and economics.
Bal Govind,Noida
