Nirupam Sen: controversial step

Two steps back

Sir — The West Bengal industries minister, Nirupam Sen, has apparently told Jyoti Basu that it would not be legally possible to return land already acquired for the Tata Motors project in Singur to farmers who had been unwilling to sell it (“Govt puts foot down on land”, June 11). However, the law states that a sale is complete only when the seller accepts the sale-price. Therefore, such land still belongs to the farmers and the sale is void ab initio. The state government is, one suspects, simply buying time before it hands over the land to the Tatas. However, the confusion that has been created by such mixed signals is the result of the party’s interference in the government’s functioning. Biman Bose has already said that it is for the government to decide whether land could be returned. Perhaps it would be better if the party directs the government instead of acting as if it were the government itself.

Yours faithfully,
Asoke C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir — The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the state government are apparent when Nirupam Sen, the industries minister, declares that it is legally difficult to return land to unwilling farmers in Singur while its land and land reforms minister, Abdul Razzak Mollah, says that if a political solution could be worked out, a legal solution could also be found to the problem. Obviously, the government does not know where it stands. Sen has also expressed his surprise at the proposal to find alternative land for the unwilling farmers on the ground that the government cannot acquire land belonging to others to settle the claims of these people. In that case, why did his government not adhere to this principle when it acquired land from the reluctant farmers in the first place? Earlier, Sen had also refused to disclose the details of the deal with the Tatas. He had to make the terms public after the Nandigram episode. It is clear that the West Bengal government, in its bid to rapidly industrialize the state after decades of somnolence, has only sunk further in its self-contradictory quagmire.

Yours faithfully,
A. Roy Mukherjee, Calcutta

Sir — It is difficult to believe that the government is indeed facing legal hurdles in returning acquired land to Singur farmers. In this context, it should be recalled that the government had earlier stated that the land would not be returned even if the Tata project did not take off. The land would, under such circumstances, become the property of the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation. Therefore, the real intent of the Bengal government has always been to keep the land to itself.

Yours faithfully,
Shiv Shanker Almal, Calcutta

A suitable man

Sir — Since the president is the first citizen of the country, he should be elected by all adult Indian citizens, and not by members of the parliament alone (“Sonia faces power queue”, June 11). Unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow this. Today, the country’s political landscape is full of parties and politicians with competing and conflicting interests. As a result, the presidential election is mired in confusion. Besides, given the opportunism and corruption among elected legislators, the president, who, at present, is a mere titular head, should be given executive power along with the council of ministers.

Yours faithfully,
B.S. Ganesh, Bangalore

Sir — With no strong contender for the post of president in sight, there is widespread speculation as to who will occupy Rashtrapati Bhavan. However, one needs to ponder whether India needs a president at all. The Indian president, like the British monarch, reigns but does not rule. Therefore, it would not make a difference even if a political heavyweight got elected to the presidency. Three of the four Indian presidents from minority communities have been Muslims. This was perhaps to show the world how generous and pluralistic a Hindu-majority country could be. But India has never had a Christian president. Nevertheless, to be the president of India, the political credentials of a candidate are secondary to his religious and caste affiliations. Anyway, to go by the names proposed by various quarters, India is not likely to get an apolitical president this time. Hence, it is more important for the prime minister to choose a nominee who has not generated any controversy and is likely to be trustworthy.

Yours faithfully,
Omar Luther King, Delhi

Sir — The presidential race is offering the betting fraternity great opportunities since new names are being proposed every second day. It seems that political parties have a limited vision. Party discards and elderly statesmen make up the majority of the names that have been proposed this time. It is not surprising then that ordinary people are unenthusiastic about the candidates in an election that generates little enthusiasm anyway. Most of the nominees are hard-core politicians, and some of them are also controversial figures. If politicians are unable, or unwilling, to come up with honest and apolitical candidates, the media should invite suggestions from the public. Those who make the list can then run for the post. Whatever its shortcomings, this method of electing the Indian president would certainly be democratic.

Yours faithfully,
K. Venkataraman, Mumbai