Jayati Ghosh SUCH IS the power of the media that in recent months the very names of Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal have become synonymous with forcible land acquisition by the state all over India. This is truly remarkable, because in fact, no land was actually acquired for industrialisation in Nandigram after the violent protests against it. And it is widely acknowledged that the terms of acquisition of the 1,000 acres required for the Tata automobile factory in Singur were the most favourable for peasantry of any such acquisition across India. Indeed, the Singur model ought to be viewed far more favourably, if only because it is the first time that not just owners of land but also tenant farmers were sought to be given some compensation. In a more rational sociopolitical environment, the response of the state government would have been appreciated in both these cases. In Nandigram, the government of West Bengal actually changed its plans for creating an industrial hub in that area and declared that it would not go ahead with any attempt at land acquisition. This is unlike any other state government, and is surely noteworthy in a country in which more than 2,00,000 hectares of cultivable land has been compulsorily acquired by the state for non-agricultural uses just in the past three years, without heeding local or other protests. (The subsequent year-long turmoil in Nandigram had nothing to do with land acquisition but was the result of forcible eviction of one set of peasants by another, and unlawful blockade of the area.) In Singur, the state government provided three times the market price of the land to holders of land titles and extended compensation to recorded tenants