Jairam Ramesh and I have known each other for 35 years and 51 days. We rarely see eye to eye on anything, possibly because we belong to different sects of global Iyengarism, me being from the superior sect, of course.
But there is one thing on which I cannot disagree with him: the land law that he drafted, piloted and got passed. It may be true that he was only trying to make a last-ditch attempt to save the Congress party's rotten bacon but that really doesn't matter.
The point is that it favours the weak against the powerful. That, I should think, should be that, especially in India where the weak are so weak and the powerful so powerful.
Also, all those against the Bill should think about how they howl when the government skewers them through tax terrorism. If they feel so powerless against the government, how much more powerless does the farmer feel?
Nor is it any argument, which the government has been making (doubtless to meet its own pre-election promises) that essential rural infrastructure - schools, hospitals, roads and so on - will not get built.
Rubbish. It can buy the land and build. After all, it buys a lot of things that are costly and expensive. Besides, if the cost is high, it will tend to economise on the land rather than be profligate with it, which it has been in the past.
Nor will it be tempted to give it away to builders and suchlike. What, after all, is the justification for information technology companies to be sitting on thousands of acres?
And remember the 1950s? The government acquired many thousand acres of land then for the public sector. Many of them failed. No one benefitted, except politicians.
Also, if I recall rightly, India Today once reported that enterprising politicians in Ranchi had made plots from land belonging to the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd and sold them off to unwary citizens.
The text
Many people now talk glibly of eminent domain, which in the US is also called takings, as in "I am taking what is yours". But I wonder how many actually know its origin and how that first act of taking in the middle ages established a wholly iniquitous sovereign right.
The right was first exercised in 13th century England when the king wanted a saltpetre mine to make ammunition. The owner refused and the king just took it over anyway.
And thus, a horrible practice came into being. With it was born the notion of sovereign 'right' in the name of which any sort of excess could be perpetrated on the populace.
As it happens, the taking away of private property is not confined to land alone, though that predominates. It has been used for taking over other things as well, such as patents, trade secrets and copyrights.
No wonder, no society anywhere in the world has been comfortable with this particular sovereign 'right' at any point over the last 800 years, even though in its justification the idea of public interest - pro aris et focis - has always been put forth.
Maybe, but this has always been tempered by the thought in the minds of those who so justify, "What if it was my land or house they were snatching?"
Nor has the notion of 'just' compensation ever been universally endorsed because when the government snatches away your property the idea embodied in 'just' cannot be solely monetary.
The future is terrifying, never mind the 'justness' of the compensation.
The context
Do you know, on an average, how many people a hectare of land in India supports? Around six. So, when the government takes away a hectare at least that many people - old, young and children - get skewered.
Do you know how much a hectare's market price is? On an average perhaps Rs 5 lakh. Four times that is piffle when it has to support five or six people for their entire lifetimes.
So, the point is simple. The land yields a stream of income whereas compensation is, in a sense, a stock.
On average, a farmer in India earns around Rs 35,000 tax-free per hectare every year. How far would a 'just' compensation of even Rs 50 lakh take him?
Also, if he puts it in a fixed deposit, would the interest be taxed at 30 per cent? Yes, it would.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
