The rest of India has the advantage of not hosting such political machines. And therefore it is crucial to recognise that in some respects Nandigram-like violence is unique to Bengal. But, of course, many outside Bengal are even more keen, post-Nandigram, to give industrialisation, whether via SEZs or otherwise, a bad name. One question for them. Do they want India to grow fast? If India chooses to go back to low growth, the industry-farm land issue will be worked out over many decades. If India chooses to grow fast, we will have to confront the issue and solve the problems. One of them is creating land markets. Government control has destroyed land markets, both in urban and rural India. The colonial Land Acquisition Act is no answer. But no land acquisition is an unforgivably wrong answer. SEZs, whether they export or not, are essential for accelerating India’s development. As greenfield projects they can quickly create urban infrastructure, bypassing byzantine rules. India’s rate of urbanisation actually slowed down in the 1990s, as compared to the 1950s and 1960s, and the rate is lower than many developing countries’. Those living in India but passionately asking for Bharat to be preserved are the most elitist of all. They don’t know or don’t care that 60 per cent of agricultural land is dry and therefore not prosperity-inducing — Nandigram’s land, incidentally, has a salinity problem, a fact that made acquisition attractive for many legal title holders — that a majority of holdings are small and unviable, that unskilled or semi-skilled industrial employment is the only secure prospect for millions in rural India, that if the political cost of investment rises, investors will go away. Bhattacharjee has said how he had to fight other states to get the project for Nandigram. If policymakers panic after Nandigram, India will have to fight other countries. Even Indian capital, in today’s world, needn’t be stuck with investing in India. Does anyone benefit from that, that’s the real question after Nandigram.