Early evidence however suggests there are two impediments to the Narmadaisation of SEZs on television. First, there’s as yet no Medha Patkar equivalent in the SEZ story. Many “victims” across many states don’t make good TV. TV needs a face to narrate a drama. Second, Kamal Nath is not doing a Saifuddin Soz. Remember that when the Narmada story was playing out on TV, the Centre seemed to have disappeared till the PMO told the media where the PM stood - not for halting construction immediately but to help the court in assessing the ground situation.

Kamal Nath was politically pragmatic - that’s a necessary attribute for ministers - about SEZs. But he didn’t cut and run. A CNN-IBN discussion programme that seemed to have somewhat prejudged the issue saw the commerce minister make his point pretty coolly. Perplexingly, AB Bardhan, the other politician-panelist, had less to say than he normally does on TV shows. Perhaps he felt reassured by the way TV news had been handling the story.

Will SEZs benefit the common man, a CNN-IBN story asked. The reporter spoke of sophisticated land grabs and glitzy facades. By the time the story came to prices paid by the Haryana government and “prevailing land market” rates, it was pretty much clear what the reporter thought of special economic zones. The story needed more thinking, I’m afraid. When a farmer says he was paid “less” and/or doesn’t have a stake in the project being built on the land, it makes sense to ask what are the ways to make him feel better compensated. It was only when politicians and officials started telling the media that industry may have to buy land directly from farmers that the question of how to get better compensation got some play on TV. A reporter who had to speak loud enough to be heard over Gurgaon traffic told an NDTV news show that direct industry-farmer negotiations are being considered in Haryana. My point is simple: oppose SEZs if you want to, but ask a few questions. That was what CNBC did when it interviewed Jamshed Irani for the “corporate” view on SEZs.

The SEZ story could get bigger, for example, via more people asking the question whether industrial projects will actually reduce cultivable land to the point where agricultural production will be “affected”. There are complicated issues here - effectiveness of irrigation projects, corporate farming versus traditional farming, the real rate of urbanisation in India, etc. True, not all of this can be explained in a television programme. But at least some of these questions can be asked and people who have seriously worked on these issues can be invited. One helpful suggestion: if you want an expert to tell you about net arable land, give him or her at least three sentences before you interrupt.