Part 4 : Political Perspective vis a vis Farm Acts.
Part 4 : Political Perspective
What is the government’s stated view on agricultural markets?
The committees headed by Ashok Dalwai and Ramesh Chand recommended that ‘agricultural market’ be entered in the Concurrent List. It is implicit in the recommendations that “foodstuffs” under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List do not empower Parliament to enact laws on agricultural markets.
On May 5, 2015, the government told Lok Sabha that the National Commission of Farmers (Swaminathan Commission) had recommended ‘agricultural market’ be added to the Concurrent List. On March 27, 2018, the government yet again told Lok Sabha that it has no intention of inserting ‘agricultural market’ in the Concurrent List.
What could be the rationale behind the Bharatiya Janata Party spearheading the farm bills?
In 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party swept to power at the Centre promising to double farm incomes by 2022, increase minimum support prices to ensure 50% profit over the cost of production and lower the price of inputs
Cut to 2020 and farm incomes have fallen, the cost of inputs such as diesel and fertilisers have soared, government procurement of crops other than rice and wheat has been negligible. The National Crime Records Bureau counted 10,281 farmer suicides in 2019. When questioned about farmer suicides amid the lockdown and the migrant crisis triggered by the pandemic, the government said it had no data.
The years in between have seen protests fuelled by growing agrarian distress – between 2014 and 2016, farmer agitations increased by 700%. Early in the Modi government’s tenure, farmers marched against the Land Acquisition Bill, 2015, which sought to dilute the provisions of the 2013 law.
In-state elections since then, this anger showed. In Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, both BJP-ruled states, the party failed to win a majority – though it managed to come back to power later, after defections and resignations in the two state governments. It lost in Punjab and Maharashtra. It failed to win a clear majority in Haryana, a state it had previously swept. The BJP lost elections in states where farmers’ movements were significant.
3) Keeping the agricultural parlance aside, what is it really that could have served as an anathema of vindication against the incumbent dispensation?
It is said that it is less about the content of the bills and more about the brazenness with which they were passed in the middle of a pandemic, by ‘bulldozing’ them in the parliament, the entire ordeal of hastiness and secretivity has fermented and fortified the serious predispositions of overarching executive fiat in the minds of the opposition.
It would be worthwhile to add that Legislation that benefits the nation but hurts vested interests will always meet with vehement opposition.
It is, therefore, necessary that the benefits of a new law are demonstrated through debate and discussion in a way that empirical or other evidence shows the deleterious economic consequences of continuing with the status quo.
When the government refused to refer these bills to the Parliament Select Committee and when the Vice Chairman of Rajya Sabha refused to provide a dissection in the vote count(a mandatory act to be discharged when asked by a sitting MP to do so), the ‘monarchical predispositions’ in the minds of the opposition were like a live telecast before the opposition and the ruckus followed.
Thus, if a proposed legislation has far-reaching consequences, it is best to refer it to a Select Committee for consideration which then deliberates the Bill, clause by clause, after soliciting expert opinions on the potential ramifications of the proposed legislation.
Moreover, laws are supposed to represent the ;wisdom of the legislature; and are the essence of constitutional morality according to Dr.B.R Ambedkar.
In the light of this, the statistics of bills being referred to Select Committees are concerning. Only 25% of the bills were referred to Select Committees in the 16th Lok Sabha as compared to 71% in the 15th. None in 2020.
This can only mean two things;
That the bills are too mundane to be scrutinized
The bills are so complex that Select Committee deliberation would douse the alacrity for implementation/would stand at the risk of frivolous filibusters.
But the perplexing part is that the status quo is characterized by neither possibilities; bills are generally moderately nuanced and scrutinized bills are implemented with alacrity.
Eg. Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019
Thus, when the protests were slowly consolidating and streamlining themselves, the beleaguered opposition put their weight behind them by making a joint statement and extending unconditional support, notwithstanding the diametrically opposite statements made by most of the opposition leaders.
So in my opinion the best way to mitigate this unbridled hypocrisy and the plethora of unreasonability is to, for instance, demonstrate their beneficial effects by implementing the laws in select states/districts for a year.(Just as a company tries its new product on trial basis)
In short, the biggest moral of the story especially for the ruling party is that following constitutional conventions always pays dividends.
4) Powerful Lobby
The arhtiyas are also politically powerful for two reasons, for trading in an APMC, one has to acquire a license from the State Government, and political affiliations go a long way in facilitating that.They count members of the legislative assembly amongst their brethren.
In July last year, they honoured Chief Minister Amarinder Singh with the title of ‘Fakhr-e-Quam’ (‘Pride of the Community’). Local media termed the event “a mega felicitation function.” It came soon after the chief minister had said it would be difficult to waive off the debt owed by farmers to the arhtiyas.
Comments
Post a Comment