(KC Kalkura)
On July 4, 1992, one of my heroes and inspirations, Thurgood Marshall (July 2, 1908 – January 24, 1993) gave a speech that deeply resonates today.
‘We can not play Ostrich,’ he said. ‘Democracy just cannot flourish amid fear. Liberty cannot bloom amid hate. Justice cannot take root amid rage. America must get to work… We must descend from indifference. We must descend from the apathy. We must descend from the fear, the hatred, and the mistrust”. (THE TRUTH WE HOLD, An American Journey by Kamala Harris, the Vice President, the USA).
With reference to the ongoing farmers’ agitation against Farm Laws, we can aptly substitute ‘India’ in the place of ‘America.’ Much can be said on both sides. But in a democracy, it is the all-powerful Govt that must sympathetically consider its subjects, more particularly the weaker sections.
Article 246 of the Constitution demarcated the powers of the Union and the State by classifying their powers into 3 lists, namely Union List, State List and the Concurrent List. The Centre has the exclusive jurisdiction to make laws on the Union List, while the on the State List, the States have the exclusive right. Both the centre and the states can make laws on Concurrent List, but the central law prevails over the state in cases of repugnancy.
However, Article 249 gives Parliament the power to legislate concerning a subject enumerated in the State List in the national interest, under the following circumstances 1. When the Rajya Sabha passes the resolution. 2. During a national emergency (Article 250) and 3. When two or more states pass a resolution requesting Parliament to legislate on subjects under State List. The procedure is also specified.
In September 2020, the President gave his assent to the following three ‘Agriculture Bills’ that were earlier passed by the Indian Parliament.
1- Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
2- Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
3- Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
This piece is not intended to discuss the details and merits and demerits of the Laws. The purpose is to view the side effects of the legislation.
The petition filed in the SC by the Bharatiya Kisan Party argues that ‘under our constitutional scheme, agriculture and farm produce are matters reserved under entries 14,18, 30, 46, 47 and 48 of the List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which lays out the subjects on which the State Legislatures are competent to enact laws. The argument is that the centre cannot simply pass the farm bills as it did not have legislative competence. Hence they are colourable legislation.’ (italics mine)
Passing legislation is one thing and implementation is another aspect. Two most dynamic pieces of Legislations passed in the Republic of India are the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
They were passed after extensive discussions and the State Governments were taken into confidence before introducing the Bill in the Parliament. They are intended to empower or devolve power on the Local bodies. They are aimed at heralding Democracy at the grass-root level. Still, they are set at nought. With some pretext or the other, even elections are not conducted regularly to the local bodies. State Governments rule them with the aid of the Bureaucracy. e.g. The tussle going on between the State Election Commission and the State Govt in Andhra Pradesh regarding the conduct of Panchayat elections.
Reverting to the Farm Laws, the pull between regulation vs. free-market ideology is long-standing. The trump card of the Government is that the law allows the farmer to sell his products anywhere in the country. Yes, he can. It is like a “pound of flesh, but without a drop of blood.” Large scale farmers, with bargaining capacity, can afford to transport their products by trucks/lorries/tractors, etc. But the marginal and small scale farmers are handicapped.
Supposing few farmers join hands and pool their products to transport, the buyer at the other end, as MSP (Minimum Support Price) is not guaranteed, may offer a lower price. Carting it back is double jeopardy. One, the shipping charges and two, the perishables have to be thrown on the streets or the dry wells. The farmers feel that the present system is ‘one bird in the hand’ and the Govt is showing ‘two birds in the bush’. So they are demanding MSP.
Agricultural Producers Marketing Committees (APMC) are not functioning effectively. Hence the new Laws argues the Govt.
Where is the guarantee that they will be implemented punctually? Sincere attempts must be made to plug the loopholes, set right the infirmities and balance the nexus between the farmer and the Commission Agent in the existing system.
Demonetisation has failed to check the flow of black money. Unauthorised news is spreading that the Rs.100/- notes are also likely to be devalued. GST has not achieved the desired effect. Banks’ amalgamation has not prevented fraudulent transactions. In fact, there is hardly any piece of Legislation that is not honoured in the breach. Are you going to reverse all of them?
Why do the farmers from Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Uttar Pradesh alone agitate? This is not the first time that Punjab is taking the lead to demand a fair deal for the farming community across the country.
Why do the farmers from Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Uttar Pradesh alone agitate? This is not the first time that Punjab is taking the lead to demand a fair deal for the farming community across the country. “Jashwanth Singh (Minister for External Affairs in NDA, I) said that unlike Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi, Vajpayee cannot cast India in his vision. The Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal expected Vajpayee to give his state a fair deal by hiking procurement prices of wheat and paddy, (italics mine).” (Page 148. VAJPAYEE , by Shakti Sinha.) Again Yaswanth Sinha the Finance Minister in the NDA-I, in 1998-99 budget has proposed a hike of Rs. one and Rs.four respectively per k.g. Urea and per litre of Petrol. “There was an immediate uproar. and the Finance Minister was forced to say that the hike be limited to Rs 1, per litre . The second rollback was in respect of urea, where he announced that the kike would be limited to 50 paise per kg., not Rs.1 per kg. In fact, the Akalis were not satisfied with this and wanted that there should be no hike in urea prices. (Italics mine) With these two withdrawals happening in less than a day, the media named Yashwanth Sinha ‘Rollback Sinha”. (Page 174, Supra). Turn the pages of History, there is any number of isolated mass movements roused with Nationalism.
(KC Kalkura is an advocate from Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh)