GRAMMAR OF FARMERS PROTEST

 

THE GRAMMAR OF FARMERS PROTEST: A prism of POLITICS & rhetoric

ANIL K KHAWARE

ADVOCATE

 

Since the descend of November 26^th 2020, till today i.e 31^st December 2020 the National capital and its borders  is marred by Farmers’ Protest, ostensibly, against the Three (3) Laws enacted by the Union Government and its alleged perception of the same, being against the farmers’ interest. The interest is “real” or “vested” or whether the farmers interest has political dimensions needs analysis. There appears to be no situation of its abating. To begin with, the Three (3) Farm Laws in its broad contour needs cursory perusal and may be further dissected. The analysis shall endeavour to bring out the arguments put forth by the Government in support of the Bills and also counter arguments on the part of farmers.

THE FARMER- A GATEWAY TO POWER

I need to delve in the issue of gateway to power, before proceeding further. The farmers as a convenient tool are being used by political class of all side of spectrum to further goal in the Indian Political history. It is so , as, the farmer is perceived as a political unit of substance with negligible aftereffects or ripples and provider of political yield in election. The emotion found resonance since inception. The Indian National Congress after independence had a symbol of “Oxen” (Pair) as its election symbol, replaced by Cow and Calf subsequently. Similarly, the Janta Party which was the conglomerate of anti- congress front including Bhartiya Jansangh as united entity was a post emergency creation and “Farmer with holding plough on shoulder” was their symbol. The Dalit Mazdoor Kisan Party (DMKP) founded by Late Chaudhary Charan Singh had symbol of a Farmer doing Rice Spraying and the subsequent formation of Lok Dal had Hand Pump as symbol. The farmer, therefore, remained the centre stage of agrarian India for the potential political clout it commands and therefore political parties of the day have a penchant of using farmer card inter alia even through opting for symbol related to acts of agriculture or through instruments of agriculture. We know that India is a land of villages and farmers constitute substantial component of electorate and thus political parties have devised ways and mean with a view to appear to be seen alongside farmers, real or perceived only to seek political dividends. It is not without reason that the discourse is therefore oftenly based on the issues of farmers. The Mega Loan waiver of farmers to the tune of Rs 70,000 Crore  in 2009 by Congress lead United Progressive Alliance) is a point for instance. In fact, that was the watershed in the Indian politics as that lead to rat race by disregarding fiscal issues confronting the country. 

Coming back to present issue, it is no doubt true that the peaceful protest is considered as a cherished fundamental rights having its roots in Article 19 of Constitution of India. Thus, any protest for seeking the voice to be heard cannot be abhorred in a vibrant democracy. However, it is equally imperative to understand that rights and duties co-exist and cannot be segregated. It is further more significant to understand that whereas, right to protest is a cherished right but it does not impinge on making others inconvenient. The right and duty has very thin separating lines but they are mutually exclusive and the rights alone in isolation cannot remain oblivious to duty. In other words, the penumbra of rights cannot infringe the rights of others. The “Right to life with dignity” as enshrined in Article 21 is also a salutary right and there cannot be a better rights of one against other. Thus, where it hinges on causing inconvenience to others, the right ceases there itself. In this backdrop, blocking of Road and other way of violence, by no stretch of imagination can be construed as right to protest and it cannot be understood as bordering Article 19 of our constitution relating to peaceful protests and assembly.

Similarly, the rightfulness of the issues raised in the protest could not be presumed or assumed as gospel truth either on touchstone of law or on morality. The anatomy of protest is thus required to be appreciated on the benchmark of law. However in order to do so, the Three (3) farm laws/Acts and its broad contour may be perused. The Three (3) Farm Laws which is the bone of contentions are as under:

(i)           The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020; 

(ii)          The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection ) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020; and

(iii)         The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act , 2020.

It may be noted that on 27 September 2020, President has accorded assent to the aforementioned Three (3) 'Agriculture Bills (Acts).. Prior to that, on 5 June 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated by the Union Cabinet. In The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Market Fee is abolished and  the State Governments are prohibited from levying any market fee or cess on farmers, traders and electronic trading platforms for trading farmers’ produce in an 'outside trade area'. The aim and object of these laws are to create a free market. While cartelization was perceived as a big stumbling block in APMCs (Agricultural Produce Market Committee). These Acts however have been acerbically criticized by the political parties as well as a segment of farmers themselves. The criticism revolve around the inherent fear that these laws will lead to mitigation and outright degradation of APMCs. The fear also emanates from the perception of an eventuality of diluting Minimum Support Price (MSP). This has led to protests by farmers, especially, in Punjab & Haryana, and parts of Uttar Pradesh.

No doubt, APMC is basically a marketing board constituted by various state governments in India with a view to ensure safeguarding of farmers from exploitation by large retailers. The aim also was to ensure and contain price rise The APMCs are regulated by states through adoption of an Agriculture Produce Marketing Regulation (APMR) Act. Until recently, the first sale of agriculture produce could occur only at the market yards (Mandis) of APMC, however, there is no such mechanism in Three (3) Farm laws. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation Act which came into effect now, allowed farmers to sell outside APMC “Mandis” as well as different states in India. The farmers or at least a section of farmers in Punjab & Haryana and the political parties of other side of spectrum “smell a rat” here.

APMC  Model Act has its own shortcomings

One major drawback of the APMC model is the restriction imposed on farmers.  A farmer is not allowed to sign a contract with a manufacturer or processor. It is mandatory that they sell their produce through the specified channels. Furthermore, even though the act is planned to avoid monopoly, the act tacitly allows monopoly of the APMC over buying the farmer’s produce. Prevalent corruption in APMCs and typical bureaucratic machinery also act as hindrances to the farmer. These acts also impose multiple levies of Mandi Fee and multiple licenses need to be acquired.

The Government claims that these Acts will transform Indian agriculture and attract private investment. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, provides for contract farming, under which farmers will produce crops as per contracts with corporate investors for a mutually agreed remuneration. According to the government, The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 liberates farmers by giving them the freedom to sell anywhere.

Let us examine meticulously, the genesis of a agriculture produce market regulation program in India. During colonial regime, the raw cotton was perceived as the first farm produce. The British were keen to make available the supplies of pure cotton at somewhat affordable prices to their textile mills and hence, India's first regulated market i.e Karanja came to existence in 1886 and in this regard the first legislation being the Berar Cotton and Grain Market Act of 1887. This empowered the denizens of Britain to declare any place or location as per their convenience in the assigned district as a market in order to sale and purchase of agricultural produce. This Act became the model for enactment in other parts of the country. Another subsequent landmark in the agricultural marketing scene in the country relates to the recommendation of the 1928 Royal Commission on Agriculture for regulation of marketing practices and establishment of regulated markets. Yet again, Government of India was ready with a Model Bill in 1938 and that was circulated to all provinces. The situation remained virtually static, till India won freedom. The process of churning came thereafter. It was about 1970s that law was in place in this regard in many states and therefore Agricultural Produce Markets Regulation (APMR) Act. was enacted. Under the ambit of APMR, the primary wholesale assembling markets were brought in and market yards and sub-yards were duly constructed. Similarly, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) was constituted to frame the rules with a view to enforce them. The  independent India thus witnessed , the organized agricultural marketing.. In 2015, the Government of India in its budget proposed to create a United National Agriculture Market with the help of respective state governments and Niti Ayog that was the successor of Yojana Ayog.

On the other hand farmers are seeking recall of all three Acts and written legal guarantee on Minimum Support Price (MSP).The Eight (8) round of parleys held between government and farmers representative could not make headway so far. In fact any further headway, appears unlikely as the farmer’s stated position is “my way or high way”  which is contrary to the tenets of negotiation. The stand of the government is that they are open to hold discussion and wherever amendments in the Act is found necessary, the same could be done. The farmers however appears to have singularly been pressing for recall of Three (3) laws and written legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price. The stumbling block is therefore clearly visible. The support is extended to the farmers by various political outfits including left and ultra left. It is really perplexing that violence is unleashed and slogans raised also indicated vested political interest. We all know that the farmers cannot cause destruction to the Telecom Tower nor can they resort to other type of violence as is reported and therefore, the presence of vested interest is a foregone conclusion. The earlier the farmers realize it, better it is for the cause of nation.

LAWS:

As per Union of India v H.S.Dhillon (1972), constitutionality of parliamentary laws can be challenged only on two grounds — that the subject is in the State List, or that it violates fundamental rights. Is invoking parliamentary powers on agriculture consistent with the scheme of federalism and spirit of the Constitution? Does Parliament have the power to enact laws on agricultural markets and lands? Should the Constitution have been amended before enacting these laws?

 

LISTS UNDER SEVENTH SCHEDULE OF CONSTITUTION

Union List-Relates to power of Union to make laws

State Lists: Relates to power of states to make laws

Concurrent Lists: Both Union and state can make laws

 

The Terms relating to agriculture occur at 15 places in the Seventh Schedule. Entries 82, 86, 87, and 88 in the Union List mention taxes and duties on income and assets, specifically excluding those in respect of agriculture. In the State List, Eight(8)  entries contain terms relating to agriculture: Entry 14 (agricultural education and research, pests, plant diseases); 18 (rights in or over land, land tenures, rents, transfer agricultural land, agricultural loans, etc.); 28 (markets and fairs); 30 (agricultural indebtedness); 45 (land revenue, land records, etc.); 46 (taxes on agricultural income); 47 (succession of agricultural land); and 48 (estate duty in respect of agricultural land).

In the Concurrent List, Entry 6 mentions transfer of property other than agricultural land; 7 is about various contracts not relating to agricultural land; and 41 deals with evacuee property, including agricultural land.

 

Entry 27 of the State List that is subject to Entry 33 of List III (Concurrent List)

The bare perusal of Entry 33 of the Concurrent List shall be reflective of the fact that it includes trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution of domestic and imported products of an industry over which Parliament has control in the public interest; foodstuffs, including oilseeds and oils; cattle fodder; raw cotton and jute. The Centre may thus well argue that it is within its powers to pass laws on contract farming and intra- and inter-state trade, and prohibit states from imposing fees/cesses outside APMC areas.

 

Federalism, SEPARATION OF POWER AND LISTS ENUMERATED FOR GOVERNANCE

 

WHETHER THE FARM LAWS ENCROACHES STATES POWER

The issues generated in the protest is that the farm laws enacted by the centre is unconstitutional as Agriculture is the State Subject. It is therefore necessary to find out the details in this regard. The contents of Article 254 of Constitution of India may be examined threadbare. It may be noted that Article 254 encapsulates the issues arising out of doctrine of separation of power of centre and states and also the probable repugnancy and legal outlet.

254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.

(1)  If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void

(2)         Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

The bare perusal of Article 254 answers the issues raised by farmers. The case law discussed hereinafter shall also open the lid and the issue of legality raised by farmers initially, and probably even now has no leg to stand. The farmers raelizing the fait accompli is thus bent on exerting pressure on centre, either on their own or through their political dispensation.

Though, federalism, like constitutionalism and separation of powers, is not mentioned in the Constitution. But it is the very essence of our constitutional scheme. Federalism essentially means both the Centre and states have the freedom to operate in their allotted spheres of power, in coordination with each other. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution contains three lists that distribute power between the Centre and states. There are 97 subjects in the Union List, on which Parliament has exclusive power to legislate (Article 246); the State List has 66 items on which states alone can legislate; the Concurrent List has 47 subjects on which both the Centre and states can legislate, but in case of a conflict, the law made by Parliament prevails (Article 254). Parliament can legislate on an item in the State List under certain specific circumstances laid down in the Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v Union of India (1962), the Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is not federal. But in S R Bommai v Union of India (1994), a nine-judge Bench held federalism was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. “Neither the relative importance of the legislative entries in Schedule VII, Lists I and II of the Constitution, nor the fiscal control by the Union per se are decisive to conclude the Constitution is unitary. The respective legislative powers are traceable to Articles 245 to 254… The State qua the Constitution is federal in structure and independent in its exercise of legislative and executive power,” it said.

The perception of farmers as regards the centre encroaching the state subject falls flat like Nine (9) pins. In any case, if that was so, the farmers would have opted to challenge the farm laws in Supreme Court, rather than aiming at coercing and forcing the centre with some fringe outfits to seek its recall. 

 

agriculture in the scheme of legislative powers

In cases such as State of Rajasthan v G Chawla (1959), courts have used the doctrine of “pith and substance” to determine the character of legislation that overlaps between entries. The constitutionality of legislation is upheld if it is largely covered by one list and touches upon the other list only incidentally. But the two new farm Acts are beyond that — they impinge on entries in the State List. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 flies in the face of Entry 28 of the State List (markets and fairs), and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 impinges on Entries 14, 18, and 46 of the State List, and Entry 7 of the Concurrent List (above). In interpreting the lists, the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh (1952) invoked the doctrine of colourable legislation, which means you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.

In ITC Ltd v APMC (2002), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of several state laws relating to agricultural produce marketing, and struck down the central Tobacco Board Act, 1975. It interpreted Entry 28 of the State List (markets and fairs) in favour of states, and rejected the Centre’s argument based on Entry 52 of the Union List read with Entry 33 of Concurrent List that tobacco is an industry declared as being under the control of Parliament in public interest. It said raw materials or activity that does not involve manufacture or production cannot be covered under ‘industry’.

 

THE FARMERS’ MISPLACED APPREHENSIONS:

(i)           The protesting farmers fear that powerful investors would bind them to unfavourable contracts drafted by big corporate law firms, with liability clauses that would be beyond the understanding of poor farmers in most cases. This would lead to corporatisation of agriculture. The farmer thus shall be hit hard, as along with the unpredictable monsoon, shall be the determinant of the destiny of farmers. Moreover, the farmers contends that they can sell outside the APMC even now, and most in fact do, albeit, after paying the required fees or cess so what is so special about the Farm laws?.

(ii)          In Punjab and Haryana, the epicentre of the protests, the market fee, rural development fee, and arhatiya’s commission are 3%, 3%, and 2.5%; and 2%, 2%, and 2.5% respectively. These are big sources of state revenue — with states not permitted to levy market fee/cess outside APMC areas under the new laws, Punjab and Haryana could lose an estimated Rs 3,500 crore and Rs 1,600 crore each year respectively.

 

WHY FARMERS ARE SEEKING COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF THREE LAWS:

The demand is again being spearheaded by some vested interest and using the shoulder of farmers. It may be noted that the demand of farmers clearly aims at undermining the authority of parliament. There may hardly be any instance, when the laws passed by parliament were ever completely withdrawn. The democratic principles entail discussion at any stage and to meet the grievance of any of the affected section the discussion shall be of paramount significance. Not believing in discussion and remaining adhered to the demand of withdrawal of laws t is akin to questioning the very authority of parliament which is established by the people in a democratic process and collective wisdom and conscience of people cannot be allowed to by subjugated.  

When in the aforesaid lines, it is stated that the farmers are being used as a tool to further the “cause” of vested interest, it is not without reason. The farmers are seeking plenary withdrawal of Laws on the behest of some political outfit that has been down to dust for long. The reason obviously oblique and orchestrated. Let us understand the chemistry of the improbable demand.  The Rajasthan Government appears to have somewhat succeeded in mitigating the farmers bill by causing changes in their own state law, while the Three (3) Acts were still in the shape of ordinance and therefore the law could have been enacted by the state. The other opposition ruled state is probably trying to take the very same route, but as the central law is already in place  now  and as per article 254 of constitution, any subsequent laws passed by the state governments shall be repugnant and therefore a trap is laid by way of farmers protest to force centre to withdraw the Act so that all such states shall have their law after that and centre in that event cannot mull new law, since prior law by the states shall prevail. The farmers are used as holy cows by political party and also the rural India gets resonance through farmers and no political outfit would want to miss out on a “vote bank of substance” and hence the political outfits always has penchant to deal with their matter as a perceived outlet of success and they know that it fetches premium. For instance, it is not without reason that prior to 2009 Lok Sabha Election the debt of farmers ranging about 70,000 Crores were waived by the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government.

It is a well laid trap by some state governments, because, ostensibly on the shoulder of some farmers by misguiding them and if centre falls in that bait, the war cry of federalism having been hit shall be ranted in air and thus looking forward to as political maneuvering enacting their own law by states for scoring brownie points..The agitation is therefore in disguise and appears to be orchestrated and spearheaded by some political parties only to score political brownie point and appropriate the credit of agricultural reform.

The option available with the states is to take the Centre to the Supreme Court over the validity of these laws. Article 131 of the Constitution provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to adjudicate matters between the states and the Centre. It is also possible for farmers’ unions attached to political parties to challenge the law in the courts. The farmers unions, however, can move even the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India & Anr, (1979) 3 SCC 431,the Court opined that Where there is a direct collision between the law made by the State and the law made by the Parliament, State law would be void to the extent of repugnancy. The 5 Judge constitution bench has held in a matter CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7508 OF 2005 WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF  UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. In para no. 24 as under:

24. It is well settled that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the onus lies on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not appear to us to be any inconsistency between the State Act and the Central Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.

2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.

3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other.

 

In case of M. Karunanidhi (Supra) , while examining the issue of repugnancy after considering the relevant Entires in List I, List II and List III i.e concurrent list and Article 254 of Constitution of India, it is held that so far as clause (1) of of Article 254 is concerned, it clearly lays down thatwhere there is a direct collision between a provision of a law made by the State and that made by the Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then subject to the provisions of clause (2), the State Law would be void to the the extent of the repugnancy.

 

Clearly, as may be reflected from above, as regards constitutionality of new farms laws, the farmer has no case and thus as a pressure group they are being used by the parties from the opposite side of political spectrum.

Pattern IN PROTEST

After the voyage in law and constitutionality as enumerated above, it could be clearly discerned that the farmers have no case and therefore the political parties are using them to eat away the reform and credit that the present dispensation in centre has carved out for itself. This has lead to political indigestion and ache in the stomach of opposition parties, who could not challenge the centre through politics and policies and using farmers in their backyard to discredit the centre.

The farmer agitation have a clear pattern. As narrated, the same is supported and influenced by political outfits, which has lost their political relevance and aiming at riding piggyback on farmers with the belief that as a political unit, no party can afford to be seen on the other side of political spectrum. The insignificant and fringe element has thus come together and have formed a conglomerate and farmers in their area of governance are instigated to render themselves i.e political outfits, politically relevant. The national capital is made hostage. The underlying object appears to be bringing the government on the knees so that the image of government as an effective government may be mitigated and therefore unreasonable demand of blanket withdrawal of Act is sought. They appear to be acting on the behest of their political master. The flexibility on the part of the government is perceived as weakness and the resolve of the farmers appears to be strengthened not owing to reasonableness of their demand, but due to the perception that the government is acceding to their demand is pliant and even buckling under pressure. The governance cannot be seen to be pliant to pressure group. Eight (8) rounds of discussions are already held but intransigence on the part of farmers remained.

What is more perplexing that why the hooligans and rank criminals who have dismantled and caused huge damages of about 1600 Telephone Towers in Punjab are not booked under the stringent provisions of law and why are they made scot free? The state government is oblivious to all this and therefore the acts of state government in Punjab raised many questions. The immediate action should have taken under Telegraph Act, as also under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. .after all generators of companies are damaged or stolen and the catastrophic effect on students and the vast population of Punjab cannot be overstated.  The students interest in Covid era is hampered. The security apparatus in this manner may also be compromised.  The 1600 towers in Punjab is stated to be damaged and parts stolen. This is carried out in very high magnitude. The acts of vandalism, violence, blocking of Roads and damage caused to public property is required to be dealt with by heavy hands. Another very interesting aspect appears and that is to seek portability of Reliance Jio after dismantling the towers This is intriguing and suggest some larger game plan. The left who is supporting the agitation , and supports APMC, but in Kerala the left has no qualm if APMC is not provided for there and whereas the left is seeking this in Punjab & elsewhere, but in its own bastion Kerala, they turned a nelson eye to it.

Though, critics say that instead of working with the state governments to change the way agricultural markets work, the Centre simply have passed Three (3) farm laws without any consultation. On the other hand the exponent of farm laws believes that the Farm Laws changes are tremendously significant and compare them to be akin to 1991 structural reform, though in limited sense of term. While agriculture is in the state list under the Constitution, Entry 33 of the Concurrent List provides Centre and the states powers to control production, supply and distribution of products of any industry, including agriculture. Given that many state governments are opposed to the Central laws which has no sound legal basis.

In politics efforts of blaming the parties in power is legitimate, but while so doing the basic tenet of politics and interest of the nation should always be treated as paramount. As illustrated before, a section of farmers and opposition parties with a view to upstage the centre appears to have digressed from the principle. 

ENDEAVOUR OF OPPOSITION TO UPSTAGE THE CENTRE

The Rajasthan government has tried one approach: using pre-existing state laws in an attempt to nullify some of the Centre’s moves. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 essentially barred the state governments from levying fees on purchase or sale of produce outside the Mandis functioning under the state Agriculture Produce Market Committee. That is, any such transaction outside the notified markets will no longer attract fees from the state government. The trade area includes areas of produce transactions such as farm gates, warehouses and cold storage. It also includes warehouses under the central government. It, however, excludes market yards and sub-market yards already notified under the State Agricultural Produce Markets Act, in addition to private market yards and sub-yards notified under the state laws. This is where the Rajasthan government has used its executive power.

Given the route that Rajasthan has taken, it is possible that other state governments opposed to the central laws too could issue orders or make new laws to circumvent and nullify the efforts of reform unleashed by centre. However, in view of constitutional position and probable repugnancy to the central laws, the state government cannot do so till the time Three (3) farm laws are in statute book. The Rajsthan Government apparently has tinkered with the law marginally, during the subsistence of ordinance as the Act was not enacted till then, thus enabling a limited recourse to it. We know that in abstract sense , ordinance is no law and therefore the vires of Rajasthan law enacted during ordinance may stand test of judicial scrutiny. The other state government probably intends to go through Rajasthan route, but as the ordinance is now changed into Act and enacted as law by the centre, the obvious course for them (states) shall be to seek complete withdrawal of laws by centre and then frame it themselves with cosmetic changes and usurp the credit of reform and discredit the centre being anti farmer. The stand of Framers and its grammar as to why they insist on withdrawal of Three (3) Farm laws thus could be appreciated in this backdrop and thus it explains why farmers are uni-dimensional and adamant on seeking withdrawal of laws. The state governments run by opposition parties are seeking to preempt the centre and subsequently maybe planning to pass their own respective laws in states after compelling the centre to withdraw the Acts and paint the centre black and claim credit in a politically significant constituent called farmer. Should they succeed, this will be a political coup and the very legitimacy and command of Central Government on a vast section of electorate i.e farmers shall be rendered obscure. Thus, it is not a question as to who will blink? The fait accompli is- should centre blink and withdraw the farm laws, this will be catastrophic in political canvas for the ruling dispensation in centre.

CONCLUSION

To conclude in the words of legendary Late Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, “Silence is a guilt when there is duty to speak”. The country cannot be held hostage by any pressure group. The government is for the people as per constitution and no pressure group could supplant its voice on the silent majority. The government has to take care of the issues relating to vast populace across the nation and not only of some of the farmers, who appears to have been swayed by politics. The rule of law and political resolve is again put to test.