THE GRAMMAR OF FARMERS PROTEST: A prism of POLITICS & rhetoric
ANIL K
KHAWARE
ADVOCATE
Since the
descend of November 26th 2020, till today i.e 31st
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.
|
|
|||
