Almost as quickly as the Supreme Court’s (SC) hearing on the farm laws started on Tuesday, it was apparent its strategy to preserve the laws in abeyance—while a court-appointed committee came up with a solution—was going nowhere given that the lawyers for the farmers had been not even present at the hearing Dushyant Dave, Colin Gonsalves, HS Phoolka and Prashant Bhushan had been the farmers’ lawyers. While Dave later told CNBC-TV18 that he did not go to court given that the matter was listed ‘for orders’—that indicates the bench will pronounce its ruling/selection, not hear more arguments—on Monday, he also added that, in any case, the farmer unions had created it clear on Monday itself that they had been not going to participate in the committee’s deliberations.
Though SC’s Tuesday order says “representatives of all the farmers’ bodies, whether they are holding protest or not and whether they support or oppose the laws shall participate in the deliberations of the Committee and put forth their view points”, a number of unions have stated they will not comply as BKU spokesperson Rakesh Tikait place it, “Bill wapsi nahin toh ghar wapsi nahin”. Farmer groups have also alleged that given that the panel is packed with supporters of the farm laws—Ashok Gulati of Icrier writes a fortnightly column in TheSpuzz— its report will assistance the government.
This is casting aspersions on the skilled integrity of the members and their potential to create an unbiased report most of Gulati’s pieces in FE, as it occurs, are important of government policy on agriculture. But it is clear the SC has not just dug itself in a hole, it has dealt a large blow to selection-producing in the nation. If a law passed by Parliament can so conveniently be place in abeyance, what occurs to these who are arranging investments and new corporations primarily based on the new laws, and not just these on agriculture?
It was usually clear that the farmers wanted a total repeal of the laws, a legislative assure that MSP would continue, and that the government would procure the 23 MSP crops every single year. So, farmers had been never ever going to accept any SC committee. It seems SC did not seriously examine—or dismissed it following examination—the possibility that farmers would not participate in the deliberations. Given that farmer-government talks have failed on these core demands, SC’s myopia is inexplicable.
A charitable explanation for SC’s selection was that it would diffuse the tension as, after the panel was set up, the farmers would go back house. While that looked like a pipe dream even then, the farmers have created it clear they will not go house till they get their way.
If the farmers do not participate in the panel’s deliberations, or they disagree with its conclusions—right now, each possibilities seem plausible—what is SC’s game-strategy? Will it let the government to go ahead with its negotiations with farmers or will it place the laws in abeyance after once more? The difficulty with the latter is that it sends out a clear signal to absolutely everyone that, if you want a law changed, and can muster adequate persons to gherao the capital or some vital constructing like Parliament, you can get SC to preserve the law in abeyance, though a panel decides on no matter whether the law is proper or incorrect.
SC had a single category of petitions, it says in its order, that challenged the constitutional validity of the 3 farm laws a single even challenged the third amendment to the Constitution in 1954 (!) that permitted the centre to legislate on a topic in the state list. The constitutional validity of the laws is definitely the only section below which SC is supposed to act it did not examine this, nevertheless, but felt it was all proper to hold the laws in abeyance—an ‘extraordinary order’, it admits—so that farmers would participate in the meetings in ‘a congenial atmosphere’ and so that their ‘hurt feelings’ would be ‘assuaged’.
SC saying this is really extraordinary and betrays a poor understanding of the challenges at stake. Indeed, the impression has been spread—and SC seemed to have purchased into it—that the 3 laws had been rushed by means of, with no sufficient consultation and so on. Juxtaposed with this is the view that poor farmers are getting quick-changed certainly, that is why they had been braving the cold, and risking Covid-19, by camping on the capital’s streets.
A reading of the government affidavit (bit.ly/38B7hke), nevertheless, specifics how there have been discussions, such as with state governments, going back two decades at least this newspaper pointed out that, way back in 1986, the Johl committee had flagged the will need to diversify Punjab agriculture away from rice and wheat. Indeed, SC failed to note that the 1st inroads into the APMC Act, to let farmers to sell fruits and vegetables in other markets other than the APMC ones, had been created throughout the UPA period.
That is also why, the Congress party’s election manifesto had stated it would abolish the APMC monopoly a point worth maintaining in thoughts is that APMC markets are not getting abolished, it is their monopoly that is getting challenged by enabling farmers to sell in other markets, such as straight to buyers. This is vital for the reason that the argument created is that the farmers will have to now sell to the Ambanis and the Adanis that is not accurate, all that occurs is that, if they want, farmers can sell to Ambani and Adani, or to Walmart or Mother Dairy or Patanjali or to farmer cooperatives, to just everyone.
Another element that possibly influenced SC was the view that compact and marginal farmers—and in extremely massive numbers—were getting hit by the new laws. That, nevertheless, is not accurate at all. While the farmer unions from Punjab are agitating for a legislatively assured MSP, just 5-6% of farmers across the nation advantage from this today the rest sell their crops in mandis even if the rates there are 20-40% under the MSP announced for several crops. In any case, for crops like fruits and vegetables, MSPs are not even announced.
Resolving the problem, it is accurate, is not going to be simple. Legislatively guaranteeing MSPs can expense lakhs of crore rupees every single year and the cash is a great deal superior spent on generating new irrigation facilities etc—farm subsidies are 4 instances the government capex in the sector!—as that will advantage all farmers. But resolving the problem is the government’s difficulty, not SC’s. SC has queered the pitch for the government by acquiring into its domain, and farmers are currently saying the SC remain indicates it feels the laws are unconstitutional. In addition, SC has also eroded its personal authority. Both augur badly for India’s future.