Thursday, March 28, 2024

News Destination For The Global Indian Community

News Destination For The Global Indian Community

INDIA
LifeMag
The federal might

The federal might

Punjab and Maharashtra have taken the Centre head on by contesting farm Acts and CBI’s rights. Will this be the new trend?

Two States are taking up the fight for federal rights against the unilateralism of the Centre — Punjab and Maharashtra — showing an emerging trend of a new Opposition strategy, that of politically counteracting the ruling BJP in States controlled by it and compelling a discussion on consensus politics. So Punjab has challenged the three farm Acts and brought its own amendment Bills while Maharashtra has withdrawn its consent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct probes in the State. Constitutionally speaking, the Punjab Government would have to wait for the Bills to be sent to the Governor and then to the President, who, acting as he does on the advice of the Union Government, is unlikely to give his assent. Then the State Government could take legal recourse in the Supreme Court. Similarly, while a State’s consent is needed in pursuing CBI investigations, it cannot deter those that are ordered by the Supreme Court. So more than political point-scoring, in real terms, the sore point would remain. But it would be worth a fight. The Punjab Government is basing its legal argument on the fact that agriculture is part of the State List and the Centre has no authority over it. The latter contends that since the three Acts deal with the trade and commerce of farmers’ produce, its jurisdiction is valid under the Concurrent List. The Punjab Government’s amended Bills seek to address the fears of State farmers about being forced to sell their produce at less than the Minimum Support Price (MSP) in an open market. They seek to ensure that growers are not browbeaten by the heft of food corporations and that the older system continues without being weakened by a parallel market. The first amendment says that the sale of wheat and paddy (which are the State’s cash crops) will be valid only if the seller pays a price equal to or greater than the MSP announced by the Central Government and that any violation would be punishable. The second Bill reintroduces the market fees or licences for private players outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis, which the Central law has abolished. This, it says, will be used to create a distress fund for small and marginal farmers. The third Bill attacks the central Act that gives unlimited power of stocking essential commodities to traders and reassigns that right back to Punjab, arguing that production, supply, and distribution of goods is also a State subject. The State Government is also planning to use the amorphous definition of a “trade area”, where farmers, traders and e-transaction platforms are given the freedom to deal in farmers’ produce without any restrictions, to cover the whole State. It is a given that the Centre rushed through the farm Acts, packaging them with good intentions but skimming over the devil in the detail and glossing over the practicalities of implementation. And the farmers, who have so far operated in some sort of regulatory mechanism and built trust within it, would indeed be vulnerable in the absence of guaranteed protections or an elaborate explainer, a fact that would but naturally be used by food majors to their advantage. The Agriculture Minister’s refusal to meet stakeholders or even assure them in person, considering that the BJP’s own farmers’ organisations have raised objections, has only made the Government look more brazen than concerned. Why, instead of being vague about the continuity of MSP, could it not say that “notwithstanding the provisions, no trade transactions should take place below the notified MSP?” That would have allayed the anxieties of farmers. Now, the patchy resistance across States would mean that there would not be a holistic understanding of reforms or their implementation. Had the Government followed the consultative and inclusive model that it used to get the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rolling and referred the Bills through parliamentary committees, things would not have come to such a pass. Many would argue that agriculture merely makes up for 16 per cent of the GDP but farmers make up a majority of every party’s voter base and should deserve a listen. They are having it rough anyway, battling high input costs, low productivity and falling pick-up prices. A policy pushed without taking them into confidence will always run the risk of being hijacked by populism and politics. 

With the Centre’s persistent needling, the Maharashtra Government is following other Opposition States in refusing permission for CBI probes. Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had withdrawn general consent earlier, calling such inquiry interventionist and politically motivated. The Modi regime did follow some form of cooperative federalism, GST being a prime example, in its first run post-2014. But after the mammoth victory of 2019, it has begun appropriating federal space, be it under the guise of monitoring Centrally-sponsored schemes, using the ruse of national security and interest and manufacturing consensus by co-opting self-serving regional players, like the Biju Janata Dal, to push through major policies despite the lack of numbers in the Rajya Sabha. Post-COVID, the coercive federalism gave way to consultative federalism again as health is a State subject. And now that most States have evolved after managing a public health crisis, they are becoming more confident about asserting themselves and carving out their own policy positions vis-à-vis the Centre. The spate of resolutions in Assemblies against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act was just the beginning. And if more States are to override Central laws with their own legislative framework, then the Opposition is hell-bent on proving why India is a Union of States.

The federal might

The federal might

Punjab and Maharashtra have taken the Centre head on by contesting farm Acts and CBI’s rights. Will this be the new trend?

Two States are taking up the fight for federal rights against the unilateralism of the Centre — Punjab and Maharashtra — showing an emerging trend of a new Opposition strategy, that of politically counteracting the ruling BJP in States controlled by it and compelling a discussion on consensus politics. So Punjab has challenged the three farm Acts and brought its own amendment Bills while Maharashtra has withdrawn its consent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct probes in the State. Constitutionally speaking, the Punjab Government would have to wait for the Bills to be sent to the Governor and then to the President, who, acting as he does on the advice of the Union Government, is unlikely to give his assent. Then the State Government could take legal recourse in the Supreme Court. Similarly, while a State’s consent is needed in pursuing CBI investigations, it cannot deter those that are ordered by the Supreme Court. So more than political point-scoring, in real terms, the sore point would remain. But it would be worth a fight. The Punjab Government is basing its legal argument on the fact that agriculture is part of the State List and the Centre has no authority over it. The latter contends that since the three Acts deal with the trade and commerce of farmers’ produce, its jurisdiction is valid under the Concurrent List. The Punjab Government’s amended Bills seek to address the fears of State farmers about being forced to sell their produce at less than the Minimum Support Price (MSP) in an open market. They seek to ensure that growers are not browbeaten by the heft of food corporations and that the older system continues without being weakened by a parallel market. The first amendment says that the sale of wheat and paddy (which are the State’s cash crops) will be valid only if the seller pays a price equal to or greater than the MSP announced by the Central Government and that any violation would be punishable. The second Bill reintroduces the market fees or licences for private players outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis, which the Central law has abolished. This, it says, will be used to create a distress fund for small and marginal farmers. The third Bill attacks the central Act that gives unlimited power of stocking essential commodities to traders and reassigns that right back to Punjab, arguing that production, supply, and distribution of goods is also a State subject. The State Government is also planning to use the amorphous definition of a “trade area”, where farmers, traders and e-transaction platforms are given the freedom to deal in farmers’ produce without any restrictions, to cover the whole State. It is a given that the Centre rushed through the farm Acts, packaging them with good intentions but skimming over the devil in the detail and glossing over the practicalities of implementation. And the farmers, who have so far operated in some sort of regulatory mechanism and built trust within it, would indeed be vulnerable in the absence of guaranteed protections or an elaborate explainer, a fact that would but naturally be used by food majors to their advantage. The Agriculture Minister’s refusal to meet stakeholders or even assure them in person, considering that the BJP’s own farmers’ organisations have raised objections, has only made the Government look more brazen than concerned. Why, instead of being vague about the continuity of MSP, could it not say that “notwithstanding the provisions, no trade transactions should take place below the notified MSP?” That would have allayed the anxieties of farmers. Now, the patchy resistance across States would mean that there would not be a holistic understanding of reforms or their implementation. Had the Government followed the consultative and inclusive model that it used to get the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rolling and referred the Bills through parliamentary committees, things would not have come to such a pass. Many would argue that agriculture merely makes up for 16 per cent of the GDP but farmers make up a majority of every party’s voter base and should deserve a listen. They are having it rough anyway, battling high input costs, low productivity and falling pick-up prices. A policy pushed without taking them into confidence will always run the risk of being hijacked by populism and politics. 

With the Centre’s persistent needling, the Maharashtra Government is following other Opposition States in refusing permission for CBI probes. Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had withdrawn general consent earlier, calling such inquiry interventionist and politically motivated. The Modi regime did follow some form of cooperative federalism, GST being a prime example, in its first run post-2014. But after the mammoth victory of 2019, it has begun appropriating federal space, be it under the guise of monitoring Centrally-sponsored schemes, using the ruse of national security and interest and manufacturing consensus by co-opting self-serving regional players, like the Biju Janata Dal, to push through major policies despite the lack of numbers in the Rajya Sabha. Post-COVID, the coercive federalism gave way to consultative federalism again as health is a State subject. And now that most States have evolved after managing a public health crisis, they are becoming more confident about asserting themselves and carving out their own policy positions vis-à-vis the Centre. The spate of resolutions in Assemblies against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act was just the beginning. And if more States are to override Central laws with their own legislative framework, then the Opposition is hell-bent on proving why India is a Union of States.

Leave a comment

Comments (0)

Opinion Express TV

Shapoorji Pallonji

SUNGROW

GOVNEXT INDIA FOUNDATION

CAMBIUM NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY

Opinion Express Magazine