By Nayakara Veeresha Nov 26, 2021, will remain as one of the milestones in the history of our nation. Reason: the government’s decision to repeal the farm laws that were enacted in 2020 and halted by the Supreme Court in January, 2021. The day is commemorated as Constitution Day or Samvidhaan Divas or National Law […]
By Nayakara Veeresha
Nov 26, 2021, will remain as one of the milestones in the history of our nation. Reason: the government’s decision to repeal the farm laws that were enacted in 2020 and halted by the Supreme Court in January, 2021. The day is commemorated as Constitution Day or Samvidhaan Divas or National Law Day since 2015 signifying the adoption of the Constitution on 26 November 1949. The Union Cabinet on 24 November approved the Repeal of Farm Laws Bill.
If 26 November 1949 is the day of Constitution adoption, then this year’s 26 November is the day of constitutional manifestation of democracy in its true spirit. The decision of repeal is a tribute to farmers who lost their lives in the movement since last year. As per the informal estimates, over 700 farmers died during the protests. The decision is the result of the martyrdom of the farmers who relentlessly fought the battle on the streets of the country’s capital withstanding all the odds.
Different Responses
Set in this context, it is necessary to analyse the different responses that are coming towards the decision of repeal of farm laws. One of the immediate thoughts is the electoral dividends in the wake of upcoming Assembly elections in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and other States. No doubt this factor holds some validity. However, ascribing this wholly to the decision of repeal is far from reality though this is definitely going to impact the voting pattern in the upcoming Assembly elections, even in a minuscule way. Another response is, the high command in UP and New Delhi has realised the seriousness of the farmer’s votes in UP, especially after the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. A section of political analysts opined that to ensure party’s victory in UP, addressing the local issues of the farming community is imperative to reap electoral benefits.
In addition to the electoral calculations, ideological and religious concerns also played an important role in arriving at this decision. This is evident from the Prime Minister’s selection of Guru Nanak Dev Jayanti, ie, 19 November, to express apology and reveal the government’s decision. The salience of the Hindu-Sikh community is critical, especially in the context of Punjab Assembly elections. The BJP’s central leadership must have dwelt upon these aspects before announcing the decision. The point is the decision has been taken by taking into account socio-cultural, ideological, economic, electoral and political factors. In terms of political theory, Gramsci’s ideological underpinnings have taken over Marx’s economic considerations, especially in Republican states. The perspective of democracy and the constitutional means with which the Indian republican state has been established is missing in the current responses.
Sovereign Authorities
In a democracy, people are the sovereign authorities and this is reflected in our Preamble. The yearlong farmer’s protest is indicative of the expression of Article 32 in an informal way. This is the reason why even after the Prime Minister’s apology and appeal, farmers continued with the protests demanding the legal guarantee of minimum support price (MSP) and jobs to the family member who lost their lives in the protest. These demands need to be understood from the perspective of “Right to Constitutional Remedies” in the form of Article 32.
There was violation of well-established democratic procedures such as consultation with State governments as agriculture comes under State list; sending the Bill to the Department or Parliamentary Standing Committee; and ensuring vibrant discussion and debate in Parliament is the way forward for elected governments, be it majoritarian or coalition. The Prime Minister has mentioned that the government has failed to remove the fears among a section of farmers about the potential benefits of the farm laws and their impact on improving the net income of the farmers.
The ordinance route of law-making is to be used only in emergency situations or in times of failure of the constitutional machinery in the State or country. The protests were indicative of farmers’ resistance to uphold constitutional governance in a democracy. Farmers were able to put pressure on the government in a consistent manner and asserted the active citizenship to usher in a democratic change. The decision of repealing farm laws is a win of constitutional democracy and farmers’ faith in the same.
Fresh breather
Farmers’ protest is one of the long struggled battles after the resistance towards the CAA-NRC combined. In the role of individual citizens, the farmer has demonstrated the criticality of protests and resistance in a democratic set-up with a deep sense of commitment to the Constitution and people’s welfare. Individual assertion is the basis of all the reforms, be it political or social, in the spirit of democratic insurrection and active citizenship. The repeal of farm laws is only the beginning. With this decision, the ball is now moved back to the court of government. It is interesting to see how the government treads the path and addresses the other demands of the farming community.
Finally, the aspects of deregulation in the agriculture sector must be designed separately by taking into account agro-climatic zones, diverse nature of agriculture and decentralised systems of procurement. This might be one of the factors why our Constitution makers didn’t feel the necessity to classify agriculture in the Concurrent list.
The government must not lose time to implement the 1998 election promise of linking support price of farm produces with that of general price index. Besides these concerns, the decision to repeal is not a setback, but it must act as a pause button for the government to redesign and re-enact reform measures in a much more calibrated and democratic way.
(The author is PhD Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development of Institute for Social and Economic Change [ISEC], Bengaluru. Views are personal)