The Unmaking of the Farm Laws

                   

by Preeti Ahluwalia

Productivity, sustainability & security are the key needs of Indian agriculture; a sector which has been languishing for years. Legacy problems caused by systems that have outlived their utility have created socio-economic & environmental imbalances. Multiple committee reports have been published year after year for decades, covering a variety of issues. There is no dearth of solutions – in theory. But where are the reforms?  

The answer lies in the political economy of India. Wide-ranging reforms where farmers, as a key electoral constituency, will lose out on some immediate benefits, are politically hard to pursue. In addition to that, there are a few legal challenges – Agriculture in India falls under the State List, and rightly so. But this leads to a few challenges related to inter-state co-ordination as well as difficulty in creating a pan-India market. 

 

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, a time of extreme stress for Indians, the government chose the ordinance route to bring about reforms in agriculture. Before being introduced to the Lok Sabha, there was no information in the public domain. Neither was there any pre-legislative consultative process, nor was there enough debate in the Parliament. The bills weren’t sent to a parliamentary standing committee for further scrutiny either, despite demands to do so.

The bills were passed with a voice vote rather than a recorded vote in the Rajya Sabha, disregarding dissenting voices and leaving room for ambiguity and doubt. Use of voice votes makes sense when there is broad agreement on the issue, not for contentious issues that need to be discussed and deliberated at length as they are inaccurate. Recording votes makes legislators accountable for their decisions as it is visible to the public. 

Thus, far-reaching laws, affecting more than 50% of the workforce directly, were pushed through without discussions. Legal mistakes in a large country like India impose huge costs on citizens. This sense of urgency, disregard of genuine concerns and omission of thorough examination sowed the seeds of distrust and uncertainty amongst key stakeholders. Large scale protests by farmers, some unsustainable demands & passage of laws by 3 state governments to negate central laws are a symptom of a missing consensus-building process. When the parliament failed to fulfil its deliberative role, citizens took to the streets. 

                    

This turned important reforms into a political football, ending with their repeal.  It is true, that committees have been recommending these changes in some form for years now, but focused stakeholder discussions were missing. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot work in India. 

Since states are the actual ground for action, addressing their concerns & supporting them through the transition is crucial. Farmers in states like Punjab, Haryana & UP, who played a key role in bringing India back from the brink of starvation during the Green Revolution, have different requirements, compared to states like Bihar & West Bengal. A deliberative forum, on the lines of the GST Council can be useful to understand their specific needs.

Makers of the Indian constitution chose the parliamentary form of governance to make sure that the government is held accountable for its actions. This is ensured by parliamentary devices like question hour, committees and most importantly, debates within the parliament & cannot be overlooked. This is vital for the health of a democracy. 

                 

Sending bills to Standing committees help in improving them by providing a non-partisan forum for law- makers to scrutinise the bills. They engage with experts and stakeholders and analyse contentious issues in depth without political posturing.  Even before the COVID-19 lockdowns came in place, a decline in the number of bills referred to the Parliament was seen. As per parliamentary data, only 1 in 5 bills were referred to the standing committees between 2019 and end of 2020, which is highly inadequate.  Credibility of the Parliament depends on the robustness of these devices.

In a democracy, norms are built over time. ‘What’ is done is important, but the ‘how’ of it determines the quality and legitimacy of the outcome.  Parliament, as the key deliberative body in India, plays a central role in translating the aspirations of Indians into laws and policies. This requires negotiations & reconciliation of opposing interests and cannot be overlooked. The ‘buy-in’ process is largely political & vital in building a broad consensus & an outcome that benefits citizens. As we celebrate (or condone) 3 decades of the 1991 Reforms in India, we must understand the lessons it holds for political manoeuvring for bringing about reforms. Democracy is the art of compromise & the attainment of the next best solution. 

             

If the government is serious about agriculture reforms, they must start focused consultations with farmers, unions, traders, and state governments and understand their needs, incentives and systems they’re a part of. The Farm Laws were directionally correct and need to be reintroduced in an acceptable form after making adequate improvements. 

If democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, the true strength of a democracy lies in how it protects its minorities and gives them a voice.