Farm laws and the voices of dissent
About Us | Contact Us | E-Paper
Title :    Text :    Source : 

Farm laws and the voices of dissent

John Milton says, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”

Post by on Thursday, November 4, 2021

First slide

Lately, the farm laws have been in the news for a long time, and the discussions seem to get intensified with every passing day, with scores of people even resorting to violence. Thousands of farmers, mostly from states like Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, have been camping at several Delhi border points since 26 November 2020, demanding a repeal of farm laws. They also demand a legal guarantee on Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for their crops. Despite several efforts from both the Supreme Court and the Central government and rounds of negotiations, consensus on the core issue of farm laws continues to remain elusive even as the arguments against the farm reforms are somewhat difficult to substantiate.

 

So, what is it that they ask?

The protesting farmers from various unions on the borders of Punjab and Haryana say that the recent laws enacted at the Centre would dismantle the minimum support price (MSP) system. They also seem to believe that over time, big corporate houses will dictate terms and farmers will get lower prices for their crops. The protesting farmers on the above-discussed borders fear that with the banishment of the mandi system, they will not get the price for their crops and the "arthiyas" —the agents who end up getting commissions, who also pitch in with loans for them — will be non-existent. Their demand is that there is a critical need to withdraw the three laws that deregulate their crops' sales. The farmer unions could also settle for a legal assurance that the MSP system will continue, ideally through an amendment to the laws.

 

What is MSP?

To put it in simpler words, "minimum price" for any agricultural produce is the price that the government considers as remunerative for farmers and, as such deserving of "support." Subsequently, it is also the price that government agencies pay whenever they procure a particular crop. The government now fixes MSPs for 23 crops but is not legally bound to pay these even if open market rates for the said produce are ruling below their announced floor prices because there's no legislative backing to it.

 

The recently enacted laws dismantle the monopoly of APMC (agricultural produce market committee) or mandis, allowing the sale and purchase of crops outside these state government-regulated market yards. The government might not have faced serious farmer opposition if it had included a provision safeguarding the continuance of the current minimum support price (MSP)-based procurement regime.

 

However, The Central government claims 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 and as such give them better returns and increase the quality of both the agricultural produce and land.

 

But, at the same time, the protesting farmers fear that these influential private investors would bind them to unfavourable contracts drafted by big corporate law firms. And with liability clauses, that would be beyond the understanding of poor farmers in most cases, as most of them are illiterate, with 30 percent of marginal and small farmers still illiterate in India.

 

Supreme Court's Intervention

After the series of protests by farmers on Delhi- Haryana border at Singhu and the incident at Lal Quila on 26 January 2021, multiple pleas were filed before the Supreme Court of India, which the court took up and subsequently gave some interesting connotations, which were: -

Firstly, the court stayed all the three farm laws passed by the Centre.

The time being stay on their implementation means the Centre cannot, at least, for now, execute any of the said laws. It also formed a four-member expert committee to listen to the farmers' grievances on the farm laws and the views of the government and make recommendations. The court further guaranteed the Minimum Selling Price (MSP) until further orders. The expert committee appointed by the apex court held 12 rounds of negotiations with all the stakeholders and finally, on 19 March, submitted its report to the court. No pronouncement has been given by the Supreme Court on this yet.

 

Question of dissent

Dissent and democracy are two parallels that work together to ensure the rule of law. Judiciary has time and again come with various judgments where it has upheld the essence for the upliftment of a democracy. Pertinently, in a recent development, while giving bail to the student protestors of Jamia Millia Islamia University, the Delhi High Court while passing the order made an observation that State cannot blur the line between the constitutionally guaranteed 'right to protest' and 'terrorist activity. It also said that our nation's foundations stand on surer footing than to be likely shaken by a protest, however vicious, organized by a tribe of college students or other persons.

 

The celebrated Indian independence leader Mahatama Gandhi is considered one of history's most famous proponents of nonviolent protest and resistance, which he also used as civil disobedience moment at the time of India's Independence from the British. He believed violence or ‘himsa’ was a destructive weapon that created far more problems than it solved. 

 

In a democracy like India, where elections are based on the first–past-the-post system, also known as plurality voting system, the government in most cases does not represent the majority of the population, and often not even the voting electorate since the complexity of the same is not easy to comprehend.Dissent is like a lifeline in a democracy. If any nation has to grow in a holistic manner where the economic rights and the citizens' civil rights are to be protected, dissent and disagreement must be permitted and should be encouraged.  

 

(Author is Practising Advocate at J&K High Court. He can be reached at: huzaifkhanpori@gmail.com)

Latest Post