The farm laws need political resolution

Synopsis: Parliament has the authority to solve the issue of farm laws’ dispute, even when negotiations are happening outside.

Introduction

The peaceful protest turned violent during the tractor parade on January 26. Since then, the talks between protesting farmers and the government on the farm laws have taken an ugly turn.

• However, it is unclear how the peaceful protest for the last two months was allowed to take a violent turn by the farmers’ union leadership and the police administration as the police had approved the parade.

What led to failure of meaningful dialogue between the two sides?

Some media sections and political party representatives have tried to malign the two month old peaceful protest after the incidents of vandalism. This will add to the mistrust between the government and the farmer unions.

• We are not getting any meaningful outcome despite best intentions because farmers are not just protesting for the guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and the repeal of the three farm laws passed during the monsoon session of Parliament, but also for the:
  • The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Is it true that farmers from only a section of the country are protesting?

There is a resonance of anger across several States in the country where large numbers of farmers have been protesting peacefully. This impression has been created that protesting farmers only represent the interests of farmers from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh which is not true.

• There is a fear of corporate takeover among the farmers. Even though MSP-led procurement operations are very different in all the states, these agitating farmers represent the anger against the political economy of agricultural reforms.
  • These fears get stronger when economy is slowing down and the agricultural sector has suffered in the last six years. Bihar also abolished its APMC system.
• These Acts signify state withdrawing its support from the agricultural sector.

What were the Flaws in legislating?

Dialogue and mediation by government ministers and Supreme Court committee failed because of the flawed understanding of the government that this issue is a regional issue.

• These bills were passed in a rush without taking into account the concerns of various stakeholders. Attempt to force these legislations without discussion made government appear stubborn.
• The timing of passing the bills were wrong as these bills were announced as part of the COVID-19 pandemic relief package when the country was going through severe economic disruption due to the lockdown.

What should be done?

The Budget session presents a new opportunity to bring back these bills in Parliament. Parliament has the authority to solve the issue of farmers’ dispute, even when negotiations are happening outside.

• First, a parliamentary standing committee should be created. Members from different political parties should be included so that diverse opinions from States and political parties can be represented. This will make the committee legitimate.
• Second, suspending of the implementation of the bills for one and half years will allow the government for some time, space and the political forum to convince the States and farmers about the benefits of such reforms.
• Third, sending the bills back to the parliament will help in rebuilding the trust between the government and the protesting farmers.
• Fourth, the government which is serious about reforms in agricultural marketing, abolishing the Acts in the current form and starting the process afresh will only confirm its seriousness and commitments to the agricultural sector and the farmers of this country.