Skip to main content

Farm bills violate federalism, would 'weaken' public distribution system: PUCL

Union home minister Amit Shah, Punjab CM Amarinder Singh
Counterview Desk

India’s premier human rights organization, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), even as asking the Government of India (GoI) must meet the demands of the protesting farmers and repeal the three new laws on farming, has said that this is particularly important because the Centre is guilty of violating principles of federalism, by “legislating on a state subject without consulting the farmers or the State Governments.” 
Making a statement close on the heels of talks between Union home minister Amit Shah and Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh on farmers' protest, a PUCL statement said, “The fear that if these laws are allowed to exist, then they would lead to creation of landlessness, bondage and destitution of farmers cannot lightly be brushed aside, given the nature of the acute farmers and agricultural crisis that has been growing in the last two years.”
Signed by Ravi Kiran Jain, national president, and V Suresh, national general secretary, PUCL, it  demanded that the cases filed against the protesting farmers should be withdrawn, insisting, Centre should respect the democratic right of protest of the Indian citizens and have a dialogue with the farmers exhibiting good faith.

Text:

The People's Union for Civil Liberties is committed to the defence and promotion of civil liberties in India, irrespective of differences regarding the political and economic institutions that maybe suitable for the country. The aim of the PUCL is clearly to uphold and promote by peaceful means the democratic way of life throughout India. To us it is an article of faith.
It is in this context that the PUCL stands in solidarity with the non-violent and peaceful struggle of the lakhs of farmers, sleeping under the open sky in the chill of winter on the Delhi borders. When the farmers of the country needed full support from the Government, due to the ongoing agrarian crisis, it has come as a shocker that the GoI wants to disempower the farmers completely in the interest of big corporates.
PUCL would like to assert that the Government of India must meet the demands of the protesting farmers and repeal the three new laws on farming, which were passed in the Indian Parliament in September 2020, by flouting all democratic norms.
We would like to point out that these laws were passed in the middle of the Corona pandemic crisis without a national discussion on the proposed changes of law which threaten to change the face of agriculture in India. It is objectionable that such far reaching changes were ushered at a time when the corona pandemic had already forcibly restricted movement and economic activity of ordinary people.
It is evident that the farmer's struggle has moved well beyond the demand of merely protecting the minimum support price (MSP) and the repeal of the two new and one amendment law on farming. These are respectively, The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion And Facilitation) Act, 2020, better known as the APMC Act, The Farmers (Empowerment And Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, better known as the Contract Act and the third The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.
It is our understanding that it has clearly emerged as a struggle for survival of more than fifty percent of the Indian people who are farmers, a struggle against the corporate control of the several dimensions of farming economy and operations from production, to fair pricing, to stocking (hoarding), to markets and to retail marketing. 
The fear that if these laws are allowed to exist, then they would lead to creation of landlessness, bondage and destitution of farmers cannot lightly be brushed aside, given the nature of the acute farmers and agricultural crisis that has been growing in the last two years.
The farmers struggle is also highlighting the centre's violation of principles of federalism, by it legislating on a state subject without consulting the farmers or the State Governments. The struggle also exposes how the laws take away legal and judicial recourse and put in place only executive redress. Finally, this struggle is also for defending basic democratic and constitutional right of the Indian people of the right to association, the right to protest and be heard.
The PUCL condemns the Indian state's response of making war on its own people instead of responding democratically to the demands raised by the farmers. They first pass these laws undemocratically, then prevent the farmers from reaching Delhi to raise their demands by using force, file several hundreds of cases, barricade as well as dug up roads thereby making trenches, water cannoning the people, deploying security forces in large numbers and stopping the movement of farmers by initially closing the Haryana and UP border and now the Delhi border.
Over and above the strident campaign to discredit and ridicule the demands of the farmers by some members and ministers of the BJP and a section of the media, including social media, by calling the protestors anti nationals, Khalistanis and terrorists the state and its supporters are also trivializing the struggle of the farmers by dubbing it as an opposition sponsored protest and terming women protestors as paid protestors among other labels.
With the fourth round of talks between the Government and the farmers having failed it is only clear that the Government will begin throttling the protest even more and the vilification campaign may get more vociferous,
For over 16 years the PUCL was the petitioner in the Right to Food litigation in the Supreme Court which resulted in numerous orders ensuring food, nutritional and livelihood security for millions of poor and marginalised Indian communities. As an integral part of the Right to Food Campaign, we can also state that these new laws and amendments are part of the larger project of the state withdrawing from its obligation towards ensuring nutrition security for all.
The weakening of the APMC system would also, as is being argued by the farmers, lead to the dismantling of the entire public procurement at minimum support prices. Weakened public procurement would further allow governments to replace the Public Distribution System (PDS), which is the life line of the poor of this country, with cash transfer programmes.
The new laws are part of the larger project of the state withdrawing from its obligation towards ensuring nutrition security for all
What is of concern is that in the absence of any regulation, and with declining purchasing power of the working poor, there is also a possibility that there will be increasing exports in foodgrains, while people in India continue to remain hungry.
In the past, Governments have withstood the pressure of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other developed countries and given leadership to the less developed countries of the world, arguing for a peace clause, which defends its public stockholding of foodgrains for the purposes of the PDS.
In fact, what is needed is an expansion of the MSPs and effective procurement to all crops, including millets, pulses and oilseeds which will also be in favour of small farmers while improving nutrition as these can then be included in the PDS basket.
The PUCL would also like to highlight the dangerous trend that has emerged in law making of introducing sections that deny the right to legal and judicial recourse in the law itself, which confirm the farmers logic that these bills cannot be amended they need to be scrapped all together as the intent is foul play.
Section 13 of the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion And Facilitation) Act, 2020, very clearly goes on to state that "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government, or any officer of the Central Government or the State Government or any other person in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder.
And section 15 goes on to add that "No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respectof any matter, the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder", thus handing redressal to the SDM level officer.
Similarly, Section 18 of The Farmers’ Produce Trade And Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, states that "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government, the State Government, the Registration Authority, the Sub-Divisional Authority, the Appellate Authority or any other person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
Along with section19, which states that" No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute which a Sub-Divisional Authority or the Appellate Authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any rules made thereunder".
Why should there be the denial of civil suits as a remedy, when there is a real possibility in the future of disputes between the trader and contractee and other similar parties. The revenue authorities have a limited jurisdiction of revenue records; why are they being given these sweeping powers at the cost of jeopardising the clear principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and executive, to prevent vested interest.
We demand from the Government of India the following, that:
  1. As a first step these laws be scrapped and repealed,
  2. Cases filed against the farmers be withdrawn, 
  3. The Government of India should respect the democratic right of protest of the Indian citizens and have a dialogue with the farmers exhibiting good faith,
  4. The Government of India should respect the principles of federalism as stated in the Indian constitution and engage with State Governments as equal partners in governance in order to strengthen every aspect of farming and Indian agriculture so that it remains self-reliant, independent and sustainable. 
  5. Law making should not embolden the executive with extra powers and deny legal and judicial remedies to the aggrieved, this increasing trend in law making needs to be reversed.

Comments

TRENDING

RSS wanted Constitution 'replaced' by Manusmriti which abused Dalits, women

By Shamsul Islam* The Constituent Assembly of India finalized the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949 which is celebrated as the Constitution Day This Constitution promised new born Indian Republic a polity based on democracy, justice, egalitarianism and rule of law. However, RSS was greatly annoyed. Four days after the historic event of approval of it, the RSS English “Organiser” in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:

Pending GoI wage payments to rural labour reach Rs 5,100 crore: NREGA Morcha

By Our Representative  MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act), which is said to have provided a cushion to millions of rural households amidst great economic distress during the Covid-19 pandemic, continues to be bogged with poor implementation, NREGA Sangharsh Morcha has alleged.

Once centres of civilisation, Indian cities turning into 'major cause of concern'

By Soumyadip Chattopadhyay*  Each year, October 31 is celebrated as the World Cities Day. The theme this year was Adapting Cities for Climate Resilience. The Center for Habitat, Urban and Regional Studies, Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI), New Delhi, organized a special lecture on city as environment as part of the discussion under the #WebPolicyTalk series on the State of Cities -- #CityConversations.

Nuclear energy 'can't solve' global warming, will 'strain' financial, natural resource

Counterview Desk  Taking strong exception to Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who has favoured nuclear energy as a solution to global warning, well-known power and policy analyst Shankar Sharma has said that the IAEA chief's “unsubstantiated advocacy” of nuclear power is associated with “diversion of considerable amounts of scarce resources, both financial as well as natural, of many developing countries, such as India.”

Forget 'bheek', by this logic, Gujarat was free of British rule in 1995, 19 yrs before India

The real freedom fighting brigade By Rajiv Shah  Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut may have her own reasons to say that India acquired real freedom in May 2014, when Narendra Modi came to occupy India’s seat of power.  There was little to be amused by what she said, for, as many commentators have variously pointed out, her viewpoint was surely based on her little or no knowledge of the history of the Indian freedom movement.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Learning to bridge 'huge chasm' between highly educated, illiterate, badly literate

By Shrey Ostwal, Sandeep Pandey*  The pivotal point of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s journey to become Mahatma Gandhi began when his “political guru” – Gopal Krishna Gokhale – advised young Mohandas to travel around India. This rigorous journey was essential for Mohandas to understand his country and countrypersons better if he were to fight the inhumane and unempathetic British regime which had been looting India of its glory for about two centuries then.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Farm laws: Modi has been taking decisions without consulting experts, stakeholders

By Ajit Singh* In a surprise move, the Prime Minister of India in a video message that went live on the occasion of Guru Nanak Jayanti announced to scrap three contentious farm laws in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. These laws were notified in September last year but put on hold due to widespread opposition, especially by farmers from Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana.

Modi withdrew farm laws, but has no word on 'pro-corporate, oppressive' policies

Farmers celebrate withdrawal of three laws By Harsh Thakor  Punjab farmers have no doubt won a historic battle in overpowering the farm laws with the support of the working class, students, youth and intellectuals. Noticeably, the non-sectarian approach of the participating organisations, which confronted Hindutva neo-fascism, Sikh separatist politics and Indian and foreign corporate monopoly, helped in enhancing their striking capacity.