From a trickle to a tide, the farmers’ protest since November last year could be the longest and biggest in independent India, with no end in sight and more folks joining in. Behind the optics of langars, mountain hiking tents, tractor wheelies, the Republic Day tractor rally, and mahapanchayats, the rhetoric is divided—as is the context. The farmers essentially want the Narendra Modi government to rescind three amended farm laws and guarantee a minimum support price (MSP) for their produce. But the debate outside the picket lines is adding layer on layer—one being former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda’s argument in Parliament that farm legislation is “a state subject” and the Centre should have sought the states’ opinion before passing the three laws. PM Modi was quick in his response, as he cited several instances where political forces clashed in the past, including the decision to push ahead with the Green Revolution. He pointed out that “those who resort to politicising the issue have done something or the other (agriculture reforms) in their states as well…”
Their remarks wrestle with particularly fraught questions: Was the process of agriculture reforms through the three laws done in haste? Did the Centre’s action in any way impinge on the rights of the states? Experts, including a former Union agriculture minister, feel there is ground for the charge, which has made several states, led by Punjab, to mull steps to counter or modify the impact of the laws. Former minister Sompal Shastri says that the idea of agriculture being a state subject is highly misplaced. “If that was really the case, then why doesn’t the Central government steer out of it and declare that agriculture is a state subject just like land rights, land laws and land revenue? Why does the Centre maintain a large agriculture department and employs over 7,000 people in various institutions on its watch?”
The laws fall in broadly three different categories: Central, state, and the Concurrent List. If any of the state laws are in conflict with any Central law, the common understanding is that the Central law would prevail. A conclusive example is the land legislation, which is a state subject, but under the land acquisition act re-enacted by the UPA government, the Central law prevails. However, that law has provisions that allow the states to alter certain clauses. “In theory, the states can do what they like. The practical experience of the states is that the Centre doesn’t like the states to do anything contrary to what it wishes,” stresses Balveer Arora, chairman, Centre for Multilevel Federalism, Institute of Social Sciences. Nonetheless, Arora is all for states pushing ahead “to do what the Constitution allows them, assuming that the Constitution will be followed in a federal spirit”.
The constitutional route being used by some of the states to pass a law, which is not in conformity with the Central law, faces the challenge of it being reversed by the governor. That route has always been dicey given that governors are handpicked by the Centre and tend to strictly follow instructions from the Union home ministry. Arora feels there is need for a “different atmosphere of federalism … that would encourage states to become laboratories of innovation and experimentation to find new ways of tackling problems and debate at the national level”.
Experience, not experiments, from the past tells of a ground-up approach rather than a top-down dictate. The unwritten operating standard was that states fed all changes/reforms that were proposed through APMC Act, or the contract farming as well as tenancy laws. According to Vijoo Krishnan, national joint secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha, the UPA government and the BJP government (in its first term) had pursued that course. Several states brought in the required changes as desired by the Central government. But the BJP government has now abandoned that path to push ahead the Central laws, bypassing the rights of the states. “Actually, the federal rights are being violated and the centralised laws are being brought into force. In this instance, the states were not consulted. The Prime Minister is trying to divert attention from the demands of the farmers’ struggle,” Krishnan alleges.
Besides Punjab, states such as Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Kerala have proposed to counter the Central laws. The apex court has stepped in to put the new laws in abeyance for 18 months while a committee decides on further action. Unfortunately, there’s mistrust against the committee, given the stated opinions of the government-nominated members. Kerala agriculture minister V.S. Sunil Kumar says his state has drafted a bill for making MSP mandatory to offset any move to hand agriculture to big corporate entities. The idea is to make farm cooperatives stronger. Kerala has announced MSP for 16 perishable crops—including vegetables and fruits—apart from the 23 crops for which the Central government sets the support price.
Going by his long association with farmers and his political innings, former agriculture minister Shastri feels both sides are wrong in this instance. “While the Central government seems keen to clearly wriggle out of the responsibility of ensuring that farmers get remunerative MSP, the farmers are wrong in seeking repeal of the new laws, instead of amendments wherever they perceive weaknesses,” he says. Some farmer leaders have indicated willingness to go easy on the laws with certain amendments, but on the question of making MSP mandatory, they remain adamant. Without gains on this front, farmers are not willing to go back. A government-set floor price for trade in agriculture produce is not unusual as several countries, including Japan, have it to ensure farmers get a fair deal.
