THE BJP-led NDA government at the centre is leading the common people into an eventual bankruptcy with a plethora of anti-people measures. What is being pushed into circulation by the centre, is the rhetoric of jingoistic nationalism and communal agenda that dubiously hides the plight of toiling masses.

Such attempts to divert public attention are made whenever people’s angst starts to emerge against the misdeeds of the centre. However, such gimmicks by the Narendra Modi government are failing to get momentum post the undemocratic moves unleashed in the parliament to tide over the protests of opposition against the anti-farmer and pro-corporate farm bills - The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020.

The world is under the grip of the Covid 19 pandemic. The entire humanity is engaged in the endless battle against Covid 19. But, the people remain totally disillusioned under the Modi regime as not even a ray of hope is seen from the government at the centre.

Humiliation of people, formulation of destructive legislations and disturbing actions are being announced almost every day. We are now also pushed into a battle that we have to fight, for food. The most recent episode of promulgation of ordinances under the pretext of Covid 19 package was aimed at benefiting the multinational companies (MNC) which have kinship with the ruling party at the centre. What the centre is doing to the farmers is simply wrecking havoc through ordinances and bills.

FREEDOM FOR CORPORATES TO LOOT
The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, are draconian legislations moved and passed by the Narendara Modi government last week in the parliament. All three bills are inter-connected. The first two bills bestow the opportunity to corporates for free trade of agricultural commodities as well as entering into an agreement with farmers without any government intervention. The second one provides the corporate bigwigs the opportunity to stock as much as they can, the agricultural commodities that come to them through procurement and contracts. What is created here by the government is, in fact, an unrestricted opportunity for the corporates to procure the commodities at cheap prices, hoard the stock and create artificial shortages which would help them sell the products at exorbitant prices.

The three legislations will loot the farmers and consumers alike. The centre has legitimised hoarding and black marketeering through the legislations. The aim of the corporates, forever, is to maximise profits. This amply proves that the notions of the prime minister and his cabinet colleagues that the corporates would ensure fair price to farmers, is totally absurd and wrong.

The centre had put forward another argument that the new bills would insulate the farmer from the exploitation of the mandi samitis created through the MPMC legislation of various states. It is true that many allegations about the functioning of Mandi Samitis exist. Issues such as foul play by the intermediaries and the corruption by the officials need to be addressed.  The farmers most often get relatively higher prices in such mandis in which big buyers also take part through the registration process and the auctioning system. The farmers would lose even current opportunity for better prices, when such mandis become defunct consequent to the new bills.

The government’s argument that currently there are no opportunities for direct selling of agricultural products is untrue. Currently only about 30 per cent of the agricultural commodities are sold through the mandi samitis. The rest of the products are being sold by the farmers directly. It requires only common sense to understand that the farmers would be the losers when the corporate bigwigs come to negotiate with the farmers for direct procurement. The farmers in almost all cases did not have the facility to store the product and negotiate for better prices. The farmers’ aim is to sell the product soon after the harvest. They are bound to do so as they don’t have storage facilities and have to invest for the next season as well as to repay the loans taken in the past. Knowing such realities, if the prime minister says that the corporates would offer the rate demanded by the farmers, it can be swallowed only with a pinch of salt!

Due to the above realities, the opposition and the nation have come forward to support the strong stand taken by the Left and other opposition parties against the bills in the parliament. Such protests against the bills exemplify the ways through which the communal agenda can be offended with the class struggles. The farmers’ movement in the country has consistently opposed the draconian enactments. The All India Kisan Sabha and the Kisan Coordination Committee, which consists of more than 200 farmers’ organisations in the country has called for all India agitations. The states of Punjab and Haryana, two prominent farming states, have witnessed strong protests against the bills.

STRUGGLE INSIDE THE PARLIAMENT
The Left parties have also submitted a statutory resolution, motion to refer the bills to the select committee and proposing 12 amendments to the bills. The clause for ensuring minimum support price (MSP) for agriculture commodities was the most important among the amendments. The amendments also include clauses which bind the central government to guarantee MSP for agricultural commodities, calculated through the cost plus 50 per cent formula recommended by the Swaminathan Commission and a clause to prosecute the middlemen or organisations who procure agricultural produces below the MSP as per criminal laws besides charging them under the civil law. 

The major considerations that came to fore were related to calculation, declaration and guaranteeing of MSP to farmers. However, the prime minister and all those who spoke in favour of the bill were trying to misinform the public about the stand of the Left parties. Raising the MSP of wheat now was a gimmick by the centre to eye wash. But what the centre was trying to hide amidst this sudden decision was the fact that most of the farmers are not benefiting from the MSP declared by the centre from time to time.

The centre declares MSP for around 23 agricultural commodities. Currently the calculation of MSP is not done as per the formula recommended by the Swaminathan Commission. The MSP, at times, benefits only a miniscule number of farmers. The procurement as per MSP should be done by the government to benefit the farmers. It would be fair if the prime minister could explain whether the provision to ensure MSP to farmers in the event the individuals or private companies procure agricultural commodities directly from farmers, is included in any of the bills presented.

The Centre, instead of expanding the present system and ensuring fair price to farmers by procuring each and every commodity as per the declared MSP, has passed on the responsibility to corporates through the farm bills without making any provision in the bill that guarantees at least the MSP on private procurement and also while entering a contractual agreement with farmers. It is to be noted that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was formed to procure the agricultural products on MSP and to distribute it to the citizens on concessional rates. But now the FCI warehouses are getting handed over to the Reliance! The justification of the government is that the FCI has incurred a liability of Rs 60,000 crores! But the centre is silent about the Rs 70,000 crore subsidy arrears payable to FCI. One can easily imagine the future of the FCI on implementation of the bill.

The government promulgates ordinance as per the article 123 of the constitution. According to the sub-clause (2)a of the same article, the members are entitled to the right to move statutory resolution against the ordinance and hence it is a constitutional mandate. The precedent followed by the parliament regarding this is the presentation of the statutory resolution first, followed by presentation of the bill and voting on the statutory resolution upon completion of the discussion.  But the government put forward the suggestion of completing the minister’s reply on the discussion and the proceedings to pass the bills in a hurry. The opposition started to raise voice when the government rejected the suggestion of extending the proceedings on the bills to the next day.

The chair, amid all this, announced a voice vote on the statutory resolution and declared that it is negated. He refused to consider the repeated demand for a division vote raised by members on the statutory resolution. Such an arbitrary decision by the chair forced the members to tear off the copy of the draconian laws in the house.

The deputy chairman, in his version of things aired through media, quips that "the amendment moved by CPI(M) MP K K Ragesh was negated by voice vote at 1.07 pm on September 20 as he was in the well of the house and not on his seat in the gallery at that point of time". But I was nowhere in the well as per the RS TV footage captured at 1.07 pm! It is the precedent that the division vote is demanded by the member usually soon after the voice vote. And at around 1.08 pm, I promptly raised my demand for a division vote soon after the chair’s announcement that the statutory resolution and motion for amendments were negated in the voice vote. It means I have amply followed the rules of the house. The portion of RS TV footages that the chair has referred to, to accuse that I was not in the seat, was that of after 1.07 pm, in which he claims to be calling me.

Even the motions to refer the bill to the select committee were also rejected without admitting the demand for division vote by members, in the most undemocratic manner. In the footage of RS TV, my voice can be heard thrice soon after the voice vote, sometime after 1.08 PM, demanding a division vote on the motion to refer the bill to the select committee, which was raised from my seat. Here, what was the justification of the chair’s refusal to admit my demand? And when my name referred to an amendment on clause 2, the same video visual reveals the fact that I demanded for division at 1.11 pm and the same was neglected.

The deputy chairman’s argument that “for a demand for division, it is equally important that there should be order in the house" is nothing but a fresh alibi to desperately raise himself as the savior of democracy in the house. But unfortunately, his efforts this time become inherently weak as the facts revealed through the visual footage of the proceedings of RS TV, differing with his own tall claims! Even if the order of the house is disrupted, it is the duty of the chair to ensure it (Rule 259) and there are several accepted ways to do it, including adjourning the house (Rule 257) and convening it after some time.

Moreover, the chair's argument that the members should demand for a division from their seats is ridiculous considering the seating arrangements made. How can it be possible when the members have taken part in this session by sitting even in the Lok Sabha chamber, in accordance with the social distancing norms due to the Covid 19 pandemic! Yet again, The RS TV footages show that there were many members raising demand for division vote by sitting in their seats. Once a motion is presented in the house, any member who is present could demand for a division vote. Why did the chair insist that division vote is admissible only when the mover of the motion is in his seat!  According to the rules, the vote should be conducted even if a single member of the house demands to do so.

The Narenda Modi government’s anti-farmer and pro-corporate stand is clearer than ever now. The farmers’ agitations are intensifying all over India. A ray of hope at this juncture is the alliance of the 14 opposition parties, which has decided to oppose the bills and came forward to hold collective protests in support of the farmers. Farmers’ distress is the nation's distress and the realisation of this across political lines would likely to result in emergence of a strong force to reckon with in the days to come.