New Farm Acts: Better Late than Never

 

 Politics in the name of farmers is a flourishing and beneficial trade for the politicians and dalalas. Otherwise, there is no reason why no drastic changes have been brought in the agricultural policy of India for decades. The number of small and marginal farmers is rising with every passing year and the load on the agriculture sector is increasing day by day. The need, therefore, is not only to modernise agriculture but also to offload it as much as possible. There should not be any doubt left in anybody's mind that the opposition to three new Farm Bills recently passed by both houses of Parliament is specious and it is being orchestrated and motivated, not by genuine farmers, but by those intermediaries whose interests are getting hurt.   These politicians and middlemen have been reaping earning huge profits by fleecing the farmers and consumers. That was why there have been no takers for their protest marches and demonstrations organised on 25th September.  

  The three Bills,  which have been attracting the attentions are:  Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Protection and Facilitation Bill, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement and  Price Assurance and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill but only two points which are being thrown by the opponents are the MSP( Minimum Support Price) and APMCs  (Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees), which opponents say will wither away by these Bills, which have since become Acts. These Acts will facilitate and permit the farmers to sell theirs produces outside the Mandis (wholesale markets) regulated by Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees constituted by different state legislations. Many states have passed their own laws to mandate 'agricultural trade' through APMCs. Although the purpose of the APMCs was to ensure fair prices to be paid to the products of the farmers yet they have not only miserably failed in their objectives but have practically become the centres of corruption and the exploitation of the farmers. 

 Here are two examples, which I can cite with my own personal knowledge that how deep the corruption has gone down in in the APMC.  There is one small wholesale grain market,(Mandi) in Kharkhoda in Panipat district of Haryana and another one that I am talking about is of the Azadpur vegetable and fruit  Mandi of Delhi, which is considered to be one of the biggest   Mandis of Northern India.  Any person having even the elementary information about the functioning of these Mandis will vouchsafe that it is middlemen and profiteers with the help of the corrupt minions of Samiti, who rule the roost. Hundreds of trucks make a beeline every day particularly at Azadpur mandi to unload their produces but those who go through the intermediaries or by greasing the palms of the shenanigans of mandi they get priority, but others suffer and lose heavily. Moreover, if anyone wants immediate payment of the produces, he/ she has to cough up at least five per cent of the total amount to the rogues. But the new Act provides for the immediate payment.  One can easily understand about those persons, who are standing against the new Acts. Farmers and consumers have been the ultimate losers till now which the new Acts will ensure that they are no longer exploited. 

These Acts permit the electronic trading of their produces. With heavy teledensity, the farmers are now well connected, and they can sell theirs produces online, which was well-nigh impossible in the APMCs. However, the government has not completely done away with APMCs, they will continue to co-exist along with new arrangements.  Minimum Support Price will not be the part of the Acts, as it exists even today, but that will continue to be announced by the government for different crops from time to time. Thus, we find that APMCs will not have suffocating dominance, which they have in the present circumstances. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the bogey of the MSP and APMCs, is being created more by non-farmers than by farmers but that too is unfounded. The new laws unshackle the farmers and give them the freedom to sell their products anywhere in India.

  Farming, to say the least, is not an attractive occupation. Nearly fifty per cent of farmers want to move out of it because it is becoming non-remunerative. Farm sizes are getting smaller day by day. The number marginal farmers have gone up in the last few decades and their condition is getting pathetic and is no better than those of the farm labourers. Tiny farms are the big hindrances in the modernization of agriculture. So, the contract farming will provide the good impetus for the modernization of the agriculture and the new Acts seek to encourage them but that will not be binding for the farmers as they will have the freedom to opt into or out of it. Recently Simranjit Kaur Badal wife of Akali leader Sukhvinder Singh Badal resigned from the Union cabinet of ministers opposing the new farm laws. Shri Badal has written an article in a newspaper, where he has simply expressed his fear that it will lead to corporatization. The farmers will get a good price to their yields for a few years and thereafter they will be exploited by the corporates. He has, however, given no reason or logic in favour of his contentions. He has forgotten the fact that the establishments of E-chaupals and E-procurement centres will go a long way in removing the roles of middlemen. 

  The Essential Commodities Act was enacted decades ago to stop hoardings, but it has essentially hurt the farmers. They were not protected if the prices of potatoes or onions fell because they were prevented from taking them to other places for obtaining higher prices. Warehousing is so essential for the storage of the produces but that cannot be built by the farmers of small landholdings, so again the need for the contract farming hardly needs to be emphasized.

 Be that as it may, these new farms acts, therefore, must be welcomed with open arms as they will remove the dominant roles of middlemen who have been holding the farmers to ransom without any qualms and compunction.

 

 

Dear Harivansh, Never Deviate from the Principled Stand

 

For the last few days, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Shri Harivansh is under flak from some people. I can only say that they are less than fair to him. Harivansh Narayan Singh, which he possibly shortened at the advice of his political mentor Chandrasekhar ji, is a man of high principles. Harivansh and I have been together in the Banaras Hindu University for five years. Hardly a day had passed during our stay in the hostel, when we had not gossiped, discussed, debated, and argued, sometimes even hotly on almost every subject we could think of under the sun.

He has been the admirer of Jai Prakash Narayan from his university days and had told us many unknown stories about him. JP‘s education in America by doing even menial works and his absconding from Hazaribagh jail by jumping the walls of a prison is known to the whole world. However, the stories of JP’s visits and meetings with the villagers in Doab of the holy rivers Ganga and Ghaghara, inspiring them for pursuing education, working relentlessly for the eradication of casteism and poverty were always a pleasure to hear from Harivansh. It will not suffice to say that Harivansh was awfully in the influence of JP as he was like a demigod for him. We used to joke among ourselves that the easiest way to anger Harivansh was to criticize JP. He never brooked even the slightest criticism of JP.

Harivansh used to be a voracious reader of the books, periodicals and newspapers during his university days. He used to read more such books as were not prescribed in the course curriculum. I am sure he must still be continuing with his good old habits. He must have changed and mellowed like all others during the last more than forty years but the elan' of a person seldom change. I have last met him when he was the media advisor to the then Prime Minister Chandrashekhar. Once or twice he sent his car to fetch me to his office in the South Block and he used to come with me up to Bengali Market to glance over and purchase new books.

When he became a Member of Parliament, I sent my greetings but never met or even intended to meet him personally. When he became the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, I felt happy that an honest, abstemious and well-read person will get the opportunity to preside over the upper house, which is considered to be the house of the mature and experienced Parliamentarians. However, when I saw the unruly, ugly, and uncouth behaviour of some of our Parliamentarians in the video clippings of the news channels, my heart sunk in deep despair.

A sensitive person like Harivansh must have been deeply hurt by the conduct of some of our MPs, who threw all parliamentary norms and decorum to the wind but I am sure that it will strengthen his resolve to follow the right path.

Dear Harivansh, you come from Ballia, the soil of rebellions, which does not know to be subdued or bowed down by any onslaughts. Therefore, I have the benign hope that you will go by the inner voice of your conscience, which I believe, is serene and will always be conforming to the high traditions of Parliamentary democracy in the larger interests of the country.

Ms Bachchan’s Speech Exemplifies her Reprobate Nature

Ms Jaya Bachchan’s speech yesterday i.e on 14th of September 2020 on the floor of the Rajya Sabha was laughable, highly disappointing, thoroughly illogical, and supportive of the corruption that is prevailing in the film industry. It has been an open secret that Bollywood, which outwardly gleams, is rotten inside and stinks to the high heaven. It is controlled by Mafia dons, is a den of smugglers, tax evaders, drug addicts and criminals of different types. It does not mean that all those who are in the industry can be tarred with the same brush but the influential section of it certainly suffers from the vices of nepotism, drug addiction and casting couches.

Ms Bachchan did not name anybody in her speech but her innuendo was unmistakably towards Kangna Ranaut, who has shown the extraordinary courage to speak about the gutter that has been flowing in the filmdom. This rot has, of late, overpowered most of the activities of the industry. The influence of ‘ Dongri to Dubai’ is visible in all walks of the Bollywood. As the saying goes that not a leaf moves without the permission of the Lords of Crimes. Conjure up any illegal and unlawful activity and that is there in plenty in Mumbai.

There are some people, that includes almost the entire film industry consisting of Jaya Bachchan and her husband Amitabh Bachchan, who is objecting to Kangana Ranaut’s comparison of Mumbai with PoK . These people possibly unaware of the expression like Hitlershahi or Ravanraj is used even in India to describe the tyranny of those who are at the helm of affairs. When anti-social elements have the field day on the roads of Mumbai and a famous female actress like Kangna is not allowed to speak her mind, then how could her description of Mumbai, as if it were in PoK, be outrageous and wrong?

The self-styled civilized people want her to address the Chief Minister not as ‘tu’ at a time when her house was dismantled at a notice of fewer than 24 hours, that too when she was not in the house to receive the notice. A person in pain, anguish, and anger over the forcible breaking of her house cannot be expected to be the personification of civility. If she had been all smiles and presented herself to be the embodiment of civility by using sweat words, then it would have been an act of fakery, not having any remote connection with reality.

Now coming again on Madam Jaya Bachchan’s speech in Parliament where she said that ‘those who have made name and fame and earned money from the film industry do not have any right to speak badly about the industry’. It is like allowing the rot to remain wrapped under the carpet. Does it mean that who earn their livelihood by legal practice have no right to raise voice over the prevailing corruption in the profession? She wants to deprive a journalist, a businessperson, or a politician of speaking against the malpractices that have crept up in journalism, politics, and business.

This is not only the reflection of her absurdity, but it also speaks volumes of the triviality, frivolousness and the reprobate behaviour of the lady Bachchan. It is also a sad reflection of the party, which has sent her to the Rajya Sabha, who has not done any service or work for the people and society.

Kesavanad Bharti Judgement Needs to be Set aside

     

Kesavanand Bharti vs the State of Kerala, more known as the Fundamental Rights case, as decided by the Supreme Court of India, way back in 1973, has again come into focus, due to the death of Swami ji. I pay my respectful tribute to Swami ji. This case, without doubt, brought a paradigm change in judicial history. It is the longest judgement by the largest bench till date.  However, with the greatest of deference, it must be said that it is totally erroneous judgment and therefore, needs to be revisited and reconsidered. Firstly, this case was not decided by all 13 judges of the bench as it was signed only nine judges. Four judges outrightly refused to sign on the judgement.

   Thus, the wafer-thin majority of 7:6 in this judgement was obtained by dubious means. Chief Justice S M Sikri wrote a summary on behalf of the judges to assert the principle of the basic structure, which was dealt at length by Justice H R Khanna. There is no concept of writing the summary of the judgement and hence the ratio decidendi is missing. Every judge is supposed to write his/ her own judgement or concur with the judgement authored by a fellow judge. But how can one judge write the summary of the judgement?

  Out of nine judges, who signed on the judgement, two had categorically spoken about the supremacy of the Parliament, which had unfettered powers to amend the constitution. Since Chief Justice Sikri was to retire in a day so the judges could not get time to write their own independent judgement. It was the reason that four of the judges did not at all append their signatures on the judgement.  So, how can it be treated to be a bench of 13 judges?  Even otherwise also, it is the Will of the people that are represented through Parliament, which is supreme and that cannot be shackled. Courts cannot usurp or appropriate the powers of Parliament from legislating any law which reflects the people's Will. Unfortunately, this tendency has more grown in the courts after the Kesavanand Bharti case.

  The concept of ‘basic structure’ is very vague and ambiguous. We find that it has been increasing like the ‘Saari of Draupadi’ depending on the caprices of the judges. Here is a hypothetical question if some people say that Westminster form of democracy is unfit for this country and they seek the vote of the public of the country on this plank itself. Suppose for a moment that the overwhelming majority positively responds to in favour of discarding the Westminster form of democracy. Then can anybody stop them from changing the so-called basic structure of the constitution?

This theory of 'basic structure' is hogwash and fallacious theory. The constitution is a living organism and it has to constantly evolve itself as per the changing social, economic and political needs of the people. The scientific and technological developments must provide the push to the constitution, which cannot remain tethered to the rigidity. Hence, the basic structure does not fall in the domain of the Courts, it is the sole prerogative of the Parliament. What we have seen in the NJAC case is nothing but the negation of the Will of the people. The Parliament will have to take a call to ensure that the freedom obtained after a long struggle and sacrifices of countless heroes remains well preserved. It cannot be left to be the subject matter of the skullduggery of the judges and the obfuscation created by the luxury-loving advocates.

 

 

 

Sita’s Sister Urmila was no less Important than Her

 Urmila was an Epitome of Learning, Courage and straightforwardness

 Think of Ramayana, the characters which immediately conjure up in our collective minds are Ram, Sita and Lakshman. Others, without whom the Ramayana cannot be thought of, are Ravana, Mandodari,  Meghdoot, Baali, Sugreev, Vibhishan, Hanuman,  and other supporters of Lord Rama in the jungle.   Raja Janak, Dashrath, his three consorts – Kaushalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra, Princes Bharat, Shatrughna and maid Manthara in Ayodhya are equally important for the Ramayana.  However, some like Urmila, Madavi and Shrutkirti have not found their proper place in the epic. Kavita Kane’s book ‘Sita’s Sister’ has, therefore, done huge justice to Urmila by bringing forth her indomitable and mesmerizing personality.

   As is the legend Sita was an ethereal daughter of King Janak, who was also known as Videh, who had risen above worldly greed, pelf, or power. One of the names of Sita is Vaidehi, although Raja Janak was not her biological father. The only offspring of Seeradhwaj Janak and Rani Sunaina was Urmila. Other two chirpy girls, Mandavi and Kirti were the daughters of his younger brother- Kushadhwaj, widowed king of Varanasi. So, all four sisters lived together in Mithila in the palace of King Janak. Sita being the eldest used to get the special attention of the parents. Urmila, as her name suggest was enchanting, fetching, warm, voluptuous, vibrant, and sparkling. Urmila means enchantress, giving rise to the waves of passion. She had an effortless easygoing manner that made her agreeable, but her temper was quicksilver.

  What had, however, made Urmila different from others was that she was decisive, headstrong, hard-hearted and could stand alone in the face of all difficulties. Her temperament was just like Lakshman, who was stiff hauteur. As fate would have it all four sisters got married in the same family. Sometimes the wags used to say that if all of them had gone to different families, they would have been queens in their own rights but by marrying in the same family, they were bound to share,  sail and swim or capsize in the same boat. They thus got married to the same set of problems and with the same stock of suffering and sacrifice.

   When Sita decided that she could not leave the company of Ram from going to the jungle, Lakshman told Urmila that as he had already told her that his life was hinged in the service of his brother Ram, therefore he would also go with him as his bodyguard. He told Urmila that she could not come to the forest because it was full of treacherous demons as they had the skill and capacity to take any form to harm others. Moreover, the forest was like a battlefield so as a soldier he could not take his wife to the battlefield. When after changing the dress as an ascetic Ram and Lakshman took up the quivers and bows, Sita asked in amazement, ‘we are going to forest as a hermit, not warriors. Why should you carry the weapons of violence?’ Sita’s question was of morality. Ram looked at her with affection and admiration. He said, ‘agreed, but the duty of a Kshatriya is to protect the helpless and other rishis in the forest. These weapons are to protect them, and us as well, if need be’.

After the departure of Ram, Sita and Lakshman to the jungle, entire Ayodhya was engulfed in sorrow and sadness. King Dashrath had died because he could not bear the separation of Rama. Queen mothers were benumbed, they felt their entire energy was drained out. Bharat along with, Shatrughna and their wives- Mandavi and Shrutikirti- had gone to his maternal house.  As a result of it, anarchy and confusion prevailed in the kingdom. At this hour of grief and mourning, enemy forces became very active. It was the time when Urmila showed her innate leadership and took the reins in her command and ensured the safety and security of the people and the state until the return of Bharat from his nanihal.

 Urmila Enjoyed Participating in Shastras like Other Women Sages

  A fact, which is not known to even Pandits of Ramayana that she was well versed in Shastras. She was proud of being the daughter of Mithila, where the women like Gargi were held in high esteem in the palace meetings. They had the full freedom to speak and participate in Shastras. When Bharat returned to Ayodhya, as he could not convince to bring him back from the jungle, albeit Ram gave him his Khadau (sandle) , as a token, to be placed on the throne. It was like Ram ruling Ayodhya in absentia. Bharat said that he would also live like an abstemious, free from the bond of love and worldly care, in Nandigram at the bank of river Saryu as Ram and Lakshman had been living in the forest.

Urmila became furious over the conduct of the rulers and said that ‘everyone in Ayodhya is talking about Dharma of father and sons, of the king and the princes, of the Brahmin and Kshatriya, even of the wife for her husband, But is there no dharma of husband for his wife? No dharma of son for his mother? Is it always about, sons and brothers’? Guru Kashyap angrily asked her, 'how dare you speak such outrageous words'? Guru Vashishtha was also present but he remained benignly calm. He told her that they were discussing the affairs of the state and the personal relationship. Then she politely asked, ‘was it not personal when King Dashrath listened to his wife's wishes and stopped coronation ceremony of Ram and banished him for fourteen-year exile? Was it not personal when Queen Kaikeyi asked her son to be made king instead of Ram? She made everyone speechless by her pertinent and unpalatable questions. Only an intelligent and courageous Urmila could do it.

The other little known fact is that by sitting in the court of Raja Janak in the company of Guru Vaamdev, Markandey, and Katyayan; Urmila had grown from being a curious student to an exemplary and acknowledged pandit, a learned scholar, who by the long, the perseverant study had gained mastery over the Vedas and Upnishads and could proficiently debate on religion and philosophy with the most learned sages. Thus, Urmila was not only just the woman of passion as her name defined but one whose heart and soul had come together in intellectual and spiritual enrichment.

  Urmila was the most outspoken critic of Ram who could not bring herself to forgive him for choosing his people and the country over his wife -Sita, her sister. It was the forceful logic of Urmila that Lakshman, who lived for Ram and obeyed all his orders died because of disobeying his orders of not to be disturbed. But when sage Durvasa threatened to destroy entire Ayodhya if he was not allowed to meet Ram, Lakshman disobeyed the royal command and forced the door open. He preferred death rather than watching his city being destroyed by the curse of Rishi Durvasa. 

  Without waiting for the punishment of death Lakshman got himself beheaded with his own sword. Unable to bear the death of his dear brother Lakshmana, Ram relinquished his thrown to his twin sons, Lav and Kush, and gave up his life through Jal samadhi by drowning into river Saryu.

Thus, we find that Urmila was shining among all the characters of Ramayana due to her fortitude, learning, sagacity, and courage to speak her mind, which was intellectually sharp spiritually serene