Ordinance sans consensus

Parliament was adjourned sine die after legislating on the Budget and little else beyond that. It is not due to meet for another couple of months until the next Monsoon session. Under the circumstances, the Government may well be tempted to enact crucial laws on food security and land acquisition through the ordinance route. It must desist from doing so. Not because having advanced the closure of the Budget session two days before schedule, it has lost the moral authority to issue ordinances on grounds of policy exigencies. Granted that the Opposition was determined in its efforts to stall the legislative business of Parliament until its demands for the resignation of the Railway Minister, if not that of the Prime Minister, were met. But the proposed laws in this case are of far-reaching significance, with long-term impact extending beyond considerations of winning the next elections. They deserve a broader public consensus than can be achieved through promulgation of ordinances. Rather than being used to score political brownie points, they ought to be debated seriously by lawmakers – if necessary, even by convening a special session.

What makes these two proposed laws so worthy of debate? To start with, take the National Food Security Bill that seeks to give legal right to a monthly per-person quota of 5 kg of coarse grains, wheat or rice at respective rates of Re 1, Rs 2 and Rs 3. This entitlement is to cover three-fourths of India’s entire rural and half of the urban population. While the Bill’s intention may not be bad per se, does it give adequate thought to the implications for production? If grain is made available so cheap, wouldn’t even marginal farmers be induced to sell whatever little rice or wheat they now produce (largely for captive consumption or settling farm labour wages in kind) and meet their consumption requirements entirely from the public distribution system? In the event of all farmers selling 100 per cent of their produce, will the Government buy all this grain – since no private trader will be interested when it is being near-universally sold at Rs 1-3/kg through ration shops? What would be the fiscal cost of procuring the additional grain from farmers at the official minimum support price, storing it and then redistributing it back to them at Rs 1-3?

The above concerns are not small. The same applies to some of the provisions in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, especially the one requiring consent from 80 per cent of project-affected people (not just landowners) in any acquisition above 100 acres by a private company. In effect, it gives even a minority, including non-landowners, the power to veto any project. Won’t this make any private promoter wary of taking up greenfield investments? Farmers are certainly entitled to a price for their land, incorporating at least part of the higher value resulting from its changed use. But that is not the same as imposing ‘informed consent’ provisions rendering it virtually impossible to acquire land for industry. The present Bills deserve closer scrutiny from our parliamentarians.

COMMENT NOW