The Trifecta of Ordinances

The Modi government passed some agricultural ordinances in June which were aimed at reforming the current system. However soon enough, these ran into controversy and faced wide-spread opposition from farmer unions and groups.

These new laws include: first and foremost, the government has done away with important provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, which amended the restrictions imposed on stocking of food, allowing the Centre to regulate certain agri-products during emergencies or otherwise. Second, a new law called the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020 or the FPTC Ordinance opens up direct agricultural trade to outside players and businesses other than APMC stakeholders. Lastly, contract farming has been legalised.

There are many pros and cons of these novel ordinances, but one must first wonder as to why these laws were passed through ordinances bypassing Parliament rather than through the proper procedure. What was so urgent or controversial about these laws that they could not be subjected to proper debate and were passed hastily in the midst of a pandemic, when there are more pressing issues to deal with? Another important aspect is the fact that agriculture is a subject on the concurrent list i.e. both state and central governments have to legislate through cooperation. But the authority of the states and their right to regulate Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs) of their respective states has been contravened. This not only undermines their authority but also reduces their right over revenue from this source significantly. So on the face of it, the second ordinance appears to be unconstitutional…It remains to see if it will be challenged in the top court by any of the stake-holders.

Evaluation of these ordinances requires a two-pronged vision: acknowledgement of their effect on the corporate sector, and on farmers. The first ordinance is the amendment of the Essential Commodities Act which allows the government to impose stock restrictions on certain agricultural products under special circumstances like famine, flood or any other emergency. The base for such restrictions is the rise of inflation to 100% for perishable items and 50% for the rest. Given the inflation trend in India, these conditions are all too often, as was proved by the staggering rise in onion prices last year. The ordinance also removes stock limit restrictions for value chain stakeholders provided that the stocks are within their storage capacity, and also for exporters who can prove that a large demand exists. This might encourage businesses to invest more in agriculture, but it also opens the door for large-scale hoarding which is already rampant in the nation. Plus there is no way for states to validate that stocks are being stored according to permissible levels, especially if private players are now allowed more freedom in the market.

The second law seeks to “do away” APMCs and open up the selling of agricultural produce to private businesses outside the established state mandis, and that too without any tax barriers. The aim is to liberalise the market in order to ramp up the competition and allow corporates to deal directly with farmers, promoting better prices for the latter. The pre-existing APMC system is riddled with inefficiency. Only 7% farmers manage access to MSP, and the rest go through rampant exploitation and are severely underpaid. There is a lot of monopoly at play, giving rise to a middlemen mandi-mafia which illegally regulates pricing. On top of this is the bureaucratic apathy, measly infrastructure and for name-only elections. Often farmers are forced to sell their produce below the Minimum Support price outside these mandis or dump their goods on the streets. Hence, there is a universal agreement that the system is in need of dire reform. This new ordinance will benefit the North-East which grows a range of exotic produce and will now able to tap into the international demand chain. But is undermining APMCs the way to go? The new ordinance will allow big corporates to exploit farmers, for it is evident that the farmers do not have much bargaining power. Instead of benefitting from this new competition, there are higher chances that they will become victims of the tug-of-war between mandis and corporates. Lessons learnt from Punjab’s doing away with APMCs and subsequent restorations have proved the same. Farmers from Bihar, a state that eroded APMCs in 2006, flock to Punjab to get fair prices for their produce. (In re second ordinance, it must be noted that many farmer unions have demanded an accompanying amendment that MSP be implemented in the deals outside APMCs to ensure fair-returns)

Uniformity of contractual forming provisions is what the third ordinance propagates, that too without any additional taxes, although many of its provisions are yet to be notified. Contract farming is not a novel thing: it is prevalent with proper rules in multiple states; many contractors and companies have had agreements with farmers through intermediaries. Even landlords and tenants have informal system centering around such a practice in many regions of the country. Newly formulated rules aim to regulate the practice and allow farmers to fetch higher prices by directly deal with corporations. The ordinance provides for a contract that specifies tenure, quality, agreed payment, etc., proper online registration and an official dispute resolution mechanism. All this seems good on paper, but in practice, there are many hurdles that blot this rosy picture. Large number of farmers, especially small and marginalized, would not have much bargaining power on the ground level when faced with big corporations. The same farmers also have unequal access to official dispute resolution forums as compared to hotshot corporates with top-class lawyers.

A Juxtaposition

Unlike industrially developed regions like the US and Europe, agriculture in India is not a very profitable affair. Majority of farmers indulge in subsistence farming to satisfy their own needs and are devoid of technology, HYV seeds, etc. (except for Green Revolution areas like Punjab, Haryana, and western UP). In such an agrarian economy capitalist policies aimed at opening the market ought to be implemented very carefully.

But even the US, largely considered the food bowl of the world, has not escaped the drawbacks that come from excessive agricultural liberalisation. Majority of American farmers rely on exports to fetch a good price for their produce. But the Covid-19 crisis along with a prolonged trade war with China has spelt losses for them. China was a major importer of American agricultural produce, and the tariff one-upping has deprived the farmers of the Chinese market. Apart from this, the entire American agri-business is controlled by a bunch of mega-corporations that increasingly control and manipulate the market, enabling them to dictate prices and push out small farmers and competitors out of business. Their eco-political clout also allows them to influence policymaking. The result is that today an alarming number of farmers want to leave the business, and family farms are over their necks in debt. Excessive industrialization and capitalism have led to over-production, which ultimately translates into poor returns.

Vietnam is a developing country where the agricultural contribution to overall GDP is almost the same as India, and it is on its way to becoming one of the highest rice producers. It has shifted from a collectivized model to deeper integration into the world economy. There is no doubt that technological advances and new liberalizing policies have led to immense development, but there is also a certain price to pay. The country is faced with an environmental crisis due to over-exploitation of resources in a bid to increase production and meet international commitments. There has been an increasing loss of farmer welfare, and the main beneficiaries are foreign companies and MNCs that benefit from lax labour laws and increasingly liberalizing thrust. Lack of transparent information and demand-supply regulation has unleashed a crisis, and hence the government has brought in new reform measures regarding land, food safety, etc. but many are of the view that direct state involvement will not prepare the country for international competition, and it is better to facilitate rather than lead reforms.

Conclusion

The ordinances, prima facie, cannot be said to be redundant or perfect. A policy needs a lot of groundwork and cooperative effort from various stakeholders to be effective.  India is still a heavily agrarian economy with more than 40% of the population employed in the sector. But despite this, it does not have the profits to make up for such widespread participation. This is indication enough that the field is in need of dire reform, and the espoused policies seek to open up agriculture to capitalist forces aiming to liberalize farming and increase gains. Before this can be established, there is a need to bring the average farmer up to mark with the goal that the government seeks. Lack of education, capital and technology has forced farmers to cultivate meagre land-holdings. Even the existing framework of protectionist and fair-price policies like APMC and MSP is inaccessible to a huge section of the tillers, then how will they be able to deal with profit-based corporations. Rather than overhauling and creating an alternative space, there is a need to plug in the loopholes of the existing system in order to ensure efficiency and accessibility.

The post AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU (NOT) REAP appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The US-China Dispute

The Red Dragon and Uncle Sam have a lengthy history of being at loggerheads. The US initially refused to recognise China as a sovereign state and indulged in many ministrations to displace the latter’s communist roots.  It was only in the 1970s that diplomatic relations took flight with the US acceptance of One China Policy. Still, their relations were fraught with friction, especially over human rights. When China entered the world economy and began opening up its economy, its engagement enhanced, with China going on to become America’s largest trading partner. With a few hiccups, the relationship seemed to be aiming for cooperation. However, it all radically changed in 2018 when the Trump government’s tariffs targetted China, setting off a vicious trade war that is still ongoing. What started out as a trade dispute couple of years ago has now turned into a full-blown show of might, branching into other areas as well.

In late 2018, the US signaled its hardline approach towards the eastern giant. The Huawei issue only intensified the same, and the US has done everything in its power to kick the Chinese MNC out of the 5G race on charges of spying. By 2019, the trade war had intensified, with both countries levying hefty tariffs on the other, and placing various other sanctions as well. Early 2020 saw the signing of a trade deal which provided a brief breather for the economic world, but the respite period remained short. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic sent the global economy tumbling. America faced multi-faceted effects: its capitalist system suffered a downfall and the health system was brought to its knees. This tension had the hegemon accusing China of mismanaging the pandemic and causing harm to the world, eventually pulling out of WHO due to the latter’s support of China. China obviously, did not take the accusations well. But it was the new security law imposed in Hong Kong that proved to be the last nail in the coffin. Trump went on to strip the city of its special status, reducing its credibility as a world economic and financial hub. China accused America of interfering in its domestic affairs, and everything has been downhill since.

The Asian Playground

Due to the deterrence that comes with two giants battling each other, the countries are unlikely to engage in an all-out war, even if relations have diminished to a new low. Their historical animosity played out in the Asian region much like the proxy wars that dominated the global landscape during the Cold War. Both nations have tried to expand the ambit of their influence by espousing Asia-centric policies. Obama’s presidency saw a more active role in the region coupled with an enhanced military presence. China on the other hand relies on its geo-economic power to bind Asia to it. The Belt and Road initiative, the String of Pearls approach, ADB Bank and increasing economic investment promises financial advancement for the region. South Asia in one of the most populous regions in the world, yet intra-regional trade is quite fragmented (just 5%), which reduces the economic benefits it can reap. Thus China’s meteoric economic rise has proved to be a fundamental driver of economic growth. 

US security cover coupled with economic benefits from China has helped in the advancement of many countries, resulting in the expectation that Southeast Asia will become the fourth-largest economy in the world, overtaking the European Union and Japan by 2050. Therefore for Southeast Asian nations, especially the ASEAN market is a key area for both America and China. The US is now frantically looking to shift Asian loyalties to its side as it perceives the rising Chinese aggression and economic strength as a threat.  That is why it has taken a strong position against China’s assertions in the South China Sea and has tried to play on the insecurities of the latter’s neighbours regarding the same. This ‘harbinger of justice’ role has helped the nation gain influence in the region, which was a difficult task because of China’s proximity to it. America is also banking on its military and technological investment to gain the region’s unequivocal support. 

Since the beginning of the Sino-American trade war, Southeast Asia has been an undisputed winner on account of the benefits it is reaping. The high American tariffs on Chinese goods have led to a shift in manufacturing processes to the region. In 2019 Chinese acoustics manufacturer Goertek announced that it will shift its Apple’s Airpods wireless headphones production to Vietnam because of the ongoing trade dispute. Similarly, Cambodia has bagged bicycle production for a high-value US firm, and Thailand has become a hub of vehicle assembly plants. According to Forbes, a survey of U.S. firms manufacturing in China found that 18.5% had either moved production to Southeast Asia or were considering it.

Usually, ASEAN countries have been able to maintain a delicate balance between American geopolitics and Chinese geo-economics. But as both countries increase the heat, it is difficult to predict if the future will force the region to choose sides. For now, Southeast Asia is having a good ride!

The Indian Factor

India has been facing a sudden increase in tensions with China too. The border dispute has led to a fresh impasse, the first one since Doklam. But this time the costs have been higher, with multiple skirmishes and martyred soldiers lining the situation. In response, India, akin to America, has tried to economically isolate China by banning 59 Chinese apps and making calls for being ‘Aatmanirbhar’. But it is easier said than done, for the mammoth amount of trade between the two is skewed in China’s favour. Some would think it is natural for India to lean on the US, especially in view of the latter’s vocal support of India in the afore-mentioned border dispute. It is to an extent true too: India has gained around $755 million in US exports since the trade war disrupted relations. India is also the only country capable of countering China’s influence in a disintegrated Asia. It also has a large youthful population capable of rapid mass production which it could use to its advantage in view of the trade war. 

But the path is not as smooth as it looks. There are multiple factors that weigh India down as compared to Southeast Asia when it comes to being business-savvy. The country has a massive supply of cheap labour but lags glaringly in other areas. Poor infrastructure to accommodate foreign production, inadequate technology, complicated labour laws and red-tapism of a sloth-like bureaucracy have tainted the country’s hopes of attracting foreign investment. That is why despite improving its Ease of Doing Business rankings by 37 places, it still is only the ninth-largest trading partner of the USA. Its tedious land-acquisition laws coupled with hostile neighbourhoods have not done much to attract investors. In addition to this, India’s decision to not be a part of the trade agreement with ASEAN called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has put it on the back foot. It passed up on a chance to economically seal the deal with the fastest growing economic region and its markets.

In view of these shortcomings, Southeast Asia proves to be a better region to direct investments to. In fact, India is not extremely affected by the trade war as it has not gained much from it. 

Conclusion

The United States of America and China are the two hegemons that balance the current multi-polar world. This grandiosity of sorts, coupled with their mutual interdependence in terms of trade and technology makes it difficult for them to inflict real-time damage on each other, or indulge in an all-out confrontation. That being said, the current animosity between the two is different from their usual spats. In this pandemic-riddled world their tensions have been aggravated by blame-game, allegations of spying, erosion of Hong Kong’s democratic rights and of course, the rejuvenated trade-war. Many Asian countries have benefitted from this fallout and gained increased investment from the US and more come-hither offers by China. It is now to see how their balancing act will progress. However, India has a long way to trudge before it can fully reap the benefits of the clash and needs to work on its internal infrastructure and policies to attract any advantages.

The post THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN BALANCING ACT appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The encounter of criminals is not a novel thing in India; in fact, it is much more commonplace than capital punishment. So, more people are killed by the police without trial than criminals sentenced to the gallows through the proper procedure by our courts. If they are a violation of the due process of justice, how come they are still such widespread phenomena?

Why Extra-Judicial Killings Continue Unabated?

It is now a well-known fact that Indians have lost faith in the judicial system. Rampant with red-tapism, corruption, procedural delays and empty posts, the mammoth of a system takes years to fulfill its promises. As the Hindi film, Damini has immortalized: “Tareekh pe tareekh milti hai My Lord, insaaf nahi milta!” This is a sad reality for the majority of people who spend half of their lives trapped in the slow-paced monotony of courts for trivial cases. Over three crore cases are pending in the courts of the country, nearly 15% of them for more than 10 years! As a result, many extra-judicial forms of punishment are seen to bring timely ‘justice’ in places where the courts have been exhausted. For instance, it took nearly 7 years for Nirbhaya rapists to face their ultimate punishment, while the Telangana police disposed off the 2019 rape accused within a few days and were hailed as heroes. This is a bleak picture of our hollow system, which has come to prefer encounters over trials.

Apart from the inadequacy of the judicial system, public perceptions of justice are also responsible for these methods adopted by the police. Justice in India has retained its barbaric, orthodox roots that embrace a tit-for-tat approach tainted with violence. Public lynching of an accused is given moral backing and it is seen as the policemen’s duty to teach the defiant criminals a lesson. So of course encounters of criminals are met with applause and immortalized into Bollywood ‘masala’ scripts. The film industry, with its penchant for the heroic cop protagonist who takes matters in his own hands to rid the society of all evil, has enhanced public acceptance and appreciation of cops turning executioners. Even the police deem it easier to kill a suspect than go through the trouble of building a case and proving the accused’s guilt.

We as citizens view justice in absolute terms. But in reality, the matters of law are much more complex than the black and white camps of fair and unfair. There is a vast grey area that encompasses the latent aspects of truth, penal action, and reform. To simplify it through killing criminals is an insult to the very nature of justice and rule of law. The difference between the roles of Police and the Courts blurs in our mind to give way to a twisted system where the cops play judge, jury and executioner, when all their jobs permit is capturing criminals and bringing them before the law. Even those who do not support the law enforcement’s use of such means willingly turn a blind eye fearing retaliatory action. Unlike the US, a civil movement against the high-handedness of the cops is rendered almost impossible as the police are viewed as the ultimate dispenser of justice.

The Price to Pay

You cannot play with fire without getting burnt; you cannot embrace or allow one form of police brutality (re encounters) without offsetting a spiral of police-administered justice that violates our rights. The custodial torture and deaths of Jayaraj and Fenix are a product of this very system that is used to getting away with killings. It is this very lack of accountability that has put the sanctity of our democracy in peril, for absolute power corrupts absolutely. With few exceptions, most encounters today are jaded with shady details and fake charges. As was seen in Punjab during the heights of militancy, police killed anyone whom they suspected in the slightest to have a connection with insurgents. The same was practised in the case of Naxalites. So many lives were lost with no proof of their guilt presented for perusal.

A democracy guarantees certain rights to its citizens, even to convicts. Free and fair trial is a necessity not only of the accused but also the state in order to ascertain without a doubt that the allegations levelled are true. And even if found guilty, the quantum of punishment should be in proportion to the crime committed. This is the job of courts, not the police. Subverting due democratic process even for handing out punishment threatens the very foundations of our state. The means, after all, do not justify the end, and all logic contrary to this is a sign of approaching totalitarianism. India chose to be a democratic nation for a reason; hence the policing measures should reflect the same commitment instead of behaving in a manner reminiscent of our coloniser’s policies. And the police connivance with the underbelly of crime and politics forms an inescapable nexus which has reduced encounters to a political tool readily used, than a last resort method.

This trigger-happy attitude not only severely deprives the accused a chance to prove their innocence or receive punishment in accordance with their crime; it also dehumanizes them in our eyes. All criminals are not hard-core evil. They are born from us, sometimes because of us…Without due process, the truth about their circumstances and motives will never see the light of the day. If we deprive even the most heinous ones of their rights, we fail as a democracy. Equality before the law is a fundamental right, therefore a terrorist and a petty criminal both have the right to defend themselves in front of unbiased judges through due procedure laid down by the law. Our sense of justice is hence very punitive. We as a people do not believe in reform despite claiming the opposite and are content to see criminals incarcerated for life, or worse, dead. What is the point of locking up the bad guys if they do not become better? Do we want to kill all evil or dive to its roots and weed it out? That is for us to decide.

Reform the Norms

The law is reason without passion

Aristotle

This is one statement that has stood the test of time. There is no doubt that there are numerous criminals with blood on their hands that deserve to be punished, but their fate is for the law to decide. One organ of the law enforcement taking the entire law into their hands is not only a mockery of the system but also defeats the very purpose that due legal processes were created for. The law should punish and reform the accused and simultaneously grant a reprieve to the victim. We cannot imagine the pain of someone whose rights have been violated, and it would be unfair to tell them to wait until justice is served because no amount of judicial action can reverse their suffering. But justice is never served through wanton murders without trials. To deprive the accused of their chance to defend themselves, to kill whom you deem guilty, spells another violation of the law. And if the law-protectors break it brazenly, what is to stop the common man from doing so?

All the delays, extensive paperwork, ever-shifting dates that have made the judicial system so tedious and unattractive call for reform, not a subversion of the law. And not just the system, there is a strong need to change the public attitude and perception of justice, and replace it with a more reform-centric approach instead of plain retribution. For us to question the authorities that undermine the constitution is the first step towards a stronger, more accountable nation.

The post ENCOUNTER(ING) JUSTICE appeared first on WISER WORLD.