Good politics may not always give the best of economic results and, similarly, even the best of economic moves may not prove to be good politics. In democracies, the governments of the day generally suffer from this dichotomy and therefore, it is rightly said that balancing the two is the “real art of governance”.
In the parliamentary form of government, which India has, it not only the government that survives on its majority strength in the legislature, rather, its every act needs to withstand the rigorous scrutiny of lawmakers. And here lies the challenge for the government to balance its politics to push through its economic agenda.
No one can challenge the right of the government to promulgate ordinances to see through that larger public interest is served and the country moves ahead with the time. Therefore, not only this government under the stewardship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi resorted to promulgating a series of ordinances, but most of his predecessors have done it earlier.
But in the end, the government has to go back to Parliament to get the stamp of approval from both the Houses. Though the government has come up with a number of ordinances on issues like hiking FDI cap in the insurance sector, auctioning of Supreme Court-scrapped coal blocks and amending provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the last one appears to be most contentious, as Opposition parties like the Congress, TMC, Left Parties, JD(U) and others, including even the ruling BJP’s ally PMK, are opposed to it to the extent of not entering into any kind of negotiation for reconciliation. This makes it difficult for the government to see through its land ordinance in the Rajya Sabha, as the ruling NDA is desperately short of numbers in the Upper House.
However, ministers in the government and spin doctors of the ruling BJP are trying hard to make an impression that the changes in the act are not “anti-farmer”, but none as of now is willing to buy the government’s argument. For the main Opposition Congress, it is an emotive issue, as the act in its present form is the brainchild of its leader Rahul Gandhi and they just do not want any changes in this.
Former Union minister and senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, who piloted the bill in Parliament, termed as “deeply disturbing” the government’s decision, saying “the dilution” will open doors for forcible acquisition, excess acquisition and diversion of land owned by farmers. “NDA is a government of ordinances. Apparent now whom they represent. The amending Land Acquisition Act is anti-farmer and BJP is anti-farmer,” AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh said on Twitter.
The Congress has gone to the extent of suggesting its Chief Ministers in Karnataka, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and in north-eastern states to not only oppose the land ordinance, but also not to implement it. Similarly, the TMC government in West Bengal led by chief minister Mamata Banerjee has already made it clear that her government will oppose any dilution in the Land Acquisition Act and her party will hit the streets by burning the copies of the ordinance.
Even BJP’s ally PMK founder S. Ramadoss slammed the “back-door entry” by the NDA government, saying the changes will affect crores of farmers in the country. After the ordinance, the mandatory “consent” clause and the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) will not be applicable if the land is acquired for five purposes, including national security, defence rural infrastructure, including electrification, industrial corridors and building social infrastructure, including PPP where ownership of land continues to be vested with the government.
However, the government is working on a contingency plan to ensure that the land ordinance passes through the test of Parliament, as the managers in the ruling party has started consulting the constitutional experts to solicit their opinion so that a way could be found out, which withstands even a judicial scrutiny.
Sources in the government say that as per the constitutional provision, if a non-money bill is passed by one of the either Houses of Parliament and the other House either rejects or sits on it for more than six months, the government has the right to convene a joint session of Parliament.
“Thus under the circumstances, we have now decided to introduce all the controversial bills in the Lok Sabha where we have the majority. Once it is passed, it will be sent to the Rajya Sabha, which will have three options — either pass it, or reject it or delay it by creating disturbances. In the first case, there would be no further action required. But in either of the other two conditions, the government will have the right to convene a joint sitting, where the ruling NDA has the majority of its own,” sources said.
