"Opinion differs"

The Punjab Government has tabled three bills. The Bills passed by the Assembly are  Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection)

Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services (Special Provisions and Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2020,

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation)

(Special Provisions and Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2020, together with the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions and Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2020.

The CM Punjab Amrinder Singh mentioned that the farm bills enacted by the government of India are basically for crony capitalism and not in the interest of the farmers.

Farmers shall be devoid of their wishful right.

This is to be recalled that the lone central minister from Akali Dal resigned following the enactment of farmer’s bill after suitably staging protest for the bill and thus withdrawn support from the central government.

Nevertheless, the dal withdrawn the central government adhered its stand on the farmer’s bill stating that the middleman enjoy lions share and thus the right of the farmers are vested.

While Akali dal stated of the reverse and opposed that this bill shall be of assistance to the capitalists and the small farmer’s interest shall be defeated with enactment of the bill.

State legislative assembly thus has annulled the central bill and is all set to promulgate an ordinance to the effect in order to ensure the minimum support price which is the prerogative of the farmers and they must get it.

The three bills and the proposed electricity bills shun the interest of the farmers, and are termed as the trade bills by CM Punjab not the farmer’s bill.

This is therefore demanded to see to it that the same is ensured for all the welfare of the small farmers who might get deprived of the new proposed arrangements.

This is also urged that the central government be continue to procure the food grain through the FCI and similar agencies.

Politics looks at the convenience over the welfare of the people that is what may be concluded with such actions.

The opposition off course is of significance absence of which does make the incumbent rigid and therefore the watchdog must be the right role for the opposition yet the opposition for the sake of opposition appears simply a formality or points towards the vested interests.

Is not it good to support at times certain bitter decisions that appear apparently in the larger benefits of the people.

Time perhaps is decisive.

 

- Sunil S Okhade

Other Editorials