Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to withdraw the 3(three) Farm Laws is probably the only governance initiative in his career, where he has backed down in the face of opposition. This is critical since the the implementation of the Farm Laws would have brought tremendous benefits for the improvement of the economics of the agricultural sector.
The decision to withdraw the Farm Laws could be analysed from three angles:
- Reasons for withdrawal
- Timing thereof
- Rationalisation of the decision
- Reason for withdrawal
The Farm Laws created huge resentment mainly amongst the Sikh community. This resentment had manifested itself in the potential creation of long term faultlines in Indian society.
- Modi detractors along with the anti national forces seized the opportunity to create anarchy by deploying the misled Sikh community to gain better optics for the movement .
- The angst of the powerful and influential large landowning Jat Sikh farmers was being exploited by divisive Khalistani forces and Pakistan to create unrest in Punjab and especially amongst the Sikh community at large.
- Such unrest, would adversely impact a community and critical border state, constituting a disproportionately large percent of the Indian armed forces.
- Most importantly, the Farm Laws were being exploited by anti-national forces to create a divide amongst the Sikhs and Hindus, which was not seen even at the height of the Punjab terrorism in the 1980s.
As a sagacious leader with a desire to make India economically and politically into a cohesive and strong nation, PM Modi saw a greater good in the withdrawal of Farm Laws, inspite of their merits.
2. Timing
India is currently at the cusp of huge opportunities as well as facing a threat which can derail the capitalization thereof.
- The economic opportunities emerging due to the Western world looking to alternative to China are immense and unprecedented.
The Indian Government has pro-actively embarked on series of reforms and measures to attract cutting edge manufacturing into India, including electronics, renewable energy or even semi-conductors, etc, all areas where India is almost entirely dependent on imports for its critical needs.
- At the same time, China is aggressively flexing its muscles on the borders in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.. The threat of the face-off with China turning into a military conflict, in the near future, is both real and challenging. This threat has become more pronounced in the recent months with the Chinese military build up in Arunachal Pradesh and its consistent refusal to complete the disengagement process in Ladakh.
Every passing year is making India a stronger nation economically and militarily. If global options and Indian ambitions of becoming an alternative manufacturing hub to and bulwark against Chinese expansionism are to be thwarted, China might seek to humiliate India by a military adventure, sooner than later.
Military strategists are also conscious of the possibility of a two front war with Pakistan (a Chinese vassal by now) entering the fray. Having a dissatisfied populace in the border state of Punjab, does not augur well in such an event.
To effectively counter any external threat, would demand a cohesive and united India.
Hence the timing of the announcement of the withdrawal of the Farm Laws is both apt and keeping in view the current geo-political environment as compared to that which prevailed a year ago when the Farm Laws were enacted.
3. Rationalisation of the decision
The reversal of any action, after resisting for a considerable period of time, and more so by a strong leader, requires considerable internal rationalization. Keeping the aforesaid mentioned reasons in mind, the decision to repeal the Farm Laws can be rationalized from a number of perspectives.
- Similar Farm Laws can be enacted by individual states to attain the desired objective, albeit to a limited extent. And that market forces may bring about the desired changes , though far more gradually. Hence a long lasting conflict with one’s own people was not desirable, inspite of the benefits .
Punjab’s economy is hurtling down a precipice. Because of continuous appeasement of its large land owning farmers, Punjab has neglected the growth in other sectors, especially manufacturing. The combined effect of the over exploitation of land and its degradation on one hand and the utter lack of economic and employment opportunities in other sectors, is projected to result in disaster for Punjab’s economy, in a decade or so from now. Punjab’s State GDP growth is lower than that of the national average, its GST collections almost one-third of neighbouring Haryana and its Debt to State GDP ratio amongst the highest in the country.
By withdrawing the Farm Laws, PM Modi has prevented vested and anti-national forces from blaming, in future, a “Hindu nationalist government” for Punjab’s self created problems. Even today Punjab’s State GDP growth is lower than that of the national average.
- If a price has to be paid for social cohesiveness, so be it.
- 4. Conclusion
- PM Modi’s critics will at best portray the withdrawal of the Farm Laws as a triumph of the “legitimate demands” of farmers and at worst, as having been guided by the forthcoming Punjab and Uttar Pradesh elections.
However nothing could be further from the truth. PM Modi’s decision and the timing of the withdrawal of the Farm Laws is clearly guided by larger national interests. It is to ensure that when at the cusp of unprecedented opportunities of growth and critical external threats, a relatively smaller issue does not queer the pitch for India.
As is said in the Mahabharat:
“For the sake of a family, a member may be sacrificed;
For the sake of a village, a family may be sacrificed,
For the sake of a province, a village may be sacrificed,
And for the sake of one’s own soul the whole earth may be sacrificed”
In the withdrawal of the Farm Laws, the PM Modi has put his personal prestige aside, keeping the national interest as supreme.
Leon C. Megginson, Professor of Management and Marketing at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge wrote in 1963:
“According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.”
For the agitating farmers, unwilling to adapt to any change, it is but a pyrrhic victory.
The author is a Chartered Accountant by profession with a keen interest in history, geopolitics and economics
