Agricultural laws were withdrawn in both the Houses of Parliament as quickly as they were introduced. Necessary discussions were not held on them even while bringing them and not even while leaving. Why so ? This in itself raises doubts. Doubts arise that there is some mastery in this law, which the government wants to hide, while the government claims that these laws were brought only to make the farmers prosperous and happy. If there was a fierce debate while going and coming of these laws, then not only the farmers but also the common people of the country would have come to know that the BJP government wants to bring an unprecedented revolution in the field of agriculture. Admittedly, the government was so happy with its laws that it thought that they should be implemented immediately, but now if there was a long debate at the time of its return in Parliament, the government could have enumerated its benefits in detail and that message to the people of the country. Gives that she is not arrogant at all. She respects her donors wholeheartedly. farm laws repeal bill
Read also How is this India becoming?
That’s why he has returned them. In this parliamentary debate, he would also get many new suggestions but it seems that the withdrawal of these laws has scared the government a lot. His moral force is at the bottom. He felt that if there was an argument, his opponents would strip him of his skin. His fear turned out to be true. What does the dramatic ruckus of the opponents demand for a debate reveal? Is it not that the opposition parties want to prove themselves to be bigger benefactors of the farmers instead of benefiting the farmers.
In other words, the role of both our sides and opponents has not been satisfactory from the point of view of democracy. It is a matter of political parties but what is the condition of our farmer movement? It was unusual and historical, there is no doubt about it, but it should be kept in mind that this movement was the movement of the Maldar farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh. The government must satisfy them, but more than that, its responsibility is towards those 86 percent farmers, who are not able to get their livelihood even in 700 districts of the country. The question of minimum government price for the produce should be discussed openly. It is necessary that he should not become the beneficiary of a handful of rich farmers and he should be beneficial to all the farmers. In today’s situation, there is more need for farmer churning than farmer movement.