The bill to withdraw three controversial agricultural laws was passed in Lok Sabha in just three minutes and in Rajya Sabha in nine minutes. there was no discussion, No question was raised and no answer was considered necessary. think more, it happened at that time, A few minutes before which Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood in the Parliament complex and said that ,We should be recognized by the number of hours we worked in the House., and not by who in the house stopped the parliament by how much,, Shortly after he said this, the opposition in both the houses continued to demand a debate on the bill to withdraw the agricultural laws., But the government got it passed in both the houses in a jiffy. Agricultural laws and many such laws have been passed in this way. Then the question is, then what is the need for Parliament or Parliamentary elections?, The bigger question is whether the country is moving in that direction., where parliament will no longer be needed,
These questions are because this government has a very poor record of parliamentary work. According to the data of PRS Legislative Research, in the monsoon session of Parliament held in July-August, the government 15 Bill 10 Get passed in less than a minute. Of these, in the Lok Sabha 14 and a bill in the Rajya Sabha 10 Passed in less than a minute. Government in the same session 26 The bill was passed in less than half an hour. After coming to power for the second time, Narendra Modi’s government in the last two and a half years 19 Bill 10 in less than a minute and 42 Bills are passed in less than half an hour. In this agriculture bill, insurance bill, The Citizenship Amendment Bill is also included.
think, laws of national importance, from which the country 140 The fate of crores of people has to be decided, They are being passed in a jiffy. Unfortunately, the parties and stakeholders are not being involved even while framing the bill., The questions being raised on it are being ignored and they are not being discussed even inside the Parliament. This was observed in the case of agricultural laws. Hundreds of farmers’ organizations said they were not consulted before enacting the law.
It is the misfortune of the country that the role of the legislature in India has not developed properly since independence. The legislature’s job is to make laws and the executive’s job is to implement them. But in India the reverse happens. In India, the laws are made by the governments and they are only stamped by the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies. the world’s other civilized, In countries with developed and parliamentary tradition, it is seen many times that during the debate in the legislature on the bill brought by the government, the members of the ruling party also raise questions., introduce amendments and sometimes vote together with the opposition in opposition to the bill. But there is probably not a single instance of this happening in India. It never happens that the members of the ruling party utter a single word in opposition to the bill, inside or outside the House. They always raise their hands in support of the bill. This has been happening since the time of the first elected government of the country.
But till seven years ago, debates were held in Parliament only for the sake of appearance., People were consulted before preparing the bill., After the bill was prepared, it was sent to the Standing Committee of the concerned department and if there was a dispute on any bill, it was sent to the Common Committee or Select Committee of the Parliament. Now this process has become minimal. According to a report, only in the second Modi government 11 Only percent of the bills have been subject to parliamentary review. Bills are being prepared without discussion and are being passed without debate. This is because the government and its head feel that they know everything and they have the Govardhan at their fingertips so one need not worry about the law or its implementation. This is a sign of great danger to both democracy and the parliamentary system.
think, Had it not been so, would the three agricultural laws have been passed like that?, as made last year or returned as such, as on television, The Prime Minister came on television and announced that he was withdrawing all three agricultural laws and after that the talk was over. Was there no room for debate after this?, Parliament or television channel is the place to make or withdraw laws., If the government was even a little sensitive to the parliamentary system and conventions, it would have been discussed in detail in the Parliament. Answering these questions, what was the need of these laws?, Who was made for them and what is the compulsion now?, which are being taken back. It does not mean that the government could not explain the benefits of this law to a few farmers., So taking it back. It can happen in the case of every law that if the government is unable to explain its benefits to a few people, will all the laws be withdrawn?,
Read also How is this India becoming?
The Prime Minister said on television that they are withdrawing the law in the interest of the country, so is it not the job of the government to explain which is the interest of the country?, because of which the laws were withdrawn,
Isn’t it right that the government did not discuss the bill to withdraw the law because if there was a discussion then the government would have to answer for the farmers’ agitation and the death of more than seven hundred farmers in it?, Is it not right that if there was a discussion then the government would have to clarify its stand on the Minimum Support Price (MSP)?, Is it not right that if there was a discussion in the Parliament, then the government would have to answer the incident of crushing and killing of four farmers and a journalist in Lakhimpur Kheri?, Is it not right that if there was a discussion, then the question would have arisen that why the government, interfering in the jurisdiction of the states, connected the issue of agriculture with business and got the law passed arbitrarily., Obviously, to avoid many uncomfortable questions, the route of passing the bill was chosen in a jiffy.
If democracy and parliamentary system are to be saved, then the legislature has to be saved from such arbitrariness of the government. The Prime Minister is not expected to bow his head on the doorstep of Parliament or to treat the Constitution as a holy book like the Gita. They are only expected that if they cannot strengthen the parliamentary process and system, then at least do not do things that weaken it. By law, this classic system of parliamentary democracy should be implemented that if a bill comes in the Parliament, all the MPs, Express your opinion on the party without any fear of disciplinary action., It should be discussed objectively without any bias and then the bill is passed. But if it cannot be done then at least as it has been done since independence., If it is allowed to run, then the minimum dignity and relevance of Parliament will remain.
