📰 Supreme Court stays Andhra HC order to study ‘constitutional breakdown’ in State
Has anybody seen an order like this before? This is distrubing: CJI
•The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order intending to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State machinery under the Jagan Mohan Reddy government, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.
•“Has anybody seen an order like this before... As the apex court, we find this disturbing. We are staying this order... We will take up this case immediately after the vacations,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad A. Bobde, heading a three-judge Bench, observed.
•Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked why the High Court “should go into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State”.
•The government, represented by advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, said it was not up to the High Court to enquire and recommend Presiden’s rule in a State.
•“It is Article 356 that deals with failure of constitutional machinery in a State... This is a power [to impose President’s rule] exclusively vests in the Executive. The power in this regard, like sending a report either to the Hon’ble President or to the Hon’ble Governor or to record a finding in that regard, cannot be exercised by the judiciary,” the petition filed by the government said.
•The “unprecedented” order of the High Court, on October 1, came while deciding habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of persons remanded in judicial custody or on bail.
•The High Court had suo motu summoned the State counsel to assist it in deciding “whether in circumstances prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the court can record a finding that there is constitutional breakdown in the State or not”.
‘HC did not take up application’
•The State said an application to recall the October 1 order was not taken up by the High Court, compelling the government to move the apex court.
•The government said the High Court’s observation violated the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution.
•“Under the constitutional framework, it is not for the courts to decide as to whether there is a constitutional breakdown in a State. The said power has been specifically conferred upon a different constitutional authority – and rightly so. It is needless to mention that the constitutional courts do not have any judicially discoverable and manageable standards to determine if there has been a constitutional breakdown,” the petition contended.
Move will also help reduce oil imports
•The government on Friday proposed the adoption of E20 fuel — a blend of 20% of ethanol and gasoline — as an automobile fuel in order to reduce vehicular emissions as well as the country’s oil import bill.
•The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has published a draft notification and invited comments from the public for adoption of the fuel. The current permissible level of blending is 10% of ethanol though India reached only 5.6% of blending in 2019.
•“The notification facilitates the development of E20-compliant vehicles,” according to a statement. “It will also help in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, etc. It will help reduce the oil import bill, thereby saving foreign exchange and boosting energy security.”
Vehicle compatibility
•It added the compatibility of vehicles with the percentage of ethanol in the blend would be defined by the vehicle manufacturer, which would have to be displayed on the vehicle with a sticker.
•Ethanol is a biofuel and a common by-product of biomass left by agricultural feedstock such as corn, sugarcane, hemp, potato, etc.
📰 Friend and neighbour: On India-Bangladesh virtual summit
India must strengthen ties with Bangladesh and appreciate Sheikh Hasina’s challenges
•The virtual summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bangladesh counterpart Sheikh Hasina, where they discussed issues ranging from the violent border incidents to the COVID-19 fight, demonstrates their desire to reboot India-Bangladesh ties that have faced challenges in recent months. Mr. Modi called Bangladesh a “major pillar” in India’s neighbourhood first policy, while Ms. Hasina invited him to visit Bangladesh in March for the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of its independence. It is a key opportunity for India, which had played a major role in Bangladesh’s liberation in 1971, to revive the bonhomie and address the issues adversely affecting the partnership. Despite the friendship remaining solid, the border has been sensitive — at least 25 Bangladeshis were killed in the first six months of this year along the border by Indian forces, according to a rights watchdog. The Teesta water dispute remains unresolved. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens, which Ms. Hasina called “unnecessary”, have created a negative impression about India. Above all, China is making deep inroads into Bangladesh by ramping up infrastructure investments and expanding economic cooperation. So, it is imperative for India to bolster ties with this all-weather friend, and there may not be a better time to do so than when Bangladesh is to celebrate the golden jubilee of its independence.
•Ms. Hasina has done relatively well in steering Bangladesh through crises. Under the Awami League government, Bangladesh, India’s largest trading partner in South Asia, has expanded its economy and improved social welfare. Despite the Awami League’s tight grip over the administration, Ms. Hasina has continued to face challenges from Islamist factions. War crimes and corruption trials have weakened the traditional opposition — the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its ally, the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami. But another Islamist group, Hifazat-e-Islam, made headlines recently when it organised mass protests against French President Emmanuel Macron and opposed the Hasina government’s plan to build a statue of the country’s founding father, Bangabandhu Mujibur Rahman, in Dhaka’s suburbs. The Hifazat has claimed that installing statues is prohibited in Islam and that they would be pulled down, but the government seems determined to go ahead with its plan. In a speech marking Victory Day (December 16), Ms. Hasina said she would not allow the country to be divided on religious lines, in an indirect reference to Hifazat. India should support her fight against the radical elements. India should also not allow the ideological inclinations of the ruling party to spoil the historic relationship between the two countries. New Delhi should take a broader view of the changing scenario and growing competition in South Asia, and reach out to Dhaka with an open mind.
📰 MSP — the factoids versus the facts
The debate on agricultural issues must take into account the changed geography of procurement and the seller’s profile
•According to one definition, a factoid is “an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact”. After the passage of the three controversial farm laws, the Minimum Support Price (MSP) — not mentioned in the laws — has gained a lot of attention. The predominance of factoids about MSP and procurement has meant that the debate has yielded more chaff than grain.
•The MSP is meant to set a floor below which prices do not fall, and is announced by the government for 23 commodities. It is the price at which the government ‘promises’ to buy from farmers if market prices fall below it. In fact, however, government procurement is heavily concentrated on wheat and rice, with other crops barely being procured.
•Over the years, factoids about the MSP and government procurement have gained so much traction that the retired gentleman in the local park cites them as facts. These pertain to how many have benefited from the MSP and who has benefited from it. According to these popular beliefs, few (6%) farmers benefit, only large farmers benefit, and only farmers of Punjab and Haryana (to some extent, western Uttar Pradesh) benefit.
More States under MSP
•In a forthcoming paper, we use data on State-wise procurement from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and agricultural household data for 2012-13 from the National Sample Survey (NSS), after which these data are not available, to set the record straight on these three factoids.
•One, the 6% figure from the NSS data 2012-13 relates to paddy and wheat alone. Even here, however, among those who sold any paddy/wheat, the numbers are higher — 14% and 16%.
•Two, the Government of India has made a systematic effort to expand the reach of MSP to more States, via the Decentralized Procurement (DCP) Scheme. Introduced in 1997-98, it was not very popular in the initial years and began to be adopted by States in earnest only around 2005. Under the DCP scheme, the responsibility of procurement devolved to the State governments which were reimbursed pre-approved costs. FCI data suggest that by July 2015, as many as 15 States had taken up this programme, though not all were implementing it with equal enthusiasm. Largely on account of it, procurement began moving out of ‘traditional’ States (such as Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh). Until 2000, barely 10% of wheat and rice was procured outside the traditional States. By 2012-13, the share of the DCP States rose to 25-35%.
•In the case of paddy, Chhattisgarh and Odisha have been the star performers. These States today contribute about 10% each to the total paddy procurement in the country. For wheat, decentralised procurement has taken off in Madhya Pradesh in a big way, accounting for approximately 20% of wheat procurement. In 2020-21, wheat procurement from Madhya Pradesh surpassed that from even Punjab. Among agricultural households which sell paddy under the procurement system, while 9% and 7% come from Punjab and Haryana, 11% are in Odisha and 33% are in Chhattisgarh. An overwhelming majority of agricultural households selling wheat to the procurement agencies come from Madhya Pradesh (33%) compared to 22% from Punjab and 18% from Haryana. That only Punjab and Haryana farmers have benefited from the MSP is now truly a thing of the past.
Which farmer benefits
•Three, as per the factoid, only large farmers have benefited. In fact, procurement has benefited the small and marginal farmers in much bigger numbers than medium and large farmers. At the all-India level, among those who sold paddy to the government, 1% were large farmers, owning over 10 hectares of land. Small and marginal farmers, with less than 2 hectares accounted for 70%. The rest (29%) were medium farmers (2-10 hectares).
•In the case of wheat, 3% of all wheat-selling farmers were large farmers. More than half (56%) were small and marginal farmers.
•In Punjab and Haryana, the share of small and marginal farmers is not insignificant (38% and 58%, respectively, among paddy sellers). In the non-traditional States that adopted the DCP scheme, the overwhelming majority of farmers who sell to State procurement agencies are small and marginal. In Chhattisgarh and Odisha, for example, small and marginal farmers comprise 70-80% of all sellers to government agencies. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, nearly half (45%) of those who sell wheat to government agencies are small or marginal farmers.
•To recap, the facts are as follows: one, the proportion of farmers who benefit from (even flawed) government procurement policies is not insignificant. Two, the geography of procurement has changed in the past 15 years. It is less concentrated in traditional States such as Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, as DCP States such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have started participating more vigorously. Three, perhaps most importantly — it is predominantly the small and marginal farmers who have benefited from the MSP and procurement, even if the size of the benefits may be larger for larger farmers. This is true not just in the DCP States, but also in the traditional States.
The true picture
•Getting the facts right is an important first step in resolving the issues facing the agricultural sector and farmers’ issues. We have picked three factoids of many as an illustration of how little we know about how the MSP works. The range of claims made regarding, for example, the consequences of the MSP on diversification need to be examined as well. Among Punjabis who cultivated any crop, 21-37% did not grow paddy and wheat. Among all agricultural households including those which did not cultivate a crop (indicating more diversified sources of agricultural income), a larger proportion (58 and 48%, respectively) stayed away from paddy and wheat, suggesting that procurement in Punjab may not have prevented diversification to the extent we imagine.
•Similarly, confusion reigns about other areas of interest from the point of view of the new farm laws. It is widely believed that for the first time, the new laws allow farmers to sell outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). Even for commodities for which MSP is announced, the proportion of sales via the mandi range is only between 10-64%; the demand for the MSP originates because the prices paid outside the mandi tend to be much lower. Countrywide, sales to mandi or government procurement agencies fetched on average 13.3% higher prices for paddy and 5.8% for wheat.
•We are not unsympathetic to those who question the heavy concentration of wheat and rice in government procurement (millets are better suited to agro-climatic conditions prevailing in large parts of the country, more nutritious and also grown by small and marginal farmers), to the flaws in the current mandi system, or how the MSP is implemented. Yet, the debate — popular, academic or political — on these issues must take into account the changed geography of procurement and the profile of the seller.
