Editorial-1
Punjab’s efforts to enact State amendments to override the effects of the Centre’s new agriculture laws epitomise the difficulties in managing the conflict between liberalising the farm sector and protecting the small and marginal farmer from the agonies of the transition. The issue also flags the consequences of not having a wide and informed debate before introducing far-reaching changes. Punjab has been the hub of the opposition to the Centre’s legislative exercise to change the basics of trade and commerce in agriculture. The Akali Dal, the main opposition in the State, eventually withdrew its Cabinet minister and later walked out of the NDA government at the Centre. Punjab argues that the central Acts would cause “grave detriment and prejudice” to agricultural communities. The Bills cite an agriculture census of 2015-16 to argue that 86.2% of farmers own less than five acres — a majority of them less than two acres — and that with limited or no access to multiple markets, they would be handicapped while negotiating fair price contracts with private players. Making efforts to buy farm produce at less than the MSP or harassing farmers in a bid to persuade them to enter into such contracts have been sought to be made punishable offences, with a jail term of at least three years. The Bills also seek to overturn the Centre’s move to remove the fee on trade and transactions that take place outside markets functioning under APMCs.
A key issue raised by Punjab’s proposed amendments is whether they are legally valid and where they stand in the teeth of the Centre’s legislation. States can indeed amend central laws enacted under the Concurrent List, subject to the condition that provisions repugnant to the parliamentary Acts will have to get the President’s assent, without which they do not come into force. The Punjab Bills note that agriculture is under the legislative domain on the States, as the subject falls under the State List in the Seventh Schedule. The Centre has enacted its farm sector Bills by invoking Entry 33(b) in the Concurrent List, which concerns trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, “foodstuffs”. By stretching the entry’s meaning to include agriculture, Parliament has managed to pass laws in the domain of the States. In these circumstances, States aggrieved by the farm sector laws will either have to go the Punjab way to adopt Bills that would require presidential assent, as Rajasthan has decided to do, or challenge the validity of the central laws in the Supreme Court, as Chhattisgarh is said to be considering. Whatever the outcome, clear from the groundswell of opposition across the country is that a cavalier and centralised approach to issues that affect millions of farmers ill-serves a diverse country.
- take on (phrasal verb) – oppose, challenge, confront.
- aggrieved (adjective) – distressed, disgruntled, discontented, unhappy, angry.
- legislative (adjective) – governmental, parliamentary, law-making, policy-making.
- measure (noun) – course of action, action, step, procedure.
- override (verb) – overrule, overturn, disregard, ignore, reject.
- epitomise (verb) – symbolize, represent, illustrate.
- liberalise (verb) – to make something (regulations/norms) less strict.
- agony (noun) – pain, suffering, torture.
- transition (noun) – change.
- flag (verb) – indicate, identify, point out.
- consequence (noun) – result, outcome, effect; ramification, repercussion.
- informed (adjective) – sagacious, intelligent, learned, knowledgeable.
- far-reaching (adjective) – widespread, sweeping, extensive, important, significant.
- hub (noun) – centre, centre of activity, focal point.
- eventually (adverb) – in the end, in due course, after some time.
- walk out (phrasal verb) – depart, leave suddenly.
- grave (adjective) – terrible, awful, alarming, gloomy.
- detriment (noun) – disadvantage, impairment, loss, prejudice.
- prejudice (noun) – discrimination, partiality, intolerance, bigotry.
- cite (verb) – refer to, adduce, make reference to, invoke.
- census (noun) – an official survey.
- handicap (verb) – impede, hinder, obstruct.
- produce (noun) – agricultural products as a whole.
- Minimum Support Price (MSP) (noun) – it is a form of market intervention by the Government of India to give guaranteed price and assured market to the farmers and protect them from the price fluctuations and market imperfections. The guaranteed price and assured market are expected to encourage higher investment and in adoption of modern farming practices.
- harass (verb) – torment, trouble, disturb, persecute, bother, annoy.
- bid (noun) – attempt, effort, endeavour/try.
- persuade (verb) – convince, influence, motivate, make certain.
- seek (verb) – try, attempt, aim.
- offence (verb) – violation, breach, illegal act.
- overturn (verb) – negate, void, repeal, cancel.
- Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMC) (noun) – a marketing board established by a state government in India to ensure farmers are safeguarded from exploitation by large retailers, as well as ensuring the farm to retail price spread does not reach excessively high levels.
- key (adjective) – basic, fundamental, essential.
- in the teeth of (phrase) – in spite of (opposition).
- indeed (adverb) – in fact, actually.
- concurrent list (noun) – the list which includes the power to be considered by both the union and state government (as given in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India).
- subject to (adjective) – conditional on, contingent on, dependent on; under the control of.
- provision (noun) – term, clause, requirement/condition.
- repugnant to (adjective) – incompatible with, in conflict with, contrary to, at variance with.
- assent (noun) – approval, consent, sanction, agreement, acceptance.
- come into force (phrase) – come to effect (a new law, rule, change etc.).
- invoke (verb) – cite, refer to, adduce.
- stretch (verb) – bend, distort, extend the scope of (something).
- circumstances (noun) – situation, background, conditions, state of affairs.
- groundswell (noun) – the sudden increase of a certain feeling/opinion among a large section of people.
- cavalier (adjective) – casual, unconcerned; without concern for something important or serious.
- centralised (adjective) – controlled by a single authority.
- ill-service (verb) – perform something (a service) badly.
- diverse (adjective) – including people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds.
Editorial-2
The Trump administration has once again tightened the screws on the country’s immigration system in a manner that is likely to directly impact Indian companies contracting with American firms for on-site work. This week the State Department proposed to stop issuing temporary or B-1 business visas relating to occupations normally classified as falling under the H-1B speciality or skilled visa category. The argument is that under the guise of the business-related entry of personnel, companies were sending their technology professionals for short-term stays to work on U.S. jobs, potentially undercutting the wages and employment prospects of U.S. workers. The proposed policy action, just ahead of the November 3 presidential election, is significant for following closely on the heels of other, similar moves to tighten restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals, including raising the minimum salaries payable to those applying for H-1B visas and to stop the issuance of such visas entirely until December 31, 2020. Taken together, it would be reasonable to expect a painful economic fallout on legal skilled migration from India. For example, the analysts predict that Mr. Trump’s June 22, 2020 ban on new H-1B visa issuance could impact up to 219,000 workers, who would be unable to take up potential jobs in the U.S.
To date, there has been no retaliatory policy from India, at most perhaps diplomatic parleys where South Block has sought to emphasise that technology and innovation via the trade in services remain a key pillar of the bilateral strategic partnership and highly-skilled Indian professionals working in the U.S. help bridge the skill gap there, imparting a technological and competitive edge. In the backdrop of the steady clampdown on visa issuance is Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on protecting U.S. jobs from foreigners, especially in cases where lower wages drive substitution effects. The pressure on the White House to increase the cadence of the drumbeat for this form of “protectionism” has risen owing to the pandemic’s job-killing effects. U.S. joblessness spiked to an unprecedented 14.7% in April 2020. While it has dropped off since then, the country has entered the final phases of electoral campaigning, which has seen sharp attacks by Democratic challenger Joe Biden on Mr. Trump’s alleged failure to mitigate the economic crisis. When considered alongside the fact that Mr. Trump is steadily losing ground in federal and regional opinion polls, it is hardly surprising that areas of legal migration, including skilled workers entering the U.S. via the H-1B programme, have become policy targets for the White House. It would be wise for Indian IT firms and others seeking to send their employees to the U.S. for short-term work to assume that regardless of who wins the election, it will be a long time, if ever, before they can hope to return to business as usual.
Post a Comment