)
Unwilling to leave it to the vagaries of political parties, the Congress-led UPA today cleared the decks for bringing in the contentious Food Security Bill through the Ordinance route.
Opposing the government’s decision to bring such a crucial bill through an Ordinance, principal Opposition party BJP as well as the Samjawadi Party, the JD(U), Akali Dal have all vociferously opposed this decision.
Soon after the UPA move to bring in the Ordinance, the BJP said that while the party supports the Bill it wanted further discussion to raise certain concerns of the leaders and that is why BJP wanted a debate on the issue in Parliament.
Even the Samajwadi Party which renders outside support to the government has vehemently attacked it. SP senior leader Naresh Agarwal said, “This is a slap dash move and only goes to prove that the government is heading for mid-term polls.”
Sticking to its earlier stand, the SP leader said the bill was inherently “anti-farmer”.“The day the bill is implemented, farmers will not get proper dues for their produce.”
Agarwal alleged that the UPA was trying to send a message that in case the Ordinance was not ratified in the Monsson session, the Congress could accuse Opposition and political parties of having halted a people friendly bill.
Significantly, NCP chief and Agriculture minister Sharad Pawar who was in favour oif the bill to be discussed and debate din Parliament was now on board with the government. Senior NCP leader DP Tripathi said, “We had certain concerns and we wanted farmers rights to be protected. We are part of the government and so obviously support it.”
Opposition BJP however believes that the food security ordinance is an attempt by the Congress-led UPA for “electoral security” in the Lok Sabha election in 2014. Rejecting the ordinance cleared by the government, senior BJP leaders accused the government of running away from discussion in Parliament.
There is division within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) on the issue as Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) is vehemently opposed to the Bill.
“The party had suggested the Chhattisgarh model of food security and we wanted further discussion to know what percentage of population will be covered under this Bill. Secondly, BJP wanted discussion the financial burden on the state government and what percentage of the burden will be shared between the state and centre. It seems that the union government doesn’t want a democratic discussion with other political parties,” said M Venkaiah Naidu, former BJP President.
ALSO READ: Cabinet clears ordinance on Food Security
Members of the BJP questioned why the government didn’t wait for the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament or called a special session of Parliament as suggested by Sushma Swaraj, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
Similar concerns were raised by the former NDA partner Janata Dal (United) which questioned why the government was in a such a hurry to clear the ordinance and it didn’t even wait for the Monsoon Session which is expected to start later in July.
“Government could have called for a special session or wait for Monsoon Session. There is no clarity what will be the burden on the state government and what percentage of people will benefit from food security? We have been raising our concerns but the government has not answered and now an ordinance has been cleared,” said SN Tiwari, senior leader of JD(U).
Former UPA ally Trinamool Congress too is not keen on the ordinance route. Leader of the party in the Lok Sabha Sudip Bandyopadhya when contacted said, “We have never preferred the Ordinance route, especially now when the Monsoon session is round the corner. They should have tabled the bill on the floor of the Parliament.”
The Left parties, which have been agitating for long for universalisation of the food security through the PDS, is not in support of the UPA’s Food bill.
In a statement today the CPI(M) stated: “The Politburo strongly objects to these new provisions which will reduce the entire Bill into a platform to push through neo-liberal reforms with legal sanction, which are against the interests of the people and which will lead to further exclusions.”
The Bill must include the universal right to at least 35 kg of foodgrains at Rs 2 a kilo. The CPI-M was also of the view that it was a “blatant violation of federal norms.”
CPI National Secretary D Raja opposed the move, saying the government should have "advanced the Monsoon Session of Parliament if it was keen and honest to get the Food Security Bill passed."
Holding that the current legislation was "not acceptable", he said the measure needed to be "drastically amended and thoroughly debated".
