Read on Twitter
Thread: The argument on the merits of the farm reform bill are anyway compelling, and validated by experts. Self described “Pro-reform” people in commentariat have hence latched on to the high minded principle - laws should be with consultations. Excellent. Let’s Google...
Read this report of Standing Committee of Parliament submitted in 2019. See what are the reforms called for in APMC. The standing committee by the way has 31 MPs across parties, only 13 of whom were from the BJP http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Agriculture/16_Agriculture_62.pdf
Read this news story about a committee of CMs. See what their terms of reference was. https://indianexpress.com/article/business/maharashtra-cm-devendra-fadnavis-appointed-convenor-of-committee-on-agri-reforms-5809910/
Now see what the committee called for https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/chief-ministers-panel-on-agriculture-favours-linking-finance-commission-grants-with-reforms/1648746/. Please note ECA removal was called for also by * Kamal Nath* See also what is said about contract farming.
Have the reforms happened then in a hurry as a “Jhatka”, should we be more incremental? Even in the reports above you would read about the model APML law. See this interview now from 2016 about incremental steps towards reform in Maharashtra for example. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/6vCv2tSYxEaQYb62NL9CwM/APMC-reforms-has-given-us-confidence-to-do-more-Maharashtra.html
The only value to society added by a journalist or a commentator is information, research and analysis. It is ok to have a different point of view, and come up with different conclusions based on a different analysis. Even ideological differences are not just ok, but healthy...
But at least journalists and commentators (including “experts”) should do themselves and their readers the courtesy of some basic research. Then it isn’t about a different POV, it is just laziness and dishonesty dressed up as principled dissent. (End)
