Ends okay but we don't like the means
The business papers agreed with the ordinances on land acquisition because they tend to speak from the brain. The general papers didn't because they tend to speak from the heart,
says DARIUS NAKHOONWALA
You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
One of the problems I have faced in writing this column has been to decide whose views should be taken seriously on an issue: that of the general papers or the business ones. In general, I have found the latter to speak from the brain while the former speak from the heart.
Thus, on the Modi government’s use of ordinances, the general papers took the view that it was wrong. The business papers thought it was fine, given that without them the consequences for job-seekers would be that much worse as investment would not revive.
Moreover, at the time of writing, not all the general papers had commented, leading one to suspect that the ones that did not write – Telegraph, Times of India and Hindustan Times – can’t afford to be seen to be agreeing openly. That, or their leader writer on the subject was on leave.
The Indian Express exhibited this ambivalence perfectly. “Dialling back such provisions was urgently needed” it said but “The executive’s prerogative to promulgate ordinances is designed as an emergency power... the land acquisition ordinance... raises troubling questions about the manner in which the Modi government seems determined to bring in crucial reforms... Given that many of the amendments sought to be brought in even had the support of some Congress-ruled states, the proposed land acquisition ordinance seems not just short-sighted, therefore, but also unnecessary.” That is, we agree with the ends but not the means.
The Hindu which loves to pout and smile at the same time was cautious. “The power to issue ordinances is normally to be exercised... when Parliament is in recess. It is not one to be resorted to merely because the government of the day lacks a majority in the Upper House or is unable to break a deadlock in Parliament.... a situation rich in irony as the BJP had often questioned the UPA’s ordinances... Arun Jaitley’s claim that the ordinances signify the government’s commitment to reform is questionable. An easier way to demonstrate its commitment to reform would have been to create conditions conducive to getting the Bills passed in the House.” Like Modi saying sorry about the reconversions, for example.
Amongst the business papers, Business Standard took a surprisingly pragmatic stand.“...the laws themselves should be seen in isolation, separate from the act of using an ordinance, and evaluated. And by that yardstick, the ordinance amending the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, or the land Act, is worthy of praise.” It then went on to analyse the proposed changes. It ended saying that “
...it is clear that the government has signalled its unwillingness to let a recalcitrant Opposition have things all its own way.”
The Financial Express also made a nice distinction saying “If Opposition parties have been muted in their criticism of the land Ordinance—they have criticised it for bypassing Parliament—it is because they have, by and large, been in favour of its contents.” Then it went into the details, with which I shall not bore you here. But the point was well taken: the changes have widespread political support which cannot be openly expressed in parliament. Whence the paper sadly noted, “such is the nature of politics that while most Opposition parties were in favour of radical changes to the LARR Act, the BJP was still not able to bring it through Parliament and had to resort to an Ordinance instead... Where you stand on an issue, it remains true of Indian politics even today, depends on where you sit.”
The Economic Times had written several days before the ordinance was promulgated. Its edit was lazy, careless and uninformed, as when it said that during colonial times “the state was supposed to be the ultimate owner of all land. Everybody, including those with pattas — or written land rights — amounted to nothing, if the state invoked its suzerainty over land.”
I stopped reading right there.
Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.
Subscribe To The Newsletter