A day after the Congress government in Chhattisgarh announced that the farm bills passed in Parliament were against the interests of farmers and it would move court against their implementation if necessary,the Shiv Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi Government in Maharashtra decided to follow suit. On Friday, it announced that the government was in no hurry to implement the farmers' and labour legislations passed in Parliament.
Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said the government would not implement them in the state. He said the new farm laws would not benefit farmers and jeopardise the very existence of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees.
He further said, the state government would seek legal opinion to understand the impact of the non-implementation of these legislations and only afterwards would a decision be taken.
Even though the Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress had taken different stands on the Farmers' Bills in Parliament, they were unanimous that in the state, there should be no implementation of the new laws. As far as the labour laws were concerned, the MVA allies were of the view that Maharashtra had been at the forefront of attracting investments and maintaining cordial relations between managements and trade unions. Such bonds could not be impacted by the implementation of labour bills, the MVA felt.
The Shiv Sena has avowed that it would never commit the sin of asking farmers for votes by making tall promises and (then) snatching their land without consent, once voted to power. Development would lead to a better economy and thus industrial growth would accelerate. But this should not be done at the cost of farmers' lives, the party said.
The NCP, on its part said the Centre had failed to address concerns with regard to the Minimum Support Price or the mechanism to ensure sale of agriculture produce after the dismantling of the APMCs.
As far as labour laws were concerned, the Centre, instead of protecting labour interests, was shielding the industrialists. The party threatened to agitate for the protection of the rights and interests of both, farmers and labours.
The Congress said that after the closure of the APMCs, farmers would have to sell their produce in the open market. The new law offered no clarity and assurance on MSP. This would cause large-scale looting of farmers by traders and industrialists, the party said. Under the guise of contract farming, big industrialists would eliminate small and medium farmers, the Congress opined. As for changes in the labour law, workers would be forced into exile and the party threatened to launch a statewide agitation against these two laws.
