Support when in power, slam when in Opposition
Those protesting against the three controversial farm laws had shown videos of the late Arun Jaitley and the late Sushma Swaraj expressing the fear, in Parliament, of multinationals directly buying produce from farmers and impoverishing them. The two leaders were in the Opposition then and the debate was on whether or not to allow foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail.
In the present situation, when the Bjp-led alliance in power is defending its three farm laws, the opposition is flaying them, including the one on contract farming.
Take another instance. The erstwhile United Progressive Alliance government's agriculture minister Sharad Pawar had asked chief ministers to amend the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act in their states to allow the private sector to play an important role in the field.
After government sources talked about the letter, Pawar did admit he had sought changes in the APMC Act but denied ever favouring scrapping of the law.
The trend of political parties taking an opportunistic stance when in the Opposition, but supporting the very issues they shunned when they come to power is not new.
FDI in insurance
Former finance minister in the Vajpayee government Yashwant Sinha tabled the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, 1999, to set up a regulatory body for the sector and open it up to private and foreign investors. The Bill was later enacted and the private sector was allowed entry with a cap on foreign direct investment at 26 per cent.
However, years later in December 2011, the Parliament's standing committee on finance headed by Sinha, submitted a report recommending that the FDI limit in insurance should not be raised to 49 per cent.
When asked why political parties, when they are in Opposition, take exception to the very issues they supported while in power,
BJP national spokesperson and head of the party's economic affairs Gopal Krishna Agarwal, said, this problem existed, as political leaderships of the past started glorifying poverty – “like crony capitalism, there is crony socialism. We are also sometimes influenced by them. But Modi ji tried to break that."
Senior Congress leaders refused to comment.
Aadhaar
Take the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Bill.
When in the Opposition, the BJP had called Aadhaar a fraud scheme. In fact, the party did not allow the UPA legislation to be passed in Parliament.
In 2012, BJP’S national spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi had opposed Aadhaar as a “fraud” programme and demanded a probe. Late BJP leader Ananth Kumar had said that Aadhaar’s contribution was to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants.
However, after coming to power, the NDA government brought an amended Aadhaar Bill as a money bill to avoid Rajya Sabha’s veto where the Opposition is in majority. It tried to make the Aadhaar card the sole identify of a
person in future.
Direct Benefit Transfer
Direct cash transfer of subsidy into bank accounts of beneficiaries in another example. In 2012, then BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said they will expose the government on its scheme of cash transfer aimed at "befooling" people in the Parliament.
Now in power since 2014, the BJP government is increasingly relying on direct benefit transfers to give subsidy amounts to beneficiaries.
GST
The UPA tried to bring in the goods and services tax (GST) after successfully convincing the states to go for value added tax (VAT) in their areas. However, BJP continuously opposed it.
In 2011, then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi had said GST in this present form disregarded federal structure and took away tax collection rights from the state. When the NDA government celebrated one year of the GST roll out in 2018, former finance minister P Chidambaram had attacked the NDA government, saying “If GST is a ‘victory of integrity’ and ‘celebration of honesty’, why did the BJP oppose it and stall it for five years?"
Agarwal said after 1991 reforms, there were no major reforms except the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and GST, and the current agriculture and labour reforms.
He said benefits from economic reforms come with a time lag, but they benefit larger sections of the society. " However, there is immediate adverse fall out on some stakeholders as you see in Punjab and Haryana. Naturally, there will be some impact as there is the APMC Act and mandis are well established. So, they become very vocal. Adverse impact is immediate and on particular sections."
He said nobody is now discussing labour reforms. When they get notified on April 1, there will be huge hue and cry, he apprehended.