Our first article in the series on the Narendra Modi-led NDA years focused on how internal security improved over the last ten years. This article looks at the dangerous laws passed (some left unpassed) by the previous UPA regime. We will also examine how the Modi government attempted to bring change but only to face opposition in several aspects. 

The UPA contribution

Over the ten years of their regime, the UPA government passed laws and created that caused irreparable damage to society. Here, we list a few of them that people deem “dangerous” to the country.

RTE

The Right to Education (RTE) in India, established as a fundamental right in 2002 under Article 21A, faces significant challenges in implementation. The RTE Act, enacted in 2009, has particularly impacted Hindu-run schools, resulting in the closure of over 3,000 institutions nationwide due to stringent regulations. Despite its laudable goal of providing free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen, it was anti-Hindu. Key issues highlighted include:

1. Religious Discrimination: One of the main criticisms is that the RTE Act applies only to Hindu schools, exempting Christian, Muslim, and other minority-run schools, creating a sense of religious discrimination.
2. Regulatory Constraints: Hindu schools face challenges in maintaining affordability and managing institutions due to stringent regulations, including specific student-teacher ratio requirements.
3. Inability to Specialise: The Act limits Hindu institutions’ ability to establish specialised schools, in contrast to their minority counterparts, which can admit students based on specific criteria, including religious affiliation.
4. Impact on Affordability: The mandatory reservation of 25% of seats for economically weaker sections places financial strain on Hindu schools, affecting the affordability of education for the remaining students.
5. Reduced Availability of Seats: Heavy regulations have led to the closure of numerous Hindu schools, reducing overall seat availability and hindering the establishment of new institutions.
6. Denial of Fundamental Rights: The RTE Act infringes upon the fundamental right of individuals to choose and practice their occupation freely, as stated in the Constitution, by singling out Hindu institutions.
7. Unequal Application of Law: The selective applicability of the law raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment, as it targets Hindu schools while exempting minority-run institutions.
8. Loss of Autonomy: Hindu schools lose autonomy over admission criteria, fees, and overall management due to government interference, contrasting with the relative independence enjoyed by minority institutions.
9. 93rd Amendment to the Constitution: The amendment exempts minority-run institutions from the RTE Act, providing them with more autonomy, while Hindu-run institutions face stringent regulations without similar exemptions.
10. National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI): The body certifying minority-run institutions lacks Hindu representation, raising concerns about fairness and equal representation.
11. Impact on Educational Standards: The implementation of the RTE Act has contributed to a decline in educational standards and learning outcomes, diluting standards instead of fostering excellence uniformly.

Sachar Committee

The Sachar Committee report, appointed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is criticised for favouring the Muslim community and ignoring the conditions of weaker sections among Hindus.

The Sachar Committee neglected the on-the-ground realities and displayed undue favouritism towards the Muslim community. The appointment of a committee to examine the conditions of the Muslim community through a notification is unconstitutional in a secular state, especially when the government must maintain impartiality towards all religious communities. The Sachar Committee, in its considerations, focused exclusively on one side of the Muslim community, neglecting the status and conditions of weaker sections and socially and educationally backward classes within the Hindu community. This biased approach overlooked the harsh realities of society.

National Advisory Council

The National Advisory Council (NAC) was a policy advisory body in India established in 2004 by the Congress-led UPA government. The NAC was responsible for advising the Prime Minister on matters related to social, economic, and developmental policies.

The NAC lacked decision-making powers, leading to potential frustration among members and stakeholders. It risked becoming politicised and influenced by the ruling party, affecting independence. The National Advisory Committee (NAC) files revealed its influence on policy-making from 2004-2014. The committee, chaired by Sonia Gandhi, influenced disinvestment, coal, power, real estate, and social sectors.

Sonia Gandhi’s recommendations held significant weight, and her words were considered final. File notings indicated that when Sonia Gandhi made suggestions, compliance reports were sought, and officers were summoned. NAC expressed a lack of trust in the government’s functioning, emphasising the need to monitor and evaluate the implementation of various recommendations independently. The NAC was disbanded in 2014 when the UPA government completed its term.

Attempt to pass Communal Violence Bill

The anti-communal violence bill, or ‘Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill’ faced opposition when it was introduced. However, it underwent revisions and still faced criticism from chief ministers like J Jayalalithaa of Tamil Nadu, who expressed concerns that it conferred “unfettered powers” to human rights bodies at both the central and state levels, enabling them to issue directives to the state government.

The proposed law, first introduced in 2005 and revisited in 2011, was criticised as anti-Hindu and deemed potentially harmful for Hindus if enacted. Opposition centred around the idea that the bill could unfairly label Hindus as guilty automatically, especially in cases of communal violence. Congress was accused of promoting appeasement policies, suggesting that in case of violence, only the majority (Hindus) would be considered guilty, while the minority (non-Hindus) would be exempted.

Concerns were raised about the discriminatory nature of the bill, where hate speech against the majority (Hindus) wasn’t considered a crime, but against the minority would be. The bill proposed punishing government officials controlling Armed Forces or Security Forces who fail to control their command during riots, raising concerns about its potential impact on the morale of the armed forces.

The National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Sonia Gandhi, was implicated in drafting the bill. Specific provisions of the bill raised the alarm, such as the police having the right to arrest without hearing the accused in cases of discrimination allegations by minorities.

The bill’s provision requiring Hindus to seek a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from minorities before conducting any religious programme – similar to Jaziya, was discrimination based on religious grounds. The bill’s treatment of offences related to rioting and rape during riots was biased against Hindus, potentially denying justice to Hindu victims. The bill turned judicial concepts upside down by presuming every accused guilty, putting the burden of proving innocence on the accused.

Setting up Minority Affairs Ministry

The Ministry of Minority Affairs was established on January 29, 2006, and emerged as a separate entity from the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. This restructuring aimed to provide a more targeted and dedicated focus on matters concerning the recognised minority communities, namely Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and Jains. By doing so, the Congress ensured that the so-called majority Hindus were deprived of their benefits and favoured one specific community. 

Positive reforms attempted by Modi govt

The Modi government did bring about reforms, but thanks to the hardworking anti-national specimens in the country, the good reforms had to be rolled back. 

Farm bills

The Modi government brought in 3 bills – the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act allowed farmers to sell their produce outside APMC mandis, permitting licensed traders to buy farm produce at mutually agreed prices without state-imposed mandi taxes. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act facilitated contract farming. Except in crises, it freed essential commodities like food grains, pulses, edible oils, and onions for trade. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act amended the Essential Commodities Act to address farmers’ concerns. It aimed to open new opportunities for them, strengthen farm sector infrastructure through private investments, and make agriculture more profitable. 

However, “farmers” from a specific section of the country raised concerns about potentially undermining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system, fearing reduced government procurement in APMC mandis. The economically unviable and politically sensitive MSP system faced challenges such as increased government spending on procurement and overflowing FCI godowns. 

The government’s perspective framed the laws as reforms akin to the 1991 liberalisation, aiming to ease fiscal constraints. Opposition from states, especially those governed by opposition parties, emerged as the laws denied them fees from outside-mandi trade. After sustained farmer protests, Prime Minister Modi announced the repeal of the laws in the upcoming winter session, addressing farmers’ concerns about MSP assurance and potential income impacts. 

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was envisioned in the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014. The NJAC would constitute the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as ex-officio Chairperson. It was to also have senior-most Supreme Court Judges as ex-officio members, the Union Law Minister and Justice as ex-officio members. Apart from this, there would also be two eminent persons from civil society nominated by a committee consisting of CJI, PM, and Leader of Opposition.

The NJAC would have brought about the following:

• Inclusion of Civil Society: Involvement of eminent persons from civil society to bring diverse perspectives.
• Transparency: Intended to provide a transparent mechanism for judicial appointments.
• Checks and Balances: Empowered any two members to veto a recommendation, introducing checks and balances.

Why NJAC Was Opposed: The opposition to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) primarily stemmed from constitutional challenges. In 2015, the Supreme Court rendered the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional and void. Concerns were raised about the independence of the judiciary, asserting that the NJAC allowed executive intervention in appointments, potentially compromising the autonomy of the judicial system. Another point of contention was that the NJAC weakened the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and senior-most judges, as argued by its opponents.

Land reforms

While the land reforms bill was introduced by the UPA government in 2013, it was reintroduced by the Modi government in 2015 after nine significant amendments were made. The amendments aimed to acquire land for industries and infrastructure but faced opposition due to consent and social impact assessment concerns.

The decision to amend the land acquisition law in 2015 faced protests and political opposition, particularly in the context of the Bihar assembly elections. Despite a lack of consensus within the joint committee of Parliament, Prime Minister Modi assured that the government was not against farmers, yielding to pressure from a combative opposition, including allies like Shiv Sena and Shiromani Akali Dal. The intention behind the amendment was to acquire land for industries and infrastructure to create rural jobs. Still, the opposition, led by Congress, framed it as forceful land acquisition for industrial interests, dubbing it a “Suit-Boot ki sarkar.”

In response to the resistance, the government withdrew the land acquisition law. In 2015-2016, Modi took a patient approach, introducing an enabling provision allowing states to adopt land acquisition measures for industrial use voluntarily. This approach proved successful, as NDA states, attracting industries and leading to economic growth and job creation.

Today, we can see how the so-called farmers are protesting once again to keep the country on its toes once again. Any good law or reform always finds opposition from all quarters.