NEW DELHI: Crucial decisions that had the potential to bring long-term reforms, announced by the BJP government in the past few years, have now been shelved because of the noise created by pressure groups, both within the National Democratic Alliance, the Opposition, and civil society.
These pressure groups have not only been successful in stalling key policy-related reforms but have also been able to force the government to pass laws against well-argued and rational decisions of the Supreme Court, which they believe do not suit their politically vested narrative.
Apart from the most recent instance of making a U-turn on the lateral recruitment policy, the BJP government at the Centre had to take back significant reform announcements like the three farm laws, step back on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 in Parliament, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018.
In the case of lateral entry, which, as experience in developed economies has shown, presents several advantages that can significantly enhance governance and public administration, including allowing for the recruitment of professionals with specialized skills and domain knowledge while addressing the complexities of modern governance. This is particularly important as many sectors, such as technology and management, require expertise that traditional bureaucratic frameworks may lack. Additionally, lateral entry was supposed to bridge the significant shortage of IAS officers, which currently stands at around 1,500 positions. By expediting the recruitment process, the government could have filled these gaps more efficiently. Furthermore, introducing professionals from the private sector was likely to foster a more dynamic work culture, promoting efficiency, accountability, and performance orientation. However, after succumbing to pressure from outside and within, especially from those who rely on caste-based politics, the said reform has now been put on the back burner.
Similarly, after coming under pressure that was also exerted through large-scale violence from the same pressure group, the government had to pass the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act in August 2018, which introduced Section 18A, which in turn overturned safeguards that the Supreme Court had introduced in its Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra judgment in March 2018. The safeguards were intended to prevent the Act from being abused, ensure that people accused under the Act were not presumed guilty, and denied due legal process before being punished. The Supreme Court had given its decision in light of documented reports of the said law being misused as a tool to harass those who did not belong to the SC or ST community.
In both cases, members of the Opposition and civil society pushed the government on the back foot by using the stick of it being “anti-social justice.”
Later, in February 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the said amendment, which had nullified its own March 2018 judgement.
In 2020, the government introduced the three farm laws to reform the agricultural sector. It was supposed to be one of the biggest reforms that would have transformed the agricultural sector and lifted marginal farmers from poverty by allowing farmers to sell their produce outside of the APMC mandis, reducing exploitation by middlemen, removing restrictions on stocking limits for agricultural commodities, which would have attracted private investment in storage and processing infrastructure, and providing a framework for written agreements between farmers and buyers, potentially benefiting farmers through assured prices and timely payments.
It also enabled electronic trading platforms for agricultural produce, making the process more efficient and transparent for farmers while reducing the role of APMC mandis. It was expected to increase farmers’ incomes by allowing them to sell directly to buyers.
However, these laws too were repealed after sustained protests and pressure on multiple fronts.
As per government surveys, the average monthly income of a farmer was approximately Rs 10,218. While states like Punjab, Haryana, and Kerala reported higher average monthly incomes, with figures of Rs 26,701, Rs 22,841, and Rs 17,915, respectively, states such as Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal have much lower average incomes, ranging from Rs 4,895 to Rs 6,762.
The government’s decision to introduce the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, which proposed several suggestions aimed at improving the management and regulation of Waqf properties in India, had to be postponed, and the bill was sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee amidst allegations from pressure groups.
The bill proposed the formation of a more structured governance framework by establishing a Central Waqf Council with diverse representation, including non-Muslims and women, with the aim of ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of Waqf properties. It also called for empowering district collectors to determine the status of Waqf properties to streamline property management and reduce bureaucratic delays. The bill mandated the registration of Waqf properties with district authorities to create a comprehensive database, reduce encroachments, and improve the overall administration of Waqf assets.
The bill proposed that the creation of waqf-alal-aulad (endowments for family) must not infringe upon the inheritance rights of heirs, including women. This provision aimed to promote gender equity within the framework of Waqf management. Furthermore, it emphasised the use of Waqf income for community welfare, including education and support for vulnerable groups, thereby enhancing the social impact of Waqf properties.