The interim government is all set to replace the existing "Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956" with a new one titled "Essential Commodities Act 2025" with the express aim of stabilising market. Mere change in the name of any law does in no way guarantee that the stated purpose will be served. The Section 6 under the legal provision of the 1956, provided for three years' imprisonment with or without fines for violation of the marketing order. Now the proposed Essential Commodities Act, according a decision of a high-powered meeting held recently, will stipulate more stringent punishment for similar offences. This law to be enacted within two to three months will provide for punitive measures, claimed to be deterrent, like five to eight years' jail with fines "for violations of the marketing order or for hoarding and blatant price manipulations". 'Marketing order' may cover the whole gamut of market mechanism but it is yet to be precisely defined and so far remains confusing.
Although a tall claim has been made that the proposed law will be framed in the context of local and international market dynamics, a close look sees nothing extraordinary other than rhetoric or play of words that marks all such occasions of legal enactment. The people here have bitter experience of how very sound laws have fallen into disuse because of the absence of matching implementation or execution strategy. A senior official of the commerce ministry claims that the new commodity law is going to be framed in a way that protects the consumers' interests so much that they would be able to purchase the listed essentials at fair prices. The new law, notably, would add essentials like rice, flour, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, potato, detergents, black cumin, green chili and drinking water.
What impression does it give? As if a change in the legal nomenclature and addition of a few more essentials will automatically bring the market to order and the consumers will enjoy a fair price regime there! This is sheer naivety! There are serious complaints against the implementation of the existing 1956 legal provision. The law may not be cent per cent perfect but whatever range and scope it had was never given a serious try for execution. Mobile court operation was nothing but a mere show only to hoodwink the general public.
The most important point here is to devise a strategy for implementation of the law. Laws have to be effectively executed.Their sections, clauses and by-laws can be of help in complicated matters but essentially it is the unwavering and unbiased execution of the provision that clinches the day. Nowhere is there any hint that those to be assigned to make the law will as well make a roadmap for its implemenation. Belling the cat is the crux of the problem, who will take that important responsibility and how, is the million-dollar question.
The market players are a powerful quarter, appearing, more often than not, stronger than the government. What happened in case of the misnomer of rice such as 'miniket', 'nazir shail' in recent times may give an idea of the arm-twisting tactics powerful business syndicates use to get away with their malpractices and price hike intrigues. Instead of referring to their excessive cutting and polishing of coarse varieties such BRRI 28 paddy, let alone acknowledging the offence, they brought the plight of the poorer segments of people and farmers who would be left with no option but to helplessly watch their yield rot if the millers did not purchase those. The commerce ministry conveniently overturnerned the ruling of the Directorate of the National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP).
This is a nasty example of how the instituions here are not allowed to grow and become powerful. The bureaucracy calls the shot and the people's interests are sacrificed. There are reasons to be apprehensive of the proposed law embracing the same fate as many such highly acclaimed laws have done before.
nilratanhalder2000@yahoo.com
