It's ok without sources because you are now talking about something different entirely. (And it doesn't support your assertion). Your claim was that: It was pol

It's ok without sources because you are now talking about something different entirely. (And it doesn't support your assertion). Your claim was that: It was politically hijacked despite having been previously supported by the same opposition who was currently leading the agitation. That is an absolutely misleading (and ignorant) statement because the opposition were against the farm laws because of: 1. The shoddy laws (with glaring loopholes) that the govt. claimed was "reforms". 2. The manner in which the laws was passed. 3. The unconstitutional parts of the laws. What you have highlighted are all the preliminary preparations that go before the process of law making even starts. This is the respective governments - NDA or UPA - considering how to make policies based on their political ideology and ground realities (as they see it). Just because the NDA or UPA agreed that reforms are needed doesn't mean they were in agreement on how these reforms need to be. If the government had bothered to consult the opposition, and other parties that would be impacted by these laws, a good law could have been created. Instead, the law was created in secret, was made a law immediately by introducing it as an ordinance bypassing the Parliament initially, and then rushed through Parliament with the brute majority of the government without even allowing a debate.