The Economic Times
English EditionEnglish Editionहिन्दी
| E-Paper
Search
+

    View: Modi govt needs to clearly spell out the intent behind the new farm laws

    Synopsis

    Economic history, market competition and Food and Agriculture Organisation indicators are the basis for new farm laws.

    Agencies
    Last month, the Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh (RKM), an umbrella body of more than 180 farmer groups, wrote to chief ministers of all states demanding they oppose the three farm market reform laws — Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act — that were ratified by the president on September 27. RKM sought state governments to take up the matter with the Supreme Court, charging the Centre of having usurped the states’ rights to make laws on agricultural issues.

    It also demanded that all states come out with their own legislations providing a legal guarantee to minimum support price (MSP) for farm produce. The ongoing farmers’ protests come on the back of these developments.

    So, what are the farmers protesting? Against apprehensions that Agricultural Produce Market Committees may be dismantled, MSP may not be offered, foodgrain may not be procured — and that the new laws are an infringement of a state subject. Economic history, market competition and Food and Agriculture Organisation indicators are the basis for new farm laws. These have been discussed over the past 18 years in Parliament as well as in state legislatures. So, why have farm incomes not doubled, despite new farm technologies, all this while? The answer lies in our inefficient and imperfect markets. Till farmers are freed from clutches of middleman, most of them will be ‘born in debt, live in debt and die in debt’.

    Performance of agri marketing is indicated by the farmer's share of the retail price, gross marketing margin (farm retail price spread) and proportion of consumers’ income spent on food. An October 2019 RBI study (bit.ly/39moGy9) concludes that even after 60 years of the APMC Act, the producer share in consumer rupee terms has been abysmally low in major crops, and the percentage of monthly per capita consumer expenditure on food is falling, benefiting consumers while producers are under clutches of middleman. Marketing margins of middleman vary widely from 2% to 60%. However, due to the volume of produce handled, their income is always substantial. About 67% of farmers, in the RBI study, were aware of market prices before selling, and 50% of farmers said that their source is from other farmers and traders. In this context, farmers should be facilitated to realise competitive prices in oligopsonic markets.

    GoI needs to clearly state that the intention of the new laws is to address this historic exploitation of farmers and that this is in national interest. Article 249 of the Constitution is used to legislate on matters in the state list that is of ‘national interest’. There is also a parliamentary provision for this in Article 252.

    While land, markets and agriculture are indeed state subjects, the new farm laws deal only with the removal of restrictions on farmers and buyers to sell or buy in APMCs, allowing a wider definition of the market, and do not deal with state subject per se. Entry 33 of the Concurrent list enables Parliament to pass laws relating to trade, commerce, production, supply and distribution of any product. The farm laws only expand the choice of marketing that were limited by states to mandis (market yards). Thus the new laws only address how farmers can sell their produce, enabling them freedom and liberty to benefit from competition. The new laws offer the freedom for farmers to sell to any buyer. Also, farmers cannot be charged commissions, as they should be now collected from the buyers. The existing provisions of MSP and associated procurement continue to exist while now attracting competition.

    Much of the ongoing protests are from Punjab. The state’s farmers have overexploited groundwater while not realising the incomes that, say, Karnataka farmers have. By diversifying into horticulture crops, using only a third of the groundwater that farmers in Punjab do, farmers in Karnataka realise higher gross returns of Rs 15 lakh per farm, higher net returns of Rs 5 lakh per farm, higher net returns per acre of Rs 1l akh with lower holding-sized farmland.

    To ameliorate the current situation, GoI must create a congenial ambience for discussions — instead of automatically branding agitating farmers as ‘Khalistanis’ and ‘antinationals’ — including exposure visits for farmers and state leaders, so as to convincing them of the benefits of the new farm laws. It should also highlight the blight of middlemen more effectively.

    The writer is former director, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru.

    (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
    (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)

    Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    31 Comments on this Story

    Vishwas Wadekar55 days ago
    It is an open secret that middlemen are reaping the fruits of profit and the farmers are paid a small penny. This system has been existing for the past 70 years and political parties have vested interest in it.Congress got huge kickbacks and NCP directly benefitted as it has its Babu's in Marketing federation and middlemen. The new laws are trying to free the farmers and they will be free to sell to anyone. This will increase their profit. Sadly in India, politics takes front seat and not interest of nation. Farmers are like illiterate goats who are following the herd leader. The herd leaders are crooks and we can see how anti national Khalistanis are promoting this so called movement.
    Prasen Kumar Reddy Singi55 days ago
    Irrespective of who has powers to make laws, it is farmers who have to decide to whom,where and at what price to sell. It is state Governments which are easily approachable for ventilating grievances.
    Farmers face several calamities and still struggle to survive. The agricultural land is their mother,agriculture is their profession,come what may they donot part their land and leave their profession. The Government which has to protect farmers have turned against, this is Government made calamity. The Government has no control over prices and wages for labour. The Government wants increase in production of food grains but donot guarantee MSP. Even in economic downturn and pandemic farmers are only saviour's, which Government refuses to recognise and impose draconian laws, mercilessly torture them when they raise their voices.
    The farmers selflessly with all agony feed the nation, they always struggle to survive. The Government/people should realise the food grain production is not all time adequate/surplus, there are times of famines too, it is cyclical. The way the seasons and climates are changing ,the food grains production is going to be seriously affected. If the Government continues with anti farmer policies, farmers have to change cropping patterns for survival. It is time entire citizenry comes to the rescue of farmers by supporting them, to make the Government reverse anti farmer laws.
    This is agony of farmers.
    Apasaheb Galage55 days ago
    adg
    If if the farmers of Punjab and Haryana are approaching New Delhi to have the dialogue regarding MSP of the farm produce and sale of the produce and rest all things associated with this , should be discussed in cordial ambiance with earnest efforts,unfruitful
    preconditions from both the sides will not achieve anything , instead it will lead to delay in achieving the due purpose. Regards.
    produce ,the
    newly introduced
    changes in marketing and associated problems
    The Economic Times