During the monsoon session of the Indian Parliament 2020, three bills on agricultural reforms were passed — Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020; Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill; 2020; and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 in the hopes of transforming the agricultural sector and empowering crores of farmers [1] [read more]. However, these bills have been met with opposition and distrust by both farmers and opposition parties alike.
While small-scale protests started as early as August 2020 demanding the repeal of these Farm Bills, the Farmer's protest started gaining momentum during late September and soon soared.
Amid protests, opposition, and multiple allegations on these Bills, there have been responses and campaigns on various social media platforms urging farmers and others to disregard rumours. So let us look at some myths, claims and the realities surrounding the Farm Bills, 2020.
Myth:
“Farm bills are a conspiracy to phase out the safety net of Minimum Support Price (MSP) to farmers.” [2]
Reality:
One of the foremost reasons for the farmers’ protesting these bills is the fear of the MSP system being dismantled and the uncertainty surrounding it. According to the Government, the MSP system will continue with the farm bills having no effect on it.
However, nowhere in the acts does it say prices given by a trader or agriculture business to the farmer cannot go below the MSP although the MSP may continue on paper. A look at how Bihar's farmers have fared, where they were not getting higher prices despite having the freedom to sell anywhere, is evidence that it instead may be weakened. In 2019-20, the MSP for rice was fixed at Rs 1,815 per quintal. But farmers were forced to sell to traders at only between Rs 1,350 to 1400 per quintal. [3].
Some sources also mention that there may be no declaration of MSP for all crops, determined by Swaminathan formula of C2 costs plus 50 percent [4].
Myth:
“The bills are anti-farmer without any protection given to them.” [5]
Reality:
The Government assures that the Farm Bills give more options to farmers who “can now sell their crops to anyone, anywhere and can earn more profits by joining hands with big companies.”
While this is an ambitious initiative, the implementation might be difficult.
Although India is an agriculture dominated country, with more than 70% of the population involved in agricultural activities, either directly or indirectly, we need to understand that this 70% of the population owns less than 1 hectare of land.
Further, farmers are under heavy compulsion to sell their crops immediately after harvest in order to pay their debts, buy inputs for the next crop, and other needs solely because they have no capacity to store the harvest, transport it or bargain for the best price, these farmers go to the nearest mandi [6].
Claim: Government procurement will continue.
The statement given mentioned that the government procurement of crops would continue. But, the situation with the farmers of Bihar after the free-market farm laws revealed otherwise. Bihar abolished the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act way back in 2006.
The data by the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, reveals that less than 20% of paddy and often 0% of wheat has been procured by government agencies in Bihar. According to reports, the number of government-run grain procurement centres in Bihar had gone down from about 9,000 in 2015-16, to 1,619 in 2019-20. [7]
Claim: Intermediaries are harming or exploiting the farmers.
The APMCs, established in the 1960s, were a marketing solution to provide incentives for a fair price and government procurement to farmers and save them from selling crops at throwaway prices to pay their debts. Even now, the same complaints are being made against the arhatiyas of government mandis and the government for its failure to declare profitable MSP, for covering only 23 crops under MSP and for scarce procurement.Furthermore, these Bills also create at least five layers of middlemen roles. These will be occupied by rural moneyed sections, who are presently the middlemen as well. [8]
Moreover, statistics reveal that there is an inadequate number of markets. The National Commission for Agriculture recommended that every Indian farmer should be able to reach a mandi in one hour by a cart; thus, the average area served by a mandi was to be reduced to 80 km2. For fulfilling this, the number of mandis was to increase to at least 41,000; however, as of 2019, India has only 6,630 mandis with an average area served of 463 km2. [9]
Claim: Higher agricultural growth rate will be ushered
The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) pointed out in a study published in November 2019, that agricultural growth in Bihar decelerated to a mere 1.3% per annum during 2012-13 to 2016-17, compared to the 3% between 2008-09 and 2011-12; thus, disproving this claim. [10]
Claim: There will be no government taxes.
While Section 6 of the Mandi Bypass Act bars “market fee or cess or levy” only under “any state APMC Act or any other state law,” Section 5(2) provides that the “the person establishing and operating an electronic trading and transaction platform shall prepare and implement the guidelines for fair trade practices such as mode of trading, fees, ….” So, while it is true that there will be no government taxes, it is important to note that there will be mandi fees with no government control. [11]
Conclusion:
It cannot be denied that the Farm Bills 2020 is an ambitious step taken by the administration in power that could bring revolutionary changes to the existing agricultural markets, if implemented right. However, we must note that the responsibility lies on the government to take into account the woes and concerns brought up by farmers and opposition parties alike, and make changes, if any, before the implementation of these bills. Considering that there will be, more often than not, a difference in the implementation of these bills in thought and actuality, there also lies the responsibility of bridging this gap on the Government.
Article by-
Suraksha Vinod,
Co-Editor, For The Record, PES MUN Society, RR Campus
Comentarios