There are diverse agro-ecologies in the country. Thus, states are in a better position to design and implement policies tuned to their strengths and weaknesses. The implementation of a uniform policy across the nation, ignoring resource endowments and agro-ecologies of the states or regions, may be counterproductive. States should be allowed to levy taxes on the trade of agricultural produce outside the APMC markets as well.

Baldev Singh Dhillon and Kamal Vatta

THREE farm sector-related Acts, passed by Parliament in September, claim to create an ecosystem to provide freedom to farmers and traders to trade, and empower the farmers to engage with agri-business firms and other players of agricultural value chains by providing a national framework for mutual agreements and reducing excessive regulatory restrictions on private business operations by removing basic food items from the list of essential commodities.

There are divergent views about their implications for the agriculture sector, especially Punjab. Some claim that the laws will make markets more efficient, increase competition, strengthen agri-value chains and benefit farmers, whereas others argue that the farmers may ultimately lose due to the increase in market power of traders and corporates, and through dismantling of the MSP regime and public procurement of foodgrains. The state may also suffer loss of revenue from market fee and cesses, which may adversely affect agricultural infrastructure and other public expenditure on agriculture and rural development.

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, recently organised a webinar on ‘Farm Sector Laws and their Implications for Punjab Agriculture’ to examine the claims regarding these laws, their timings, effect on market power, state autonomy, MSP and public procurement, impact on small farmers and the way ahead for the state. The discussion focused on understanding various aspects of the laws and their implications for Punjab’s economy. There was a general agreement that the laws were enacted in haste and there should have been broader consultations with the states, farmers and other stakeholders. Agricultural policies should be the state’s prerogative because agriculture is not only a state subject but there is also great diversity in agro-ecology of India.

Some arguments that MSP and public procurement benefit only 6 per cent of the farmers in India and this entails huge financial outlay are also misplaced. The outlay is nothing when compared to the tax and other economic benefits given to the big corporates in India. Nearly 60 per cent of the rural population largely earns about 16 per cent of gross value added in Indian agriculture, which indicates gross inequality in income distribution between agricultural/rural households and others. Hence, our efforts should focus on enhancing income/profit of the remaining 94 per cent farmers, while the new developments emphasise on eroding the livelihood of 6 per cent of the farmers, who are receiving MSP backed by public procurement.

The widening inequality between the rich and the poor can be gauged from the fact that half of the 100 richest Indians increased their wealth by 14 per cent, amounting to $63.5 billion, even during the Covid-19 period. One is forced to think why no steps are being taken to redistribute the income from the rich to the poor and the focus is on the so-called rich farmers (6 per cent), who are in fact poor as compared to those in other sectors, what to say of corporate houses.

The assumption of improvement in market efficiency through these laws may be misplaced for in Bihar, where the APMC markets were absent and foodgrains were sold through private traders, there were no economic gains as the farmers were unable to sell at MSP.

There are theoretical expectations that the new laws will facilitate crop diversification through the entry of private trade and provide better prices for crops. If it is so, then why has it not happened in the case of crops other paddy and wheat? The market prices of an important alternative crop, maize, were substantially lower at Rs 700-1,000 per quintal than the MSP of Rs 1,850, even when the ordinances were issued or the laws were enacted.

Crop diversification requires MSP backed by assured marketing for alternative crops or adequate compensation to the farmers for any loss due to crop shifts. This will also require better research in markets, establishing industries, and developing value chains and post-harvest infrastructure. These require large investments and a long gestation period.

The following key recommendations emerged from the webinar:

• In agriculture, the views of states should prevail as agriculture is a state subject. There is an open divergence of views of the Central government and those of some states, which needs to be avoided in the larger national interest.
• There are extremely diverse agro-ecologies in the country (consider the cropping system in three adjoining states: Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan). Thus, states are in a better position to design and implement policies tuned to their strengths and weaknesses. The implementation of a uniform policy across the nation, ignoring the resource endowments and agro-ecologies of the states/regions, may be counterproductive.
• As verbal and written assurances are being given on the MSP’s continuation, there should be no roadblock to legalising it.
• There should be a policy to narrow down the inequality between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors by generating income opportunities and raising income levels of farmers rather than providing a platform and a free hand to the corporate houses to flourish at the cost of poor farmers.
• The loss of state revenue on account of abolition of market charges may adversely affect infrastructure development in agriculture and rural areas. Thus, the state should be allowed to levy taxes on the trade of agricultural produce outside the APMC markets also.
• The laws must have adequate safeguards for the farmers and the government should explore quasi-judicial forms of dispute settlement rather than leaving it to the bureaucracy.
• The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance and role of public sector R&D institutions. Therefore, agricultural R&D will require huge financial resources to cater to the needs of the changing times and remain relevant.
• Farmers should be compensated for ecosystem services and conservation of natural resources resulting from the adoption of sustainable farming practices as these may cause a fall in profits.
• There is a need to create viable farm and non-farm income avenues for the rural poor so that their current level of livelihood/profits are not adversely affected. It must be ensured that their vulnerability is not aggravated under the new marketing regime.

The authors are Vice Chancellor and Head, Dept of Economics & Sociology, respectively, PAU, Ludhiana

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 4

The All India Kisan Sangarsh Coordination Committee has accused governments of Haryana and Madhya Pradesh of using force to repress protests against the controversial agriculture laws—a statement that comes as the agitation shows no signs of waning.

In a statement issued on Monday, the AIKSCC was accused Haryana and Madhya Pradesh governments of trying to stifle peaceful protests. The statement said Haryana police’s use teargas to push back protesters marching towards Delhi in Haryana’s Rewari on Sunday was an act of “severe repression” and warned that protests would intensify if the state government continued to use force.

“Yesterday farmers who had advanced towards Delhi from Shahjahanpur in a peaceful manner were physically obstructed and later tear gassed in Rewari along with spray of chilly. This has left several farmers with weeping eyes and skin irritation,” the statement said.

It accused Madhya Pradesh government under Chief Minister Shiv Raj Chouhan of using section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to “undemocratically and illegally” ban assembly throughout the state in the name of COVID-19, “while all mass activities of the governments and RSS, BJP continue unhindered”.

Both Haryana and Madhya Pradesh have BJP governments.

The statement was also critical of the Congress government in Punjab, especially in the light of a recent incident of clashes between farmers and police in Sangrur. The statement accused the Congress government of using batons to push back protesters at a BJP event in Sangrur, and also criticised senior BJP minister Nitin Gadkari over his recent remarks over the protests.

Gadkari had said on Sunday—a day before another round of talks were scheduled—that India had surplus food and higher-than-open-market price MSP.

“Fact is India has a huge starving population, the RSS-BJP govt is insensitive to their needs. Those whose stomachs are full believe that India should produce less food. India’s position in list of hungry countries is sinking every year. Its score for Hunger was 38.8 in 2000 which has come down to 30.3 in 2019 and 27.2 in 2020. Oblivious of this and devoted to support corporate loot, uncaring Ministers are stating we have surplus food,” the statement said.

“The entire debate of open market versus MSP is a far cry from Modi’s claim of standing with farmers. All countries of the world heavily subsidise farming in order that overall crop prices remain low. In India the ministers, dedicated to help corporate purchase of cheap crops to earn high profits, say that the sale should be through open markets, not at MSP.”

The All India Kisan Sangarsh Coordination Committee called Reliance Industries affidavit in the Punjab and Haryana High Court “a ploy to serve its business interests”.

“Given under pressure of farmers’ anger against it, the Reliance Industry’s affidavit is full of false claims of it not entering crop market and not taking over farm land. In Raigarh, Maharashtra and other places large tracts of land have been taken over by Reliance and it must return all these before making any false claim,” the statement said.

“The campaign against Ambani and Adani products and services taken up by mass organisations is akin to the Boycott of British goods during British rule.”

Vibha Sharma
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 4

The farmers meeting with the government on Monday ended without any outcome on the main issue, that is repealing the three Acts or a law on MSP.

“Farmers spoke only about repeal. Government said they will consult further and get back. The next meeting on January 8,” said union leaders in the meeting.

Farmer unions will have their meeting tomorrow to decide the future course of action, they said.

The government is not interested in resolving the issue, said farmer leaders.

“Union ministers are saying the same thing again and again. We will hold a meeting tomorrow to decide our course . We will not go home, till the time the laws are repealed,” BKU leader Rakesh Tikait said.

Sources said the government offered a joint committee on MSP.

Tribune News Service

Mansa, January 3

Former Union Minister and Bathinda MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal today faced protests from farmers during her visit to villages in the Budhlada subdivision of Mansa district. Later, she cancelled her four programmes in villages.

Farmers staged a protest claiming that the SAD and Harsimrat had supported the contentious agricultural Bills when these were tabled in the Cabinet and now they were befooling the people.

Hundreds of people raised slogans and tried to gherao her, but the police escorted her convoy out of the area. This was her first visit to an area in her constituency after her resignation from the Union Cabinet.

Harsimrat had come here to pay condolences to the families of farmers who died during the agitation. The farmers hailed from Gurddi, Bachhuana, Dharmapura, Bare, Dodra, Boha and Bhadra villages.

However, in Dodra and Bhadra villages, locals and activists of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta Ugrahan, Dakaunda and Qadian) groups, started staging protests against her.

A message was also sent by family members of Piara Singh, a farmer who died during the agitation and hailed from Dharampura village, that they did not want to meet Harsimrat, said sources. This was confirmed by Vasava Singh, a leader of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (Dakaunda).

On the other hand, Harsimrat alleged that the protests were a ploy of opposition parties.

Claiming that the SAD was still with the farmers, she said, “I left the Cabinet and NDA. Even today, I am standing shoulder to shoulder with the farmers in their struggle against the Modi government at the Centre.”

“I did not sign any document in favour of these laws. I opposed the enactment of the laws,” Harsimrat said. Appealing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to meet the protesting farmers, she said he should redress their grievances and repeal the laws.