Saturday, May 27, 2023
Support Our Journalism
HomeOpinionLicensing, registration of farm produce buyers needs more reform not removal

Licensing, registration of farm produce buyers needs more reform not removal

Under the new law, farmers won’t know if the PAN-wielding buyer has been registered, and also won't have access to timely and updated price information in trading areas.

Text Size:

No matter how much public attention the issue gets, the appetite for detailed engagement with the challenges and possibilities of regulating India’s agricultural markets only seems to diminish by the day. Instead, the arguments on both sides keep returning to two states—Punjab and Haryana; two crops—paddy and wheat; two interventions—APMC mandis and MSP; and one ultimate binary—State control versus free markets. While all the attention is focused on the demand for MSP and remunerative prices, many of the other critical issues that farmers’ organisations have now brought to the table should be of serious concern to all those who view better regulated and more competitive primary agricultural markets as essential for agricultural growth and development in India.

Over the last ten days, we have witnessed extraordinary scenes, as a set of central laws with the stated objective of facilitating the free and unfettered inter-state trade of agricultural produce, gave rise to a situation where the State itself erected massive, physical barriers to prevent farmers— the producers — from reaching New Delhi to protest the laws and place their demands. Farmers responded to the Narendra Modi government’s legislative bulldozers with the unrelenting thunder of their own tractors, laden with rations and supplies for the long haul. They were greeted with water cannons, tear gas, ditches, barbed wire and lathis, and accused of being ignorant, confused, herded, pampered, politicised, violent and secessionist. They responded with langars, press conferences, prayers, pop songs, silent protest and clause-by-clause written responses to the three farm laws.

By the end of the third round of ongoing talks between farmers’ unions and Union ministers this past week, Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar publicly acknowledged the exceptional conduct of the farmers’ movement.

That the Modi government has finally expressed a willingness to review and amend certain key clauses in response to the concerns raised by the farmers’ organisations is a testament to the reason and power of the farmers’ mobilisation. But the bypass and bulldoze approach to reform thus far seems to have broken trust in the process and raised too many fundamental questions about the intentions behind the three laws. The farmers’ organisations have insisted that nothing short of a full repeal will be acceptable.

Whatever the outcome, these negotiations are an important opportunity for us to re-look at the critical elements of regulatory design and capacity that are all too often ignored until too late. And here, we have decades of regulatory reform experience that could help us return to the principles, processes, institutions and investments that are all needed to support and sustain well-regulated agricultural markets that work for India’s farmers. Consider the vexed issue of licensing and registration.

Also read: Improve farm inputs, equip panchayats to verify buyers and make new farm laws work

Deregulation vs better registration and licensing 

Under the new law, the only documentary requirement to engage in trade with farmers outside state-regulated market yards or existing private sites licensed under state marketing acts, is the possession of a PAN card. As has been pointed out before, this is not linked to any other system of verification or oversight, so it is somewhat unclear why it is required at all. The law does leave open the possibility that the central government may prescribe a system for electronic registration of traders and other trading modalities if it deems this necessary and in the public interest at a future date.

Given our experience with convoluted regulations, one can sympathise with Narendra Singh Tomar when he stated after a round of negotiation, “We wanted to make law simple.” One also understands the frustration against and phobia of  any kind of registration and licensing regime, especially given the well-known strategies that powerful local traders and market functionaries deploy to keep competition out of the local market. But even so, the decision to opt for this degree of deregulation is deeply problematic.

Far from providing well-regulated markets for farmers, it legalises the vast existing unregulated trade in agricultural produce and ensures that any currently licensed trading firms who decide to move their business to the new free trading areas will also enjoy greater invisibility. A similar mention, without any requirement or specified mechanism,is made in the case of a price information and market intelligence system. Again, as with registration, it is left to the central government to cover all traders, trading areas and transactions across the length and breadth of India if it considers this required.

This is of course not the first time that private procurement and trade is being enabled outside mandis. According to a report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture (2018-19),as of June 2018, 22 states had already amended their state acts to enable the establishment of private markets, direct marketing and the granting of a unified single trading license. But, up to this point, while it was clear that licensing and registration reform is critical and that the regulatory powers should be separated from the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) mandi and Mandi Board to avoid conflicts of interests, there was no case being made to do away with such basic systems completely. In fact, registration and a state unified license are central elements of the Centre’s flagship eNAM scheme as well. But since both price discovery (via electronic auctions by interlinking mandis) and payment and settlement processes are core processes for eNAM, it was fully understood that sound registration and licensing systems, are an essential, not optional, part of the market architecture.

Also read: A 2019 email & a govt report — why farmers are refusing to trust MSP, procurement promises

Invisibilising agricultural trade

Instead of learning from the various state reforms and the eNAM experience thus far to improve regulatory design and systems going forward, this law makes the confounding decision to drastically deregulate, fragment and invisibilise agricultural trade. It means that under the new law, farmers will not have the safeguard of knowing that the PAN-wielding buyer has been even minimally registered and verified or have access to timely and updated price information in the trading area. The Essential Commodity Act amendment, which lifts all stock limits on agricultural produce, also does not take simultaneous action to require even minimal reporting on inventories. In the process, traders, especially larger private buyers operating in these markets, now get cover.

For millions of farmers, this is in fact, the status quo. But, given that the stated goal is to have well-regulated and competitive markets, it is a regressive direction to have chosen. Either, one must conclude (as farmers have) that the laws are indeed in the interest of large corporates and it is a familiar story, wherein persistently unequal markets such as in agriculture, de-regulation is really re-regulation in favour of capital. But, perhaps this is a case where the singular preoccupation of getting around the troublesome federal territory of state marketing acts, has inevitably led to the bypassing of the first principles of market regulation in the first place. Perhaps it also reveals something about the status of messy, physical agricultural exchange involving poor, small farmers in the imagination of our law and policymakers. It is impossible to imagine a futuristic vision for drastic deregulation of the stock exchange and financial markets being met with delight and optimism.

The farmers’ protests are a powerful reminder of the grave risks of bypassing legislative consultation and consensus building in a complex state subject and vital livelihood system involving many, diverse stakeholders. They also point to the dangers of declaring that new laws will have sweeping and transformative impact without explicitly articulating a larger vision for Indian agriculture and detailing how plans for different, yet deeply interrelated State interventions will work with market reforms.

As a result of their negotiations, the issue of registration and other critical and related concerns have now surfaced as possible amendments. It would be easy to view them as concessions to soothe the anxieties of some agriculturalists. But each of these aspects—and agricultural marketing laws as a whole—need to be re-examined keeping in mind the basic principles, processes, investments, and institutions essential to create the robust and supportive regulatory architecture that agricultural markets in India actually need.

Mekhala Krishnamurthy is Senior Fellow and Director of the State Capacity Initiative at the Centre for Policy Research and Associate Professor at Ashoka University. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism


  1. I have been reading Mekhala Krishnamurthy past articles on angriculture using Muckrack. She has been so inconsistent all these time. these people don’t deserve to be heard by GoI. These people have only one agenda, that is, to criticise Modi govt.

  2. This is amazing to witness that those who dont know how to handle a spade,sickle even the hammer have been jolting with a mob prominently marked as the agitation of farmers in and around Delhi. The intention and nature of movement found aseptically when outsiders are allowed to dance to the tunes of their own agenda.i do believe withdrawing of all the passed law would provide them more opportunities in withdrawing the reformative laws like triple talaq or 370 . This is the first time in the post independent India that any Government is trying to introduce long pending reformation in the system gifted by colonial rulers. We do support one nation one election,one nae nation single taxation one nation one civil code and immediate counting of infiltrators not for individual or party interests but for the security,sovereignty and safety to this ill fated nation. how long India would remain play the role of feeder to neighboring liabilities and province like west Bengal has to allocate especial provisions in each annual budgets .? The agitation with comforts and four square of meals seems picnic more than the put forwarding of grievances without further delays. my request is to our feeder go through with the proposed bill carefully,there is ample opportunity and option for both the private and public counters to exchange their yields in a competitive price. secondly should we allow the presence of touts without any participation and permit them to grab the actual profit even in the 21st centurian India?

  3. I really do not understand the concept of price discovery (i) in a period of surpluses, and (ii) in perishables. This amazing story of items moving across states (with an attached MSP) on the foregoing conditions (i) and (ii) is meaningless. Non perishables such as cereals and lentils can move. It would appear fruits ripened artificially can too. I am not sure about much else. Therefore the cold chain story appears equally meaningless. A cold chain for use for a few days makes little sense and ridiculous costs.
    As it is it would appear 6 % of farm produce in cereals attracts the MSP. If so why all these fancy laws. Elsewhere cereals are procured by so called traders / middleman at 2/3 of MSP and less. there is absolutely no regulation. The government story on middleman is patently untrue. Its objective is to ensure middleman (such as industrialists ) can continue their merry making.
    Trust. What an amazing work. The GST example – an existing law???? – is a great example.
    Finally this free market story has the same infirmities as the “price discovery” story.
    The US is expected to subsidize agriculture by USD 45 billion this year. maybe less in non pandemic years. But can we match that subsidy. That is why our export of wheat is unprofitable. Paddy we scrape thru. Every country supports agrculture.
    India has about anywhere from 50 – 60 percentof its population engaged in this trade. It is considerably less in advanced countries. That di not happen by chance or by 3 laws. The government needs to work on its population – its education – its work ethic to do so.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular