The Modi govt claims the three new laws are re-creating the 1991 moment for agriculture. But those reforms were premised on decentralisation and deregulation.
Protesting the contentious agriculture laws, farmers have come prepared, with at least 2 months worth of ration, blankets to fight Delhi’s winter and even cards to pass time.
The Punjab farm bills look to negate the Centre's laws and ensure minimum support price (MSP) for farmers. They also give powers to the state to impose stock limits.
Punjab BJP general secretary Malwinder Singh Kang resigned, saying he opposed the three farm laws but 'there is no space for any difference of opinion' in the party.
Farmers associated with Shetkari Sanghatana, founded by economist Sharad Joshi in 1978, believe the laws are a step closer to their demand — freedom of access to markets.
There was ruckus in Rajya Sabha over the passage of the farmer bills as at least 13 opposition parties wanted Modi govt to refer the bills to a select committee for scrutiny.
There is a real risk that the Indian agricultural sector will be left in a state of greater regulatory ambiguity and economic uncertainty, and that farmers will suffer more.
The excess rainfall is likely to damage crops such as soybean, onion, urad and moong in major production states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.
Bt brinjal field trials will start in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal from this year and continue until 2023.
New CPI series will take 2024 as base year, will provide more accurate measure of inflation, spending on digital services. Expected to enhance representation and reliability, says Saurabh Garg.
The agreement, signed after meeting between Rajnath and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on sidelines of ADMM-Plus in Kuala Lumpur, aims to deepen bilateral ties in the critical sector.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
You made your comment just by seeing one side of the coin. Agriculture falls in in both centre and state subject. Centre gives msp on the procurement of crops because states don’t have enough funds for that. Around 40% of punjab farmers sell their crops directly to the traders. In fact 80-85% percent of india farmers don’t sell in mandis. So how do mandis violate article 301. In fact after the law a monopoly of corporates is certain on the agriculture sector. Farmers will only benefit from the corporates till mandis are not destroyed. As I said 80% of India farmers sell to traders and only 6% of India farmers get msp, you can imagine the gap. Corporates will give high prices to farmers for only a few years eventually shutting down the mandis. Most of the marginal farmers can’t even sell their products from one to another district and the government is making dreams of inter state marketing. I am agreeing with you on bihar’s situations. In my analysis I find that this act will only improve the situation of marginal and small farmers when corporates show their mercy. Most of the farmers are illiterate so how can you imagine that they will understand all the terms and conditions. This act makes farmers’ side weaker. I agree that this acts have a lots of pros but we shouldn’t ignore the tons of cons.
I think the politics should be separated from yhe policy. It is also a question of using MSP to incentivise agriculture reforms in the context of high malnutrition and poor calorie intake vis a vis our over- flowing grain stocks!
The protein intake and calorific food value gap between India and China has been increasing since past 20 years.
India is a vegetarian country. Its annual per capita vegetable consumption is 81 kg and China’s is 320 kg.
Both Rice and flood irrigated wheat, lead to carbohydrate intensive diets. Besides, these are high on water consumption, which is provided through subsidised electricity from our taxes.
Farmers prefer cultivatation of rice and wheat grain because of its storage resilience, transportation and ease of cultivation, as opposed to protein or vitamin intensive vegetable horticulture (which has perishablity) or oil seds and pulses which the country has to import agaisnt FE.
The Agri-reforms and MSP should incentivise cultivation of crops that the consumer needs for his family’s good health.
Both farmers and the Government have to take a broader and objective view of the purpose of the MSP.
The genuine misgivings of the farmers should be looked into and the laws modified wherever required. APMCs may be outmoded but an alternate system should be allowed and it may take time to consolidate and give a better deal to farmers. Instead of wholesale ‘reforms” incremental changes will be better and will not invite violent protests.
The author wants the government of India to use the pretext of Federalism and pass on the problems to the states instead of taking any leadership. This kind of mindset has been the bane of India.
Discussions and consultations with farmers were essential before enacting the Agri reform bills. Now the government is on a sticky wicket. The method which presumes that only one person knows what is good for the country has caused all the harm. Demonetization was also imposed in the same manner. The obstinacy can cost dearly in the long run. Government should show flexibility and roll back some of the features of the legislation in order to settle for a compromise solution.
Maybe the laws have some good points but agriculture is largely a State subject. So the Centre should readily offer to accept any State law that rescinds the Central laws. Let there be a competition between BJP and other States and lets observe over 3-5 years where farmers are benefited. That way the outsized egos of our PM and State CMs can be satisfied and a genuine competition among States can commence.
Funny how everyone suddenly remembers agriculture is a state subject. If it is so, why should the centre pay MSP. Might as decentralise that. While agree with the author’s final suggestion of doing away with ECA, the author has mistaken that the 3 laws are going to introduce homogeneity. They don’t. They have basically opened up the space for competition. The way the economic agents want to compete (FPO, cooperative, LLP, food processing, storage, finally marginal farmer) is upto them. The govt didn’t force the economic agents to structure themselves in a certain way.
The centre is well within its right to make these laws. Entry 33 of concurrent list. Might i also.point out how APMCs are unconstitutional because they violate art 301 . Funny how the author talks about exports but seems to not realise thag APMCs have broken the markets within India itself. Export tho door ki baat hain.
The bihar example. Are you all dumb? Just because bihar didn’t see infra development or entry of private players doesn’t negate the need for these reforms. Bihar isn’t even an IT power which is essentially backed by 1991 reforms. So what, we undo those too because bihar didn’t see the fruits of those results? Investment in any sector is a function of so many factors. Primarily being it should not be illegal. Which is what these laws try to do. This needs to be followed by skill training in new agri techs, ensuring contracts, rule of law, infra development etc.
You made your comment just by seeing one side of the coin. Agriculture falls in in both centre and state subject. Centre gives msp on the procurement of crops because states don’t have enough funds for that. Around 40% of punjab farmers sell their crops directly to the traders. In fact 80-85% percent of india farmers don’t sell in mandis. So how do mandis violate article 301. In fact after the law a monopoly of corporates is certain on the agriculture sector. Farmers will only benefit from the corporates till mandis are not destroyed. As I said 80% of India farmers sell to traders and only 6% of India farmers get msp, you can imagine the gap. Corporates will give high prices to farmers for only a few years eventually shutting down the mandis. Most of the marginal farmers can’t even sell their products from one to another district and the government is making dreams of inter state marketing. I am agreeing with you on bihar’s situations. In my analysis I find that this act will only improve the situation of marginal and small farmers when corporates show their mercy. Most of the farmers are illiterate so how can you imagine that they will understand all the terms and conditions. This act makes farmers’ side weaker. I agree that this acts have a lots of pros but we shouldn’t ignore the tons of cons.
I think the politics should be separated from yhe policy. It is also a question of using MSP to incentivise agriculture reforms in the context of high malnutrition and poor calorie intake vis a vis our over- flowing grain stocks!
The protein intake and calorific food value gap between India and China has been increasing since past 20 years.
India is a vegetarian country. Its annual per capita vegetable consumption is 81 kg and China’s is 320 kg.
Both Rice and flood irrigated wheat, lead to carbohydrate intensive diets. Besides, these are high on water consumption, which is provided through subsidised electricity from our taxes.
Farmers prefer cultivatation of rice and wheat grain because of its storage resilience, transportation and ease of cultivation, as opposed to protein or vitamin intensive vegetable horticulture (which has perishablity) or oil seds and pulses which the country has to import agaisnt FE.
The Agri-reforms and MSP should incentivise cultivation of crops that the consumer needs for his family’s good health.
Both farmers and the Government have to take a broader and objective view of the purpose of the MSP.
The genuine misgivings of the farmers should be looked into and the laws modified wherever required. APMCs may be outmoded but an alternate system should be allowed and it may take time to consolidate and give a better deal to farmers. Instead of wholesale ‘reforms” incremental changes will be better and will not invite violent protests.
The author wants the government of India to use the pretext of Federalism and pass on the problems to the states instead of taking any leadership. This kind of mindset has been the bane of India.
Discussions and consultations with farmers were essential before enacting the Agri reform bills. Now the government is on a sticky wicket. The method which presumes that only one person knows what is good for the country has caused all the harm. Demonetization was also imposed in the same manner. The obstinacy can cost dearly in the long run. Government should show flexibility and roll back some of the features of the legislation in order to settle for a compromise solution.
The author wants us to believe that State governments who did nothing for farmers in the last 70 years, will do it now ?
Maybe the laws have some good points but agriculture is largely a State subject. So the Centre should readily offer to accept any State law that rescinds the Central laws. Let there be a competition between BJP and other States and lets observe over 3-5 years where farmers are benefited. That way the outsized egos of our PM and State CMs can be satisfied and a genuine competition among States can commence.
Funny how everyone suddenly remembers agriculture is a state subject. If it is so, why should the centre pay MSP. Might as decentralise that. While agree with the author’s final suggestion of doing away with ECA, the author has mistaken that the 3 laws are going to introduce homogeneity. They don’t. They have basically opened up the space for competition. The way the economic agents want to compete (FPO, cooperative, LLP, food processing, storage, finally marginal farmer) is upto them. The govt didn’t force the economic agents to structure themselves in a certain way.
The centre is well within its right to make these laws. Entry 33 of concurrent list. Might i also.point out how APMCs are unconstitutional because they violate art 301 . Funny how the author talks about exports but seems to not realise thag APMCs have broken the markets within India itself. Export tho door ki baat hain.
The bihar example. Are you all dumb? Just because bihar didn’t see infra development or entry of private players doesn’t negate the need for these reforms. Bihar isn’t even an IT power which is essentially backed by 1991 reforms. So what, we undo those too because bihar didn’t see the fruits of those results? Investment in any sector is a function of so many factors. Primarily being it should not be illegal. Which is what these laws try to do. This needs to be followed by skill training in new agri techs, ensuring contracts, rule of law, infra development etc.
Author should revisit his views.