Earlier on Thursday, 17 September, the Lok Sabha passed two controversial legislations through a voice vote – The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020. Prior to this, the Lower House the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill. These decisions were met with a lot of controversy, with opposition parties calling these bills “anti-farmer”. The bills also met a lot of protest from the states of Punjab and Haryana. The minister of food processing industries Harsimrat Kaur Badal resigned over the passage of these bills.
WHAT ARE THESE BILLS?
The government states that these reforms aim to generate more employment and funding for agricultural activities, as well as promote inter and intra state trade via the involvement of private sector investors. Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar said the bills will not override Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Acts of the states.
The first bill attempts to expand the selling options of farmers by allowing them to sell to private purchasers, should they be offered better pricing for their produce. In essence, the bill will allow them to sell their produce at places outside of the ones regulated by the APMCs. The second Bill proposes to allow economic agents to stock food articles freely without the fear of being prosecuted for hoarding. The third Bill provides a framework for farmers to enter into contract farming — that is signing a written contract with a company to produce what the company wants in return of a healthy remuneration.
These bills are aimed at diversifying and expanding the agriculture sector by providing farmers with more options and freedom over what to do with and how to sell their produce. Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the passage of these reforms, claiming that it is an important step in the removal of bottlenecks in the agro industry like middlemen.
THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO THESE BILLS
The Rajya Sabha saw a peaceful debate till 1 p.m., when the proceedings were scheduled to end. The Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, the Samajwadi Party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Aam Aadmi Party and the two Left parties vehemently opposed the Bills, asking the government to send them to a Parliament panel for further scrutiny.
Among the BJP allies and friendly parties, the JD(U) and the YSR Congress supported the Bills. The AIADMK spoke against the Bills, with MP S.R. Balasubramoniyan calling them a way for the government to disinvest in agriculture. This is quite a remark, since the Indian economy depends heavily on agriculture and agricultural exports. Biju Janata Dal MP Amar Patnaik said the Bills were framed with good intent but they managed to completely ignore the practicality of it all – enforcing them fairly and ensuring proper implementation. He asked the government to send them to a Select Committee.
However, civil proceedings broke down rapidly. The situation got out of hand when AAP’s Sanjay Singh and Congress members Rajeev Satav and Syed Naseer Hussain climbing on the table in front of the Secretary General. They were carried away by the marshals. Amidst the ruckus, microphones of both the Secretary General and the Deputy Chairman were broken. Many papers were torn and flung in the air. The MPs shot the proceedings on their phones because for many minutes the Rajya Sabha TV went mute and also made sure that the Opposition protests were not shown on the screen. The House was adjourned close to 1:26 p.m. for 15-minutes. When it was reconvened, two rings of marshals protected the Chair. The Bills were passed hurriedly amid the din.
THE FARMERS’ RESPONSE TO THESE BILLS
Farmers in Punjab have organised a three-day protest against the bills. They will stage a ‘rail roko’ agitation across the state from September 24-26. The government repeatedly assured farmers that these reforms will not prove to be detrimental to their livelihoods. However, the farmers seem to have taken the government’s assurances with only a pinch of salt, claiming that the bills will upset the structure of the agriculture industry and give big farmers too much power and influence, leaving the smaller farmers at their mercy.
There are actually two different viewpoints for this case. The first one is to assume that the bills will be implemented perfectly and ideally, as described on paper. This would liberate farmers from the chokehold imposed by APMC mandis, allowing them to choose who to sell their produce to, earning more money and improving their lives for the better. They would also be able to evade the rent-seeking behaviour of the traditional intermediaries (called arhatiyas), ultimately earning more than they did previously.
Another way to look at this, from a more realistic point of view is that this move towards greater play of free markets is a ploy by the government to get away from its traditional role of being the guarantor of minimum support prices (MSPs). Farmers, especially in Punjab and Haryana where MSPs are more prominently employed, are suspicious of what the markets will offer and how private investors (large private corporations) will treat them. While dealing exclusively with the government, the common farmer had a lot of sway via the electoral process, but with megacorps, these farmers lose their advantage and will be left at the mercy of their private buyers.
Farmers burning an effigy of PM Modi in protest against the bills
WHAT CAN BE EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE FROM THESE BILLS?
If the private deal is not distinctly better, a farmer can carry on as before. If corporate farming does manage to weaken the APMC mandi system, it would only be because hordes of farmers chose corporate farming or selling outside existing mandis. Right now, there are two conflicting views on this, as mentioned earlier. It is still too early to offer a definitive answer on this. But chances are pretty high that these bills may backfire. In the current Indian economy, it makes more sense that private concerns stand to benefit more from then new system as compared to farmers. Practical implementation of a controversial bill is a far cry from laying the theoretical foundation for the same.
