Sign in

Farm bills are welcome, but farmers need a rights-based protection law | Analysis

A base price will ensure a fair price for every farmer, removing MSP limitations, which cover only 22 crops. Such a mechanism would help both farmers and private buyers as it will bring about transparency and accountability in the farm trade

Updated on: Sep 25, 2020, 05:44:08 IST
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

A decade ago, a few top Indian companies entered the fruit and vegetable market in Himachal Pradesh (HP). For the first few years, they gave farmers a good price for their entire produce. As their control over the market grew, they bought the best quality produce and left the rest to be sold by farmers at depressed prices through the weakened mandi system. Whenever prices increased, the companies sold in mandis, depriving farmers the benefit of higher prices. They built cold storages for themselves, but not for the farmers. Whatever mechanisation happened for farmers was through government schemes. Farmers may have got more for their produce because of the corporates, but profitability has not increased as input costs — labour wages and fertilisers — have almost doubled during this period.

There should be a base price for all agriculture and horticulture crops (a long-standing demand of farmers) below which the produce cannot be sold (HT PHOTO)
There should be a base price for all agriculture and horticulture crops (a long-standing demand of farmers) below which the produce cannot be sold (HT PHOTO)

The farm reforms bills — Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill — approved by Parliament this week will initially do what corporates did in HP; push up prices in the initial years and eventually control the agriculture trade. They may then manipulate prices as commission agents in the mandis do. This is a big danger to farmers. They could take on commission agents through the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs), which provides for quick dispute resolution. But, in the case of corporates, according to the proposed laws, grievance redressal is through civil courts, which could take years.

The government has said that the minimum support price (MSP) will remain in place. But, the question is whether the private player will buy at MSP or not. The farm bills are silent on this and experience from various states shows that they may not, especially in years when the crop is good. This year, less than 1% of wheat in Bihar, where the APMC Act was abolished in 2006, was bought by the state government and the rest, farmers’ organisations claim, was bought by private players at less than the MSP.

In Punjab and Haryana, which has a strong APMC-regulated mandi system, about 90% of wheat this summer was bought at the MSP by government agencies. So, Punjab and Haryana farmers get price protection while those in Bihar do not.

The claim that mandis control farm prices is not entirely true. Only 36% of agricultural produce is sold through mandis, mainly in the food bowl states of Haryana and Punjab, where the farmers are most agitated against the current bills. This is because APMC reforms initiated from the time of the previous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in 2003 through the APMC Model Act has opened the agriculture trade in most states. Electronic trading and direct sale of produce to buyers in allowed in 22 states, deregulation of markets has taken place in 17 states, selling in private markets is allowed in 21 states, according to the 2019 state agriculture ministers’ conference report. The changed scenario in most states allows the farmer to choose between private buyers and the regulated mandi system. The farms bills, by abolishing the second option, leaves farmers at the mercy of unregulated private players.

Both mandi and private buying should be based on the principle that a farmer has the right to recover inputs costs plus make some profit. There should be a base price for all agriculture and horticulture crops (a long-standing demand of farmers) below which the produce cannot be sold. Buying at a lower price should invoke penal action against the buyer and commission agent. The government can still have a higher MSP for limited crops they want to procure for food security and the public distribution system (PDS).

A base price will ensure a fair price for every farmer, removing MSP limitations, which cover only 22 crops. Such a mechanism would help both farmers and private buyers as it will bring about transparency and accountability in the farm trade. It would be best if this mechanism is introduced through a rights-based farmer-protection law.

chetan@hindustantimes.com
The views expressed are personal
  • Chetan Chauhan
    ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    Chetan Chauhan

    Chetan Chauhan is the National Affairs Editor looking into all aspects of news and features from across India. A Chevening scholar with over three decades of experience in reporting and news management, Chetan has extensively covered all important aspects of the social sector, political economy, environment and climate change nationally and internationally. He did a journalism course at the Reuters Institute of Journalism in Oxford and Digital Media training at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He started as a reporter with The Statesman in 1996 and joined the Hindustan Times in 2000 in the metro bureau covering environment, crime and Delhi politics. He covered hot local news, from the Jessica Lal murder case to the rebellion of Delhi Congress MLAs against then Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, to the replacement of toxic vehicle fuel with cleaner compressed natural gas (CNG) in the national capital. Some of his stories on air pollution became part of the Supreme Court’s landmark MC Mehta versus Government of India case in the National Capital Region (NCR), forcing the government to take corrective measures. As part of the national political bureau since 2004, he covered important central sectors such as environment, education, social justice, labour, rural development, water resources, renewable energy, agriculture, broadcasting and the Planning Commission for more than a decade producing several exclusive and investigative breaking stories. His specialisation is the environment, having covered at least a dozen United Nations global conferences on climate change, biodiversity and wildlife including climate summits in Paris, Copenhagen and Bali. He also covered India’s two five-year plans ---11th and 12th and reported on drafting and execution of right based laws such as Right to Education, Right to Information and rural job guarantee law, MG-NREGA, now being introduced in new format as VG-RAM-G Act. He has in-depth knowledge of social sector issues. He was one of the first to report on tigers vanishing from Sariska and Panna wildlife reserves in 2004 and 2008, respectively, leading to the setting up of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the introduction of stringent penal provisions for poaching. He has written extensively on the rising human-animal conflict in India and the degradation of India’s biodiversity hotspots because of mining and other activities. Since 2004, Chetan has covered Parliament comprehensively and participated in training on the nuanced coverage of Parliament proceedings. He has travelled extensively across India to cover national and provincial elections since 1998, especially in the Hindi heartland states, considered India’s road to power. He writes a regular column for Hindustan Times, Ecostani, on important national politics, economy, Himalayan ecology and environmental issues. His other responsibilities include providing inputs for edits and edit page articles for the publication, apart from managing news flow from across India.Read More