The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
2 THREE BILLS ON AGRICULTURAL REFORMS
3.1 1. Minimum support price (MSP):
3.2 2. Laws are made by the Central Government:
4 MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE BILL
In September 2020, the Indian Parliament passed three bills regarding farming laws which have led to widespread protests throughout the country, especially in the state of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. A movement called “DilliChalo” began by the farmers meaning let’s go to Delhi whereby thousands of farmers marched to Delhi, the national capital of India. The laws in question were termed as “anti- farming” laws by many farmer unions.[1] The opposition in the Parliament also stated that the farmers would be “mercy of the corporate.[2]” But the Indian government, however, is relentlessly making efforts to enforce the farms bill to benefit the farmers whereby the farmers could sell their produce to big buyers.
Three bills that were enacted by the parliament were:
These were the three bills enacted by the government of India that direct to change and modify the marketing, supply and storage of agricultural produce. The various amendments in agricultural laws deem to provide farmers producing different produces to have more options to sell, leading to competition to get the best pricing possible, further, to benefit farmers by getting investment of private players that would lead to a better and more sustainable infrastructure.
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 allows the farmers to sell outside of the notified mandis of respective states without the payment of state taxes or fees.[3] The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 gives directions to facilitate the connection between farmers and private players as it opens doors to contract farming and direct marketing. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 deregulates the production, storage, movement and sale of several major foodstuffs, including cereal, pulses, edible oils and onions, with an exception of extraordinary circumstances.[4]
Minimum support price is the price set by the government for agricultural products of the farmers. This is a protection that the government gives to the farmers, it is a guarantee of minimum profit to the farmer producing agricultural products if an open market lesser price than the cost incurred[5] to produce the particular good. The government purchases 23 crops that are declared prior to each sowing season, irrespective of the market price.
The farmers have benefitted from MSP for years and because of the enactment of new laws, the farmers are threatened as the government has mentioned no MSPs in the new laws. The protests are majorly on the subject of MSPs as the farmers want the protection of MSPs. Though, the laws do not directly influence MSPs, but the farmers feel that tax free market would encourage private trade outside APMC mandis and will make APMC unviable leading to reduction of government procurement[6]. The farmers are aiming for enactment of uniform MSP for private and government market so that a sale cannot be made below the set price.
The entry that states “agriculture” falls under the state list of the VII Schedule of the Indian Constitution not giving powers to the Centre to make laws on the subject, therefore, some states claim that it is not valid as these states receive a high percentage of their total revenue through APMC mandis.
The center could impose stockholding limits to foodstuff but this law has been amended whereby the government has now repealed the imposition of stockholding limit except in situation of war, famine, other natural calamities of grave nature and annual retail price rise exceeding 100% in horticultural produce (basically onions and potato) and 50% for non-perishables (cereals, pulses and edible oils). This restriction only applies to traders. It does not concern farmers at all. armers, if anything, would gain from removal of stocking restrictions on the trade, as it potentially translates into unlimited buying and demand for their produce.
1. Freedom of choice: the farmers have the freedom to choose whether they would like to sell their produce to the mandis or to private players. The benefit from direct market the farmers would receive is that there would a linkage that would be formed creating better supply chains that would lead to a rise in the income that the farmer receives.
2. Better infrastructure: if private players get to directly purchase products from the farmer, it will increase incentives to improve infrastructure as they would want better products. The farmers would further benefit from agritech startups[7] who connect farmers to agribusiness, food processors and exporters.
3. Transparency: due to non- involvement of middlemen, the entire process would be transparent. Contract farming would lead to direct supply chains that would increase transparency in the system.
4. Regulatory framework: The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act has to do with providing a regulatory framework for contract cultivation. This would provide for a contractual obligation on the product quality. The contractors in this case do not only have a buy back agreement but also a contract that has predetermined prices. This has been done by company like PepsiCo. The contracts with predetermined prices would lead to famers getting ‘better prices.’
1. APMC as monopoly: APMC is look by private players to determine prices of agricultural products. By not allowing private players to buy agricultural products directly leads to creating a system of monopoly and according to Suddha Narayan, if the farmers are allow to trade outside of APMC, they would do it anyway because it does not have the requirement of payment of cess and other taxes, leading to burial of APMC in any case. So, if the APMC system collapses, there is no alternative of a large market that can set prices[8]. Therefore, this amendment can take adverse effect on interests of the farmers.
2. Redressal mechanism: the current APMC system has a mechanism through which the aggrieved farmers could approach the prescribed forum to record the grievances they have. The new system does not give any redressal mechanism giving too much power to private players to adjust the terms and conditions of contracts to fulfil their interests.
3. MSP is not include: The Minimum Support Price that is very important to give minimum profits to the farmers. Due to no prescribed pricing system, farmers could be exploited by the private players.
In my opinion, these three laws that are The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020, The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 do facilitate marketing of agricultural products at better prices that APMC, as this system is tax free, which makes the farmers to earn better prices without having to pay taxes or cess.
It has been stated that “agriculture” is a state subject, and the center does not have any power to make laws on the same but entry 33 of the concurrent list covers food and commerce in foodstuff, including edible oilseeds and oil, which gives powers to the center to make law on agriculture. Hence, the Indian Government has not encroached on powers of the state.
My suggestion to the current issue would be that the government enact regulatory framework to prevent private players from encroaching upon the land of the poor farmer. This would make farmers more confident in dealing with private players.
I had also done an empirical research whereby I had interviewed a few farmers. Who stated that they benefit from selling produces to private players. As they do not have to incur the cost of transporting produces to the market. As private players bear the cost of transportation which has been beneficial to them.
To conclude, I would state that government must assure the farmers that they protect before the laws are enact formally.
[1]Palnitkar Vaibhav (21 September 2020) “Here’s Why Farmers Are Protesting the 3 New Agriculture Ordinances”. The Quint. (Jan 4, 2021, 12:30 PM); https://www.thequint.com/news/india/farmers-protesting-the-3-new-ordinances.
[2]Kulkarni, Sagar (22 September 2020) “Now, farmers will be back to serfdom, at the mercy of big corporates: Manish Tewari”. Deccan Herald. (Jan 4, 2021, 01:05 PM); https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/now-farmers-will-be-back-to-serfdom-at-the-mercy-of-big-corporates-manish-tewari-891010.html.
[3] Priscilla Jebaraj (27 September 2020) “Who gains and who loses from the farm bills?”. The Hindu. (Jan 4, 2021, 02:20 PM); https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-who-gains-and-who-loses-from-the-farm-bills/article32705820.ece.
[4] Ibid.
[5]SatyantanBera and Elisabeth Roche (02 February 2018) Budget 2018 on Agriculture: Can new MSP prop up rural economy?; Live Mint; (Jan 4, 2021, 01:26 PM) https://www.livemint.com/Politics/zz7NOxslQR3F3EV1tjTt3I/Budget-2018-promises-to-fix-crop-support-prices-at-50-over.html
[6]Priscilla Jebaraj (27 September 2020) “Who gains and who loses from the farm bills?”. The Hindu. (Jan 4, 2021, 02:20 PM); https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-who-gains-and-who-loses-from-the-farm-bills/article32705820.ece.
[7]SohiniMitter; Farm Bills 2020: How they benefit farmers, agritech startups, agri warehouses, and private players; Your Story; (Jan 4, 2021, 05:20 PM); https://yourstory.com/2020/10/farm-bills-2020-benefit-farmers-agritech-startup-agri-warehouse.
[8] Harish Damodaran; Explained: The concerns of farmers, and what Centre can negotiate to end protests; Indian Express; (Jan 4, 2021, 08:30 PM); https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/farmers-big-concern-and-what-govt-could-negotiate-7073291/.
Drop your comment