Thousands of farmers from Haryana and Punjab have surrounded Delhi for the past four months in defiance of the three ordinances passed by the Indian parliament on September 14, 2020. This protest, which has gathered thousands of farmers in the capital and set up camp on three major sites in the city, is being dubbed the single largest protest in human history. Farmers are expressing their dissatisfaction with the bills, fearing that they will simply empower big companies and leave farmers at their mercy.

Farmers- The Core of Our Economy

India’s agricultural sector has shown resilience in the face of COVID-induced lockdowns, according to the Economic Survey 2020-2021. Agriculture and related activities were the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal GDP efficiency, growing at a rate of 3.4 percent at constant prices in 2020-21. The agriculture sector employs more than half of the country’s workforce. We must comprehend our farmers’ plight and the difficulties they have faced. Be it colonial-induced famines, landowner exploitation, debt burdens, recent locust invasions, crop destruction due to severe weather conditions, or alarmingly high suicide rates. It is our responsibility to listen carefully and understand their concerns as well as the reasons for their dissatisfaction.

The Modifications has been Simplified

The three farm bills proposed are as follows –

The Essential Commodities Act (which is based on a colonial-era law governing the quantity of produce that can be stored or sold) only provides for the control of particular food products in the event of natural disasters or war.

This amendment restricts the ability of the federal government and states to enforce stock and price limits. These restrictions should only be enforced in an emergency. As a result, large companies now have complete leverage over resources such as cereals, pulses, edible oil, onions, and potatoes.

The Farmers’ Produce Exchange and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, also known as the APMC Bypass Bill, addresses the mechanism that now allows farmers to trade their produce both intra-state and inter-state. Previously, they could only carry their produce to the APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) Mandis, no matter how far away they were. This bill also provides for electronic produce trading and e-commerce. It prohibits the state government from charging farmers or electronic trading platforms a market fee for selling produce outside of the designated mandi.

The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, the third bill, allows farmers to participate in “contract farming,” which allows them to enter into a contract with Agri-firms or large buyers for a specific crop at a predetermined price.

What is the aim of Farmer’s Mobilization

The aim of these bills appears to be to benefit and enable farmers to sell at larger markets without being taxed, engage in e-commerce, minimise interactions with middlemen, and incorporate technology into their farming practises. All of this is made possible by the ruling party’s deregulatory reforms, which encourage privatisation. In India, contract farming is not a new phenomenon. Contract farming has already been tried by the governments of Punjab and Gujarat. Their knowledge will aid us in determining the possible consequences of the new legislation in other parts of the world. Let’s take a peek at the state of Punjab. For more than three decades, PepsiCo has been involved in contract farming and has proven to be profitable. Farmers’ incomes increased as a result of the increased jobs. PepsiCo’s arrival ushered in a potato revolt. Small-scale or neglected producers, on the other hand, are said to be dissatisfied. Sunara Singh, a 15-acre farmer, claims that small-scale farmers who try to sell a few kilos of produce (as opposed to the tonnes sold by large-scale farmers) are not even spoken to politely or given gate passes to PepsiCo’s premises, as stated by Basant Kumar in an article for NewsLaundary in October 2020.

Another issue with the proposed laws is that, in the event of a conflict between a large company and a farmer, most small farmers have little resources in terms of time, funding, or legal skills. Farmers are unable to resolve cases ex post facto in either a civil or SDM (Sub-district magistrate) court due to a lack of documentary evidence to support their claims. The farmer will eventually be at the mercy of the corporate buyer. The bill mentions a Minimum Sales Price (MSP) for the crops, but no concrete legislation is in place to enact it. MSP does not have a statutory backup. MSP serves as a benchmark or signal price for all crop trade in the United States.

“The point is that in a country where 86 per cent of farmers have a land of the size of
fewer than two hectares, you can’t expect the farmer to carry his produce to far off
places to sell. What we need is an assured price for the farmers. If the markets are
saying they will provide a higher price to farmers, the question is a higher price to
what? There must be some benchmark.” Says Davindar Sharma, a food and trade policy
analyst at Al Jazeera.

The Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act, also known as the Mandi system, was repealed by the state government of Bihar in 2006. “The financial situation of 94% of farmers in Bihar — who didn’t go to mandis or weren’t covered under minimum support price (MSP) — should have improved in the past 14 years, but their situation has worsened,” says economist DM Diwakar. This goes on to show that removing and selling agricultural produce outside of the APMC’s jurisdiction has an effect on the MSP that farmers are obligated to earn while trading inside the APMC Market Yard.

Educate, Organize, Agitate and Fact-Check!

Freedom of speech is important in a democracy. It must encourage people to express themselves, whether via social media sites, toolkits, or rallies. Tear gas and water cannons were used on protesters, demonstrators were arrested for standing up for their cause or without overt proof of a foreign plot, and the right to private counsel was denied during remand.

The Indian media has based its attention on the forces that have created instability, losing sight of the true causes of the unrest. Is it fair to ignore or, to put it another way, ridicule the majority of demonstrators who carried out their dissent in accordance with the government’s parameters and routes because a few groups had ulterior motives?

We must educate ourselves from reliable sources and double-check the information we ingest. We appear to equate oppressed people’s rage with their lack of credibility. We must empathise with the agitation and place it in perspective. If we really want to stand in solidarity, we must put an end to the dissemination of misinformation.