Smidgen smart details of Agriculture reforms is unlikely fit to this current conundrum created by Gov. and opposition.

18-Sep-2020, Surat,

APMC is characterized by Feudalism, where only Buyers(Cartel) rules over the  Farmers. Act curtailing farmers' freedom to sell outside the Mandi, farmers can sell produce at APMC- Mandi only which creates a monopoly for bidders. It should be noted that though the current system controlled by APMC is quite inefficient, yet it is a far improvement from pre-APMC 1950’s era. At that time there was no control at all. Moneylender, traders, bankers etc. This all in one role of middleman resulted in perpetual indebtedness of the farmer. kept up produce against debts.

The original purpose of APMC meaningless today & APMC remains the basement of politics and vested interest of lucrative trade for elites. I do not understand the motive of the state/s where they argued for revenue loss! How does it possible on the shoulder of deprived farmers.

 

 Economic Liberalization 1991 focused on the industrial sector only. Industry allowed to buy from, & sell to, anyone in the world, Indian farmers in many states, are still required to buy & sell only at gov-designated APMC licensed entities. not allowed to sell outside the Mandi. 

Karnataka amendment APMC Act will provide an opportunity for farmers to sell their produce directly to any purchase outside APMC or in other APMCs. This will help the farmers in getting remunerative prices for their produce. 

Agriculture not a pure central gov. subject, & so far it requires consulting the concern party/ies.  if the government wants to reform in agriculture, it must know how to milking the cow before to take an opinion over curd and Butters. Mundi/APMCs must free from political masters. Congress should complete away from this quagmire, if they would have understood so far, APMCs should free cormorants who may eat farm prices.

Don't care MSP,

If we suggest free-market prices with the best inputs, it would better than the current MSP & other Subsidy. If we talk over other issues like Price Mechanism, inputs (Seeds, Electricity, Fertilizer, Labour, Credits). Farm bills would have to address all abv comprehensively. If it puts the best way & removes bureaucratism & political masters from the agriculture area, half labyrinth solves.

The ordinances included:

• The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020;
• The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020; &
• The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (It is the Bill replacing the third that has been passed in Lok Sabha)

The cause of discontent

• While farmers are protesting against all three ordinances, their objections are mostly against the provisions of the first. Their concerns are mainly about sections relating to "trade area", "trader", "dispute resolution" and "market fee" in the first ordinance.

What is a 'trade area', as mentioned in the Bill?

• Section 2(m) of The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) The ordinance, 2020 defines "trade area" as any area or location, place of production, collection & aggregation. It includes (a) farm gates; (b) factory premises; (c) warehouses; (d) silos; (e) cold storages; or (f) any other structures or places, from where the trade of farmers' produce may be undertaken in the territory of India. In effect, existing Mandis established under APMC Acts have been excluded from the definition of trade area under the new legislation. The government says the creation of an additional trade area outside of Mandis will provide farmers with the freedom of choice to conduct trade in their produce.

• The protesters say this provision will confine APMC Mandis to their physical boundaries and give a free hand to big corporate buyers. The APMC mandi system has developed very well as every mandi caters to 200-300 villages. But the new ordinance has confined the Mandis to their physical boundaries.

What is 'trader' and how is it linked to the protests?

• Section 2(n) of the first ordinance defines a "trader" as "a person who buys farmers' produce by way of inter-State trade or intra-State trade or a combination thereof. Thus, it includes processor, exporter, wholesaler, miller, and retailer. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, "Any trader with a PAN card can buy the farmers' produce in the trade area." In the present mandi system, Arhatiyas (commission agents) have to get a license to trade in a mandi. The protesters say Arhatiyas have credibility as their financial status is verified during the license approval process.

Why does the provision on 'market fee' worries protesters?

• Sec. 6 states that no market fee or cess or levy, by whatever name called, under any State APMC Act or any other State law, shall be levied in a trade area. Government officials say this provision will reduce the cost of the transaction and will benefit both the farmers and the traders. Under the existing system, such charges in states like Punjab come to around 8.5% a market fee of 3%, a rural development charge of 3%, and the Arhatiya's commission of about 2.5%. By removing the fee on trade, the government is indirectly incentivizing big corporates.

If i put all bills in the small narrative,

States will lose everything, lose political masters from Mandi, can’t collect mandi tax, can’t regulate farms produces. Why can't we have License-free agriculture like what we did for other industries?

Views are purely personal

Jignesh Desai