Updated: December 5, 2020 7:00:05 am
Farmers protest at the Singhu border on Friday. (Express photo by Amit Mehra)
It was an announced crisis.
Farmers’ protests on the Delhi borders and their discussions with the government in Vigyan Bhavan – another round of talks will take place on Saturday – are a repeat of concerns raised in Parliament this September over the three agricultural bills. , and suggestions that the government chose. ignore.
The opposition had urged the government not to pass the bills in a hurry, but to send them up for parliamentary scrutiny given the scope, intention and implications. From the MSP to the mandi system, contract farming and the dispute resolution mechanism, these concerns of farmers had been raised by parliamentarians, including parties such as AIADMK and BJD, who consider themselves friends of the government. However, Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar, who is now leading the talks with farmers, told Lok Sabha on September 17: “I want to ask farmers not to be swayed by disinformation for political purposes (rajnitik drishti se kiye gaye kisi bhi dushprachar se prabhavit na ho). “
Here is what the members had to say during the discussions at Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on September 17 and 20:
Concern
– Opening the debate in Lok Sabha on September 17, Ravneet Singh Bittu, deputy of the Ludhiana Congress, said: “If you give problems to the farmers of Punjab, if you put Punjab, a border state, in crisis, the country will suffer … If you commit atrocities against the farmers of Punjab and Haryana, how will the country function? Our soldiers also come from Punjab and Haryana. There is sure to be a reaction. There will be riots. Creates difficulties regarding SYL and MSP channel. What will you gain from it except riots?
Explanation of the farmers’ protest: What are the big concerns, what can the government negotiate?
– At the end of the debate, the leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said: “You say that farmers will benefit from this (bills). Show me a farmer who is happy with these bills. Look at Haryana and Punjab, the farmers are unhappy. Wahan aag lag gayi hai. Both states are fermented. “
– In Rajya Sabha on September 20, Naresh Gujral from SAD said: “Do not think that the farmers of Punjab are weak… Mr. Minister, I have only one request… the spark that has been lit in Punjab and Haryana… do not allow it to become on fire. Otherwise, it can be written in history … that lamhon ne khata ki thi, sadiyon ne saza paayi “.
In MSP
– Former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda of JD (S): “One of the central fears of farmers is that the ordinances may be a ploy and a precursor to phase out the purchase of cereals at minimum support prices. They perceive that this would leave them at the mercy of private actors and large corporations … Given that ordinances were hastily carried out during a terrible pandemic, there seems to be widespread doubt. “
– SR Balasubramoniyan (AIADMK) “The bill is silent on the Minimum Livelihood Price (MSP), which is essential for the survival of farmers. The Government should stipulate binding rules for the Minimum Price of Support. That is more important to farmers than anything else. “
– Partap Singh Bajwa (Congress): “Agriculture and the market, according to Annex VII of the Constitution, are state matters. The ordinance and bills go against our federal cooperative spirit. Also, we don’t want the APMC and the minimum support price to change. “
Ideas explained | Farmer protests: why the government should not allow positions to harden
– K Shanmugasundaram (DMK): “The bill is silent on the Minimum Price of Livelihood, which is essential for the survival of farmers. The government should stipulate binding rules for the MSP ”.
– Arvind Sawant (Shiv Sena): “Include a provision to say that no (purchase) agreement can be entered into that is less than the MSP so that farmers get the base price and are convinced.”
– Ram Mohan Naidu (TDP): “The MSP has not been mentioned in any of the three bills and this is generating confusion. The government says there is nothing to fear from the MSP. If that is the case, why are they not holding private actors accountable for ensuring that MSP is provided to farmers? If that is included, much of the fuss that is being created will be resolved. “
– Binoy Viswam (CPI): “I ask the Minister … if the statement on the MSP is true and sincere … he should move an official amendment here, saying that he will add a clause that guarantees the MSP for farmers. In that case, I promise you that even if we oppose you politically, the Communist Party of India will support this bill. “
– Tomar’s response, in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, was “MSP-based acquisitions were there in the country, they are there and will continue.”
About dispute resolution
– Ram Mohan Naidu (TDP): “On the issue of the Dispute Resolution Mechanism… a large part has been delegated to the Executive, such as the Magistrates and the District Collectors. Now the courts are not involved in this. This provision would be a partial solution. In addition to trade-related disputes, farmers will also have other legal battles that could be related to land. In these times, I think, it would be better if the Government thinks of establishing agricultural courts in accordance with the provision of section 323 (b) of the Constitution of India. “
– S Jothimani (Congress): “This bill says that there is a dispute resolution mechanism. You can go to the conciliation meeting. If nothing happens in 30 days, a farmer can go to the Subdivisional Magistrate. If it doesn’t work, then there is a district collector. In this process, simple and poor farmers will face a long legal battle against the corporate giants. What is the guarantee that justice will be served after all this mental trauma? In the process, the livelihood and hope of the farmers will be destroyed. “
– Anubhav Mohanty (BJD): “The dispute resolution mechanism is too complicated for small farmers… This bill should go to the Standing Committee for scrutiny to get more and more clarity. Our farmers feed us. I think this bill has been presented very hastily. “
– Tomar defended the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the bills.
In the mandi system
– Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar (TDP): “Farmers have serious concerns about this bill. First, it prohibits state governments from charging the market rate, fee, or levy for trade outside of APMC’s reported mandis, removes trade barriers between states, and provides a framework for electronic commerce directly between a buyer and a farmer. In simple words, it breaks the control of the states over farmers, allowing them to choose who they want to sell to … without paying the market fee, the business sector will buy agricultural products outside the market through intermediaries according to the price set by they. “
– K Keshava Rao (TRS): “You are creating an extra zone in the geological order. They already have APMC. We know that people can still buy outside the APMC, but the fact that the regulated body is there gives some kind of protection and some kind of psychological support to the farmer who whenever he needs the price, whenever he needs protection, returns to the Market Committee. Regulated area and receives the money. Now, he has kept everything open. Anyone with a PAN can start an e-commerce. “
– Anubhav Mohanty (BJD): “It may not be direct, but the indirect impact of the bill is that the APMC can disappear. Although the bill does not abolish existing CMPAs, it may end up having that impact by creating platforms where trading can be done without tax. Despite… problems, CMPAs serve some important functions, especially for small and marginal farmers. They provide an assured market for farmers, provide storage facilities and act as a means of local price discovery. “
– Mahua Moitra (TMC): “Section 6 of the bill states that the state government will not now charge farmers and merchants any market rate, duty or levy under state APMC laws to trade in a commercial area as defined in the new invoice. However, under applicable state laws, this market rate will be paid. Therefore, this will result in a substantial loss to the State Treasury because now any area outside the notified area will be de facto treated as a business area where no state revenue can be earned. A farmer or merchant trading in one commercial area and another being charged by the state across the road is going to create a ridiculous rural divide. “
– Sukhbir Singh Badal (SAD): “The farmers of Punjab have many apprehensions. Multinationals, magnates and magnates will allow themselves the private purchase of food grains, as they will not be subject to taxes. At first, they can attract by giving more tariffs than the MSP, but when they establish their monopoly, they will fleece and strangle the farmers. “
– KK Ragesh (CPM): “Our mandi system… yes… there are many limitations. But those limitations … need to be addressed and rectified. But at the same time, the mandi system provides a kind of competitiveness and that ensures at least some kind of remunerative prices for our farmers. Through this bill, the government is simply slowly poisoning the mandi system. “
n Tomar said that the mandi tax imposed by state governments ranges from 2 to 8.5 percent. He said that when the trade takes place outside the mandis, “this 8.5 percent tax will not be there and farmers will directly benefit from it.”
In contract farming
– NK Premachandran (RSP): “Contract farming around the world has proven to be a failure.”
– Kalyan Banerjee (TMC): “In a country where more than 85 percent of growers are small and marginal, the bill doesn’t really seem to address the plight and security of poor farmers. By promoting contract farming, the bill tends instead to permanently empower large landowners, the lobbyists for agribusinesses. “
– K Shanmugasundaram (DMK): “Giving a legal sanction to contract farming would help companies enter the agricultural sector and may increase productivity, but it would help farmers.”
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
