Updated: December 4, 2020 7:07:19 am
The farmers’ delegation after Thursday’s meeting. (Express photo by Tashi Tobgyal)
On Thursday, the CENTRAL government gave up some ground and said it would reconsider certain provisions of the new farm laws, but the conversations were unfinished with representatives of the farmers’ unions who adhere to their demand that the three laws be repealed. Both sides, however, agreed to meet again on December 5.
After seven hours marathon meeting with 40 representatives From the agricultural organizations, the Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar told reporters: “The discussions took place in a cordial atmosphere. The leaders of the agricultural unions raised their points of objection. The government also presented its views in detail ”. Tomar was accompanied by the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Piyush Goyal, and the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Som Prakash.
“Farmers and trade unions were concerned that the existing mandi (APMC) in Punjab would be weakened by the new law. Mandis (market yards) will not weaken, the government is ready to discuss this. The new law provides for private mandis. They (agricultural leaders) opined that since there will be no taxes on private mandis, it may cause harm to existing mandis … The government will view this with the view that there is a samyata (level playing field) for both mandis ( APMC and private) so that the interests of one are not affected by the other, “said Tomar. (Follow live updates here)
On farmers’ objections that private mandi trade will be allowed simply on the basis of PAN cards under the new law, Tomar said: “We wanted to make the law so simple that there would be no problem for the farmer and the buyer. Therefore, we provision only for the PAN card requirement. Farmers feel that PAN cards can be easily purchased by anyone these days. So there should be some protection … We think they have a strong case. Therefore, the government will consider their demand that traders register as well. “
Ideas explained | How the government should deal with protesting farmers
The Minister of Commerce, Piyush Goyal, the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Commerce, Som Prakash and the Minister of Agriculture, Narendra Singh Tomar. (PTI)
The agriculture minister also hinted that the government was willing to reconsider provisions on the dispute resolution mechanism in the new agricultural laws. “In the new agricultural laws, it has been foreseen that farmers can take their complaints before the court of first instance (SDM). The farmers’ unions feel that SDM is a lesser official and may not get justice from him, so they should be allowed to go to court. We are open to considering this as well, ”he said.
Faced with the demand that the MSP or the minimum support price (MSP) be guaranteed by law, Tomar reiterated that the MSP system would continue and that it would give farmers a guarantee in this regard.
Read | Except MSP, Open Center to Reverse 3 Key Provisions of the Farm Bill
During the meeting, peasant leaders also expressed their concern about the new Ordinance that penalizes stubble burning that affects air quality in the National Capital Region and adjacent areas, and the Electricity (Amendment) Bill of 2020 In addition, they also pointed out the need to register under contract farming. Tomar said the government was open to considering and discussing these issues as well.
When asked if the government would amend the three laws, Tomar said: “Main bhavishyavakta nahi hoon (I am not a prophet).”
During the meeting, the Secretary of Agriculture, Sanjay Agarwal, gave a detailed presentation on the new agricultural laws and the measures adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture for the well-being of farmers and the “measures taken to benefit agriculture during the period of blockade keeping supply chains active. “
However, the agricultural union leaders did not move from their position and demanded that the three laws be repealed. Azad Kisan Samiti (Doaba) leader Harpal Singh Sangha said: “We said that we do not want amendments, we want the laws to be withdrawn.”
Another farmer leader, Baldev Singh Sirsa, said: “We listed all the drawbacks to the government, they had to admit there are drawbacks and will make amends.” Darshan Pal, President of the Krantikari Kisan Union, said: “The government is willing to amend the three laws… We do not agree with the amendments. We want the government to repeal these laws ”.
In a statement, the Ministry of Agriculture said that farmers’ representatives raised the question of the constitutional validity of the three laws. “The government side explained the constitutional provisions under which the Central Government legislated these laws,” he said.
Earlier in the day, before arriving for the meeting, Tomar and Goyal met with the Union Minister of the Interior, Amit Shah. Punjab’s Chief Minister Amarinder Singh also met with Shah.
With no indication of emerging common ground, agricultural leaders rejected the government-offered lunch, choosing instead a simple meal of dal, subzi and roti brought to them from the Singhu border, where farmers were camping. “We will not accept food or tea offered by the government. We have brought our own food, ”said a representative.
In addition to Punjab and Haryana, agricultural leaders from other states, including Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, also attended Thursday’s meeting. In total, representatives from 40 organizations, five more than at the last meeting, attended Thursday’s meeting.
Read also | Farmers protest: the opposition gives weight, urges the Center to rethink the laws, call a session of the Chamber
Among those present at Vigyan Bhavan was Rakesh Tikait of the Bhartiya Kisan Union, who had besieged the Ghazipur border and was not present at Tuesday’s meeting. He had met separately with Tomar after Tuesday’s meeting to discuss the farmers’ demands.
At Tuesday’s meeting, agricultural leaders had rejected a government proposal to form a panel of experts to analyze their demands. Previously, on November 13, both parties had taken maximalist positions. Although the talks were inconclusive at the time, they agreed to continue discussions. The previous month, representatives of the agricultural unions had left a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture.
.
