Western Uttar Pradesh, where several agricultural protests originated, is relatively silent on the three controversial agricultural laws that have angered farmers in Punjab and Haryana.
The reason given by agricultural leaders was that, unlike in Punjab and Haryana, the network of fruit and vegetable markets is not as strong in western Uttar Pradesh and the impact of land reform laws would be much less in one region. mainly producer of sugar cane in the country.
“Most of the crops in western UP are bought by mills and therefore the role of markets is limited. Therefore, farmers here, unlike in Punjab and Haryana, are greatly affected by the changes taking place in agricultural laws, ”said Naresh Takait, vice president of Bharatiya Kisan Union.
The laws of the Agricultural Products Marketing Committee (APMC) regulate the fruit and vegetable markets in the country.
Most of the farmers here grow sugar cane, the region’s cash crop. Rice and wheat are also grown in some areas. “All the sugar cane harvest is sold directly to the mills. Cane prices are controlled by the government. Paddy is also mostly bought by private players, ”he said.
Another BKU leader, Rakesh Takait, said: “Until now, the agitation of farmers against the three agricultural laws is largely limited to Punjab and Haryana. This is because brokers and markets have a strong network in the two states and feel that the abolition of the market system will affect them more, ”he said.
Farmers in Haryana and Punjab are up in arms against the three ordinances enacted by the government of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) on June 5 to reform the agricultural sector. On Thursday, Harsimrat Kaur, Shiromani Akali Dal’s minister of food processing industries, resigned from the Union cabinet in support of the farmers’ agitation.
The BKU, which is leading the protest in Punjab, is not against the laws, but wants certain amendments to ensure the interests of farmers.
“First, there should be a provision forcing private traders not to buy products from farmers below the minimum support price (MSP) set by the government. Second, a maximum storage limit for food grains should be set by traders, and thirdly, the mandi tax for farmers should be abolished, ”Rakesh said, adding that previously farmers could also sell produce. out of the mandis.
To express solidarity with the farmers of Punjab and Haryana, farmers would soon take to the roads.
“But we are also starting the upheaval at UP with protests at all district headquarters in the state on September 23,” Rakesh said.
Opposition parties also oppose the law.
The Samajwadi Party (SP), the main opposition party in the state, has not made a decision on protests on the issue.
“We have opposed the ordinances from day one because we believe that these laws are anti-peasant and pro-corporate,” said SP spokesman Rajendra Chaudhary. When asked if the party had any protest plans, he said: “Our leader Akhilesh Yadav will take a call on the issue of unrest.”
RLD Secretary General Anil Dubey said the bills were against farmers and demanded that the government withdraw them, although he said there was no plan so far for statewide protests. “The party has organized some demonstrations in western UP,” he said.
“Experts have been advocating for farm market reforms for years together and new farm laws in this regard are a welcome step. Its positive impact will be visible after about two years, ”said AK Singh, an economist and former director of the Giri Institute for Development Studies.
Contested ordinances
Meanwhile, the Lucknow court of the Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to the Center and the UP government asking them to submit an affidavit to a court petition filed challenging the constitutional validity of “The Farmers’ Produce and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance of 2020 ”.
The two-member court made up of Judge Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Judge Dinesh Kumar, in an order approved on August 26, gave six weeks to submit the affidavit.
In their brief, submitted through lawyer Madhav Chaturvedi, petitioners Ashok Kumar and Satyanarayan Tripathi, both residents of Etawah, argued that said ordinance was unconstitutional and therefore urged the court to annul it.
.
