Earlier this month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the three laws would be repealed during the winter session in parliament. He said the laws were passed with the aim of implementing reforms in the agricultural sector, but the government had failed to convince farmers that they were serving their welfare. Our food and agriculture system faces new challenges today, but with citizen and stakeholder action for a fair Farm Bill, we can ensure a vibrant and productive agriculture, economy and communities for generations to come. (a) Trade in agricultural products: The law allows farmers to trade in foreign trade areas such as construction doors, factory premises, cold stores, etc. Previously, this could only be done in the shipyards or mandis of the APMC. In addition, farmers were not satisfied with the provisions of section 8 of the Act, which provided that a farmer and a trader could contact the Subdivisional Magistrate (SDM) to find a solution through a conciliation procedure. They have raised an issue because they are not powerful enough to have access to MDS dispute resolution offices. 2- Law: It allows intra- and interstate trade in agricultural products outside the physical premises of the Agricultural Products Market Committee (APMC) markets and other markets reported in accordance with the APMC laws of the State. The centre argued that the law gives farmers the freedom to sell anywhere, but they feared it would lead to a corporatisation of agriculture and feared that the MSP would be abolished. Some opposed the contractual system, saying it would leave small, marginal farmers vulnerable to exploitation by big business if selling prices did not continue to be regulated, as was the case before the new law came into force. Direct payments also started in the late 1990s to support farmers in difficulty, regardless of crop yields. [10] These payments allowed grain producers to receive a government cheque each year based on yields and farm area as recorded over the previous decade. [11] While it is difficult to contradict the purported purpose of these laws, many critics question the premise itself, pointing out that it was naïve at best and insidious at worst; The laws, in fact, are loading the dice in favour of deep-pocketed companies that would now use that freedom, not to compete, but to circumvent competition, to take control of supply chains at the expense of farmers.
Finally, global data based on data from 61 countries between 2005 and 2015 suggest that farmers receive on average only 27% of consumption expenditure on food consumed at home, with the proportion decreasing significantly as national income increases. 6. Like the Farm Bill, the differences between the allocation laws of the Houses and the Senates are clarified by a small group of legislators called the Conference Committee. Lawmakers have until the end of the fiscal year (11:59 p.m. on Sept. 30) to finalize their respective chamber bills, draft a single compromise bill, and pass it in the House and Senate. Once passed by Congress, the bill is sent to the White House and signed by the president. Since the allocation process is a highly controversial process, this deadline is often missed, and the Legislative Assembly must then pass a “rolling resolution” that maintains the previous year`s existing funding level to avoid a government shutdown. 2- Law: It establishes a national framework for contract cultivation through an agreement between a farmer and a buyer prior to the production or breeding of agricultural products. These laws are – the Agricultural Trade and Trade (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Agricultural Price Assurance and Services Agreement Act on the Agricultural Products Agreement (Empowerment and Protection) and the Essential Products (Amendment) Act. They first arrived in June as three regulations before being approved by parliament by a vote during the monsoon session. The fear that the MSP system will collapse and be dismantled after the implementation of the new agricultural laws has become a very emotional issue for farmers in Punjab and Haryana.
And that is why they are the ones who protest most strongly against the agricultural laws, demanding that the MSP be made mandatory for both the APMC and private mandis. The government presented these laws as reforms similar to the opening of the Indian economy in 1991 and its link to globalized markets. She argued that the three laws open up new opportunities for farmers to earn more from their agricultural products. But farmers were and still are concerned about the MSP`s commitment. The law also removed raw materials such as cooking oil, onions and potatoes from the list of essential raw materials. This law also allowed the government to regulate their supply or add these items to the list only in “exceptional circumstances” under section 1(A) of the new law. It is believed that this would not affect farmers much. President George Bush vetoed the 2008 bill because of its size and cost. However, the veto was overturned by Congress.
[citation needed] The 2008 law has also been publicly controversial due to its high costs and unequal distribution of subsidies among farmers. The bill was 47 percent more expensive than the 2003 bill, and over the past decade, 10 percent of farmers had received 75 percent of the subsidy dollars. Some of these farm owners were then members of Congress and other public figures, including former President Jimmy Carter, who received thousands of dollars in direct payments. [17] In 2007, it was found that approximately 62% of farmers do not receive subsidies from the Farm Act. [11] The government had proposed these laws as reforms similar to those of 1991, liberalizing the Indian economy and linking it to globalized markets.