The Parliament of India in September 2020 passed three farm laws which show a massive protest by the farmers for more than a year. There has been a court stay on the farm laws since January 2021.
Several incidents such as the 2021 farmer’s Republic Day protest and Lakhimpur Kheri Violence have resulted in farmer deaths and heavy politicization.
Farmers, farmer unions, and representatives have demanded that the laws be repealed and stated that they will not compromise.
After several rounds of discussion, protest and fight between the farmer leaders and the government of India, finally on the 19th of November, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that, said his government would repeal all three farm laws that have been a point of conflict between farmers from Haryana and Punjab and the Centre for more than a year.
“Despite our best intention to support our farmers, especially the small farmers, we could not take them into confidence. I apologize to our fellow citizens. The Union government has decided to repeal all three farm laws,” he said in an address to the country on the occasion of Gurupurab, the birth of the anniversary of the first Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak.
Three Agricultural laws
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act allowed farmers to trade their produce outside the physical markets notified under various state Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee laws (APMC acts). It overrode all the state-level APMC acts.
- The clauses in sections 3 and 4 of the Act allowed the farmers to sell their produce to buyers outside and within the state in areas outside the APMC mandis.
- Section 6 of the law prohibited the collection of any market fee or cease under any state APMC Act or any other state law concerning trade outside the APMC market.
- Section 14 of the law gave an overriding effect over the inconsistent provisions of the State APMC laws, and section 17 empowered the Centre to frame rules for carrying out the requirements of the law.
- Though the farmers expressed objection to all the three farm laws, their crucial problem was this Act, also known as ‘APMC Bypass Bill’. Cultivators feared that its provisions would weaken the APMC mandis, and farmers feared the new rules would lead to inadequate demand for their produce in local markets.
Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, this law sought to create a legal framework for contract farming in Sections 3-12.
- The farmers could enter into a direct agreement with a buyer before sowing season to sell their produce at pre-determined prices. It allowed the setting up of farming agreements between farmers and sponsors.
- The law, however, did not mention the MSP that buyers need to offer to farmers. Though the Centre said the law was an attempt to liberate farmers by giving them a choice to sell anywhere, the farmers feared that it would lead to the corporatization of agriculture.
Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, through an amendment, to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this law did away with the Centre’s powers to impose stock holding limits on food items, except under extraordinary circumstances.
- It also removed commodities such as edible oil, onion, and potato from essential things. It enabled the government to regulate their supply or include these items back into the list only under “extraordinary circumstances” as per Section 1 (A) of the new law.
- As per this law, the stock limits on farming produce would be based on price rises in the market.
Prime Minister also added that “the agriculture budget now is five times more than it used to be. Prime Minister says “the aim to bring the three farm laws were brought in was to provide relief to small farmers to give them alternatives for selling their crops and to get them better prices for them. Farmers groups across the country have supported these moves, and I express my gratitude to them.”
Prime Minister further adds, “but despite all our efforts and good intentions, we were not able to convince a section of farmers. Even though this section was not huge but it is important for us that we convince them. We tried engaging them in dialogue; we listened to their arguments and logic.
The particular sections of the laws, which they objected to, were also acceded to. We agreed to suspend it for two years, and now the matter is before Supreme Court. Maybe there was a lack in our efforts that we were not able to convince this section of farmers.”
