What Were the Three Farm Laws That Were Repealed

Many believe the ruling party was forced to withdraw the controversial laws for fear of losing the upcoming elections in the states of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, where farmers were fiercely agitated. Even the present government, elected by the people, could not be saved from public control and the rebuke embedded in peasant agitation, which lasted about a year. On easing food regulations, former Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh said this would lead exporters, processors and traders to hoard agricultural products during the harvest season, when prices are usually lower, and then release them when prices rise. Those who oppose it expect irrational volatility in the prices of basic necessities and an increase in black marketing. Their demands were quintupled. First, the setting of the minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural products by a committee of stakeholders, including farmers` representatives. Second, the withdrawal of police cases registered against peasant agitators in several places and states. Thirdly, compensation for the farmer for his losses during the period of unrest. Fourthly, farmers` electricity bills. And fifth, the stubble burning law, which caused the air pollution, where the government agreed to exempt farmers from criminal liability in the law. Farmers` resistance: Large companies will have the freedom to store raw materials and help them dictate their terms to farmers. Farmers` opposition: Farmers` associations say the law is designed to suit „big companies trying to dominate India`s food and agriculture sector“ and weaken farmers` bargaining power.

Large private companies, exporters, wholesalers and processors can also gain an advantage. 1. The Agricultural Trade (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020: It aims to give farmers the freedom to sell their products outside the reported APMC market prices (Mandis). This aims to enable lucrative pricing through competitive alternative business channels. Farmers shall not be subject to any levy or levy on the sale of their products in accordance with this Law. The cabinet last week approved the government`s proposal to repeal three controversial farm laws passed last year that drew opposition from farmers. The Agricultural Trade (Promotion and Facilitation) Act provides for a mechanism for farmers to sell their agricultural products outside the Agricultural Market Committees (APMCs). Each licensee may purchase the products from farmers at mutually agreed prices. This trade in agricultural products will be exempt from the Mandi tax levied by state governments. The Union government said it aims to attract private/foreign direct investment in the agricultural sector and create price stability. PSM has seen a steady increase, so FCI pays more for agricultural products and suffers more losses as PDS rates remain almost the same.

The increase in purchases means that FCI exits are overflowing, and the increase in PSM means that FCI cannot sell its shares with a profit on the international market. The government compensates the CFI for its losses and temporarily sells grain to certain countries as part of an agreement. Many comments were made about the enactment and repeal of the three farm acts. This is not uncommon in a multi-party campaign democracy. In fact, the announcement of the repeal amounts to the justification of Indian democracy, as it has gone through the whole cycle of proposals, protests, participation and reconciliation. READ ALSO: `Farmers win`: Decision to repeal three farm laws welcomed by all Basically, the APMC Circumvention Act requires states to regulate only designated physical premises called „market quotes“ through their respective CMAs. Through this Act, the Centre essentially wrested control of the market areas outside these shipyards, which are now referred to as „commercial zones“, from the States. The dominant popular narrative was that the center had done what states had not done, which was to free agricultural trade from the clutches of APMCs, an idea that finds support in the 2014-15 economic study. Having been forced to repeal these laws, which it has loudly proclaimed vehemently and repeatedly as „historic“, the government will undoubtedly have to take the path of reform with great caution. Such a delegation of regulatory powers from States to the Centre could, in principle, be justified if there is systematic evidence that the Centre is better informed and better equipped to regulate agricultural markets. Here, the Centre`s own actions under the three laws do not inspire confidence. For example, just weeks after the ECA was amended, the Centre imposed restrictions on onion storage in October 2020 and on a number of pulses in July 2021, apparently undermining the presumed spirit of the reformed ECA it advocated.

But, perversely, the APMC Bypass Act particularly affected states that had the most deregulated systems. For example, a state that did not have an APMC law suddenly found that all deregulated areas of the state would now fall under the regulatory scope and control of the center, subjecting private actors who previously operated freely in a deregulated environment to the regulations of a fanciful center. By exempting private actors from complying with state laws on the marketing of agricultural products, the power of states to shape the nature and functioning of agricultural markets has been effectively eliminated. Addressing the nation on the auspicious occasion of Guru Nanak Jayanti, Modi insisted that the laws would benefit the peasants, and then apologized to the people of the country, adding that despite its pure heart and conscience, the government could not convince a section of the peasants. „There may have been flaws in our efforts due to which we could not clarify the truth to some of our peasant brothers, as clear as the light of Diya,“ he said. He noted that it was Guru Nanak Dev`s birthday and said that was no reason to blame anyone. During the winter session of the Indian Parliament, all three laws were withdrawn. But farmers were still unwilling to leave the protest sites, as some of their other grievances had not yet been addressed. They also wanted written assurances from the government. After a few rounds of negotiations, the government yielded in black and white to the various other demands of the peasants. On 11 December, farmers left the protest site. Even previous governments faced financial constraints when it came to investing in agricultural and rural infrastructure.

The government noted that the growth of food markets in India will provide space for private actors and make farming profitable for farmers. The image of the Modi government among its supporters is one of determined strength and invincibility. Has it had to withdraw in this way in the past? The catch is that for farmers in some states like Punjab and Haryana, the MSP system has worked well. In these two countries, rice and wheat supplies are between 75 and 80 percent.