Farm laws enacted by the Government of India --Repurcussions.

I haven't reacted so far against the agitation of the farmers against the farm laws enacted by the Central Government. The reaction of the farmers particularly of Punjab and part of Haryana is obviously and this has been engineered and propelled by the Opposition parties. The job of the Opposition parties is to oppose whether it is good or bad and I have no comments about that. They will do whatever whatever they feel best and in a democratic country it is quite expected. But certain things , I feel , should be submitted to the people of the country for their kind consideration.

1). The agitation of the farmers, as I have already pointed out, is mainly of the Punjab and Haryana. In other parts of the country the farmers are either not bothered by this enactment of laws or the leaders of the Opposition parties couldn't make any impact on them. Now let us try to understand the reasons of the Punjab farmers' agitation.

In Punjab the main produces are rice and wheat, both need a lot of water for cultivation compared to other cereals or cash crops produced in other States. The reason for their sticking to the production of rice and wheat is their produces are procured by the Food Corporation of India through APMC. They cannot sell it to other  purchasers without the nod by the APMC. The Food Corporation of India purchases their entire production by paying huge commission to APMC and consequently they distribute pro-rata to the farmers after deducting their commission which is to the tune of Rs.2600 crores. Now let us try to understand the real reasons of their grudge. If the farmers are allowed to sell their products directly to the buyers the existence of arhtiyas or bichaulias or very simple to understand the middlemen will extinguish and whatever commission they earn( to the tune of 2.5 percent of the selling price) can be saved by the Government, i.e., taxpayers money. The arhtiyas also act as a facilitator between seller and purchaser. Out of the total Rs. 8600 crores paid as commission Punjab and Haryana shares 2600 crores ( Punjab 1750 crores and Haryana's share was 850 crores). Punjab chages 8.5 percent and Haryana charges 6.5 percent of the total price. Punjab charges 3 percent Market Development fees, 3percent rural development cess and 2.5 percent as arhtiyas commission which is the same in Haryana but market development and rural development cess are 2percent respectively vis-a-vis 3percent in Punjab. In the case of Punjab 6percent is going to State Coffer while it is 4 percent in Haryana. This payment does not include local levies as charged from time to time and is different in different places. All these are the outflow of taxpayers money. It is now a plausible explanation who and why people are interested in this farmer's agitation. Punjab and Haryana arhtiyas' earnings are almost 515 and 317 crores respectively. These arhtiyas are sometimes extending credit facilities to the farmers at a very high rate of interest thus reducing the scope of Bank lending to that extent and many a times the farmers cannot come out of the clutches of the debt traps laid by these arhtiyas. Despite opening of the so many branches by the Commercial Banks the rural lending does not take a leap due to highly negative attitude of the Bank officials. Although in the recent past lots of bottlenecks have been removed, still a lot more is to be done. 

The State Governments while apprehending the loss to the State Exchequer are fuelling the agitation. Now, let us come to the subsidy aspects. The Government is procuring rice to tune of Rs 30 per kg and selling at Rs2 per kg , thus giving Rs28 perkg as subsidy. Most of the poor people who are getting five kg rice per head are selling at Rs. 20 per kg to the ration dealer itself and in turn they are selling in the market at Rs 35 to Rs40 per kg. Ultimately, who is going to be befooled? Only the honest tax payers. Let us assume that a family comprises four members and each family getting 20 kg rice. Let us assume that their consumption is 10 kg; then they are selling ten kg to the ration dealer or if they take a little bit more pain, then they can sell it in the prevailing market price. Ultimately, who is going to be loser? Only the honest taxpayers. In stead of giving subsidy Rs28(30-2) *20 i.e., Rs560 per family if the Government transfers Rs 560 directly to the Bank account of the Head of the family member, then this hobnobbing by the poor people or the ration dealer can be stopped. It is not difficult to understand that these ration dealers cannot do anything without the patronage of the political leaders. So, we can easily surmise that very few people will be disinterested in discontinuing the policy and whoever tries to bring that change will be resisted tooth and nail.

This arhtiya lobby is very strong and no political party ventures to antagonise them for losing vote banks. The middle class tax payers who are not affiliated to any political party are the worst sufferers. Most of the states are not having the APMC and in many States where it was there have been dismantled. The farmers should have a greater choice  of selecting its buyers and wherever he will get a better price he will sell it there. Another apprehension is that the big business men will grab the land of the poor farmers by laying a debt trap. It is beyond anybody's contemplation that the corporates will exploit the farmers . Long back the idea was that computerisation will lead to unemployment and have to fight it out so that it doesn't get implemented which is belied. Not only the computerisation has made our lives easier but also created many job opportunities. How long should we delve in the olden days ideas lest we should be irrelevant in the modern days. We cannot have the cake and eat it too. It is very surprising to note that the income per hectare in Bihar is much more than in Punjab and Haryana. Farmers in these States are complacent that their produces will, in any case,be purchased by the Government despite the fact that the warehouses are full and getting rotten. Had they produced some cash crops in lieu of the traditional cereals like rice and wheat, their income per hectare would have been much more. Here the Scientists are the better guide than the political leaders. In the contract farming the farmers are supplied with better seeds, scientific technology and assured income. Their labour and land will fetch their assured income and obviously it will be much higher than their previous income. This fear should be allayed and not a phobia should be encouraged. Here the Government's role should be like a Regulator and they can't keep quiet in case of any harassment by the Corporates. When the huge stock of rice or wheat gets spoiled it is a huge loss to the Exchequer and consequently the taxpayers' money. Let us not be emotional and think in a much more rational way. Let us take two examples: Firstly, in the case of Amul which is a huge Co-operative and the profit is being shared amongst the milk producers. Secondly, the case of Pepsi under Contract Farming. They are taking the entire produces from the farmers and with value addition they are making chips and earning profits. If the concept of profit is not there, nobody will invest anything and we cannot develop. Let us not inject fears to have some political milage and be practical. It is not very uncommon that  a person who was an extreme left  in his college days ,while doing his own business was constantly trying to deprive his workers. Let usbe practical and embrace the changes with suitable precautions.

It is very much imaginary in nature. In any developed country the Government acts as a Regulator and not as an Entrepreneur except in a very few cases like Defence , Finance and External affairs. Even in a country like China where Communism still exists, Reforms started in mid Seventies and sixty percent of the Industries are in the Private Sectors and the remaining forty percent are known as SOEs, i.e., State Owned Enterprises. The performance in the Private Owned Enterprises is much higher than the SOEs. When a communist country like China can bring Reforms, why we should lag behind? Should we remain as a Developing Country and not turn to a Developed one? Yes, it is correct that we started the Reforms much later, i.e., in 1992 during our Prime Ministership of Late Narsimha Rao and the learned Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. It was much expected that during his Prime Ministership, our country would evince a brilliant performance through his vigorous Reforms but Alas! It didn't materialise because on its head NAC ( National Advisory Council) was set up which was not provided in the Constitution and it didn't allow the Prime Minister to function independently. Whatever be the reason, ultimately we, the people of India have suffered the setback and shouldn't stop the Reforms process under any circumstances. Today this Government is there, tomorrow some other will come but the Country will remain and we should take our country to a different height forgetting all the political differences.