INDIAN Farm laws withdrawal was initiated by government as Prime Minister was’nt able to persuade Farmers to follow the bills. Despite the fact that the Green Revolution of 1970-1985 improved current agricultural practices such as sowing, tilling, and harvesting, the issue of food distribution and losses was never addressed. With the arrival of tractors, fertilizers, and other agricultural technology, Indian farms were transformed. Across time, agriculture production grew all over the country. Farmers were never used as a political proxy to wage fights by various administrations that followed a “nonpolitical” attitude. India became food self-sufficient as a result of this enhanced non-partisan emphasis. India has now emerged as a food exporting nation after years of hard work and dedication. This is an outstanding performance for a nation with the world’s biggest population. This also emphasizes the basic tenet of national security. Nothing else counts if we are not self-sufficient in terms of food. Along with weaponry, troops, and infrastructure, food security is an important part of national security.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that his administration failed to persuade farmers that these agricultural changes were designed to boost their farm revenue while decreasing or eliminating their borrowing requirements when announcing the repeal of three farm laws. Benefits from the MSP will be sent straight into farmers’ accounts. He kept it brief and planned a tactical retreat.
The influence and power of the “Middle Layers,” which now controls the flow of food to the market without contributing any value, was never taken into account while new rules were being drafted. After a series of meetings, they became known as the “face of the farmer’s protest,” which went much too long without yielding any results. This reform aims to entice funds and investors to invest in storage silos, refrigerated transportation, and food processing and conversion to reduce agricultural waste. Simultaneously, it was projected to reduce the price on customers’ tables while increasing agricultural revenue. The large investors were anticipated to join the food storage, processing, and distribution markets at a “economy of scale” level.
Farmers across the globe are subsidized in some way, either by purchasing surpluses or by controlling commodity market processes to ensure that consumers have easy access to foods and commodities at a reasonable price.
When assessed in terms of agricultural production to the endpoint of consumption, it is estimated that India loses between 25 to 27 percent of its agriculture output. Food costs rise in certain places as a consequence of shortages, while surplus output is squandered in others owing to a lack of food-related infrastructure. Similar agricultural changes had been suggested by a number of independent international organizations, but they have now been halted. Such regulations were developed by the UPA in the past, but they were never executed. When the BJP came to power, they dusted them off the shelf and put them into effect by breaking them down into “three agricultural laws,” which have now been joyfully removed with a voice vote and no discussion. Is it a source of embarrassment for you? Not to the politicians, who were relieved to be free of this encumbrance.
I must remind the readers at this point that food price inflation accounts for a large portion of the total inflation index. The lower the level of life, the greater the inflation rate. Poverty levels do not improve when more discretionary money is spent on food, but rather remain stable. If this situation can be improved in any way, it would benefit not just the farmers but the whole nation.
Only if they obtain an acceptable rate of return will investors engage in creating food storage and processing facilities. By boosting farmers’ revenue via MSP assistance and decreasing consumer expenses, the “economy to scale” will cut the price of food goods. The new infrastructure will eventually include a commodities market where farmers can sell their future yields while reducing weather-related risks. This might need their capacity to forecast what they can supply while receiving payment in advance from large food wholesalers or buyers-speculators. In the end, this will limit government market involvement, which is often done at the cost of taxpayers. The commodities exchange will take on the role of a stock exchange. Where risk is moved from farmers to speculators, insurers, wholesalers, and food processors, this paradigm works in all advanced democracies. When an overproduction in the agriculture sector is discovered, the government may intervene and issue a reverse subsidy to reduce production in order to stabilize prices or purchase them for export. Please keep in mind that food surplus countries often utilize this as diplomatic leverage, or they may form part of export revenues to defray embassies’ foreign expenditures.
What went wrong with the farm laws if this is how it’s meant to work?
The current distribution includes middlemen who created a lobby organization to resist these agricultural changes, fearing that they would throw them out of business in a few years. Farmers in a critical “northern agricultural belt” were persuaded to resist these measures since these organizations already had connections and long-standing ties with them. As a consequence, their protest was more successful than the government’s premise and ineffective public relations effort that “protest fades away by itself over time.”
Finally, owing to upcoming elections in crucial northern states, the tragic execution has come to an end, and long-awaited agricultural legislation has been “smilingly” withdrawn. “Non-farmers” and “special interest groups” won the first battle, but did they win the war? We’ll have to wait and see.
For two reasons, this was a historic setback for the governing party:
1. Passing changes through both chambers of parliament and enacting legislation.
2. It was not promptly addressed once it was protested, and major national routes were closed for months, resulting in fatalities and misery for passengers.
