Kisan Movement - Without able leadership & Prioritisation of Farmers Problem

[KJ2018]

किसान आंदोलन -किसको क्या मिला

• क्या किसान नेताओं को असली किसान समस्याओं के बारे में पता था या फिर असली किसान को बेवकूफ बनाया गया ?

• वास्तव में 3 अधिनियम काले थे या किसान नेताओं के कुछ छिपे हुए एजेंडे थे
• सोचिए कैसे इन एसकेएम नेताओं ने एक साल में किसानों को बेवकूफ बनाया और बिचौलियों से दलाली हासिल की। अच्छे अधिनियमों को वापस ले लिया गया है जो स्थानीय बेरोजगार युवाओं को स्वरोजगार के अवसर प्रदान करते
• 
  
  • किसान की परिभाषा - विभिन्न सरकारी योजनाओं में, यह परिभाषित किया गया है कि यदि कृषि आय, किसी भूमि जोत (न कि किसान परिवार की जिसमें पति, पत्नी, बच्चे और माता-पिता शामिल है) की कुल आय के 50% से अधिक है, तो उसे किसान माना जाएगा। उदाहरण के लिए ; यदि किसी बड़े व्यापारी की पत्नी के नाम जमीन है और उसकी कोई अन्य आय नहीं है। ऐसे मामलों में वह किसान का लाभ ले सकती है और यह सरकारी योजनाओं में हुआ है।- किसानों नेताओं को इसकी जानकारी नहीं थी
  • भारत सरकार का भूमि जोत के आधार पर किसानों कावर्गीकरण : भूमि जोत गणना के अनुसार किसानों को, 5 समूहों (सीमांत किसान (upto 1 ha or 2.5 Acre or 2.5 Kila से कम ), छोटा किसान,(1-2 ha 0r 2.5 acre to 5 Acre or 2.5 Kila to 5 Kila) अर्ध मध्यम किसान(2-4 ha or 5 Acre to 10 Acre or 5 Kila to 10 Kila), मध्यम किसान(4-10 ha or 10 acre to 25 Acre or 10 kila to 25 kila )और बड़े किसान(>10 ha or 25 Acre or 25 kila ) में वर्गीकृत किया गया है।इसी मापदंड के आधार पर कर्जमाफी, ब्याज में छूट(other than KCC), सरकारी योजना में सब्सिडी, आर्थिक रूप से पिछड़े आरक्षण (EBC reservation) आदि का लाभ दिया जाता है और ज्*यादातर ये योजनाएं छोटे किसानों के लिए बनायी गई हैं।
  • अब मुख्य मुद्दा है कि राजस्थान के किसानों (गंगा नगर और हनुमानगढ़ जिले के सिंचित क्षेत्रों के किसानों को छोड़कर) को देखें, इन किसानों की आय, सिंचित क्षेत्रों के छोटे किसानों (2 हेक्टेयर वाले) के बराबर नहीं है। ऐसे किसान राजस्थान में, 14.16 लाख सेमी मीडियम (> 2 हेक्टेयर से 4 हेक्टेयर वाले- यानी देश का 10.11%), 11.31 लाख मध्यम (4 से 10 हेक्टेयर वाले- यानी देश का 20.33 फीसदी) और 3.59 लाख बड़े किसान (> 10 हेक्टेयर या 25 एकड़वाले- जो देश के 42.84 फीसदी) पाए जाते हैं। यानी राजस्थान में 29.06 लाख किसान (38 फीसदी -76.55 लाख में से ) को इसका लाभ नहीं मिल रहा है (हालांकि राजस्थान सरकार ने ईबीसी में भूमि मानदंड को बाहर रखा है) इसी प्रकार वर्षा आधारित क्षेत्रों में रहने वाले अर्ध मध्यम, मध्यम और बड़े किसान, जो देश के अन्य भागों, जैसे विदर्भ और मराठवाड़ा, गुजरात का सौराष्ट्र क्षेत्र, उत्तरी कर्नाटक, आदि में रह रहे हैं, को इन योजनाओं लाभ नहीं मिल रहा है मुझे लगता है कि 3 अधिनियमों को वापस लेने से यह मुद्दा बड़ा है।लेकिनकिसानों नेताओं को इसकी जानकारी नहीं थी
  • तमाम जानकारों (So called experts and policy makers) का कहना है कि पूरा फायदा मध्यम और बड़े किसान ले जाते हैं. किसान नेताओं और विशेषज्ञों पर शर्म आती है।ये किसान कहां रहते हैं, इसकी उन्हें जानकारी नहीं है।
  • खाद्यान्नों की खरीद (On MSP) :एफसीआई (FCI) देश के लिए गेहूं और धान की खरीद की नोडल एजेंसी है।जिसे गरीबी रेखा से नीचे के परिवारों में बांटा जाता है। जबकि दलहन और तिलहन की खरीद नैफेड (NAFED)द्वारा की जाती है।पंजाब, हरियाणा और राजस्थान राज्यों को छोड़कर, किसान स्तर पर खरीद अन्य सभी राज्यों में ग्राम विकास सहकारी समिति को सौंपी जाती है। केवल किसान ही इन समितियों के सदस्य हैं। ये समितियाँ किसान को खाद, बीज, फार्म मशीनरी, गोदाम, मेडिकल स्टोर आदि विभिन्न प्रकार की सुविधाएँ प्रदान करती हैं।ओडिशा, मध्य प्रदेश, छत्तीसगढ़, तेलंगाना आदि राज्यों में ये समितियां अच्छा लाभ कमा रही हैं लेकिनकिसानों नेताओं को दूसरे राज्य में प्रचलित खरीद व्यवस्था की जानकारी नहीं थी
  • पंजाब और हरियाणा में 70% से अधिक गेहूं और धान की खरीद एमएसपी के तहत की जाती, केवल पंजाब, हरियाणा और राजस्थान में खरीद आढ़तियों के माध्यम से की जा रही है। केवल पंजाब और हरियाणा में खाद्यान्न की अनुमानित खरीद लागत रुपये 75,000 करोड़ प्रतिवर्ष से अधिक है। खरीद के लिए 2% कमीशन बिना किसी प्रयास के आढ़ती को दिया जाता है। इसका मतलब यह है कि पंजाब और हरियाणा के इन बिचौलियों (केवल गेहूं और धान के लिए) को भारत सरकार द्वारा 1500 करोड़ रुपये/वर्ष से अधिक कमीशन (2%) दिया जा रहा है, और अधिनियम वापस लेने के बाद, आढ़तियों के द्वारा खरीद जारी रखेगी। इसका मतलब यह है कि, यह राशि (1500 करोड़ रुपये/वर्ष) ग्राम विकास सहकारी समिति (जो किसानों के स्वामित्व में है) को दी जा सकती थी, लेकिनकिसान नेताओं को इसकी जानकारी नहीं थी, या फिर वे आढ़तियों के संपर्क में थे और किसी छिपे हुए एजेंडे के तहत इसे कोई मुद्दा नहीं बनाया गया था।
  • किसानों को MSP की राशि सीधे account में हस्तांतरित की जा रही थी।इस पर भी शुरू में आपत्ति जताई गई थी कि यह कैसे संभव है। जबकि दूसरे राज्यों में भी ऐसा ही हो रहा था। लेकिनकिसान नेताओं को इसकी जानकारी नहीं थी
  • पीडीएस में स्थानीय उत्पादित खाद्यान्न जैसे बाजरा, मक्का, ज्वार, मंडुआ आदि को शामिल करना (Atleast MSP can be ensured of locally produced)- यह मांग नहीं थी तो मौजूदा एमएसपी से दूसरे राज्य के किसानों को कैसे फायदा होगा ?किसान आंदोलन का निष्कर्ष है कि राजस्थान, दक्षिण हरियाणा, बिहार, महाराष्ट्र, गुजरात, उत्तराखंड, आदि के किसान राज्य सरकार से मांग कर सकते हैं कि पीडीएस में बाजरा, मक्का, ज्वार और मंडुआ आदि को शामिल किया जाए।ये स्थानीय उत्पाद जैसे बाजरा, मक्का, ज्वार और मंडुआ आदि खाने के लिए बेहतर है।किसानों को एमएसपी का लाभ देने के लिए पीडीएस में कम से कम 10 किग्रा/माह की स्थानीय उपज को शामिल किया जा सकता है। किसान नेताओं ने इसकी मांग नहीं की क्योंकि वे केवल पंजाब के किसानों के पक्ष में थे।
  • पिछले 20 साल से कितनी मंडियों में आवक नहीं हो रही थी और किसान नेता ने जनता को मूर्ख बनाया कि ये मंडियां 3 अधिनियमों के कारण बंद हैं।
  • किसान नेता को इस बात की जानकारी नहीं थी कि ग्रामीण भंडार योजना और कृषि विपणन योजना 2003-04 और 2008-09 में 30000 मीट्रिक टन तक की warehouse/silo बनाने के लिए शुरू की गई थी। एपीएमसी अधिनियम में संशोधन किया गया ( by all States) और प्रत्यक्ष विपणन, अनुबंध खेती आदि को 2009-10 में लगभग सभी राज्यों में लागू किया गया। उन्होंने अडानी और अंबानी के नाम पर किसानों को बेवकूफ बनाया।

[KJ2018]

Farmers Producer Organisation is the Best alternative

A target of 10,000 FPOs (Mostly per block one FPOs) have been kept in 2019-20 (before the existing Govt after May 2019) and now budgetary support is being provide by GoI. Farmers should be made aware and one FPO/Panchayat (in case Rajasthan- 3-4 Villages are involved in GP), one FPO in Haryana (in case one vilage is having 4-5 GPs) or 3-4 GPs in case of smaller villages to maintain contiguity and CBBOs have been identified by GoI for each block. On an average more than Rs. 25 lakh per FPO for formation will be provided. These FPOs can have following businss activities;
- Bulk purchase of cattle feed, hybrid seeds, fertilisers, Agril Machinaries or Equipments, Retail items, etc.
- Bulk selling of Cereals, Pulses, Oilseeds, etc.
- Setting up of own Agro-processing unit - Subsidy is avvailable under various schemes for fPOs.

It can be registered under Society Act or Companies Act.

Best Marketing system for Producers or Farmers and Consumers through direct marketing.
- Schemes are available that these FPOs can open their outlets (Rural Mart) in nearby Cities/Towns.

Regards

[KJ2018]

FARMING AGREEMENT : A farmer may enter into a written farming agreement in respect of any farming produce .
The minimum period of the farming agreement shall be for one crop season or one production cycle of livestock, as the case may be, and the maximum period shall be five years: ( Farmers may go for agreement of one crop season also)
The parties entering into a farming agreement may identify and require as a condition for the performance of such agreement compliance with mutually acceptable quality, grade and standards of a farming produce.
The price to be paid for the purchase of a farming produce may be determined and mentioned in the farming agreement itself.
The Sponsor may, before accepting the delivery of any farming produce, inspect the quality or any other feature of such produce as specified in the farming agreement, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have inspected the produce and shall have no right to retract from acceptance of such produce at the time of its delivery or thereafter.
The Sponsor shall,—(a) where the farming agreement relates to seed production, make payment of not less than two-third of agreed amount at the time of delivery and the remaining amount after due certification, but not later than thirty days of delivery; ( rumour is being spread among farmers that no payment will be made to farmers}.
Where a farming agreement has been entered into in respect of any farming produce under this Act, such produce shall be exempt from the application of any State Act, by whatever name called, established for the purpose of regulation of sale and purchase of such farming produce. (State regulation on mobility of commodity will not be in practice)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or in any control order issued thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force, any obligation related to stock limit shall not be applicable to such quantities of farming produce as are purchased under a farming agreement entered into in accordance with the provisions of this Act.( Through contract farming any quantity of produce can be produced which will be exempted from ECA 1955)
No farming agreement shall be entered into for the purpose of— (a) any transfer, including sale, lease and mortgage of the land or premises of the farmer; or (b) raising any permanent structure or making any modification on the land or premises of the farmer, unless the Sponsor agrees to remove such structure or to restore the land to its original condition, at his cost, on the conclusion of the agreement or expiry of the agreement period, as the case may be:
A farming agreement may be linked with insurance or credit instrument under any scheme of the Central Government or the State Government or any financial service provider to ensure risk mitigation and flow of credit to farmer or Sponsor or both. ( Farmers may take the benefit of Govt sponsored shemes on cluster basis which is an added adventage)
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, an aggregator or farm service provider may become a party to the farming agreement and in such case, the role and services of such aggregator or farm service provider shall be explicitly mentioned in such farming agreement. ( If farmers have any doubt, in that case FPOs can be promoted and FPO can sign on behalf of farmers)
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, (i) "aggregator" means any person, including a Farmer Producer Organisation, who acts as an intermediary between a farmer or a group of farmers and a Sponsor and provides aggregation related services to both farmers and Sponsor;(ii) "farm service provider" means any person who provides farm services.
At any time after entering into a farming agreement, the parties to such agreement may, with mutual consent, alter or terminate such agreement for any reasonable cause.
12. (1) A State Government may notify a Registration Authority to provide for electronic registry for that State that provides facilitative framework for registration of farming agreements.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT : 13. (1) Every farming agreement shall explicitly provide for a conciliation process and formation of a conciliation board consisting of representatives of parties to the agreement: Provided that representation of parties in such conciliation board shall be fair and balanced. ( In Conciliation Board, Farmers representative or FPO representative may be increased).

The above clauses are clear and need to be explained to common farmer.

[KJ2018]

[An Act to provide for the creation of an ecosystem where the farmers and traders enjoy the freedom of choice relating to sale and purchase of farmers’ produce which facilitates remunerative prices through competitive alternative trading channels; to promote efficient, transparent and barrier-free inter-State and intra-State trade and commerce of farmers’ produce outside the physical premises of markets or deemed markets notified under various State agricultural produce market legislations; to provide a facilitative framework for electronic trading and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. processing, manufacturing, export, consumption or for such other purpose. (Where Adani & Ambani’s have been favoured. Act is just providing equal opportunities for small & big traders. In Agriculture commonities, the small traders are more dominant because of there proximity with farmers)- Any farmer or trader or electronic trading and transaction platform shall have the freedom to carry on the inter-State or intra-State trade and commerce in farmers’ produce in a trade area.( Opportunities : Rural youth can promote Farmers’ Group or FPOs and take benefit of e-trading)
- The Central Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in the public interest so to do, prescribe a system for electronic registration for a trader, modalities of trade transaction and mode of payment of the scheduled farmers’ produce in a trade area.
- Every trader who transacts with farmers shall make payment for the traded scheduled farmers’ produce on the same day or within the maximum three working days if procedurally so required subject to the condition that the receipt of delivery mentioning the due payment amount shall be given to the farmer on the same day. ( Farmer is being underestimated by the Kisan Unions as anyone can befool him)
- Any person (other than individual), having a permanent account number allotted under the Income-tax Act, 1961or such other document as may be notified by the Central Government or any farmer producer organisation or agricultural co-operative society may establish and operate an electronic trading and transaction platform for facilitating inter-State or intra-State trade and commerce of scheduled farmers’ produce in a trade area:
-No market fee or cess or levy, by whatever name called, under any State APMC Act or any other State law, shall be levied on any farmer or trader or electronic trading and transaction platform for trade and commerce in scheduled farmers’ produce in a trade area ( Reduced market fee/no commission agent charges will lower the inflation for consumers).

[KJ2018]

Migrated rural youth has proved that transportation sector is remunerative and provides employment and income opportunities. These youth have better networking in different cities and they can be better conduit for Inter State mobility of commodities and for this a proper farmer's trader portal can be initiated. Existing ACT can be properly understood and benefits can be taken up by guiding rural youth.

[KJ2018]

If Kisan Sayunkat Morcha has enough evidence on ill effects of 3 New laws in that case negative points on clausewise basis should be given to common people (other than farmers) to get their support also. Otherwise it seems that so called farmers leaders are making Chanda Money by mobilising poorly informed farmers.

[karan]

Kuldeep Singh
I agree with almost all of your points except Interest subvention. As farmers get all of their money instead of being skimmed from top by Aadhtiyas, they wouldn't have any issue paying interest. I believe people are inherently "fair" they have keen sense of "right and wrong". Give you an example, right now Aashirvaad Atta has cornered the market in USA. Atta is high quality with high protein and fibre content. It is product of MP wheat.
MP and to some extent UP farmers are reaping the windfall from PACS. They are spending money they have earned on consumables luxury item.

Initially ongoing Kisan movement was considered as a well organised and properly strategised movement but now, from my perspective it can be viewed as highly unorganised and being led by poorly informed people. The existing leadership could have included many demands which farmers face on daily basis - i) Increase in Interest subvention from 3 lak to 5 lakh on KCC, ii). Enhancement of interest subvention from 3 to 5 %, iii) Reducing crop insurance premium on commercial crops, iv) Defining farmers classification on Statewise basis (43% Large farmers are found in Rajasthan as per 2015-16 land holding),v) Private banks are not giving interest subvention on KCC, vi) Updation of land records, viii) Implementation of AH/Horticulture related schemes for rural youth, ix). FPO promotion by PACS/FPOs, x).FPO promotion in each Gram Panchayat ( as Gram Panchayat is having minimum 1000 farmer families), and so on ----------- No of demands on region specific basis could have been included besides the 3 farm laws. But poor awareness and coordination these problems were not prioritised which raise the doubts on the ability of existing leadership.

Why the following demand are not included in the movement ?
i).Presently MSP procurement in Punjab and Haryana happens through APMC by engaging Commission agent whereas in MP the Wheat procurement in MP happens through Primary Agril Credit Society(PACS). PACS is a farmers organisation. Last year MP was the largest wheat contributor in Central Pool ( 129 Lakh MT). Land record s of every farmer is verified before procurement and DBT faciity is given to farmers. Ongoing TV debate on land records with respect to Punjab is useless. So, Demand of farmers' movement should be that the procurement should happen through PACS in Punjab & Haryana rather than through APMC. This demand is not there which raise the doubt on this movement.
ii). AT, APMC, the MSP should be used as a base price for auction in Mandi. This demand is also not there. Kindly see the Deptt of Food Civil Supply, Govt of India data on procurement being made by various states during last 5 years and you would be able to know the reason of this movement only on 3 laws. Regards

[karan]

People from Haryana and Punjab are emotional creatures. They would believe in rumors and BS peddled by their friends, family members and others at some "chai ki dukaan" instead of understanding the legislation. Thus, they end up losing every time. These are the same people who are more interested in conning the system for 2 paise instead of making 2000 Rs. They want to be rich like American or Western Farmers but have no clue on how farming should be treated as business instead of sustenance.

FARMING AGREEMENT : A farmer may enter into a written farming agreement in respect of any farming produce .
The minimum period of the farming agreement shall be for one crop season or one production cycle of livestock, as the case may be, and the maximum period shall be five years: ( Farmers may go for agreement of one crop season also)
The parties entering into a farming agreement may identify and require as a condition for the performance of such agreement compliance with mutually acceptable quality, grade and standards of a farming produce.
The price to be paid for the purchase of a farming produce may be determined and mentioned in the farming agreement itself.
The Sponsor may, before accepting the delivery of any farming produce, inspect the quality or any other feature of such produce as specified in the farming agreement, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have inspected the produce and shall have no right to retract from acceptance of such produce at the time of its delivery or thereafter.
The Sponsor shall,—(a) where the farming agreement relates to seed production, make payment of not less than two-third of agreed amount at the time of delivery and the remaining amount after due certification, but not later than thirty days of delivery; ( rumour is being spread among farmers that no payment will be made to farmers}.
Where a farming agreement has been entered into in respect of any farming produce under this Act, such produce shall be exempt from the application of any State Act, by whatever name called, established for the purpose of regulation of sale and purchase of such farming produce. (State regulation on mobility of commodity will not be in practice)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or in any control order issued thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force, any obligation related to stock limit shall not be applicable to such quantities of farming produce as are purchased under a farming agreement entered into in accordance with the provisions of this Act.( Through contract farming any quantity of produce can be produced which will be exempted from ECA 1955)
No farming agreement shall be entered into for the purpose of— (a) any transfer, including sale, lease and mortgage of the land or premises of the farmer; or (b) raising any permanent structure or making any modification on the land or premises of the farmer, unless the Sponsor agrees to remove such structure or to restore the land to its original condition, at his cost, on the conclusion of the agreement or expiry of the agreement period, as the case may be:
A farming agreement may be linked with insurance or credit instrument under any scheme of the Central Government or the State Government or any financial service provider to ensure risk mitigation and flow of credit to farmer or Sponsor or both. ( Farmers may take the benefit of Govt sponsored shemes on cluster basis which is an added adventage)
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, an aggregator or farm service provider may become a party to the farming agreement and in such case, the role and services of such aggregator or farm service provider shall be explicitly mentioned in such farming agreement. ( If farmers have any doubt, in that case FPOs can be promoted and FPO can sign on behalf of farmers)
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, (i) "aggregator" means any person, including a Farmer Producer Organisation, who acts as an intermediary between a farmer or a group of farmers and a Sponsor and provides aggregation related services to both farmers and Sponsor;(ii) "farm service provider" means any person who provides farm services.
At any time after entering into a farming agreement, the parties to such agreement may, with mutual consent, alter or terminate such agreement for any reasonable cause.
12. (1) A State Government may notify a Registration Authority to provide for electronic registry for that State that provides facilitative framework for registration of farming agreements.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT : 13. (1) Every farming agreement shall explicitly provide for a conciliation process and formation of a conciliation board consisting of representatives of parties to the agreement: Provided that representation of parties in such conciliation board shall be fair and balanced. ( In Conciliation Board, Farmers representative or FPO representative may be increased).

The above clauses are clear and need to be explained to common farmer.

[ayushkadyan]

One should not forget that a large chunk of farmers in northern India hold a few acre land per person. Their battle is for survival not for luxury. It’s difficult to imagine what would happen to those farmers who are seeking their livelihood in just 5-10 Bigha land. They are mere labourers with a tag of farmer.
The biggest objection is, these farming bills are aimed at turning the Indian traditional farming into consumer based market. There may be a number of benefits of proposed farming bills according to government, but these bill will turn those farmers cum labourers into pure consumer. That’s for sure. Thus, making their lives more vulnerable due to very low household income of such farmers.

No capping on storage of crops will throw out the small vendors from the market. Again, big corporates will control the commodity market. Government just want to get rid of public distribution system. After a few years, you will see government warehouses will be shut down or disinvested to corporates due to price war with big corporates. The excuse will be like, farmers are selling their crops to big corporates due to higher crop rate. Government can’t afford the subsidy on crop procurement from farmers. So as a consumer you will have to buy everything from corporate food stores not public ration shop.

Imagine, small farmers signed a contract with corporate for their crops and farming land. Those farmer will no longer be a producer but consumer. Now, they need to spend their money to get the food from the market. Can government give the guarantee to such farmers to get their income increased in same proportion as they had as a farmer? Obviously not, average rate of contract of farming land can’t be more than the price of crops that contracted land can yield in a season.

And it’s not about crop contracts only, a farmer keeps dairy cattle also. It means farmers needs to give up the idea of having dairy cattle after ceding the land to corporates. Another burden on such farmers to buy milk from market. Now don’t say that farmers are not bound to sign the contract for entire land. Ok..agreed. What if corporates says we will not sign the contract unless you do it for all the land you have. it’s very much possible. Given the situation of babu culture in India.
All we can say that these farming bills create a rippling effect in agricultural industry of India. Unfortunately, farmers will be the one who will suffer the most.

India is not USA. We don’t have hourly rate. Forget about MSP, even minimum wages are not enforced properly. If we calculate the working hours of a farmer spent in cultivation of land and crop, the production cost of crop will be much higher. Indian MSP is just an estimation of average production cost and not linked to man hours involved in producing a crop. Indian farmers doesn’t get subsidy to keep the production cost as per the international market. They are not asking to compensate their man hours but an adequate MSP to meet the cost of living. The biggest contrast is number of people involved in agriculture in both the countries. In India it would be more than 60% while in US it would be hardly 2%.

The paddlers of farm bills repeat this thing very often that farmers can cancel their contract with corporates at any time. Agreed. Farmers can. But what about the agricultural instruments which will have no use for a farmer after getting into an agreement. How long they can hold those instruments? One year, two years or may be more..Eventually, farmers will have to sell those agricultural equipment. like: bhaisa, buggi, tiller etc. It means they will be completely out of the farming after few years. Can you imagine for such farmers who own very few acre land to get back into farming again? Buying agricultural equipment again? Even if they cancel the agreement, it would be very difficult to procure all the agricultural equipment after few years and getting into the farming again. Almost impossible. At least, their future generation will refuse to take up the farming again after getting used to contract farming.

This is what these farming bills are aimed at. Turning these peasant farmers into a lower income consumer. Leaving them at a stake of big corporates. Working in their stores and becoming a part of Rat race.

If government really wants to help the farmers, MSP bill should be there, and an enforced one not on paper but on the ground rather leaving farmers at the mercy of Mandi Samiti or Big Corporates. We really don’t need such farming bills which are more focused on empowerment of corporates and capitalist than peasant farmers.

[amitbudhwar]

What an illuminating, eye-opening, and a novel idea. Don't know how wold is functioning without such intellectuals not being able to contribute. Aapne to aankhein hi khol di apne Gyaan ki ganga baha kar yaha. Kahan chupe the aap jaise talent wale log.

People from Haryana and Punjab are emotional creatures. They would believe in rumors and BS peddled by their friends, family members and others at some "chai ki dukaan" instead of understanding the legislation. Thus, they end up losing every time. These are the same people who are more interested in conning the system for 2 paise instead of making 2000 Rs. They want to be rich like American or Western Farmers but have no clue on how farming should be treated as business instead of sustenance.

[KJ2018]

Presently 5% interest subvention assuming 9% RoI by GoI ( 2% to Banks and 3% to regular borrowers) on KCC loan is given to farmers upto an amount of Rs.3 lakh of KCC loan. My suggestion was that farmers may be given KCC loan at zero percent means 4% additional interest subvention can be asked or loan limit of interest subvention can be enhanced upto Rs. 5 lakh.

Kuldeep Singh
I agree with almost all of your points except Interest subvention. As farmers get all of their money instead of being skimmed from top by Aadhtiyas, they wouldn't have any issue paying interest. I believe people are inherently "fair" they have keen sense of "right and wrong". Give you an example, right now Aashirvaad Atta has cornered the market in USA. Atta is high quality with high protein and fibre content. It is product of MP wheat.
MP and to some extent UP farmers are reaping the windfall from PACS. They are spending money they have earned on consumables luxury item.

[KJ2018]

As per land holding census 2015-16, 43% large farmers are found in Rajasthan (particularly in Western Rajsthan) and majority of large farmers come from rainfed areas(except Punjab & Haryana). These farmers don't get the benefit of loan waiver, etc as criteria of 5 Acre is generally applied on such facilities. The Kisan Unions never bother about the income level of these farmers and particularly those farmers families who are solely dependent on agriculture.

[KJ2018]

As we all are aware that wheat Procurement through PACS in MP started in 2010 and Govt of MP used to give MSP + Rs. 150/qtl as Bonus to the farmers. ITC was the major buyer of Sarbati wheat in MP but it also mixes common wheat in Ashirwad Atta (It is not claimed on Pkt that Atta is having 100% Sarbati Wheat but 100 % MP Wholegrain Wheat is claimed). Due to higher prices of common wheat in MP because of MSP + Bonus, ITC shifted their procurement base of common wheat from MP to nearby Areas of UP like Lalitpur, Jhansi, etc.

Kuldeep Singh
I agree with almost all of your points except Interest subvention. As farmers get all of their money instead of being skimmed from top by Aadhtiyas, they wouldn't have any issue paying interest. I believe people are inherently "fair" they have keen sense of "right and wrong". Give you an example, right now Aashirvaad Atta has cornered the market in USA. Atta is high quality with high protein and fibre content. It is product of MP wheat.
MP and to some extent UP farmers are reaping the windfall from PACS. They are spending money they have earned on consumables luxury item.

[KJ2018]

Small Farmers can be member of Farmers Producer Organisation (FPOs) and FPOs is the most efficient marketing channel between producer to consumer. Contract can be signed only Rabi season and Kharif can be used for fodder cultivation or subsistence farming.

One should not forget that a large chunk of farmers in northern India hold a few acre land per person. Their battle is for survival not for luxury. It’s difficult to imagine what would happen to those farmers who are seeking their livelihood in just 5-10 Bigha land. They are mere labourers with a tag of farmer.
The biggest objection is, these farming bills are aimed at turning the Indian traditional farming into consumer based market. There may be a number of benefits of proposed farming bills according to government, but these bill will turn those farmers cum labourers into pure consumer. That’s for sure. Thus, making their lives more vulnerable due to very low household income of such farmers.

No capping on storage of crops will throw out the small vendors from the market. Again, big corporates will control the commodity market. Government just want to get rid of public distribution system. After a few years, you will see government warehouses will be shut down or disinvested to corporates due to price war with big corporates. The excuse will be like, farmers are selling their crops to big corporates due to higher crop rate. Government can’t afford the subsidy on crop procurement from farmers. So as a consumer you will have to buy everything from corporate food stores not public ration shop.

Imagine, small farmers signed a contract with corporate for their crops and farming land. Those farmer will no longer be a producer but consumer. Now, they need to spend their money to get the food from the market. Can government give the guarantee to such farmers to get their income increased in same proportion as they had as a farmer? Obviously not, average rate of contract of farming land can’t be more than the price of crops that contracted land can yield in a season.

And it’s not about crop contracts only, a farmer keeps dairy cattle also. It means farmers needs to give up the idea of having dairy cattle after ceding the land to corporates. Another burden on such farmers to buy milk from market. Now don’t say that farmers are not bound to sign the contract for entire land. Ok..agreed. What if corporates says we will not sign the contract unless you do it for all the land you have. it’s very much possible. Given the situation of babu culture in India.
All we can say that these farming bills create a rippling effect in agricultural industry of India. Unfortunately, farmers will be the one who will suffer the most.

India is not USA. We don’t have hourly rate. Forget about MSP, even minimum wages are not enforced properly. If we calculate the working hours of a farmer spent in cultivation of land and crop, the production cost of crop will be much higher. Indian MSP is just an estimation of average production cost and not linked to man hours involved in producing a crop. Indian farmers doesn’t get subsidy to keep the production cost as per the international market. They are not asking to compensate their man hours but an adequate MSP to meet the cost of living. The biggest contrast is number of people involved in agriculture in both the countries. In India it would be more than 60% while in US it would be hardly 2%.

The paddlers of farm bills repeat this thing very often that farmers can cancel their contract with corporates at any time. Agreed. Farmers can. But what about the agricultural instruments which will have no use for a farmer after getting into an agreement. How long they can hold those instruments? One year, two years or may be more..Eventually, farmers will have to sell those agricultural equipment. like: bhaisa, buggi, tiller etc. It means they will be completely out of the farming after few years. Can you imagine for such farmers who own very few acre land to get back into farming again? Buying agricultural equipment again? Even if they cancel the agreement, it would be very difficult to procure all the agricultural equipment after few years and getting into the farming again. Almost impossible. At least, their future generation will refuse to take up the farming again after getting used to contract farming.

This is what these farming bills are aimed at. Turning these peasant farmers into a lower income consumer. Leaving them at a stake of big corporates. Working in their stores and becoming a part of Rat race.

If government really wants to help the farmers, MSP bill should be there, and an enforced one not on paper but on the ground rather leaving farmers at the mercy of Mandi Samiti or Big Corporates. We really don’t need such farming bills which are more focused on empowerment of corporates and capitalist than peasant farmers.

[ayushkadyan]

Small Farmers can be member of Farmers Producer Organisation (FPOs) and FPOs is the most efficient marketing channel between producer to consumer. Contract can be signed only Rabi season and Kharif can be used for fodder cultivation or subsistence farming.

Really? In a country, where Government can’t even control Mandi system, MSP and sarkari babus, do you think such Farmers organisations gonna help farmers? Must be kidding. Sad but true, a peasant farmer has no value in this country where government is leaving no stone unturned to put farmers fate at the corporates’ stake.
These FPOs kind of things look good on paper but in reality, peasant farmers are the one who get nothing from such ideas. A few socially aware farmers may get some benefits from FPOs but usually, farmer who are not that educated, not aware of their rights, and I bet on this, half of the innocent farmers in villages don’t know what these marketing channels are, they will end up getting nothing out of such initiatives.
The end result of such schemes for small farmers are just like crop insurance schemes, Kisan Credit Card kind of thing where real beneficiaries are bank and insurers not the farmers. FPOs also struggle in distributing the fare share of profits among the contributing members(farmers). It’s too complicated system for an average farmer. Fancy on papers, far from reality. Again, who will be the buyer of FPOs, corporates? because government is removing the capping on storage of corp. No one can stop a capitalist to invest more in bying the crop from FPOs or farmers directly through land/crop contracts. That’s the concern. Eventually, corporates will control everything in commodity market.
The struggle of peasant farmers will remain same. They are fighting against system, they are fighting against government for their legitimate rights so that they can live with dignity in this country. That’s it.

[shauryakharb]

There are many points which are not good for a common farmer in this bills,
The dispute resolution mechanism is one of them, It also include ways to recover arrear according to the Land Revenue Act of 1996, under which the crops of farmer, His/her machinery, residential plots, moveable properties can be sold to recover the arrear (Leaving just Agriculture land) also imprisonment. The Contract Farming is a complicated thing for Indian farmers, the quality, color, pesticide and moisture measure clauses in agreement can be used to pay lower prices to the farmers. Buying using Pan card is also not a good idea. Also about the private mandis we already have the example of Bihar are they getting better prices than APMC mandis? No! Private mandis controlled by private traders with any proper rules and regulations will be just used to exploit the farmers. Don't fall of this ****, its just a stupid move by Modi just all most his decisions have become an failure for the Indian economy, this decision will lead to lower income and more exploitation to the farmers. It all looks good on paper, but we all know the ground reality of Private traders, SDM and Govt employees, How the dispute resolution mechanism can be manipulated, plus there are no proper safeguards for farmers. There is not Basic Code of Contract given by the Government in the bill.

[KJ2018]

SOME FACTS TO KNOW
A. LAND HOLDING STATUS
TOTAL LAND HOLDINGS OR FARMERS IN COUNTRY - 14.60 CRORE ( 2015-16)
LAND HOLDINGS IN PUNJAB & HARYANA - 27 LAKH ( 17 LAKH IN HARYANA & 10 LAKH IN PUNJAB). AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING IS BETTER IN PUNJAB THAN HARYANA.

• PUNJAB STATE HAS VERY WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION (RBI REPORT- BUDGET REVIEW)DESPITE FARMERS ARE RICH. AS EVERYTHING IS AVAILABLE AT SUBSIDY - NO IRRIGATION CHARGES, NO ELECTRICITY CHARGES, ASSURED MSP (IN PAST), FERTILISER SUBSIDY , INTEREST SUBVENTION ON KCC, ETC.

B. Foodgrains Production Scenario (2020-21) & MSP Procurement
Total Foodgrains (Cereals + Pulses)- 303 million tonne
Wheat and Paddy Production - 228 Million tonne ( 75% of total Foodgrains)
Pulses - 24 Million tonne
Other Cereals - 45 Million Tonne (Includes Bajra, Jowar, Maize, Ragi, Mandua, etc.)

• Wheat and paddy share is 75% in total foodgrains which means marketable surplus of other crops is not significant. 44% paddy procurement ( out of 118 million tonne of production) from 12 States (including Bihar, Chhatisgarh, TN, AP, MH,etc.) and 38% wheat procurement (out of 108 million tonne of production) from 5 States is an Indication that large no of farmers have been benefitted.

C. FRUITS & VEGETABLES : SMALL FARMERS CONTRIBUTE MAXIMUM IN VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PRODUCTION OTHER THAN FOODGRAINS ALSO.
CONCLUSION :

• STATE GOVT NEEDS TO STUDY THE PROCUREMENT SYSTEM BEING FOLLOWED IN MP THROUGH PACS AND SAME MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER STATES AS IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE FARMERS.
• LESS THAN 1% FARMERS ARE INVOLVED IN AGITATION.
• FARMERS LEADERS ARE TOTALLY UNAWARE ABOUT THE MAJOR PROBLEMS BEING FACED BY FRUITS & VEGETABLE GROWERS IN WB, MH, TN, BIHAR, TA, KTK, UP, ETC.

SUGGESTION : LIST OUT THE PROBLEMS OF ALL THE FARMERS OF VARIOUS STATES AND ACCORDINGLY PREPARE THE CHARTER OF DEMANDS FOR NEGOTIATIONS.

[KJ2018]

SOME FACTS TO KNOW
A. LAND HOLDING STATUS
TOTAL LAND HOLDINGS OR FARMERS IN COUNTRY - 14.60 CRORE ( 2015-16)
LAND HOLDINGS IN PUNJAB & HARYANA - 27 LAKH ( 17 LAKH IN HARYANA & 10 LAKH IN PUNJAB). AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND HOLDING IS BETTER IN PUNJAB THAN HARYANA.

• PUNJAB STATE HAS VERY WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION (RBI REPORT- BUDGET REVIEW)DESPITE FARMERS ARE RICH. AS EVERYTHING IS AVAILABLE AT SUBSIDY - NO IRRIGATION CHARGES, NO ELECTRICITY CHARGES, ASSURED MSP (IN PAST), FERTILISER SUBSIDY , INTEREST SUBVENTION ON KCC, ETC.

B. Foodgrains Production Scenario (2020-21) & MSP Procurement
Total Foodgrains (Cereals + Pulses)- 303 million tonne
Wheat and Paddy Production - 228 Million tonne ( 75% of total Foodgrains)
Pulses - 24 Million tonne
Other Cereals - 45 Million Tonne (Includes Bajra, Jowar, Maize, Ragi, Mandua, etc.)

• Wheat and paddy share is 75% in total foodgrains which means marketable surplus of other crops is not significant. 44% paddy procurement ( out of 118 million tonne of production) from 12 States (including Bihar, Chhatisgarh, TN, AP, MH,etc.) and 38% wheat procurement (out of 108 million tonne of production) from 5 States is an Indication that large no of farmers have been benefitted.

C. FRUITS & VEGETABLES : SMALL FARMERS CONTRIBUTE MAXIMUM IN VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PRODUCTION OTHER THAN FOODGRAINS ALSO.
CONCLUSION :

• STATE GOVT NEEDS TO STUDY THE PROCUREMENT SYSTEM BEING FOLLOWED IN MP THROUGH PACS AND SAME MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER STATES AS IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE FARMERS.
• LESS THAN 1% FARMERS ARE INVOLVED IN AGITATION.
• FARMERS LEADERS ARE TOTALLY UNAWARE ABOUT THE MAJOR PROBLEMS BEING FACED BY FRUITS & VEGETABLE GROWERS IN WB, MH, TN, BIHAR, TA, KTK, UP, ETC.

SUGGESTION : LIST OUT THE PROBLEMS OF ALL THE FARMERS OF VARIOUS STATES AND ACCORDINGLY PREPARE THE CHARTER OF DEMANDS FOR NEGOTIATIONS.

PMFBY is not being implemented in Punjab and MSP ptocurement happens through Mandis instead of FPOs or PACS. - Still he is saying he is with farmers. Great

[KJ2018]

Demand for Farmers’ Benefit - Need of HourFollowing points will clearly Indicate that “Sayunkat Kisan Morcha” is not having any information about major farmers’ problem like:

• Large Farmer Criteria- 43% large holdings ( >10 Ha) of the country are found in Western Rajasthan where income of these farmers are lower than those farmers of irrigated areas having land less than 2.5 Acre. Similarly, medium farmers ( 4-10 ha) also found in large numbers but these farmers are not getting benefit of loan waiver scheme, etc.
• Most of the large farmers (except Punjab & Haryana) come from rainfed areas and all police makers neglect them.
• Punjab is only State where PM Fasal Bima Yojana is not being implemented.
• In PMFBY, the threshold yield at Patwar halwa level needs to be realistic and list of settled insurance claim should be provided to the concerned village.- No one from Kisan Marcha has seen the Threshold yield ?
• Some banks like ICICI bank, HDFC, Axis, etc are providing kCC @ 11% to farmers and no interest subvention to regular borrower is provided ? Have any leader of Kisan Morcha Checked the passbook of any farmer ? - Certainly not
• Farmers need KCC/Term loan for agriculture development but bank branches generally don’t provide loan to the farmers. As a result, maximum tractors are financed by Non Banking Financial Companies which charge RoI between 18-30% besides hidden charges. In this connection, Kisan Marcha should come forward for formation of Farmers Producers Organisation (FPOs) and these FPOs may guide the farmers and FPOs can be given license in APMCs for procurement of wheat , paddy, etc and bank recovery can be linked with procurement.
• Global warming is posing major threat to Agril & Dairy Sector . As per IPCC report, average temp. Of earth is increased by one degree Celsius between 1880 to 2017. Burning of Agril residue (deliberately by BKU members in Punjab) has to be Avoided and Sayunkat Kisan Morcha should come forward to address this issue.
• Excessive use of Fertiliser and Pesticide in Punjab, Haryana and AP is happening which is adversely affecting the health of common people. MSP should be provided only for chemical free foodgrains.
• Kisan Morcha is not aware about the procurement and payment system being followed by various State Govt. The system where farmers have been benefitted should be promoted(Certainly Punjab & Haryana System through Mandis is not beneficial. NAFED procures through PACS and same should be implemented)
• Traditional food has been Bajra, Maize, Jowar, Ragi, etc. In PDS, the local crops like Bajra, Maize, Jowar to be introduced like Karnataka has made procurement of Raagi. Providing of Bajra under PDS should be welcomed as local media (bcoz of poor knowledge) has opposed it.
• Lastly, few negatives points of 3 Acts to be told to common people which will harm to farmers at large scale with authenticate data. I think, the leaders have no idea on followings :
  
  • Marketable surplus and arrivals in APMCs
  • Prevailing procurement system or marketing channels (UZHavar Shantie model of TN may be studied for direct marketing )- Kisan Morcha never studied such ongoing successful models.
  • Abhinav Kisan Club model - positive points may be studied and may be included in demands

[KJ2018]

Out of 400 Mandis in Bihar, only 95 Mandis were under APMC Act. That is why Govt of Bihar abolished the APMC Act. In Bihar Marketing is not a major issue. The consolidation of land holding is the major issue.