Agricultural reform requires gaining the trust of stakeholders

- No-confidence stalemate between government and farmers even after repeal of controversial agricultural laws

- The government is reluctant to give any assurance to the farmers on the issue of support price due to the pressure on the treasury.

The agricultural sector is the backbone of the Indian economy and any disturbance in it would disrupt the entire system. Controversial agricultural laws have finally been repealed but Yaksha still raises the question of how to increase farmers' incomes. The Modi government had set an important target of doubling the income of farmers by the year 2030. However, there are many obstacles in the way of achieving the objective of doubling the income of farmers. The minimum support price is announced every year by the central government to meet the nutritional value but the reality is quite different.

Before enacting any rule or law in the field of agriculture, the government or the authorities should seek the trust of various stakeholders - including farmers, traders, marketyards, farm produce committees, etc. If they have doubts in their minds, the Sangh will not be able to reach its destination.

The three agricultural laws were part of the reforms in the agricultural sector. It would not be an exaggeration to say that agricultural reform is not limited to these three laws. The government has been investing heavily in the agricultural sector to ensure that farmers get good prices for their produce. It is necessary to get the results of the investments made so far in the field of agriculture.

Even after the withdrawal of the three agricultural laws, the farmers are not satisfied and they are adamant on their other demands like guarantee in terms of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and withdrawal of power reform bill. Despite repeated assurances from the government that purchases of foodgrains at support prices will continue, farmers are demanding legal guarantees for support price policy. However, there is a need for a concerted effort when it is not financially feasible for the government to provide these guarantees at present. But prices in the open market with the backing of the law in any form do not seem to be the way forward for a number of reasons. The benefits of the MSP in the country are available to a limited number of farmers in a few states. It is not financially feasible for the government to purchase more than what it is currently buying at the MSP.

Looking at the three agricultural laws, it seems that they were the real direction for the overall development of the agricultural sector of the country, but the way it was passed in the parliament caused distrust among the stakeholders towards the government. At a time when agriculture has always been a sensitive sector for India, it is imperative to take the various stakeholders, especially farmers, into confidence before moving ahead with any reforms in the agricultural sector. The government's move to implement agricultural laws, first by issuing an ordinance and then by hastily approving it in Parliament, eventually created a snake-and-bite situation for the government and concerns about the long-term consequences forced the government to back down. Just as the haste with which the laws were passed, the withdrawal has been announced unilaterally and surprisingly. Instead of being happy, the government's announcement seems to have made farmers more frustrated and the government fears the announcement of repeal of the law will be overturned.

The support price policy seems to have more political motives than the original goal of providing a fixed income to farmers. The government takes into account the cost of sowing crops when fixing support prices, but whether support prices are adequate compared to the cost has always been a matter of debate. Considering the recent situation, not only the fuel prices have gone up but the prices of fertilizers and pesticides have also gone up. In addition to the increase in the cost of animal feed, it is a matter of calculating how much the declared support price will compensate the farmers.

Given the treasury burden, the government may be hesitant to give any assurances on the issue of support prices at present. Support prices are announced for 6 crops of kharif and ravi, but only wheat and rice are procured at support prices.

Nutritional compensation of any agricultural crop is a major issue for farmers. But unfortunately in India there is a slight difference in the price of an agricultural crop. In order to ensure transparency in the prices of agricultural markets, the Central Government launched the National Agriculture Market, abbreviated as e-Nam, on 15th April 2016. This is a kind of online trading platform in which farmers can see the purchase price and quantity of the crop in different agricultural markets and based on this they can decide in which market yard they will get maximum return from selling their crop. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, the number of regulated wholesale APMCs in the country till March 2017 was 9, out of which 1000 APMCOs and 1,6,6 traders have joined the country under this e-name scheme till July 2021. This means that only about 15 per cent of APMCs have benefited from the e-nam scheme within five and a half years of its launch.

The biggest problem in agriculture in India is crop storage. Of course crops like vegetables and fruits cannot be stored for a long time but crops like cereals and oilseeds can be used for a long time if stored properly. Storage capacity for agricultural crops in the country - Warehouses are also insufficient. Also, storage facilities are expensive and not affordable to all farmers. The government should set up warehouses near warehouses where farmers can store their produce for a reasonable fee and be able to sell it when the market price rises and get higher returns.