Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Farm reforms - Coggle Diagram

- - - - argued that india need diversify cropping pattern
        
        export- oriented high value crops
        
        mandi give way private markets, futures markets, and contract farming
    - - APMC act discriminated farmers interact corporate buyers and exporters.,
      - APMC Acts amended private market or rural collection centre freely emerge anywhere w/o app. local mandi or the pay mandi tax, . so contract farming popularised.
    - - advocacy amendment -Essential Commodities Act, 1955 private corporate investment incentivised storage & warehousing if stock limits are relaxed for traders
    - - The Centre’s farm laws attempt ensure-farmers- right price for produce, the freedom to sell where they want to
  - - - private investment unlikely flow agricultural markets even APMC Acts were annulled. In fact, the exploitation of farmers by unscrupulous traders intensified in Bihar after 2006
    - - from the ambit of APMCs in 2016. private investment agricultural markets was only marginal
  - - - There fears e producers and consumers adversely affected, benefit of big companies.
    - - Mandi taxes -invest rural infrastructure ex Punjab. mandis are weakened, uncertainty on the substitute investments further impact rural infrastructure development
    - - even private markets emerged, structural problem poor farm-gate aggregation produce small marginal farmers remain unaddressed. criticism that one middleman simply substituted by another
    - - Eradicating civil courts substitution - weak mechanism sub-divisional magistrate threatened serious impediment redress complaints.
        
        feared this benefit corporate sponsors more than contracting farmers
    - - fears aggravated undemocratic manner laws ordinances,passed Parliament without deliberations, or consultations with States.
    - - Efforts , divide, buy out, demean, denigrate, demonise and shame the protesters, conveniently branded as terrorists and Khalistanis.
    - - government Entry 33 Concurrent List intervene Entry 14, Entry 26 and Entry 27 State List.
        
        farm laws reasonably and justifiably argued unconstitutional.
    - - overall thrust farm laws appeared
        
        encourage participation of larger corporate players in agricultural markets rather than farmer-friendly organisations, cooperatives or Farmer Producer Companies (FPC)
  - - - historic victory farmer’s movement in India. more than a year, thousands of farmers had barricaded Delhi, protests were gradually evolving pan-Indian movement resistance. Repealing farm laws has helped put an end to the protests.
    - - repeal farm laws , least temporarily, end confrontation between Union government and the farmers
    - - agitation led positive politicisation several agrarian demands, including the need for stable markets and remunerative prices.
    - - confidence grown committed struggles matter and even aggressive governments can kneel. New rural mobilisations around demands to address the larger and persistent agrarian crisis likely emerge and grow
    - - Government well to acknowledge laws are not as good as their enforcement state machinery, good capacity win people’s trust
- - - - environmental cost
        
        severe water stress
        
        degradation of soil
        
        overuse of fertilizers
        
        Eutrophication
        
        loss of biodiversity
    - - make farmers respond to price signals in making choices
  - - - 7 cereals – paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi and barley
      - 5 pulses – chana, arhar/tur, urad, moong and masur
      - 7 oilseeds – rapeseed-mustard, groundnut, soyabean, sunflower, sesamum, safflower and nigerseed
      - 4 commercial crops – cotton, sugarcane, copra and raw jute
    - - only crop MSP paymentstatutory sugarcane
      - pricing being governed by the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 issued under the Essential Commodities Act.
      - provides fixation ‘fair and remunerative price’ (FRP) for cane every year (October-September)
      - even FRP — incidentally, until 2008-09 ‘statutory minimum price’ or SMP — payable not by the government.
      - responsibility FRP payment farmers within 14 days cane purchase lies solely sugar mills
    - - The CACP price policy report 2018-19 kharif marketing season, suggested enactment legislation conferring ‘The Right to Sell at MSP’.
      - felt, necessary “to instil confidence among farmers for procurement of their produce”.
      - not accepted by government.
    - - Along with market reforms for agricultural marketing envisaged through new farm bills, government should also increase the public farm infrastructure which will pose a tough competition in the free market.