In India, farmers are revered as Anna Dattas, providers of our sustenance, stewards of the soil, and the backbone of the economy. It is because of their toil that the country continues to feed its vast population. But respect should not come at the cost of reason. The ongoing opposition by farmer unions to the now-withdrawn Farm Bills reveals not just a misplaced sense of entitlement but a deep resistance to much-needed reform, reform that, if implemented, could have transformed Indian agriculture and ensured long-term prosperity for small and marginal farmers.
The three farm laws passed in 2020 were designed to give farmers more freedom: the freedom to sell their produce outside the traditional government-run mandis, the freedom to enter into contracts with private players, and the freedom to access better prices and more efficient supply chains. These reforms aimed to dismantle the stranglehold of the MSP (Minimum Support Price)-mandi regime, which, while well-intentioned, has long ceased to benefit the majority of farmers in India.
 |
| Image Credits: Deccan Chronicle |
Problem with the MSP Regime:
Contrary to popular belief, MSP is not always higher than market prices; in fact, it often acts as a ceiling price. The government announces MSP for only a limited number of crops, and even among those, procurement is heavily skewed towards a few states like Punjab and Haryana. This system benefits only a fraction of farmers. In contrast, most small and marginal farmers are forced to sell their produce below the MSP in local markets, far from the attention of government procurement officers.
Worse still, the MSP-mandi model encourages monoculture farming, leading to ecological stress and depleting water tables, particularly in regions heavily reliant on rice and wheat cultivation. The government sought to diversify crop patterns, modernise the supply chain, and encourage private investment in agriculture, particularly in cold chains, warehousing, logistics, and exports. It was these reforms that the unions rejected.
The Missed Opportunity:
The farm laws offered a way out. They enabled direct sale to private players, promising farmers prices potentially above MSP due to reduced intermediation and improved linkages. Examples of successful corporate-farmer partnerships already exist, like potato farmers supplying to chip manufacturers, or contract farming models in horticulture and dairy, where farmers receive assured returns, technology support, and access to markets.
These reforms were especially crucial for small and medium-scale farmers, who lack the bargaining power and infrastructure to efficiently store and market their produce. The fear of corporate exploitation, though valid, is not a reason to dismiss reform altogether. The government had already proposed safeguards and dispute resolution mechanisms. Moreover, Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) are emerging as collective bargaining tools to protect farmers' interests while ensuring scale and efficiency.
Resistance to Reform Is Not Heroism:
Instead of negotiating better terms or seeking amendments, farmer unions chose a complete rollback, a maximalist, often undemocratic stance. Roads were blocked, violence was threatened, and national symbols were disrespected. The romanticism around the protest blinded many to the regressive nature of the demands. Instead of moving forward, the unions dragged the entire nation back into the same inefficient and leaky system that farmers themselves often criticise.
 |
| Image Credits: Arab News |
This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a larger question of attitude. In a country that urgently needs a scientific temper and innovation, demanding perpetual subsidies, guaranteed prices, and protection from market forces is unsustainable. The tax-paying citizen is already stretched, and further expansion of inefficient subsidies only burdens the exchequer, with little to show in terms of productivity or sustainability.
Reforming Agriculture Is a Strategic Necessity:
India is already the world's top rice exporter, and with the streamlining of private entry into paddy procurement and cultivation, it will help in monopolising the sector altogether. With climate change posing serious threats, crop diversification and investment in resilient agriculture are non-negotiable. Private players, unlike the government, have both the capital and the incentive to adapt quickly, whether it’s promoting millets, investing in climate-resilient seeds, or building efficient logistics networks.
A well-regulated private entry, coupled with government monitoring, can strike the right balance between free enterprise and food security. The state should mandate food security crops on designated lands while encouraging private investment in warehousing and supply chains, thereby reducing post-harvest losses and improving farmer income. These efficiencies can also be leveraged diplomatically; India’s agricultural surplus can serve as a tool of hard power, enhancing ties with developing nations, especially in Africa and Asia, and countering the strategic influence of China.
Time for Farmers to Rethink:
It’s essential to state this plainly: change is challenging, but resisting it blindly is even more perilous. Farmer unions, in their attempt to strong-arm the government, have robbed farmers of a potentially transformational opportunity. I once sympathised with their plight. But as the layers unravelled, it became evident that this protest was less about farmers and more about political posturing.
Indian agriculture needs reform, not nostalgia. Farmers should demand stronger protections within modern laws, not a return to outdated systems. The future lies in integration with markets, not isolation from them. It’s time to stop romanticising resistance and start embracing reform.
Ultimately, it is progressive policies, not populist protests, that will benefit both the farmer and the nation in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment