The Supreme Court-appointed committee on the three repealed farm legislations on Monday claimed that around 85.7 per cent of the 73 farmer organisations, representing more than 3.3 crore farmers supported the laws while only 13.3 per cent of the stakeholders were against the laws.
In its recommendations, the committee said the three farm legislations would be beneficial for farmers and their repeal or long suspension “would be unfair to the silent majority” who supported the reforms. It had also suggested many changes in the laws, including giving freedom to States to make Minimum Support Price (MSP) system legal and giving freedom of choice to beneficiaries of Public Distribution System (PDS) to choose cash transfers equivalent to MSP + 25 per cent for every kilogram of grain entitlement or get it in kind (wheat or rice).
Making the committee report public, farmer leader and member of the committee Anil Ghanwat, who is the president of Swatantra Bharat Party, said they had advocated retaining the three farm laws and suggested that States may be allowed flexibility in implementing and designing them with the Centre’s approval.
“The committee had also suggested many changes in the laws, including giving freedom to States to make MSP system legal. About two-thirds of the suggestions received on the dedicated portal had supported the laws,” Ghanwat said.
The other two members — economist Ashok Gulati and agri-economist Pramod Kumar Joshi — were not present at a hurriedly called Press conference.
Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), a coalition of 40 farmers unions which protested against the farm laws, did not make any submission despite repeated requests. The committee had reached out to 266 farm organisations, including the ones who were agitating. Similarly, the committee also received 19,027 representations on the dedicated portal and 1,520 emails.
The panel had submitted the report on March 19, 2021, in a sealed envelope.
On the farmer unions’ demand to legalise the MSP system, the committee said the demand was not based on sound logic and was infeasible to implement.
“Any product that is produced needs to be traded at a viable price. The MSP is an indicative floor price to protect the farmers against any undue fall in prices especially at the time of harvest. The Government does not have the financial coffers to buy whatever is produced of all 23 commodities that are currently under the cover of MSP,” the report said.
The MSP and procurement support policy, as was designed for cereals during the Green Revolution time, needs to be revisited given that huge surpluses of wheat and rice have emerged, the committee said.
“For wheat and rice, there has to be a cap on procurement which is commensurate to the needs of the Public Distribution System (PDS). The open-ended procurement policy needs to be discontinued as it is distorting the composition of agricultural output in certain states with its adjunct environmental consequences,” the report said.
The committee gave a few options on how to proceed further looking at least 10 years ahead. “One of the options that the committee deliberated upon is to allocate the current expenditure by the Central Government on procurement, storage and PDS of wheat and rice across states based on an objective formula giving due weightage to production, procurement and poverty. The States should be given the freedom to devise their own approaches to support farmers and protect poor consumers in their respective States,” the report said.
The committee recommended that procurement of crops at a declared MSP can be the prerogative of the States as per their specific agricultural policy priorities.
Another option suggested by the panel was to give freedom of choice to beneficiaries of PDS to choose cash transfers equivalent to MSP + 25 per cent for every kg of grain entitlement or get it in kind (wheat or rice). A concrete road map for gradual diversification from paddy to more sustainable high-value crops, especially in Punjab-Haryana belt, needs to be formulated, the committee said.
It had proposed a series of recommendations to cap the procurement of wheat and paddy by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Instead of large-scale purchases, the committee felt the model adopted by the National Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Federation (NAFED) in terms of procurement of oilseeds and pulses can be adopted.
On November 19, 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the withdrawal of the three farm laws, saying the Government could not convince protesting farmers about the benefits of reforms. The repealing of the three farm legislations -- Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act; The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act; and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act -- was one of the key demands of around 40 farmer unions protesting against these reforms at Delhi borders.