THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK
Dr. Ramjilal, Social Scientist and Former Principal, Dyal Singh College, Karnal (Haryana, India)
[email protected]
Abstract
The Swaminathan Commission (2006), in its recommendations, suggested fixing the minimum support price on the basis of the C2+50% formula. In 2011, when Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat and the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Committee, he wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, that any transaction related to crop purchase between the farmer and the trader should not be less than the Minimum Support Price (MSP) declared by the government. A law should be made for the minimum support price.
In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, BJP’s star campaigner Narendra Modi (the current Prime Minister) addressed 437 public meetings. In 219 of these public meetings, he promised the farmers that if our government is formed, ‘I will implement the recommendations of the Swaminathan report with the first pen on the first day,’ and he promised to implement the MSP C2+50% formula and waive off loans. In the 2014 Sankalp Patra of the BJP, farmers were also assured of receiving 1.5 times the cost of the produce. The minimum support price has also been supported by the Agricultural Cost and Price Commission of the Government of India. But after coming to power, the government leadership reneged, and in 2015, the BJP-led NDA government under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court that the C2+50% formula of the Swaminathan Commission cannot be implemented. Despite their promises, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP-led NDA government broke them. The farmers felt betrayed by this. The growing discontent and resentment among farmers caused farmer organisations to start taking the form of movements.
Expansion
Turning the “disaster into an opportunity” during the Corona period, the Government of India, on 5 June 2020, published three agriculture-related ordinances in the Extraordinary Gazette after the signature of the President of India. According to Article 123 of the Constitution, the duration of an ordinance is 6 months. These were presented by the Government of India for the approval of the Parliament. After the approval of the Parliament, the President of India put his seal of approval on them. On 27 September 2020 (Sunday), these three agricultural laws (Assurance and Agricultural Services Act, 2020; Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020) were published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Law and Justice of India, and they came into force on the same day (27 September 2020).
>Dr.RamjiLal, Three Agricultural Acts—Trishul Critical Assessment, Jag Marg (Chandigarh, Kurukshetra Editions), 26 February 2021, p. 6
>https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/read-the-full-text-of-the-three-bare-acts-related-to-farming-and-agri
>Dr. Ramji Lal, ‘Farmers’ Budget of 2018-2019: Farmers are moving on the path of agitation’, Sajag Samaj (Karnal), Year 12, Issue 3, March 2018, pp. 23-29..
>Dr. Ramji Lal, ‘Road of Barbed Wires and Sharp Nails: Budget and Farmers’, Jag Marg (Chandigarh, Kurukshetra Edition), 14 February 2021, p. 6.
When the Government of India implemented the three agriculture-related ordinances on 5 June 2020, the farmers feared that gradually the mandis would end and the farmers would not get the minimum support price (MSP). As a result, farmers started a movement against these ordinances on 9 August 2020 in Punjab. This movement started in Delhi on 26 November 2020, and the farmers camped on the Delhi border. About 600 farmer organizations in the country agreed to hold a joint movement.
>Dr.Ramjilal,https://samajweekly.com/background-of-farmers-movements-injustice-anger-dissatisfaction-with-farmers/)
Between 14 October 2020 and 22 January 2021, eleven rounds of talks were held between the central government and the representatives of farmers’ unions. After the talks, the government representatives also accepted many flaws in these laws.
After waiting for 9 months after the talks failed on 22 January 2021, on 19 November 2021, 6 days before the completion of one year of this movement, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, in his address on the occasion of Prakash Utsav—the birth anniversary of the great Guru Nanak Dev Ji of Sikhism—promised to form a committee on MSP, withdraw all three agricultural laws, and abolish them by making a new law through Parliament. On 29 November 2021, all three agricultural laws—the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020—were repealed by the Parliament, and the “Agricultural Laws Repeal Bill, 2021” was passed by the Parliament. After the signature of the President of India, the “Farm Laws Repeal Act, 2021” was published in the Gazette of the Government of India on 1 December 2021.
Government of India’s assurance to farmers on five demands
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and the Department of the Government of India sent a letter to the farmers on 9 December 2021 regarding their pending problems (letter number Secretary (FW/2021/Miss/1) on 9 December 2021). According to this letter, assurances were given on the following subjects:
1. Assurance of forming a committee on MSP and continuing the status of MSP procurement
According to the letter from the Government of India, this committee formed on MSP was said to include “representatives of the Central Government, State Government, farmers’ organisations, and agricultural scientists.” It was clarified that “representatives of SKM will also be included in the farmer representation.”
2. The mandate of the committee will be how to ensure that the farmers of the country get MSP.
The government has already assured during the talks that the current status of procurement on MSP in the country will be continued.”
3. Cases withdrawn against farmers with immediate effect during the farmers’ movement: Complete agreement.
In this letter, it was clarified that “As far as the cases during the farmers’ movement are concerned, the government will continue the process of procurement on MSP.” The question is that the governments of UP, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana have fully agreed to withdraw all the cases related to the movement with immediate effect.”
2A. “During the farmers’ movement, all the cases related to the movement made against the concerned departments and agencies of the Government of India and the agitators and supporters in all the Union Territories, including Delhi, have also been agreed to be withdrawn with immediate effect. The Government of India will appeal to other states to take action to withdraw the cases related to this farmers’ movement.
3. Question of compensation: In-principle consent
Regarding compensation, it is written in the letter that “As far as compensation is concerned, the Haryana and UP governments have given ‘in-principle consent’ for this also.”
The Punjab government has also made a public announcement regarding both the above-mentioned subjects (numbers 2 and 3).
4. Provisions of the electricity bill: Assurance to introduce the bill in Parliament
According to the letter, “The provisions affecting the farmers in the electricity bill will first be discussed with all stakeholders/Samyukta Kisan Morcha. After discussion with the Samyukat Kisan Morcha, the bill will be presented in the Parliament.”
5. Stubble issue: Freedom of farmers from criminal liability
According to the letter, “As far as the issue of stubble is concerned, the Government of India has freed farmers from criminal liability under Sections 14 and 15 of the law passed by it.”
In this letter from the Government of India, it was emphasized that the five pending demands are resolved with this “proposal” of the government. Now there is no “justification” left for continuing the farmer movement. And the farmers were requested to “end the farmer movement.”
Although all three agricultural laws were repealed by Parliament by making a new law, the remaining demands of the farmers have not been met yet. After the withdrawal of the three agricultural laws, the Samyukta Kisan Morcha messaged Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating that the main six demands and goals remain:
“1. Farmers should be given a minimum support price on the basis of the C2 + 50% formula based on the total cost of cultivation, and it should be made a legal right of all farmers.
2. Electricity The draft of the Act Amendment Bill 2020/2021 should be withdrawn.
3. The provision of punishment to farmers in the Commission for Management of Air Quality in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act 2021 should be removed.
4. The cases registered against thousands of farmers since June 2020 during the farmers’ movement should be withdrawn immediately.
5. The mastermind of the Lakhimpur Kheri massacre and Section 12 (OB) accused Ajay Mishra Teni, who is the Minister of State for Home in the Central Government, should be dismissed, and
6. The last demand of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha is that since during this movement, about 700 farmers were martyred, their families should be given compensation and rehabilitation, and land should be given on the Tikri border to build a martyr’s memorial.
Formation of Committee on MSP: Anti-farmer and Meaningless Committee
Regarding the formation of the first proposed committee on MSP, on 24 March 2022, the leaders of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha—Dr. Darshanpal, Hannan Mollah, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, Yudhvir Singh, and Yogendra Yadav—sent an email (*Samyukta Kisan Morcha* email: [email protected]) to the Agriculture Secretary, Government of India, seeking clarification on the following:
“1. What will be the Terms of Reference (TOR) of this committee?
2. Which other institutions, individuals, and officials will be included in this committee apart from the United Front?
3. Who will be the chairman of this committee, and what will be its functioning?
4. How much time will the committee take to submit its report?
5. Will the recommendations of the committee be binding on the government?”
But due to the lack of clarification by the government, the Samyukta Kisan Morcha refused to nominate its representatives in this proposed committee. As a result, the formation of the committee was stopped. On July 12, 2022, approximately eight months after the Kisan Andolan concluded, the Indian government announced the creation of the Second Committee on MSP.
29-Member MSP Committee: Only three seats for the Samyukta Kisan Morcha
The Monsoon Session of the Indian Parliament was convened on 18 July 2022. Prior to this session, the Government of India issued a notification for the formation of the Second Committee on MSP on 12 July 2022 to “change the cropping pattern” and make the “Minimum Support Price” (MSP) more “effective and transparent,” keeping in mind the “changing needs” of the country, to “promote zero budget-based farming.” In the 29-member MSP Committee, the government nominated 26 members, including the chairman, and kept only three seats for the representatives of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha. Eight months after the end of the Kisan Andolan, the Government of India requested the Samyukta Kisan Morcha to nominate three representatives in relation to the MSP Committee.
Samyukta Kisan Morcha’s reaction to the formation of the second committee: Refusal to send farmers’ representatives
The leaders of the committee formed by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha on MSP and other issues—Dr. Darshan Lal, Hannan Mollah, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, Yudhvir Singh, and Yogendra Yadav—issued a press release on 19 July 2022 saying that the Kisan Morcha will not nominate any representative in this committee. Because “there is no scope for discussing the MSP law in the agenda of this committee, filled with government members and stooges of the government.” The SKM objected to the formation of this committee on the following grounds:
1. A gathering of supporters of the three agricultural laws and those opposed to the farmers’ movement:
The SKM clarified in a press release on July 19, 2022, that “the chairman of this committee is former Agriculture Secretary Sanjay Agarwal, who made the three anti-farmer laws. Along with him is NITI Aayog member Ramesh Chandra, who was the main advocate of these three laws. As an expert, he is an economist who has been against giving legal status to MSP.”
2. A powerful group of supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party:
According to the press release, “There is a place for 3 representatives of the United Front in the committee. But in the remaining places, the government has stuffed its five loyalists in the name of farmer leaders. All of whom openly advocated the three anti-farmer laws. All these people are either directly associated with the BJP or support its policy. Krishna Veer Chaudhary is associated with the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj and is a BJP leader. Syed Pasha Patel has been a BJP MLC from Maharashtra. Pramod Kumar Chaudhary is a member of the National Executive of the RSS-affiliated Bharatiya Kisan Sangh. Gunwant Patil is a WTO supporter associated with the Shetkari Sangathan and the General Secretary of the Indian Independent Party. Guni Prakash has been a pioneer in opposing the farmers’ movement. These five people had spoken openly in favour of the three anti-farmer laws, and most have been working to spew venom against the farmers’ movement. Apart from these, the Director General of ICAR and the Additional Chief Secretaries of the Agriculture Department of four state governments—Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, and Odisha—have also been included in this committee.
3. There is no statutory guarantee on MSP in the agenda of the committee:
According to the release of the SKM, “There is no mention of making a law on MSP in the agenda of the committee”. That is, this question will not be placed before the committee at all. Some such items have been added to the agenda. On which the government’s committee is already formed. In the name of reform in agricultural marketing, an item was inserted through which the government can try to bring back the three Black laws through the back door.”
4. Right to nominate only 3 representatives:
In this 29-member committee, the SKM has the right to nominate only 3 representatives. The committee, which is in favour of agricultural laws and against the farmers’ movement, and in which the voice of three members will be like a bottleneck in the fair. In such a committee, the voice of the farmers will neither be heard nor their words considered.
5. No representation of Punjab:
First of all, the farmers’ movement started in Punjab as soon as the three agricultural ordinances were implemented. It is a matter of great regret that no representative of Punjab was taken in it, whereas Punjab’s role in production is the best, and Punjab also has special importance from the point of view of the movement.
6. Lack of clarification regarding the important demands of the farmers:
The government did not provide a legal guarantee of a minimum support price and did not give proper clarification on the issues of punishment for the criminals of the “Lakhimpur Kheri massacre,” amendment of electricity bill, etc.
7. Minimum Support Price Committee: Adding improper things
The Minimum Support Price Committee, whose main function is to determine the minimum support price, has added many such things to it that have no justification. For example, promoting “zero budget-based farming”, changing the “cropping pattern”, “diversification of agriculture”, “natural farming”, etc. Natural farming emphasises that chemical fertilisers should not be used. The concept of natural farming was discussed repeatedly by the Finance Minister of India, Smt. Sitharaman, in the budget speeches of 2017, 2020, and 2021. Without scientifically studying the profound ill effects of natural farming on agricultural production and food security, and with the support of the SKM, the government has made a proposal for the same. It was completely inappropriate to add this without taking the leadership into confidence.
Natural Farming: Deeply Adverse Effects on Agricultural Production and Food Security
We have a very important example of Sri Lanka in relation to the deeply adverse effects of natural farming on agricultural production and food security. Sri Lanka’s transition to 100% organic farming in 2021 due to the ban on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides had disastrous consequences, which led to a significant decline in agricultural production, especially rice production (20%) and tea production (18%). As a result, the main effects were an increase in food prices, a severe economic crisis, a sharp decline in farmers’ income, starvation, fear of food insecurity among the Sri Lankan people, etc. Along with the economic crisis, a political crisis also arose. According to Dr. Virendra Lathar (former principal scientist, Indian Research Institute, New Delhi), “The issues of mismatched zero budget, etc., have been added to the demand for a law guaranteeing MSP, the lifeline of farmers, which raises questions on the intentions of the government.” The government has already declared the absurd zero budget and natural farming as anti-farmer and a grave threat to the country’s security. Now the world knows that the insecurity created by natural farming is the reason for the current crisis in Sri Lanka because the government there, in its foolish obsession with promoting natural farming, has completely banned the import of chemical fertilisers, etc.” The Indian government should learn a lesson from the Sri Lankan disaster, and natural farming, zero-budget farming, diversification, etc., will endanger India’s food security. More than 80 crore of the population are being given free rations. If agricultural production decreases, there is a danger of the same situation arising that was there in the 20th century. Due to the backwardness of agriculture, poverty and hunger prevailed in India. Food grains started being imported from foreign countries. Former Prime Minister of India Chaudhary Charan Singh wrote in his book (“India’s Economic Policy: Gandhian Outline,” 1978) that in the period 1965-1967, 4,576,000 metric tons of wheat were given to India as a gift by the US government under PL-480. The Canadian government gave India 225,000 metric tons of wheat as a gift, which cost Rs 35.8 crore. On the other hand, when Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and C. Subramaniam launched the Green Revolution with the slogan ‘Jai Kisan, Jai Jawan’, the administration of American President Lyndon B. Johnson banned the export of food grains to India. According to Shankar Aiyar, “This came in the wake of a crisis – in 1965, the Lyndon B. Johnson administration in the US banned food shipments to India, coining the term ‘ship-to-mouth’ economy.”
>Shankar Aiyar, India: A History of the Nation’s Passage through Crisis and Change, 2012.
As a result, after serious thinking, the SKM decided that “anti-farmer and meaningless” There is “no justification” for sending representatives of the SKM to the “Committee.” The SKM considered the formation of this committee as a “betrayal” and decided not to “nominate any representative” to this committee. In other words, the SKM refused to send farmer representatives to the committee. The committee formed by the government is not a “panacea” institution. In fact, on the one hand, capitalists, industrialists, and corporations sell their products at “Maximum Retail Price” (MRP), and the government has no objection to this. Whereas the farmers are demanding only “statutory status” for “Minimum Support Price” (MSP) instead of “Maximum Retail Price” (MRP) on their products so that good days can come for them too. The fact that farmers are not receiving the minimum support price based on the C2+50% formula is a significant factor in their poor economic situation.
Determination of MSP: Difference between the actual cost of the farmer—the reason for the dispute
MSP is determined by the government on the basis of the recommendation of the Agricultural Cost and Price Commission. Currently, there are three formulas for determining MSP, as follows:
1. A2 cost—Under this formula, the minimum support price is determined on the basis of the expenditure incurred on fertilisers, pesticides, rented (on contract) land, labour, machinery, and fuel.
2. A2+FL cost:
In this formula, the Commission adds the value of labour (family labour) done on the farm by the family members in A2 cost—expenses incurred on fertilisers, pesticides, rented (on contract) land, labour, machinery, and fuel.
3. C2 cost: Under this formula, apart from A2+FL, rent of the farmer’s own land and other expenses like tractors, irrigation equipment, and interest are also added.
According to the recommendation of the National Farmers Commission (The Swaminathan Commission 2006), while determining the MSP, 50% more should be added to the comprehensive cost (C2) of the farmer.
Although it is claimed by the governments that the MSP is being given to the farmers, in reality, this MSP is determined by keeping it 1.5 times the average cost of the country. And the government determines this cost on the basis of A2+FL. To date, the minimum support price has not been given to the farmers on the basis of the C2+50% formula as recommended by the Swaminathan Commission (2006). As a result, this is the main reason for the dispute between the farmers and the government.
It is important to mention here that the economic condition of the farmers is not good due to not getting the minimum support price on the basis of the C2+50% formula. Mandis were abolished in Bihar in 2006. This is the reason that according to the data of 2020, the average income of farmers in Bihar is ₹45,317 per year, and it is the lowest in the country. In contrast, Punjab has the highest income in India due to the average income of farmers being ₹2,30,905 per year. The difference in per capita income in rural areas is not only between rural farmers in different states, but this difference is also in urban and rural areas. The per capita income in rural areas is Rs 40,925, which is less than half the per capita income in urban areas. There is an even greater difference in per capita income between industrial and agricultural states. The difference and lack of income in rural areas are the root causes of the condition, plight, trouble, and anger of farmers.
>https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2024/Feb/17/politics-of-farm-laws-and-the-curse-of-imperfect-markets.
Anti-farmer and negative agricultural policy—’A Multi-Billion Dollar Opportunity’ report (September 2021) – Punishment to farmers:
According to the report of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), between 2000 and 2016-17, Indian farmers have suffered a loss of Rs 45 lakh crore due to not getting a proper minimum support price. According to another report, this loss to Indian farmers is ₹ 8000 to ₹ 10,000 per acre per year. The basic reason for this is that the agricultural policy adopted by the BJP-led NDA government and the Congress-led UPA government, and again the BJP-led NDA governments for the last twenty years (from 2000 to 2020), is “anti-farmer” and “negative.” To please the consumers and protect their interests, the price of farmers’ products was not increased in the same way as the investments made in agriculture. There has been an unprecedented rise in the prices of electricity, water, diesel, petrol, fertiliser, urea, pesticides, labour, and other equipment. By keeping the prices of agricultural products low, “farmers are being punished” to protect the interests of consumers. According to the report (September 2021) of ‘A Multi-Billion Dollar Opportunity’ of three United Nations agencies – the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) – “For the last twenty years, agricultural policies in India have been such that the interests of consumers can be protected by not increasing the prices of food items. Farmers have to bear the brunt of this as punishment. This fact has also been confirmed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the report ‘Monitoring and Development of Agricultural Policies 2020’. According to the report, farmers have to bear the punishment for keeping the prices of food items low in India. It is clearly written in the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020) that the ‘Producer Support Assessment’ for Indian farmers is 5.7% negative. As a result, Indian farmers suffered a loss of $23 billion in 2019.
The legal guarantee of minimum support price: Expenses around 2 lakh crores
We firmly believe that the government should give a legal guarantee of the minimum support price. Because this will cost the central and state governments about two lakh crore rupees annually. In fact, it is not a loss, because in return the crop reserves of the governments will be filled. At present, wheat production is decreasing due to the climate cycle. In such a situation, it is very important to eliminate hunger. The government should formulate a policy by taking the leaders of the SKM into confidence so that a legal guarantee of a minimum support price can be given.
>Dr. Ramjilal, Making a law on MSP: The basic mantra of protecting the crop, Jag Marg (Chandigarh, Kurukshetra edition), 7 March 2021, p. 6.
>DR.Ramjilal,https://samajweekly.com/legal-guarantee-of-minimum-support-price-c2+50% /
Where will the 2 lakh crores come from, according to the argument against the legal form of minimum support price? The Congress Party-led UPA and the BJP-led NDA governments in India have given corporate concessions and facilities worth billions of rupees, but they have never even addressed where the money came from.
Corporate-friendly governments: Facilities to corporate—loot, exemptions, NPAs, bad loans, write-offs, clean balance sheets, and tonsure rituals.
The central government of India has provided facilities and exemptions to the corporate sector and has benefited them by trillions of rupees. According to a report, the corporate were given an exemption of ₹ 42,083.47 crores in income tax, excise duty, and customs duty from 2005-2006 to 2015-2016. This exemption was 140.59 per cent in 2015-2016 as compared to 2005-2006. Not all these exemptions are called “subsidies”, while the “subsidies” given to the poor, unemployed, and sick are called “wasteful subsidies” (Rewri). The exemptions given to corporate houses till 2016 can make the MNREGA programme run for 109 years. From 2005-2006 to 2015-2016, exemptions of 4.6 trillion dollars have been given on gold, diamonds, and jewellery. This amount is 13 times more than the amount set for agriculture and farmer welfare in the 2015-16 budget.
In terms of facilities for the corporate world, the Congress Party-led UPA and the BJP-led NDA governments are anti-farmer and pro-corporate. But the BJP-led NDA government is very pro-corporate. Not only this, but the money that was used to make NPAs was used for “Mundan Sanskar” (hair cutting) of banks, and benefits were given to “wilful defaulters”. This is not how anti-farmer people describe it.
The NPA figures are indeed very shocking. The RBI data from 2008-2014 to 2014-2020 shows that the new gross NPA of PSBs from 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 was around Rs 18.28 lakh crore, up from around Rs 5 lakh crore during the UPA regime from 2008-09 to 2013-14… PSBs have “written off” bad loans worth Rs 683,388 crore in the last six years, a massive increase from Rs 32,109 crore written off in the period 2008-2014. Banks write off NPAs older than four years as part of their exercise to clean up balance sheets. According to the information sought by RTI activist Prafulla Sharda, the Modi government has written off Rs 11,19,482 crore of banks from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2021. It has also been revealed in the RTI that from 2004 to 2014, loans worth Rs 2.22 lakh crore were waived off by the UPA government at the Center. In other words, bank loans have been written off 5 times more by the Modi government. According to the information received by Prafulla Sharda, in the 15 months of the Corona period, the BJP-led central government has “waived off” loans worth Rs 2,45,456. Government banks have written off loans worth Rs 56,681 crore. While private banks have waived off loans worth Rs 80,883 crore, instant banks have waived off loans worth Rs 3826 crore, and NBFCs have waived loans worth Rs 1,216 crore. And the Scheduled Commerce Bank has written off Rs 2859 crore.
Apart from this, many types of concessions have been given to the industrialists. According to the report of The New India Express (Hyderabad: July 17, 2022), as per the order of the central government, state governments and energy-producing companies have to buy at least 20,000 tonnes of coal from the Adani Group. This order is also applicable to the central government. The price of coal imported by Adani is about 10 times more than the price of domestic coal. The price of domestic coal ranges from ₹ 1700 to ₹ 2000 per tonne. The price of coal imported by Adani is ₹20,000 per tonne, including landing. Adani has imported 2.416 million tonnes of coal. The price of this coal, including landing (FOR), is ₹ 4303 crore.
On January 13, 2016, the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme was approved by the Indian Cabinet. The entire work of crop insurance was handed over to 18 insurance companies. In the five-year period from 2016-2017 to 2021-2022, these companies made a profit of Rs 40,000 crores, while on the other hand, farmers kept protesting for compensation. Such a huge amount was put in the pockets of the corporate. Apart from this, if the amount of the facilities given to the corporate, industrialists, and capitalists is added, it will become trillions of rupees. But the farmers and agriculture opponents cannot see this due to cataracts in their eyes. In fact, this amount is many times more than the expenditure of about Rs. 2,00,000 crores after making MSP legal.
The Minimum Support Price (MSP): Natural Right of Farmers
If this situation continues and farmer-friendly policies are not made, and farmers are not given a minimum support price for their produce on the basis of the C2 + 50% formula suggested by the Swaminathan Report (2006), then good days will never come for the farmers, and loot and exploitation will continue. Indian farmers should fully understand this and not only be constantly aware of their rights but also agitate so that by changing the policies of the government, farmer-friendly policies can be made.
>Dr. Ramji Lal, ‘A law should be made regarding the MSP’ (Chandigarh and Kurukshetra edition), 21 October 2020, p. 6.
It is the natural right of farmers to get a minimum support price (MSP). The minimum support price should be assessed on the basis of the C2 + 50% formula, and it is mandatory to have a legal guarantee of the minimum support price. In a statement, Darshan Pal, a member of the Joint Kisan Morcha Coordination Committee, said that during the farmers’ movement in 2020 and 2021, 11 rounds of talks were held between the government and the leaders of the Joint Kisan Morcha. During the talks, the matter of giving legal form to the minimum support price was repeatedly reiterated. Farmers are demanding the support price on the basis of the report of the Swaminathan Commission (2006).
.Dr.Ramjilal, Legal Guarantee of Minimum Support Price (C2+50%) and the Speed of the Engine of Agricultural Development: An Evaluation
/https://theasianindependent.co.uk/legal-guarantee-of-minimum-support-price-c250-and-the-speed-of-the-engine-of-agricultural-development-an-evaluation/
>Dr. Ramjilal, ‘Without policy, determination, and willpower, it is impossible to implement the Swaminathan report,’ Sajag Samaj, (Karnal), Year 9, Issue 5, May 2015, pp. 8-12
>Dr. Ramjilal, ‘Farmer Suicides in India: An Analysis,’ Sajag Samaj (Karnal), Year 9, Issue 4, April 2015, pp. 13-17.
On 19 November 2021, while announcing the repeal of agricultural laws, the prime minister had given this information to the Kisan Samiti. While assuring the formation of the committee, it was said that it will also consider other issues of the farmers, including the minimum support price. The Government of India had also mentioned the formation of the committee in the assurance letter of 9 December 2021. But the government constituted the committee after about 8 months. Our firm opinion is that the government should give a statutory guarantee of a minimum support price. The statutory guarantee will prove to be a panacea for the farmers and the nation. But after November 2021, the government threw the demands of the farmers into the dustbin.
It is well known that the MSP Committee was set up on 12 July 2022, and Rs. 35 lakh were allocated for its work. This committee met 35 times in the 18 months since its inception. But the government did not make the correspondence between the SKM and the committee, the proceedings of the committee, and the report public till 8 February 2024, let alone make it available even to the RTI activist.
>https://hindi.downtoearth.org.in/agriculture/what-happened-to-the-msp-committee-formed-after-the-farmers-movement-know-here-94344
As a result, the farmers again started the Kisan Andolan on 13 February 2024 to fulfil the demands. Which is called Kisan Andolan 02, from 13 February 2024 to 20 March 2025—for 400 days, farmers under the leadership of Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) and Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM-non-political) held a peaceful sit-in at Shambhu Border (Patiala district) between Punjab and Haryana and Khanauri Border (Sangrur district) near the Haryana border. But after this, as per the orders of the Aam Aadmi Party-led Punjab government, the police took strict action and removed the barricades, vehicles, and temporary structures. As a result, the movement ended.
We firmly believe that protests, agitation, strikes, and dharnas are an inseparable part of a robust democracy. According to the Indian Constitution’s third chapter on fundamental rights, Indian citizens have the freedom to organise associations, call meetings and strikes, and voice their opinions. It is the most significant aspect of a living nation, regardless of whether it is a movement of farmers or political parties. One important indicator is the push to raise awareness among the people.
In the end, farmers in different parts of India will continue the movement until their issues are fixed.
