farm laws essay

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Farm Acts 2020

Farm Acts, 2020 [UPSC Current Affairs]

The Indian agriculture acts of 2020, often referred to as the Farm Acts are three acts initiated by the Parliament of India in September 2020. After having been approved by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the President of India gave his assent to the bills on 27 September 2020. In this article, you can read all about the farm acts of 2020, which are in the news very often. This is a part of the  UPSC Syllabus  under current affairs, economy, agriculture and polity.

Farm Acts, 2020:- Download PDF Here

Farm Laws Latest News

In November 2021, the Prime Minister in an address to the nation announced that the three farm laws would be repealed in the wake of the unending protests by some of the farmers. The government will bring in a single bill in Parliament to repeal the three acts. All boards and offices that were constituted for implementing the provisions of the laws would also cease operations and any decision made by the boards would be null and void (some states had tried to operationalise the laws during the brief six-month period).

Farm Acts, 2020 Background

• Agriculture comes under the state list of Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution and to initiate reforms in the agricultural sector, in 2017, the central government had released model farming acts. However, several reforms suggested in the model acts had not been implemented by the states. The centre promulgated three ordinances in the first week of June 2020.
• In September 2020, the President gave assent to the three farm acts.
• There have been protests against the acts by farmers in Punjab, Haryana and other states. Some states have also opposed the new legislation. The Kerala legislative assembly passed a resolution against the farm reforms and sought their withdrawal.
• The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Farm Acts 2020 and constituted a four-member committee to make recommendations within two months.
• The three laws aim to change the way agricultural produce is marketed, sold and stored across the country. They are mostly focussed on the forward linkages to the agricultural sector.

The following are the three acts passed and their salient provisions.

The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020:

• The act aims at opening up agricultural sale and marketing outside the notified Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis for farmers, removes barriers to inter-State trade and provides a framework for electronic trading of agricultural produce. It expands the scope of trade areas of farmers’ produce from select areas to “any place of production, collection, aggregation”.
• It prohibits state governments from levying any market fee, cess, or levy on farmers, traders, and electronic trading platforms for the trade of farmers’ produce conducted in an ‘outside trade area’.
• The act seeks to break the monopoly of government-regulated mandis and allow farmers to sell directly to private buyers.

Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020:

• It creates a national framework for contract farming. It provides a legal framework for farmers to enter into written contracts with companies and produce for them.
• The written farming agreement, entered into prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce, lists the terms and conditions for supply, quality, grade, standards and price of farm produce and services.
• It defines a dispute resolution mechanism. The Act provides for a three-level dispute settlement mechanism– Conciliation Board, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Appellate Authority.

Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020:

• It removes cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onions and potatoes from the list of essential commodities. It will deregulate the production, storage, movement and distribution of these food commodities.
• It will also remove stockholding limits on such items except under “extraordinary circumstances”. The central government is allowed regulation of supply during war, famine, extraordinary price rise and natural calamity of grave nature and annual retail price rise exceeding 100% in horticultural produce (basically onions and potatoes) and 50% for non-perishables (cereals, pulses and edible oils), while providing exemptions for exporters and processors at such times as well.
• It requires that imposition of any stock limit on agricultural produce be based on price rise.
• It will allow agribusinesses to stock food articles and remove the government’s ability to impose restrictions arbitrarily.

Arguments in Favour of the Farm Acts

• The acts are being hailed as a watershed moment in the history of Indian agriculture that could initiate a complete transformation of agriculture.
• The new farm acts would help the small and marginal farmers (86% of total farmers) who don’t have the means to either bargain for their produce to get a better price or invest in technology to improve the productivity of farms.
• The new acts will help in establishing a much more integrated market, creating competition, and enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of the marketing domain of the agricultural sector.

Addressing the lacunae of APMC acts:

• The law related to the regulation of Indian agricultural markets like the Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMC) act had led to centralization and was thought to be reducing competition and participation, with undue commissions, market fees, and monopoly of associations damaging the agricultural sector.
• The act seeks to break the monopoly of government-regulated mandis and allow farmers to sell directly to private buyers by circumventing the APMCs. The new laws provide full autonomy for farmers to sell their produce.

Higher price realization for farmers:

• The act is expected to increase the freedom of choice of sale of agri-produce for the farmers and this could help the farmers in getting a better price for their produce because of more choices of markets. This would allow small and marginal farmers to sell their produce at market and competitive prices.
• The act allows for private players to buy the farmers’ produce even at their farm gates. This will allow the farmers to get better prices through competition and cost-cutting on transportation.
• The farmers will be able to get a greater share of the price being paid by the customers, which currently stands at a lowly 15%.
• This would help raise rural incomes and subsequently provide an impetus to the economy at large due to the increased demand from the rural areas.

One India, one agricultural market:

• It is expected to pave the way for the creation of a ‘One India, One Agriculture Market’ by promoting barrier-free inter-state and intra-state trade with provisions of electronic trading as well. This could help correct the regional disparities in demand and supply of the agricultural produce. This could help farmers of regions with surplus produce to get better prices and consumers of regions with shortages, lower prices.

Risk mitigation:

• Contract farming will help small and marginal farmers transfer the risk of market unpredictability from the farmer to the sponsor.
• It reduces the risk of price and marketing costs on small and marginal farmers.

Better price discovery:

• Contract farming will help farmers reduce the cost of marketing and improve their incomes.
• Farmers will engage in direct marketing thereby eliminating intermediaries resulting in the better realization of price.

Scope for increasing farm productivity:

• Contract farming agreements between companies and farmers are already operational in crops of particular processing grades (the potatoes used by beverages and snacks giant PepsiCo for its Lay’s and Uncle Chips wafers) or dedicated for exports (gherkins). The processors/exporters in these cases typically not only undertake assured buyback at pre-agreed prices, but also provide farmers with seeds/planting material and extension support to ensure that only produce of the desired standard is grown.

Impetus to private sector participation:

• The act seeks to encourage private sector participation in procurement and reduce the government burden of procuring.
• Contract farming can ensure uninterrupted sources for their production and also secure the purchaser from market price fluctuations.

Legal framework protecting farmer interests:

• The legal framework for contract farming will empower farmers to engage with the contract buyers on a level playing field without any fear of exploitation. The mutually agreed remunerative price framework is envisaged under the act. This provision is touted to protect and empower farmers.
• Sale, lease or mortgage of farmers’ land is totally prohibited and farmers’ land is also protected against any recovery.
• Farmers have been provided with adequate protection.
• An effective dispute resolution mechanism has been provided with clear timelines for redressal.

Addressing the lacunae in ECA, 1955:

• The Economic Survey 2019-20, which has extensively analyzed the Essential Commodities Act, notes that the government intervention under the ECA 1955 often distorted agricultural trade while being totally ineffective in curbing inflation.
• Since large stocks held by traders can be outlawed under the ECA 1955 anytime, they tend to buy far less than their usual capacity and farmers often suffer huge losses during surplus harvests of perishables. The threat of restrictions also acts as a disincentive for private investment into cold storage, warehouses, processing and export as entrepreneurs get discouraged by the regulatory mechanisms in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
• Such laws also restrict opportunities to export even when global crop prices go up.

Attracting private investment:

• The deregulation through ECA amendment will help attract private sector/ foreign direct investment into the agriculture sector.

Improve the forward linkage infrastructure:

• The incoming private sector investment would help build supply chain infrastructure for the agricultural sector. This could help facilitate the supply of Indian farm produce to national and global markets.

Arguments against the Farm Acts

Some of the farmer organizations and others have called the acts corporate-friendly and anti-farmer and have expressed the fear that the new acts may hurt the farmers’ interests. The bills have faced strong protests mainly from Punjab farmers and from opposition parties.

Against the spirit of federalism:

• Since agriculture and markets are State subjects – entry 14 and 28 respectively in List II – the acts are being seen as a direct encroachment upon the functions of the States and against the spirit of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
• The Centre, however, argued that trade and commerce in food items is part of the concurrent list, thus giving it constitutional propriety.

Fears with respect to MSP system:

• Farmers fear that the new proposed system will end the minimum support price regime. They fear that encouraging tax-free private trade outside the APMC mandis will make these notified markets unviable, which could lead to a reduction in government procurement itself.
• The creation of private mandis will drive agriculture business towards private mandis, ending government markets, intermediary systems and APMCs. In a scenario where more and more trading moves out of the APMCs, these regulated market yards will lose revenues.
• As a result, big corporate houses will overtake markets, thereby procuring farm produce at incidental rates. Critics view the dismantling of the monopoly of the APMCs as a sign of ending the assured procurement of food grains at minimum support prices (MSP). This could lead to the increasing clout of private buyers and could lead to low bargaining powers of the farmers.
• Lack of statutory support in the acts for the MSP is a major point of concern, especially for farmers from Punjab and Haryana, where 65% of wheat (2019) is procured at MSP by the Food Corporation of India and state agencies.
• Critics argue that ensuring a larger number of farmers get the MSP for their produce and straightening kinks in the APMCs, instead of making these State mechanisms redundant is the need of the hour.

Effect on state revenues:

• Mandis bring in revenue for state governments. The diversion of agricultural trade towards private mandis could lead to the loss of states’ revenues.
• Some states are concerned about the loss of revenue from mandi taxes and fees, which currently range from 8.5% in Punjab to less than 1% in some States.

Effect of middlemen:

• Middlemen working with APMC and traders will be affected.

Past examples:

• The deregulation of the sugar industry in 1998, which paved the way for private establishments, did not result in a significant improvement in farmers’ productivity or incomes.
• A state-led attempt in Bihar to deregulate the APMCs in 2006 has not resulted in an increase in farmers’ income or improved infrastructure.
• Without strong institutional arrangements, laissez-faire (no economic interventionism) policy may harm lakhs of unorganised small farmers.

Cases of fraud:

• 150 farmers from four districts in Madhya Pradesh were allegedly defrauded of over Rs 5 crore by traders. Similar cases have been reported recently from Hoshangabad, Seoni, Gwalior, Guna, Balaghat, Barwani and Jabalpur districts.

Challenges to farmers:

• The inability of the small and marginal farmers to understand the terms of the contract may lead to the exploitation of such farmers.
• The lack of bargaining power of farmers with big companies is also a major concern.
• Critics are apprehensive about formal contractual obligations owing to the unorganised nature of the farm sector and lack of resources for a legal battle with private corporate entities.

Lack of price fixation mechanism:

• The Price Assurance Act, while offering protection to farmers against price exploitation, does not prescribe the mechanism for price fixation. There is apprehension that the free hand given to private corporate houses could lead to farmer exploitation.

Increased threat of food insecurity:

• Critics anticipate that the easing of regulation of food items would lead to exporters, processors and traders hoarding farm produce during the harvest season, when prices are generally lower, and releasing it later when prices increase. This could undermine food security.

Increased volatility of food items:

• Critics anticipate irrational volatility in the prices of essentials and increased black marketing.

Lack of clear cut guidelines:

• The act proposes a price trigger mechanism for invoking ECA. However, it involves a wide range for a price trigger to invoke the ECA. Many things are left vague. Price triggers or price levels do not have a reference to a locality.

Farm Acts – Critical analysis

The constitutional validity of the acts:

• Article 246 of the Constitution places “agriculture” in entry 14 and “markets and fairs” in entry 28 of the State List. But entry 42 of the Union List empowers the Centre to regulate “inter-State trade and commerce”. While trade and commerce “within the State” is under entry 26 of the State List, it is subject to the provisions of entry 33 of the Concurrent List – under which the Centre can make laws that would prevail over those enacted by the states.
• Entry 33 of the Concurrent List covers trade and commerce in “foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils, fodder, cotton and jute”. The Centre, in other words, can pass any law that removes all impediments to both inter- and intra-state trade in farm produce, while also overriding the existing state APMC Acts. The FPTC Act does precisely that.
• However, some experts make a distinction between agricultural “marketing” and “trade”. Agriculture per se would deal with everything that a farmer does — right from field preparation and cultivation to also the sale of his/her own produce. The act of primary sale at a mandi by the farmer is as much “agriculture” as production in the field. “Trade” begins only after the produce has been “marketed” by the farmer.
• Going by this interpretation, the Centre is within its rights to frame laws that promote barrier-free trade of farm produce (inter- as well as intra-state) and do not allow stockholding or export restrictions. But these can be only after the farmer has sold. Regulation of the first sale of agricultural produce is a “marketing” responsibility of the states, not the Centre.
• The Judiciary will have to take a call on the constitutional validity of the farm acts, 2020.

Need to address misconceptions:

Misconceptions regarding MSP:

• An analysis of the recent laws makes it clear that as against the prevalent misconception that the prevailing system of Minimum Support Price (MSP) is being replaced, rather new options were being put forward for the farmers through these farm bills.
• The government has made it clear that procurement at MSP will continue and also that the mandis will not stop functioning. Under the new system, farmers will have the option to sell their produce at other places in addition to the mandis.
• It is worth noting that only 6% of farmers actually sell their crops at MSP rates, according to the 2015 Shanta Kumar Committee’s report using National Sample Survey data. None of the laws directly impinges upon the MSP regime.

Misconceptions regarding contract farming:

• There are fears that contract farming will lead to land loss of the small and marginal farmers to big corporates. However, adequate protection of land ownership is in place to protect farmer interests.
• The act explicitly prohibits any sponsor firm from acquiring the land of farmers – whether through purchase, lease or mortgage.
• The point to note is that contract cultivation is voluntary in nature and farmers cannot be forced into an agreement.

Inevitability of agricultural reforms:

• The Indian farmer constitutes 40 per cent of the country and an even higher percentage of its poor and as the available data points out, is under immense stress.
• Indian economic and social development depends upon the empowerment of the farmers and the rural segment of our population. Thus there is an urgent need for agricultural sector reforms to move beyond the antiquated agricultural policies.
• The Indian farm bills are in line with international precedence wherein a number of developing economies have been making changes to their agriculture policies since the 1990s to encourage private sector involvement which would provide a major fillip to the sector.
• The International Monetary Fund has also backed the recent farm acts as being an important step in the right direction.

Way forward:

• The farm acts are a step in the right direction and there is the need to ensure the effective implementation of the same.
• The following measures could help address some of the concerns regarding the farm laws.
• The move to enlarge the market for agricultural produce is welcome but this should be supplemented by measures that will help preserve the existing ‘safety net’ mechanisms like MSP and public procurement.
• Though a farmer will have the freedom to choose where he/she wants to sell, he/she may not have the knowledge to negotiate the best terms with a private company. The state should work towards empowering the farmers in this direction.
• The government must create enabling infrastructure to enable the farmers to do barrier-free trading of agricultural commodities.
• The method of determining prices, including guaranteed price and additional amount, should be provided in the agreement as annexures. The government must ensure suitable provisions to ensure that the prices are not below the MSP.
• In case of prices subjected to variations, the contract agreement must include a guaranteed price to be paid for such produce, and a clear reference linked to the prevailing prices or any other suitable benchmark prices for any additional amount over and above the guaranteed price, including bonus or premium.
• There should be time-bound redressal of grievances.

These Farm Acts, their effects and the significance of repealing them are important for the upcoming UPSC exam .

FAQ about Farm Acts, 2020

What are the 3 farm laws, under which list the subject of agriculture falls in the constitution.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

Self Study Mantra

• Essay for IBPS PO Mains
• Essay for State PSC
• Essay for Banking Exam
• Important Essays
• Letter Writing
• हिन्दी निबंध
• One Word Substitution
• Computer Knowledge
• Important Days
• जीवन परिचय
• Government Schemes List

Essay on Farm Bill 2020 | Farmer Bill 2020 Essay and Highlights of Agriculture Bill 2020

Essay on farm bill 2020.

India is an agriculture dominated country. More than 70% of India's population is either directly or indirectly involved in agricultural activities. Due to the hard work of these farmers we are eating peacefully. These farmers feed entire nation but it is a saddening fact that they are entangled in the fetters of starvation and poverty. Recently Central Government has passed new bills for well being of farmers and agriculture sector . But farmers and State Governments are opposing these bills. Farmers across the country have protested against these bills in streets and on roads. Punjab and Haryana farmer's tractor protests in July and on 26th January in Delhi were opposition of these agriculture bills 2020. On 28th August 2020 Punjab Assembly has also passed a resolution rejecting the Central Government's ordinances.

What is the Farm bill 2020 ?, What benefits will get farmer from  New Agriculture Bills 2020?, How Agriculture Sector will be benefited from Farmers Bills 2020? Why Farmers are protesting against Agriculture bill 2020 ?

What is Farm Bill 2020?

Benefits to farmers from farm bill 2020.

The Farm Bill 2020 envisages a path for farmers as an alternative platform to sell their produce in open market. Now farmers can sell their products openly to anyone and anywhere and they can get higher price. There will be no APMC market fee or cess on transactions in such trade areas. APMCs will also continue its functioning. Now APMCs have to compete with these alternate platforms and now farmers have a choice for selling their farm produces. These bills give powers to farmers to sell their produces directly to the corporate or exporter buying in bulk from the farm.

The Farm Bill 2020 does not annihilate current MSP based procurement of food grains. The MSP based procurement system will be continue and farmers can also sell their crop products in Mandi on existing MSP.

Government's motive towards Farm Bill 2020

From time to time Government has launched numerous schemes for welfare of farmers and agriculture sector . Government has introduced these Farm Bills to transform agriculture sector and well being of farmers. This step has been taken by the Government to boost agriculture sector and double the farmers income by 2022. It is thought that freeing of agriculture sector will eventually help in better pricing due to competitiveness in the market. When farmers will sell their products to corporates and exporters directly, it will induce corporate sector to invest in the agri-ecosystem. This will also give farmers better access to modern technology and farmers will be benefited by it.

Why Farmers are protesting against Agriculture bill 2020 ?

The Price Assurance Bill doesn't prescribe any mechanism for price fixation. Thus there is a apprehension in farmers that free hand given to private corporate houses could lead to farmer's exploitation. The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance removes, pulses, oil seeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes from the essential commodities list. Thus the amendment deregulates the production, movement, storage and distribution of these food commodities.

Also Read:  Essay on Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav

Agriculture Bill 2020 Essay

Repeal of Farm Bill: Farm bills 2020 were passed in the year 2020 and now the same has been repealed by the Government. The Farm Laws Repeal Bill 2021 which aimed to repealing the three farm laws passed on December 1, 2021. These farm bills repealed by the Government in view of the onging farmers' protests against these laws.

Essay on Tokyo Olympic Games

Essay on Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav

Essay on Electric Vehicle: The future of Transport

Essay on PM Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission

You may like these posts

Post a comment.

Thank you so much mam, Very helpful for aspirants like us.

Amazing one...😃 Really helpful for essay writing...✍

Very helpful ,keep it up

• Download PDF Essay for All Exams

Download PDF Essay for All Exams Most important essays ranging from 250 words to 1000 …

Popular this Month

Trending Essay Topics | Important Essay Topics for Competitive Exams

20 Most Important Essay Topics for CAPF 2024 | UPSC CAPF Essay Topics 2024

My School Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My School

20 Most expected essay topics for IBPS PO Mains Exam | Important Essay Topics for IBPS PO Mains Exam | Essay for IBPS PO Mains

My Family Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My Family

Important Days in 2024 | Important National and International Days | Important Days and Dates

Essay on Har Ghar Tiranga

Essay on Krishna Janmashtami in 150 words, 250 words and in 500 words

My Father Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My father

One word substitution (download here👇👇).

Essay Writing in English

Important Topics

• Essay in English
• Essay in Hindi
• 20 Essays for IBPS PO Descriptive Paper
• Trending Essay Topics
• IBPS PO Previous Year Descriptive Paper
• Important Essays for UPSC
• Essay Topics for UPSC CAPF AC Exam
• How To Crack SSC CGL In First Attempt?
• 100 Most Important One Word Substitution
• Essay on Artificial Intelligence
• Latest Jobs | Admit Card | Result
• Essay on Global Warming
• पर्यावरण प्रदूषण: नियंत्रण के उपाय
• Essay on Women Empowerment
• Daily Homework for Class 1 to 5

Blog Archive

Quick links.

• Paragraph in English
• Advertise With Us
• Career with Us
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer, Terms and Condition
• Shipping and Delivery Policy
• Cancellation and Refund Policy
• Products and Pricing
• 10 Lines 13
• Best Books for SSC CGL 2
• Biography 6
• Education System 6
• English Grammar 1
• Essay in Hindi 18
• Essay Topics 32
• essay writing 154
• Farmer Welfare Schemes 1
• Important National and International Days 34
• Mathematics 5
• One Word Substitution 2
• Online Classes 3
• Paragraph Writing 19
• Political Science 1
• Pollution 7
• Republic Day 1
• Speech in Hindi 1
• SSC Exams 5
• Study Tips 7
• जीवन परिचय 6

Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav Essay in English

Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Classes

Copyright (c) 2019-24 Self Study Mantra All Rights Reseved

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Repealing Farm Laws

• 22 Nov 2021
• GS Paper - 2
• GS Paper - 3
• Government Policies & Interventions
• Growth & Development
• Agricultural Marketing
• Direct & Indirect Farm Subsidies

Why in News

Recently, the Prime Minister announced the repeal of the three contentious farm laws .

• The Parliament ( Lok Sabha + Rajya Sabha + President) has the authority to enact, amend, and repeal any law.
• The farm laws had witnessed protests from farmers, mainly from Punjab and Haryana, on the borders of Delhi for more than a year.
• Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020: It is aimed at allowing trade in agricultural produce outside the existing APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) mandis.
• Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020: It seeks to provide a framework for contract farming.
• Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020: It is aimed at removing commodities such as cereals, pulses, oilseeds , edible oils , onion and potato from the list of essential commodities.
• There has been a long-pending demand for reforms in agricultural marketing, a subject that comes under the purview of state governments.
• The Centre took the issue up in the early 2000s by pushing for reforms in the APMC Acts of the states.
• The subsequent government, too, pushed for these reforms. But given that it is a state subject, the Centre has had little success in getting the states to adopt the model APMC Act.
• It was in this backdrop that the government went for reforms in the sector by passing these laws.
• As per the farmers the law is framed to suit big corporations who seek to dominate the Indian food and agriculture business and will weaken the negotiating power of farmers. Also, big private companies, exporters, wholesalers, and processors may get an edge.
• The Farmers are also demanding to get a written assurance in the form of a Bill for the continuation of the MSP and conventional food grain procurement system.
• The Farmers’ organisations want the APMC or the Mandi System to be protected.
• Electricity (Amendment) Bill: The third demand of farmers is the withdrawal of the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, as they feel that they won’t get free electricity due to this.
• The Swaminathan Commission Report states that the government should raise the MSP to at least 50% more than the weighted average cost of production. It is also known as the C2+ 50% formula.
• It includes the imputed cost of capital and the rent on the land (called ‘C2’ ) to give farmers 50% returns.
• The farm laws were in force for only 221 days — June 5 th 2020, when the ordinances were promulgated to January 12 th 2021, when the Supreme Court stayed their implementation.
• Since the stay, the laws have been suspended . The government has used old provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to impose stock limits, having amended the Act through one of the three farm laws.
• The repeal underlines that any future attempts to reform the rural agricultural economy would require a much wider consultation , not only for better design of reforms, but for wider acceptance.
• The government will doubtless have to walk the path of reform very cautiously.
• Given that the average holding size stands at just 0.9 ha (2018-19). Unless one goes for high-value agriculture — and, that’s where one needs efficient functioning value chains from farm to fork by the infusion of private investments in logistics, storage, processing, e-commerce , and digital technologies — the incomes of farmers cannot be increased significantly.
• There is no doubt that this sector is crying for reforms, both in the marketing of outputs as well as inputs, including land lease markets and direct benefit transfer of all input subsidies — fertilisers, power, credit and farm machinery.
• Industries including logistics, cold chain, agri-related, and farm equipment would be impacted the most because they were supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of these laws.
• The agri -Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been 3.5% per annum in the last 14 years . One expects this trend to continue — there might be minor changes in the agri-GDP depending on rainfall patterns.
• Cropping patterns will remain skewed in favour of rice and wheat, with the granaries of the Food Corporation of India bulging with stocks of grain. The food subsidy will keep bloating and there will be large leakages.

Way Forward

• On a positive note, the tryst with the farm laws could provide important lessons to the government. The most important lesson being that the process of economic reforms has to be more consultative, more transparent and better communicated to the potential beneficiaries.
• It is this inclusiveness that lies at the heart of democratic functioning of India. It takes time and humility to implement reforms, given the argumentative nature of our society. But doing so ensures that everyone wins.

• Insights IAS Brochure |
• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2025
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude
• Insights IAS Brochure

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Insights into Editorial: Seeds of hope: On farm laws repeal

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the repeal of the three contentious farm laws .

Farmers, mostly from Punjab and Haryana, have been protesting against these laws at the borders of Delhi since November 26 last year.

PM Modi has done the right thing by announcing the repeal of the three farm laws that are at the centre of a protracted confrontation between his government and a section of farmers for a year.

What were the farm laws that have been repealed?

• It seeks to create an ecosystem where the farmers and traders enjoy the freedom of choice relating to sale and purchase of farmers’ produce.
• The reform grants freedom to farmers and buyers to transact in agricultural commodities even outside notified APMC mandis ensuring competitive alternative trading channels to promote efficient, transparent and barrier-free interstate and intra-state trade.
• It seeks to provide for a national framework on contract farming that protects and empowers farmers in their engagement with agri-business firms, processors, wholesalers, exporters or large retailers for farm services and sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price in a fair and transparent manner.
• It seeks to remove commodities like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes from the list of essential commodities.
• The reform ends the era of frequent imposition of stock-holding limits except under extraordinary circumstances.

How farmers managed to sustain farm law protest for a year?

It is being called the longest agrarian movement in independent India . The agitation against the three farm laws passed in September 2020 started in Punjab, but gradually spread to the neighbouring state of Haryana and parts of Uttar Pradesh.

But it caught the eyeballs of the nation only when farmers marched to the Delhi borders on November 26 last year.

Many thought they would return after registering their protest, but they set up a little township of sorts, weathering the cold winter and the searing summer.

But there was a method to this madness despite the multiplicity of unions and ideologies participating in the agitation .

What is the procedure to repeal a law in India?

• First to bring a Bill to repeal the three laws, and
• Second is to promulgate an ordinance that will have to be consequently replaced with a Bill within six months.
• According to the former Union Law Secretary P.K. Malhotra “For repeal, the power of Parliament is the same as enacting a law under the Constitution.”
• Article 245 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to enact as well as to repeal any law.
• That is, the Parliament has the power to make laws and also to repeal them through the Repealing and Amendment Act. In 1950, the first Act was passed and 72 Acts were repealed.
• In 2019, Repealing and Amendment provision was invoked when Union Government scrapped 58 obsolete laws and made minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017.
• Narendra Modi led government already scrapped or repealed around 1,428 Acts during its first term.
• Like any other Bill, the Repealing and Amendment Bill will pass in the same way as any other Bill. It will have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament and the President’s assent will be required to make it a law.

Government arguments at that time of introducing the laws:

The laws sought to reorganise India’s agriculture sector more in accordance with the principles of market economy.

They would have redesigned the country’s food procurement and distribution mechanisms, triggering fears that the producers and consumers would be adversely affected , to the benefit of big companies.

Such fears were aggravated by the undemocratic manner in which these laws were brought about, through ordinances, and passed in Parliament without deliberations, or consultations with the States.

MSP foul play:

• This monotonous cycle of wheat and rice should anyway be broken as it is not sustainable . It is making our soil devoid of nutrients and also depleting the water table.
• Moreover, MSP as a practice should be done away with as the Food Corporation of India (FCI) incurs huge losses on account of procurement and storage .
• Since MSP is only available in Punjab and Haryana, traders buy grains from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar at less than half the price and sell it to the government in Punjab and Haryana at MSP.
• If you combine the total procurement and compare it to the land under cultivation, it comes out that the average yield per acre is much more than the actual yield possible. This foul play has been going on for years.
• There is a gap in prices of market and the MSP because the grains are in abundance, as soon as the amount of grains is reduced, the prices will automatically go up.
• Talking of the current standoff, the government has bent as required and now the farmers should also come to the discussion table as the demand to repeal all the laws is not wise and they have gained what was initially required .
• This kind of protest was necessary to tell the current dispensation that their way of passing laws is not legitimate, which has been happening over the last few years.
• If we see the origin of MSP, it came as an incentive to adopt new methods of green revolution . Now when the government wants farmers to shift to other crops, it should begin by giving incentives to the farmers for that.

Major problems that need to address:

• Some major problems of farmers, and Indian agriculture in general, are that the yields are much lower than the global average, the economic condition of farmers is much worse and there is very little adoption of new technologies.
• The major reason for this is the non-availability of free and open market to farmers, since the average landholding size is less than 1 hectare (2.4 acres).
• So, the farmers are reluctant to buy new machinery and adopt latest methods and continue with traditional farming requiring large human labour.
• This is evident from the fact that there is a huge gap between the percentage of population engaged in agriculture and percentage of contribution of GDP by the agriculture sector.

How does the repeal impact the political economy of rural India?

• There may be some deficiencies in the exact design and mechanism of the reforms proposed in the three farm laws, but most advocates of agricultural reform would agree that they were in the right direction.
• That the government chose to push these reforms through its own set of consultations left many stakeholders feeling left out, and created a backlash .
• The repeal underlines that any future attempts to reform the rural agricultural economy would require a much wider consultation , not only for better design of reforms, but for wider acceptance.
• The repeal would leave the government hesitant about pursuing these reforms in stealth mode again.

Conclusion:

It was a concern that the overall thrust of the farm laws appeared to encourage the participation of larger corporate players in agricultural markets rather than farmer-friendly organisations, such as cooperatives or Farmer Producer Companies (FPC).

Especially in the case of the amendment of the Essential Commodities Act, there was reasonable suspicion that a handful of corporate players were to substantially benefit from investments in logistics, storage and warehousing.

In bowing to public demand, Mr. Modi has shown flexibility and pragmatism .

Farmers should not only withdraw the protest now but also show a more flexible approach regarding the path ahead to reform the sector .

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

FIND YOUR MP

Legislatures

Bills & acts.

• Bills & Acts
• Bills Parliament
• Agriculture and Rural Development

The Farm Laws Repeal Bill, 2021

• Introduced Lok Sabha Nov 29, 2021
• Passed Lok Sabha Nov 29, 2021
• Passed Rajya Sabha Nov 29, 2021
• The Farm Laws Repeal Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha on November 29, 2021 by the Minister of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Mr. Narendra Singh Tomar.  
• Repeal:  The Bill repeals the three farm laws passed by Parliament in September 2020.  These are: (i) the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, (ii) the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, and (iii) the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.  These laws were enacted to: (i) provide a framework for contract farming, (ii) facilitate barrier-free trade of farmers’ produce outside the markets notified under the various state Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws, and (iii) regulate the supply of certain food items (such as cereals, pulses, and onions) only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, and extraordinary price rise.  Note that, in January 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the implementation of the three farm laws.

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information.  You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”).  The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s).  PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete.  PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group.  This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.

PRS Products

Original Text

Education(Graduation) :

Education(Post Graduation) :

The agriculture sector contributes nearly 15 per cent of the India's $2.9 trillion economy

Here are the top 10 points in this story:

The farm bills are - Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services; Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill; and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill. The Upper House, on Sunday, cleared the first two, paving the way for them to become laws (once President Ram Nath Kovind signs off) and triggering protests.

The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill allows barrier-free intra- and inter-state trade of farm produce. Previously, farm produce was sold at notified wholesale markets, or mandis , run by Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs). Each APMC, of which there are around 7,000, had licensed middlemen who would buy from farmers - at prices set by auction - before selling to institutional buyers like retailers and big traders.

Under the proposed system, farmers can (eliminate middlemen and) sell directly to institutional buyers at prices to be agreed between them. However, farmers' groups are worried this exposes them to corporates who have more bargaining power (and resources) than small or marginal farmers. A Madhya Pradesh farmer who spoke to NDTV said: " I am worried... sometimes they ask for wheat at Rs 1,400 or Rs 1,500 per quintal. They will take (produce) as they wish".

In India, nearly 85 per cent of poor farmers own less than two hectares of land. Farmers like these find it difficult to negotiate directly with large-scale buyers. In a report by news agency Reuters, leaders within the farming community said mandis play a crucial role in ensuring timely payments to them. Removing these markets, or allowing corporates direct access, without offering an alternative, such as regulated direct-purchase centres, does not make sense, they say.

Also, with APMCs, farmers were usually required to sell to nearby markets rather than in the open, which will now be allowed. The government has pointed to this to suggest farmers' incomes will increase. In practice, however, small farmers may find it difficult to avail potentially better prices at markets further away because of constraints on travel and storage, as well as associated costs.

The second bill to clear the Rajya Sabha - The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services - is supposed to allow "contract farming", or allow farmers to enter into agreements with agri-firms, exporters or large buyers to produce a crop for a pre-agreed price.

Farmers are worried this means the MSP (a price guaranteed by the government) will be removed. They point, once again, to small and marginal farmers who will likely by vulnerable to disadvantageous contracts unless the sale prices continue to be regulated. As Congress MP P Chidambaram pointed out, there needs to be a clause linking MSPs to the lowest agreeable price .

Although the new law has not explicitly removed MSPs (and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has insisted it will not ), farmers are concerned because allowing prices to be settled outside regulated mandis makes it difficult for the government to monitor each transaction individually.

MSPs are also of concern to rice and wheat farmers, who sell directly to the government at these guaranteed prices. They fear that government purchase will give way to private buyers, who could arm-twist them to sell at lower rates. These guaranteed prices, which the government today raised , are often a source of credit in hard times like droughts and crop failure.

In addition to farmers' concerns, state governments - particularly those in Punjab and Haryana - fear that if private buyers start purchasing directly from farmers, they will lose out on taxes that are charged at mandis . The potential scrapping of mandis , they also argue, endangers the jobs of millions who work there. 

With input from Reuters

Track Budget 2023 and get Latest News Live on NDTV.com.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world .

India Elections | Read Latest News on Lok Sabha Elections 2024 Live on NDTV.com . Get Election Schedule , information on candidates, in-depth ground reports and more - #ElectionsWithNDTV

Watch Live News:

• general knowledge

Farm Laws 2020 Explained: Everything you need to know about the new agriculture reforms in India

Farm laws 2020 repealed: pm modi in his address today apologized to the nation and announced that the centre will repeal three contentious farm laws 2020 in the upcoming parliament session. he further urged the protesting farmers to return home to their families and start afresh. earlier, sc stayed the implementation of the farm acts 2020 & constituted a four-member committee to make recommendations within two months. the government's proposal to put a hold on the implementation of farm laws 2020 for a period of one to one and a half years was denied by the farmers. .

Farm Laws Repealed: Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his address to the nation announced the repeal of three Farm Laws, apologized to the nation, and further urged the protesting farmers to return home to their families and start afresh.  

Addressing the nation. https://t.co/daWYidw609 — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 19, 2021

While the Centre has decided to repeal the Farm Laws 2020, top farmer leader Rakesh Tikait said that the protest will not be called off until the laws are withdrawn in the upcoming session of the Parliament starting on 29 November 2021. 

In September 2020, President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the three 'Agriculture Bills' that were earlier passed by the Indian Parliament. These Farm Acts are as follows:

1- Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020

2- Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020

3- Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

GK Quiz on Farm Laws 2020

Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020

1- Background: On 5 June 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated by the Union Cabinet. 

2- Act: It creates a national framework for contract farming through an agreement between a farmer and a buyer before the production or rearing of any farm produces.

3- Provisions:

(a) Farming Agreement: The Act provides for a farming agreement between a farmer and a buyer prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce.

(b) Minimum Period of Farming Agreement: The minimum period of the farming agreement shall be for one crop season or one production cycle of livestock.

(c) Maximum Period of Farming Agreement: The maximum period of the farming agreement shall be five years. It also states that if the production cycle of any farming produce is longer and may go beyond five years, the maximum period of the farming agreement may be mutually decided by the farmer and the buyer and explicitly mentioned in the farming agreement.

(d) Pricing of Farming Produce: The pricing of farming produce and the process of price determination should be mentioned in the agreement. For prices subjected to variation, a guaranteed price for the produce and a clear reference for any additional amount above the guaranteed price must be specified in the agreement. 

Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020

1- Background: On 5 June 2020, the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated by the Union Cabinet. 

2- Act: It permits intra and inter-state trade of farmers’ produce beyond the physical premises of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) markets and other markets notified under the state APMC Acts. 

3- Provisions: 

(a) Trade of Farmers' Produce: The Act allows the farmers to trade in outside trade areas such as farm gates, factory premises, cold storages, and so on. Previously, it could only be done in the APMC yards or Mandis. 

(b) Alternative Trading Channels: It facilitates lucrative prices for the farmers via alternative trading channels to promote barrier-free intra-state and inter-state trade of agriculture produce. 

(c) Electronic Trading: Additionally, it allows the electronic trading of scheduled farmers’ produce (agricultural produce regulated under any state APMC Act) in the specified trade area. It will also facilitate direct and online buying and selling of agricultural produce via electronic devices and the internet.

(d) Market Fee Abolished: As per the Act, the State Governments are prohibited from levying any market fee or cess on farmers, traders and electronic trading platforms for trading farmers’ produce in an 'outside trade area'.

Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

1- Background: On 5 June 2020, the  Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated by the Union Cabinet. 

2- Act: It is an act of the Indian Parliament that was enacted in 1955 to ensure the delivery of certain commodities or products, the supply of which if obstructed owing to hoarding or black-marketing would affect the normal life of the people. This includes foodstuff, drugs, fuel (petroleum products) etc.

3- Powers of Central Government:

(a) The Government of India regulates the production, supply, and distribution of a whole host of commodities it declares ‘essential’ in order to make them available to consumers at fair prices. 

(b) The Government can also fix the MRP of any packaged product that it declares an 'essential commodity'. 

(c) The Centre can add commodities to this list when the need arises and can take them off the list once the situation improves. 

(d) If a certain commodity is in short supply and its price is spiking, the Government can notify stock-holding limits on it for a specified period.

4- Powers of State Government: The respective State Governments can choose not to impose any restrictions as notified by the Centre. However, if the restrictions are imposed, traders have to immediately sell any stocks held beyond the mandated quantity into the market. This is done to improve supplies and brings down prices. 

5- Amendment: With the amendment in the Act, the Government of India will list certain commodities as essential to regulate their supply and prices only in cases of war, famine, extraordinary price rises, or natural calamities. The commodities that have been deregulated are food items, including cereals, pulses, potatoes, onions, edible oilseeds, and oils.

6- Stock Limit: As per the amendment, the imposition of any stock limit on agricultural produce will be based on price rise and can only be imposed if there's-- a 100% increase in the retail price of horticultural produce and a 50% increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural food items. 

7- Calculation: The increase will be calculated over the price prevailing immediately preceding twelve months, or the average retail price of the last five years, whichever is lower.

Why are Indian farmers protesting?

Indian farmers are fearing that they might lose more than they could gain after the new Farms Laws 2020 thereby taking the protest to the streets. 

As quoted by ANI, Bhartiya Kisan Union leader Rakesh Tikait stated, " They (Central Government) want amendment in them (Farm Laws 2020) but we want these laws to be repealed. We don’t want changes. We will end our protest only when these laws are withdrawn. Like the government brought the three bills, they should also bring a bill on the MSP."

ANI further quoted BKU leader Rakesh Tikait stating that they are ready to have future talks on Farm Laws 2020 with the Government. 

What is 'Pagri Sambhal Jatta Movement' and how it is related to the ongoing farmers' protest?

As reported by AlJazeera , 27-year-old Rashpinder Singh stated that the Indian Government has left the farmers at the mercy of big corporations. It is preposterous to believe that farmers who have small landholdings will have any bargaining power over private players.

As Farmers' agitation against three contentious Farm Laws entered day 34 (on 29 December 2020), the Farmer's Union on 29 December 2020 has accepted the Centre's proposal to hold the sixth round of talks. 

After agitating farmers accepted the Centre's proposal to hold the sixth round of talks, the Centre sent an invitation for talks on 30 December 2020 to 40 farmer representatives which have been accepted by the farmers. 

As per a letter by Union Agriculture Secretary Sanjay Agarwal, all the issues related to farmers, including the three farm laws, MSP-based procurement, the Commission for the Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Ordinance, 2020, and the Electricity Amendment Bill 2020 will be discussed in detail with the 40 representatives of farm unions. 

The talks scheduled on 30 December 2020 at 2 p.m. between the Centre and 40 farmer representatives took place at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. 

The sixth round of talks between the Central Government and the farmer unions reached to conclusions on the issues related to the environment and Electricity Acts , however, their demand of repealing the three Farm Laws 2020 and legal guarantee for MSP (Minimum Support Price) remained inconclusive. The seventh round of talks between the Centre and the farmers took place on 4 January 2021 at Vigyan Bhawan and failed to reach a breakthrough. 

As reported by ANI, Sukhwinder S Sabra , Joint Secy, Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee stated that if their demands aren't met on 4 January 2021, then, they'll hold tractor march on January 6 and 26, 2021. 

Speaking from the protest site in favour of tractor march, Yogendra Yadav stated, “ We have decided that on January 7, we will take out a tractor march at four borders of Delhi including Eastern and Western peripheral. This will be a trailer for what lies ahead on January 26 .”

As per farmers' leaders, around 3,000 tractors participated in the tractor march held on 7 January 2021 on Kundli-Manesar-Palwal or Western Peripheral expressway and at least 500 on the Kundli-Ghaziabad-Palwal or Eastern Peripheral expressway. It is important to note that the two expressways (Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressway) form a ring around the National Capital Delhi. 

The eighth round of talks between the Centre and the farmers took place on 8 January 2021 at 2 p.m. at Vigyan Bhawan. Union Minister for Agriculture Narendra Singh Tomar, Union Minister for Railways, Commerce and Industry and Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Piyush Goyal and Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Som Prakash participated with the representatives of 41 Farmers’ Unions. 

Union Minister for Agriculture Narendra Singh Tomar stated that the Farm Laws 2020 have been made keeping in mind the benefits of farmers throughout the country. The government is concerned about farmers and wants the agitation to end but due to no solutions, forthcoming issues could not be resolved. He further praised the farmers for keeping the agitation disciplined.

The Farmers’ Unions have asked for a repeal of the Farm Laws 2020, however, the Central Government again suggested amendments. The ninth round of talks took place on 15 January 2021. 

The 10th round of talks was scheduled for 19 January 2021 which is postponed by a day to 20 January 2021. Ministry of Agriculture in a statement stated that the government's ministerial meeting with farmers unions will be held on 20 January 2021 at 2 pm at Vigyan Bhawan, instead of 19 January 2021. 

On 20 January 2021, Minister of Agriculture Narendra Singh Tomar, Minister of Railways, Commerce and Industry and Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Piyush Goyal and Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Som Prakash participated in the 10th round of talks with the representatives of 41 Farmers’ Unions at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.  

The Government has proposed to the farmers' union that the implementation of Farm Laws 2020 should be kept on hold for a period of one to one and a half years. Amid the said time period, the representatives of the farmers' Union and the Government can discuss the issues related to the contentious Farm Acts 2020 to arrive at an appropriate solution. 

The 11th round of talks between the Centre and the farmers' union was scheduled for 22 January 2021. The farmers refused to accept the Centre's proposal to put the controversial laws on hold for a year-and-a-half.

Won't repeal Farm Laws 2020: Agriculture Minister

On 8 July 2021, Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar reiterated that the Centre will not repeal Farm Laws 2020 and is ready to discuss other options with farmers. 

"I want to appeal to protesting farmers to end their protest and to hold talks with us. The government is ready for discussions," said Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar. 

Tractor March on 26 January 2021

Speaking from the protest site in favour of the tractor march, Yogendra Yadav stated that a tractor march will be carried out on 26 January 2021.

The Supreme Court stated that the proposed tractor rally on Republic Day (26 January) by protesting farmers is a 'law and order' matter and Delhi Police will decide who should be allowed to enter Delhi.

Groups of protesting farmers camping at the Singhu, Tikri and Ghazipur border took out a massive tractor rally against the Farm Laws 2020 on the occasion of 72nd Republic Day (26 January 2021). 

As per Delhi Police, over 300 barricades were broken, and 17 Government vehicles were damaged by the protesting farmers, forcing their way into the city.  

Chakka Jam by Farmers

On 4 February 2021, Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) leader Rakesh Tikait stated that there will be a three-hour-long 'Chakka Jam' on 6 February 2021. 

Income Tax Raid on Arhtiyas 

As per leaders of different unions,  Arhtiyas are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with farmers in their ongoing protest against the Farm Laws 2020  and the raids were an attempt  to divide the farmer and arhtiya unity to sabotage this movement.

Why the Indian farmers rejected the Central Government's proposal?

1- Central Government proposed that the respective State Governments can levy cess on the private mandis.

The proposal was rejected by the farmers as they believe that the creation of private mandis along with APMC will drive agriculture business towards private mandis, ending government markets, intermediary systems and APMCs. As a result, big corporate houses will overtake markets, thereby procuring farm produce at incidental rates. The farmers believe that the Government may delay the procurement (as in the case of paddy), turning the public markets inefficient and redundant.  

2- Central Government proposed that they will give written assurance for the continuation of the existing MSP system.

The proposal was rejected by the farmers as they believe that the new Farm Laws 2020 are brought to dismantle APMCs. Thus, they are demanding a comprehensive Act on MSP pan India and for all crops. They are of the view that a written assurance from the Union Government is not a legal document and holds no guarantee. 

3- Central Government proposed that they will direct the State Governments to register traders in order to regulate them. 

The proposal was rejected by the farmers as the new Farm Laws 2020 have no provision to regulate the traders. As per new Laws, any PAN cardholder can procure grains from the markets at wishful prices and hoard the farm produce. The farmers believe that the Central Government is not ready to take responsibility for the ongoing issue as they want the State Governments to regulate the traders. 

4- Central Government proposed that under the contract farming law, farmers will have the alternative to approach the court and their land will be safe as no loan will be given on farmers’ land and their buildings by mortgaging it.

Government's take on the farmers' protest

On 20 September 2020, Prime Minister Modi referred to the Farm Bills 2020 as a watershed moment in the history of Indian agriculture, empowering millions of farmers.

On 29 November 2020, PM Modi in his Mann Ki Baat radio address to the nation stated that all the political parties had been making promises to the farmers but now these promises had been fulfilled, citing an example of the Maharashtrian farmer whose payments for his corn crop was kept pending by traders for four months. 

He further stated that under new Farm Laws 2020 , all the dues of the farmers must be cleared within three days of procurement, failing which, the farmer can lodge a complaint.

On 30 November 2020, Prime Minister Modi stated that the farmers are being deceived on these historic agriculture reform laws by the same people who have misled them for decades. He added that the old system was not replaced rather new options were added under the Farm Laws 2020 for the farmers. 

Prime Minister Modi stated, “The new agricultural laws have been brought in for benefit of the farmers. We will see and experience the benefits of these new laws in the coming days.” 

Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Narendra Singh Tomar stated that the government is committed to MSP, however, it was "not a part of the law" earlier and "is not" today.

#AatmaNirbharKrishi https://t.co/qCJOfzQPQw — Narendra Singh Tomar (@nstomar) December 10, 2020

In an exlusive interview to Dainik Jagran, Haryana's Deputy CM and JJP Chief Dushyant Singh Chautala stated that he will tender his resignation if he fails to ensure that a farmer gets MSP for his crops. 

On 27 December 2020, Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal visited Singhu Border and interacted with the protesting farmers. He further challenged that any Union Minister should debate with the protesting farmers to make it clear whether the laws are beneficial or harmful.

Supreme Court to hear plea on farmers' agitation

The Supreme Court will hear a plea seeking immediate removal of farmers from Delhi borders on 11 January 2021 filed by law student Rishabh Sharma. A Bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde, Justice A S Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian will hear the petition. 

The petition stated that commuters are facing hardships due to blockades. Emergency and medical services have been severely impacted due to the farmers' agitation. The petition further stated that the farmers should be shifted to a fixed place allotted by the Government and claimed that farmers were allowed to protest peacefully at Nirankari ground in Burari but they refused to accept the offer and are still blocking the borders. 

On 11 January 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the three Farm Acts 2020 and constituted a four-member committee to make recommendations on the same. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde gave the panel two months time to submit its report for a 'fair, equitable and just solution'.

Members of the Committee

1- Bhupinder Singh Mann , the national president of the Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee. (disassociated himself from the SC formed panel).

2- Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi , an agricultural economist who is also the Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute.

3- Ashok Gulati , agricultural economist and former chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices.

4- Anil Ghanwat , the chief of Shetkari Sanghatana.

On 19 January 2021, the farmers' unions have refused to attend the first meeting of the SC appointed committee to resolve the ongoing agitation over the contentious Farm Acts 2020, sticking to their demands of repealing the farm laws. 

Dedicated Portal for farmers

SC appointed panel for deliberations on the three contentious Farm Acts 2020 has notified a dedicated portal to get views of farmers individually. The panel has also decided to hear at least 20 organizations on the first day of consultations, i.e., 21 January 2021. 

December 8 Bharat Bandh called by Farmers' Union

Ahead of 'Bharat Bandh', Delhi's Chief Minister Arwind Kejriwal is on his way to the Singhu border. In addition to this, leaders of 11 parties including Congress president Sonia Gandhi, DMK chief M K Stalin, NCP patriarch Sharad Pawar, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Left Front’s Sitaram Yechury and D Raja stated that they will lend their 'whole-hearted' support to the December 8 Bharat Bandh called by Farmers' Union, The Times of India reported. 

Farmers have called the new Farm Laws 2020 'corporate-friendly and 'anti-farmer.

(a) President of the Maharashtra Rajya Bazaar Samiti Sahakari Sangh, Dilip Mohite Patil claimed that around 100-125 market committees in Vidarbha and Marathwada regions have reported almost no business and are on the verge of closure after the announcement of the central Ordinance. 

(b ) Food Processing Industries Minister, Harsimrat Kaur Badal of Shiromani Akali Dal resigned from her post in protest against these Bills.

(c) Former Chief Minister of Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal returned his Padma Vibhushan to protest 'the betrayal of farmers by the Government of India'. 

(d) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, "Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue. We’ve reached out through multiple means to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns. This is a moment for all of us to pull together."

To this, the Indian Government reacted sharply stating that his remarks are “ill-informed” and “unwarranted”. 

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) official spokesperson stated, "We have seen some ill-informed comments by Canadian leaders relating to farmers in India. Such comments are unwarranted, especially when pertaining to the internal affairs of a democratic country. It is also best that diplomatic conversations are not misrepresented for political purposes."

(e)  As reported by PTI, social activist Anna Hazare has threatened to go on a hunger strike if his demands on issues concerning farmers are not met by the Central Government by the end of January 2020. He further stated that it would be his 'last protest'. 

(f)  Congress Communication Chief Randeep Surjewala while addressing a press conference attacked Prime Minister Modi over three Farm Acts 2020 and stated that if he can’t repeal the Fram Laws and has to depend on the Supreme Court to break the deadlock with farmers, he must resign from the post of Prime Minister. 

Congress Communication Chief, Randeep Surjewala stated, " This is the first government in the past 73 years history of the country that is grossly abdicating its responsibility and telling the farmers to approach the Supreme Court. These three controversial agriculture laws have not been enacted by the Supreme Court but have been forcibly passed by the Modi government in Parliament.”

He further added, “The Constitution has not given the responsibility of framing the laws to the Supreme Court but to the Parliament of India. If this government is incapacitated to discharge this responsibility, then the Modi government has no moral authority to remain in power even for a minute."

Get here current GK and GK quiz questions in English and Hindi for India , World, Sports and Competitive exam preparation. Download the Jagran Josh Current Affairs App .

• When farmers' union have called for Bharat Bandh? + Farmers' union have called for Bharat Bandh on 8 December 2020 against the three Farm Laws passed by the Indian Parliament.
• How many farmers are protesting in India? + Around 2-3 lakh farmers are protesting in India as per an estimation by India Today on 30 November 2020.
• Why are Indian farmers protesting? + Indian Farmers are fearing that they might lose more than they could gain after the new Farms Laws 2020 thereby taking the protest to the streets.
• What is Farmer Ordinance Bill 2020? + The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 were collectively passed as a part of 2020 Farm Laws.
• What is the new law for farmers? + President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the three 'Agriculture Bills' that were earlier passed by the Indian Parliament. These Farm laws are as follows: 1- Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 2- Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 3- Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020
• September Important Days 2024
• Mother Teresa Quotes
• National Sports Day 2024
• ISRO Quiz Questions
• Shree Krishna Janmashtami
• National Film Awards 2024 winners list
• How to Use Meta AI
• India PM List 2024
• Nirmala Sitharaman
• Finance Ministers List 2024
• GK for State PSC
• GK for UPSC
• GK for Banking

Latest Education News

CBSE Class 10 Maths Deleted Syllabus For 2025 Exams: Check Chapter-Wise Topics, And Exercises Removed

National Sports Day 2024: भारत को ओलंपिक में गोल्ड मेडल दिलाने वाले मेजर ध्यानचंद के सिपाही से हॉकी के जादूगर बनने का सफर, यहां पढ़ें

UP Scholarship 2024: Direct Link Apply Online for Pre-Matric and Post-Matric Scheme, Check Eligibility, Other Details

Bihar TRE 3.0 Answer Key 2024 OUT: बिहार शिक्षक भर्ती की उत्तर कुंजी, bpsc.bih.nic.in से कर सकेंगे डाउनलोड

Upcoming Government Jobs 2024 LIVE: Employment News August (24-30) 2024, Notifications, Admit Card and much more

KPSC KAS Answer Key 2024 Out at kpsc.kar.nic.in: Here's Direct Link to Raise Objection

Punjab Board PSEB Class 8 Model Papers 2024-25: Download Model Test Papers Of All Subjects In PDF!

Fun and Engaging National Sports Day Activities In School

UPPSC Assistant Registrar Online link 2024 Active: यूपीपीएससी में सहायक कुल सचिव के पदों पर निकली भर्ती, यहाँ चेक करें पूरी डिटेल्स

Tripura NEET UG 2024: Round 1 Allotment Result Today, Download Allotment Letter at dme.tripura.gov.in

Synonyms and Antonyms: 100+ Synonyms and Antonyms List with Examples and Meaning for SSC; Download PDF

VBSPU Result 2024 OUT at vbspu.ac.in, Direct Link to Download UG and PG Marksheet

FSSAI Food Analyst Recruitment 2024: Apply Online Till Sep 13, Check eligibility and application process

CBSE Class 9 Deleted Syllabus for 2025 Examination

National Sports Day Drawings 2024: Easy Poster and Painting Ideas for School Students

MP ANM Admit Card 2024 Out at esb.mp.gov.in, Direct Link to ANMTST Hall Ticket,Check Exam Date

MCBU Result 2024 OUT at mcbu.ac.in, Direct Link to Download UG and PG Marksheet PDF

OTET Answer Key 2024 at bseodisha.ac.in: Here's Direct Link for Response Sheet, Check all updates here

UGC NET Admit Card 2024 Released for Exams till Sept 3rd at ugcnet.nta.ac.in: Direct Link to Download Hall Ticket Here

Rajasthan NEET UG 2024 Round 1 Counselling Schedule Revised, Allotment on August 30

Why are thousands of Indian farmers protesting?

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi says recently enacted farm laws will free farmers from bullying middlemen; farmers say they fear big corporations.

Some of India’s farmers are among the country’s poorest people, but government policies have long protected them from the ravages of open market prices.

That is changing.

Keep reading

Indian farmers vow to keep protesting after talks with gov’t fail, india farmers vow to intensify protests, reject gov’t talks offer, indian farmers continue anti-farm bills protests, thousands of farmers march to indian capital defying tear gas.

A set of three laws passed in September aims to deregulate India’s enormous agriculture sector. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said they will “ liberate ” farmers from the tyranny of middlemen.

But many farmers fear that they stand to lose more than they could gain from the new regulations and that the main beneficiaries will be agricultural corporations with gargantuan financial firepower.

As a result, the farmers have taken to the streets in the biggest such protests in years.

The demonstrations ramped up last week when several thousand protesters from the northern states of Punjab and Haryana set out to converge on the capital, New Delhi. Police blocked them at the city’s borders, denying them permission to gather in a place of their choice.

So what do India’s new farm laws do?

Firstly, they make it easier for farmers to bypass government-regulated markets (known locally as mandis) and sell produce directly to private buyers.

They can now enter into contracts with private companies, a practice known in India as contract farming, and sell across state borders.

The new regulations also allow traders to stockpile food. This is a shift away from prohibitions against hoarding, which could make it easier for traders to take advantage of rising prices, such as during a pandemic. Such practices were criminal offences under the old rules.

Why is any of this a problem?

Farmers have some genuine concerns.

A big one is that the new rules remove many of their safeguards. More than 86 percent of India’s cultivated farmland is controlled by smallholder farmers who own less than two hectares (five acres) of land each. They fear that they just do not have enough bargaining power to get the kinds of prices they need for a decent standard of living when they negotiate to sell their produce to larger companies.

“The government has left us at the mercy of big corporations,” Rashpinder Singh, 27, a farmer from Punjab state, told Al Jazeera in September.

“It is preposterous to believe that farmers who have small land holdings will have any bargaining power over private players.”

Can’t they take such disputes to court?

One of the new legal provisions says that to resolve disputes, farmers can seek out a so-called conciliation board, district-level administrative officers or an appellate authority. In other words, these cases will not go to a regular court.

But you said farmers can enter into contracts with buyers. Surely this will give them legal protection?

The new laws also do not make written contracts mandatory. So in the case of any violation of their terms, it can be very hard for a farmer to prove that he or she has been aggrieved, giving them little recourse.

It also does not help that, in general, there’s a bit of a bad odour around doing business with large companies.

Farmers have seen the costs of things like fertilisers and seeds shoot up over the years as those farming inputs are predominantly sold by the private sector.

Is there a minimum price at which farmers are guaranteed to be able to sell their produce?

There is, for certain crops such as rice and wheat.

Producers have been able to rely on the so-called minimum support price (MSP), the assured price the government pays for these crops.

But the new rules do not guarantee any minimum price for any product, and farmers worry that the existing MSP will be abolished at some point.

This would be a big blow to farmers who grow the foods that are currently eligible for the MSP, many of whom are from Punjab and Haryana, the home states of a large proportion of the protesters out on the roads.

So who else is affected by the rule changes?

Farmers are not the only people feeling like they are losing out. In fact, the new rules have upset a lot of other people with vested interests.

Under the old regulations, state governments earned a fee for all the stuff sold through the mandis.

As those sales fall, so do their state revenues.

Then there are the middlemen who pretty much control the mandis and also stand to be big losers if farmers skip past their doors to sell directly to customers.

The laws were passed in September. Why are the farmers protesting now?

Because no one bothered to check with them before they were passed!

The governing Bharatiya Janata Party initially enforced the new laws as the coronavirus pandemic ramped up in June, first as emergency ordinances. It then passed them in Parliament in September.

It did all that without consulting the farmers. They responded initially with a month-long protest in their respective states. In Punjab, they blocked the passage of trains.

Some ministers from the federal government finally tried to negotiate with the farmers in the past few weeks but to no avail.

What has the government said?

Modi has dismissed the farmers’ fears as misplaced and blamed opposition political parties for spreading false rumours regarding the fate of farmers under the new laws.

“The new agricultural laws have been brought in for benefit of the farmers. We will see and experience benefits of these new laws in the coming days,” Modi said on Monday.

Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah offered to allow them entry into the capital as long as they restricted their protests to a designated spot. The farmers’ response: thanks, but no thanks.

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia
• Environment
• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View
• Photo Essays
• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

The Economics Behind India’s Farmers Protest

Recent features.

Donald Trump’s China Rhetoric Has Changed. The Epoch Times’ Support For Him Has Not.

Imran Khan’s Biggest Trial

Seoul Is Importing Domestic Workers From the Philippines

The Rise, Decline, and Possible Resurrection of China’s Confucius Institutes

Nowhere to Go: Myanmar’s Exiled Journalists in Thailand

Trump 2.0 Would Get Mixed Responses in the Indo-Pacific

Why Thaksin Could Help Hasten a Middle-Class Revolution in Thailand

Can the Bangladesh Police Recover? 

The Lingering Economic Consequences of Sri Lanka’s Civil War

What’s Driving Lithuania’s Challenge to China?

Hun Manet: In His Father’s Long Shadow

Afghanistan: A Nation Deprived, a Future Denied

Features  |  economy  |  south asia.

Thousands of farmers are protesting again for guaranteed minimum support prices for their crops, an issue that remains sticky.

Protesting farmers stand across a police barricade near Shambhu border that divides northern Punjab and Haryana states, some 200 kilometers from New Delhi, India, Feb. 21, 2024.

India’s farmers are on the warpath again, just a few weeks before the country’s general elections.

More than 20,000 farmers, riding on tractors and trucks, have been trying to head toward New Delhi since February 13, in an attempt to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government into meeting their demand for guaranteed minimum support prices for crops.

The farmers tried to push through multi-layered barricades of concrete blocks, barbed wire, and spikes erected by the police. Security forces stopped them by dropping tear gas shells from drones and firing rubber bullets.

Farmers are camping at two locations, about 200 kilometers away from Delhi, with bulldozers, hydraulic cranes, and thousands of tractor trolleys loaded with dry rations and water-proof sheets. Four rounds of t alks between the government and representatives of the farmers have failed. The protests have intensified after a farmer died following clashes with police.

I n India, farmers’ demands are ambitious and complex. Here’s why.

Who Are the Protesting Farmers?

About 200 farmers’ unions from the northern state of Punjab, known as India’s grain bowl, are spearheading the agitation, along with cultivators from neighboring Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The 1960s Green Revolution – which made the country self-sufficient in food for the first time – took off from Punjab.

Punjab farmers extensively used free electricity and subsidized fertilizer to produce water-guzzling crops such as wheat and rice because of assured state purchases. They later became reluctant to cultivate less water-consuming crops. Their incomes gradually declined with the rising cost of production, decreasing yields, and wild fluctuation in market prices.

Now they are fighting for better incomes from agriculture. Farmers from southern regions have not joined the protests because of differing aspirations.

Indian farmers launched nationwide, powerful protests in 2020-21 against new controversial farm laws that the government said aimed at easing rules around the sale, pricing, and storage of farm crops. The yearlong protest ended after Modi backtracked and promised to repeal the laws. The government formed a panel to consider guaranteed crop prices across the country.

Now the farmers are back on the road to Delhi, claiming the government has not upheld its promises.

What Are Their Demands?

The farmers are seeking guarantees, backed by law, for minimum support prices for 23 crops, whose floor prices should be fixed at 50 percent above the comprehensive cost of production. The cost formula was recommended by the late scientist M. S. Swaminathan, widely known as the father of India’s Green Revolution.

Although the government sets minimum floor prices for 22 crops – based on normal production costs, market trends, and demand-supply conditions – it mainly buys wheat and rice at predetermined prices from farmers for its welfare programs.

The guaranteed prices are used as benchmarks for various farm commodities, but private buyers aren’t legally obligated to pay that amount to farmers.

Besides legally guaranteeing support prices, the farmers are also demanding pensions, waivers on farm loans, and compensation for more than 700 farmers who died during the 2020-2021 protests.

What Is the Root Problem?

About 65 percent of the country’s population lives in rural areas and 47 percent of Indians are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. But their growth has consistently lagged, even as India became the world’s fastest-growing major economy.

The average monthly income for agricultural households was about 10,000 rupees ($120) a month in 2019 and about half of the families were in debt. About half of the country’s farmers lack access to traditional financing sources .

The declining public spending on farming in the past decade and the lack of reforms have contributed to the dismal performance of the agriculture sector, which employs close to half of India’s workforce but generates less than a fifth of the country’s gross domestic product. 

Modi had promised a doubling of farmers’ income by 2022. But the promise remains unfulfilled .

Why the MSP Regime Doesn’t Help Farmers

The reach of the MSP regime as currently implemented is very limited. While the support prices are announced for about two dozen crops, it works mostly for rice and wheat mainly because India has vast storage facilities for these grains and uses the produce for its public distribution system. The government has announced it will provide 5 kilograms of free food grains for 810 million poor until 2028.

Procurement of grains from farmers is also not sufficient. About 49 percent of the rice production was procured in the year to March 2021 by the government while the figure for wheat was 40 percent, according to PRS Legislative Research.

Again, the system is unfair for those farmers who grow millets, oilseeds, fruits, and vegetables. Only 2 percent of coarse production was procured during that period.

Why the MSP Remains a Sticky Issue

This is the most controversial issue. Those who are in favor argue that the MSP will make farmers’ income more secure, help reduce rural economic distress, and encourage crop diversification – a change required to check declining water levels.

Those who oppose it say that it will make the market less flexible, lead to a rise in food inflation and an overproduction of crops, and bring fiscal disaster. Additionally, it could impact agricultural exports and global competitiveness.

“Legal guarantee of MSP will not help farmers move out of agriculture into other more productive sectors,’’ such as manufacturing and services, which is required for the country to attain its full potential, Neeraj Kaushal, professor of social policy at the Columbia University, told The Diplomat . 

Instead, “it would be a fiscal disaster and have inflationary consequences,” if farmers’ demands are met. There is no clear consensus on w hether a legally guaranteed MSP would be inflationary. Ashok Gulati, a distinguished professor at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, told The Wire that food prices would increase by 25 to 30 percent. To counter this, V ikas Rawal, professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, said that if the increasing cost of cultivation can be contained, the MSP will cease to be inflationary.

Similarly, the cost for MSP implementation for all crops is also debatable. It’s not easy to estimate as the cost depends upon various factors such as prevailing market prices, quantity of procurement by the government, and duration. CRISIL Market Intelligence & Analytics estimates it will only cost 210 billion rupees (2.53 billion), while some other analysts predict it will cost 10 trillion rupees ($120 billion) per year.

What Is the Way Forward?

Providing direct income support tied with investment in farmland is a better solution to support farmers, said Poornima Varma, an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad. Varma added that the current procurement process, which is practically limited to few food grains and states, should be revamped to make it effective.

Some experts argue that farmers can also be supported through a price stabilization fund, so that when market prices fall below the MSP levels, the government makes up the difference.

Augmentation of farm incomes through diversification to high value agricultural produce such as fruits, vegetables, and more farming of livestock is another idea.

What Are the Political Ramifications ?

Farmers don’t always vote as one bloc but enjoy sizable influence in the countryside, where most Indians live. Hence the government tries to avoid any major confrontation with them.

This farmers protest comes just a few weeks ahead of elections, which Modi is widely expected to win comfortably to secure a third successive term in power. Meanwhile, the main opposition Congress party has promised legal guarantees for the MSP in order to win farmers’ support.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party is likely to emerge unscathed electorally, said Asim Ali, a New Delhi-based independent political analyst, arguing that farmers unions are not united, with some abstaining from the current protest. The ruling party has forged alliances with some parties that enjoy wider support from farmers.

Still the ruling party will try to pacify farmers’ simmering resentment before the polls open.

1 Year Since Landmark Victory, Indian Farmers Plan to Revive Stir

By snigdhendu bhattacharya.

Where Do India’s Farmers Go From Here?

By sandeep kandikuppa and pallavi gupta.

“We Are Stronger than Their Injustice”: Indian Farmers Strengthen Protest Amid COVID-19 Surge

By tarushi aswani.

Past Imperfect: The Future of India’s Farmer Protests

By monika mondal.

Captured Myanmar Soldier: Army Joined Hands With ARSA Against Arakan Army Advance

By rajeev bhattacharyya.

China Rejects the ‘San Francisco System’

By kawashima shin.

A New Bangladesh Is Emerging But It Needs India Too

By muqtedar khan and umme salma tarin.

By Aleksander Lust

By Bryanna Entwistle

By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

By Haeyoon Kim

By Si-yuan Li and Kenneth King

Women play a crucial role in agriculture – so why are they often locked out of owning land?

Lecturer, Business School, University of New England

Emeritus professor, University of New England

Researcher in Agricultural Law & Policy, University of New England

Disclosure statement

Lucie Newsome receives funding from the UNE Foundation to support this research.

Andrew Lawson receives funding from the UNE Foundation to support this research

Alison Sheridan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of New England provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

When we think of a farmer, we still often imagine a man. But in reality, women contribute 49% to real farm income .

This isn’t just by increasingly working as farmers themselves. Keeping a farm business going usually relies on women’s off-farm work as well, particularly in times of drought.

Despite this, women often do not have ownership of farmland. And when it comes to who gets the family farm in succession planning, daughters, mothers and daughters-in-law are all likely to miss out.

There are established legal protections that women can draw on to challenge this. But our recent research finds these are often seen as a threat to the continuity of the family farm, and attempts are made to deliberately lock women out.

Australian agriculture only suffers as a result. To fix the problem, some stubborn attitudes will need to change.

Passing down the family farm through the generations

The process of deciding who will take over the family farm is known as farm transition and succession. Passing down land through the generations is of utmost importance for farming families.

Farmers see themselves as custodians of land, building on the work of previous generations for the benefit of their descendants. Farm land ownership is tied to identity, social standing, culture and community.

Passing on a viable farm business often relies on keeping it intact, rather than dividing it among siblings. But agricultural land prices have skyrocketed , meaning that for many families, succession planning can be a multimillion-dollar issue.

Beyond the obvious emotional charge, this also makes it extremely difficult for a sibling who wants to take over the farm to buy out the others. It also can mean siblings who do not take over the farm are giving up more and more money.

As you’d expect, this has made farm succession planning big business. Lawyers, accountants and business advisors are all used to help farming families negotiate a way forward.

So, who gets the farm?

Sons, mostly. The most recent data suggests that daughters only take over the family farm in 10% of cases. But as this data is now quite old, a large upcoming survey will assess whether this remains the case.

The default position for most Australian farming families is that a farmer equals a man – their sons are seen as best placed to take over the farm. They are often socialised into this role from birth.

But this view is severely outdated. As farming becomes more professionalised, entrepreneurial and technology-driven , the myth that it requires brute physical male strength is losing power.

Fortunately, gender norms in agriculture are slowly shifting . While there is still a long way to go, daughters are increasingly considered as farmers and are less likely to be overlooked in the distribution of family assets.

The ‘dreaded’ farm daughter-in-law

Few are so mistrusted in the politics of farm succession as the daughter-in-law. Despite this, their on- and off-farm work and their roles as caregivers and community members are crucial to the reproduction of farming families, the family farm and rural communities.

Women have become less accepting of being locked out of land ownership as education levels, family law and gender norms have changed.

But for the landholding generation, they are still often seen as a threat to the continuity of the family farm.

A daughter-in-law’s attempts to start succession planning processes, to raise questions about the underpayment of her partner or herself, or attempts to seek a career outside of rural areas can all also be seen as challenges to the traditional farm family.

This is despite the fact she is often just attempting to secure a degree of certainty for her immediate family.

Deliberately locked out

For some time, Australian family law has extended to de facto partners as well as married partners.

In the case of a divorce or intimate partnership breakdown, the court has the power to decide on how property assets – such as farms – will be distributed between the partners.

In doing so, it aims to achieve an equitable distribution, rather than seeing assets as owned in a 50/50 split. It may take into account the needs of each partner and their financial and non-financial contributions, such as child care.

Despite this, our research found the landholding generation are using the farm succession processes to protect the continuity of the farm from a claim by the daughter-in-law.

This includes delaying transfer of the farm to their adult children, so that the daughter-in-law cannot make a claim on it in the case of divorce. Family business structures that quarantine the farm asset, such as binding financial agreements, are also being used.

But collectively marginalising the farm daughter-in-law and excluding daughters from succession is only hurting the industry. In their attempts to preserve the status quo of gender relations, many family farms are failing to prepare for a changing business and social environment.

Women have been graduating from agricultural degrees in equal numbers as men for more than two decades. Females farmers have been found to have high levels of entrepreneurship, innovation and strong sustainability values.

How can farming families do better succession planning?

Australia’s food security and agricultural industry depend on succession being done well. It needs to be a continuous conversation with the whole family, aided by professionals with a range of skills.

That means women can no longer be deliberately excluded. As one professional in our study commented:

A lot of these girls have sacrificed a lot and … [they] are whip-smart and actually could contribute enormously to these businesses being more successful if [the older generation would] just put fear aside, be clear about what they’re frightened of, deal with it, and move on.

If the industry wants to thrive in the 21st century, attitudes will have to change.

• Agriculture
• Agribusiness
• Gender norms
• succession planning

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

US judge blocks Biden rule on H-2A farmworker union organizing

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Dan Wiessner (@danwiessner) reports on labor and employment and immigration law, including litigation and policy making. He can be reached at [email protected].

Read Next / Editor's Picks

Industry Insight

David Thomas

Luc Cohen, Susan Heavey

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Project 2025 has a starring role in this week’s Democratic National Convention.

And it was front and center on Night 1.

WATCH: Hauling large copy of Project 2025, Michigan state Sen. McMorrow speaks at 2024 DNC

“This is Project 2025,” Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said as she laid a hardbound copy of the 900-page document on the lectern. “Over the next four nights, you are going to hear a lot about what is in this 900-page document. Why? Because this is the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about “Trump’s Project 2025” agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

“Donald Trump wants to take our country backward,” Harris said July 23 in Milwaukee. “He and his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has joined in on the talking point.

“Don’t believe (Trump) when he’s playing dumb about this Project 2025. He knows exactly what it’ll do,” Walz said Aug. 9 in Glendale, Arizona.

Trump’s campaign has worked to build distance from the project, which the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, led with contributions from dozens of conservative groups.

Much of the plan calls for extensive executive-branch overhauls and draws on both long-standing conservative principles, such as tax cuts, and more recent culture war issues. It lays out recommendations for disbanding the Commerce and Education departments, eliminating certain climate protections and consolidating more power to the president.

Project 2025 offers a sweeping vision for a Republican-led executive branch, and some of its policies mirror Trump’s 2024 agenda, But Harris and her presidential campaign have at times gone too far in describing what the project calls for and how closely the plans overlap with Trump’s campaign.

PolitiFact researched Harris’ warnings about how the plan would affect reproductive rights, federal entitlement programs and education, just as we did for President Joe Biden’s Project 2025 rhetoric. Here’s what the project does and doesn’t call for, and how it squares with Trump’s positions.

Are Trump and Project 2025 connected?

To distance himself from Project 2025 amid the Democratic attacks, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he “knows nothing” about it and has “no idea” who is in charge of it. (CNN identified at least 140 former advisers from the Trump administration who have been involved.)

The Heritage Foundation sought contributions from more than 100 conservative organizations for its policy vision for the next Republican presidency, which was published in 2023.

Project 2025 is now winding down some of its policy operations, and director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, is stepping down, The Washington Post reported July 30. Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita denounced the document.

WATCH: A look at the Project 2025 plan to reshape government and Trump’s links to its authors

However, Project 2025 contributors include a number of high-ranking officials from Trump’s first administration, including former White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

A recently released recording of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author and the former director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, showed Vought saying Trump’s “very supportive of what we do.” He said Trump was only distancing himself because Democrats were making a bogeyman out of the document.

Project 2025 wouldn’t ban abortion outright, but would curtail access

The Harris campaign shared a graphic on X that claimed “Trump’s Project 2025 plan for workers” would “go after birth control and ban abortion nationwide.”

The plan doesn’t call to ban abortion nationwide, though its recommendations could curtail some contraceptives and limit abortion access.

What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list.

Project 2025 says the Department of Health and Human Services Department should “return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.”

It recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion. Medication is the most common form of abortion in the U.S. — accounting for around 63 percent in 2023.

If mifepristone were to remain approved, Project 2025 recommends new rules, such as cutting its use from 10 weeks into pregnancy to seven. It would have to be provided to patients in person — part of the group’s efforts to limit access to the drug by mail. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval over procedural grounds.

WATCH: Trump’s plans for health care and reproductive rights if he returns to White House The manual also calls for the Justice Department to enforce the 1873 Comstock Act on mifepristone, which bans the mailing of “obscene” materials. Abortion access supporters fear that a strict interpretation of the law could go further to ban mailing the materials used in procedural abortions, such as surgical instruments and equipment.

The plan proposes withholding federal money from states that don’t report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention how many abortions take place within their borders. The plan also would prohibit abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. It also calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the training of medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, omits abortion training.

The document says some forms of emergency contraception — particularly Ella, a pill that can be taken within five days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy — should be excluded from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health insurers to cover recommended preventive services, which involves a range of birth control methods, including emergency contraception.

Trump has recently said states should decide abortion regulations and that he wouldn’t block access to contraceptives. Trump said during his June 27 debate with Biden that he wouldn’t ban mifepristone after the Supreme Court “approved” it. But the court rejected the lawsuit based on standing, not the case’s merits. He has not weighed in on the Comstock Act or said whether he supports it being used to block abortion medication, or other kinds of abortions.

Project 2025 doesn’t call for cutting Social Security, but proposes some changes to Medicare

“When you read (Project 2025),” Harris told a crowd July 23 in Wisconsin, “you will see, Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The Project 2025 document does not call for Social Security cuts. None of its 10 references to Social Security addresses plans for cutting the program.

Harris also misleads about Trump’s Social Security views.

In his earlier campaigns and before he was a politician, Trump said about a half-dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization. More recently, in a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” However, he quickly walked that statement back, and his CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. We rated Harris’ claim that Trump intends to cut Social Security Mostly False.

Project 2025 does propose changes to Medicare, including making Medicare Advantage, the private insurance offering in Medicare, the “default” enrollment option. Unlike Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans have provider networks and can also require prior authorization, meaning that the plan can approve or deny certain services. Original Medicare plans don’t have prior authorization requirements.

The manual also calls for repealing health policies enacted under Biden, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The law enabled Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for the first time in history, and recently resulted in an agreement with drug companies to lower the prices of 10 expensive prescriptions for Medicare enrollees.

Trump, however, has said repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut Medicare.

Project 2025 would eliminate the Education Department, which Trump supports

The Harris campaign said Project 2025 would “eliminate the U.S. Department of Education” — and that’s accurate. Project 2025 says federal education policy “should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies.

Aside from eliminating the department, the project also proposes scrapping the Biden administration’s Title IX revision, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also would let states opt out of federal education programs and calls for passing a federal parents’ bill of rights similar to ones passed in some Republican-led state legislatures.

Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to close the department, which gained its status in 1979 within Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s presidential Cabinet.

In one of his Agenda 47 policy videos, Trump promised to close the department and “to send all education work and needs back to the states.” Eliminating the department would have to go through Congress.

What Project 2025, Trump would do on overtime pay

In the graphic, the Harris campaign says Project 2025 allows “employers to stop paying workers for overtime work.”

The plan doesn’t call for banning overtime wages. It recommends changes to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulations and to overtime rules. Some changes, if enacted, could result in some people losing overtime protections, experts told us.

The document proposes that the Labor Department maintain an overtime threshold “that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States).” This threshold is the amount of money executive, administrative or professional employees need to make for an employer to exempt them from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2019, the Trump’s administration finalized a rule that expanded overtime pay eligibility to most salaried workers earning less than about $35,568, which it said made about 1.3 million more workers eligible for overtime pay. The Trump-era threshold is high enough to cover most line workers in lower-cost regions, Project 2025 said.

The Biden administration raised that threshold to $43,888 beginning July 1, and that will rise to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. That would grant overtime eligibility to about 4 million workers, the Labor Department said.

It’s unclear how many workers Project 2025’s proposal to return to the Trump-era overtime threshold in some parts of the country would affect, but experts said some would presumably lose the right to overtime wages.

Other overtime proposals in Project 2025’s plan include allowing some workers to choose to accumulate paid time off instead of overtime pay, or to work more hours in one week and fewer in the next, rather than receive overtime.

Trump’s past with overtime pay is complicated. In 2016, the Obama administration said it would raise the overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, about double the exemption level set in 2004 of $23,660 a year.

But when a judge blocked the Obama rule, the Trump administration didn’t challenge the court ruling. Instead it set its own overtime threshold, which raised the amount, but by less than Obama.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Harris Can Change Biden’s Policy on Israel Just by Upholding the Law

By Peter Beinart

Mr. Beinart is a contributing Opinion writer. He’s also a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York, an editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter.

Kamala Harris is in a bind. Despite rallying Democrats behind her, she’s still being heckled by protesters who want to end U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Many of those activists want her to endorse an arms embargo against the Jewish state. Her chief foreign policy adviser, Phil Gordon, has ruled that out . But a flat refusal risks alienating progressives in key states like Michigan and sparking an ugly confrontation at this week’s Democratic convention.

There’s a solution that allows Ms. Harris to go beyond merely calling for a cease-fire and saying that “far too many” civilians in Gaza have died. Without supporting an arms embargo, she can still signal a clear break with Joe Biden’s near-unconditional support for an Israeli war effort that many legal scholars believe has led to genocide. And she can do so in a way befitting a former prosecutor: When it comes to Israel, Ms. Harris should simply say that she’ll enforce the law.

The law in question has been on the books for more than a decade. It prohibits the United States from assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits “gross violations” of human rights. Aid can be reinstated if the foreign country adequately punishes the perpetrators. Passed by Congress in 1997, it bears the name of former Senator Patrick Leahy — and it has been applied hundreds of times — including reportedly against U.S. allies like Colombia and Mexico.

But it has never been applied to Israel, the country that over the past eight decades has received more U.S. aid, by far, than any other. That’s not because the Israel Defense Forces don’t commit serious abuses. “There are literally dozens of Israeli security force units that have committed gross violations of human rights” and should thus be ineligible for U.S. aid, a former State Department official, Charles Blaha, told ProPublica in May.

Mr. Blaha should know. From 2016 to 2023, he oversaw the office charged with enforcing the Leahy law. While a U.S. State Department spokesman in April claimed that Israel receives “ no special treatment ” under the Leahy law, Mr. Blaha says his own experience proved otherwise. When it came to every country except Israel, he has explained , career officials generally had the last word. In the case of Israel alone, he says, the decision rested with the State Department’s top political appointees.

Those appointees are failing to enforce U.S. law. This spring, ProPublica reported that an expert State Department panel had recommended that Secretary of State Antony Blinken cut off assistance to several units of the Israeli military and police after reviewing allegations that they had committed human rights abuses preceding the current Gaza war. In May, Mr. Blinken told Congress that Israel had adequately punished the members of units accused of serious abuses, and U.S. aid would thus keep flowing. (Because the department’s vetting process is not public, it’s unclear whether any of the units Mr. Blinken cleared were among those the panel flagged.)

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Try AI-powered search

The poisonous global politics of water

Polarisation makes it harder to adapt to climate change.

T HE WATER thieves come at night. They arrive in trucks, suck water out of irrigation canals and drive off. This infuriates Alejandro Meneses, who owns a big vegetable farm in Coquimbo, a parched province of Chile. In theory, his landholding comes with the right to pour 40 litres of river-water a second on his fields. But thanks to drought, exacerbated by theft, he can get just a tenth of that, which he must negotiate with his neighbours. If the price of food goes up because farmers like him cannot grow enough, “there will be a big social problem,” he says.

The world’s water troubles can be summed up in six words: “too little, too much, too dirty”, says Charlie Iceland of the World Resources Institute ( WRI ), a think-tank. Climate change will only aggravate the troubles. Already, roughly half of humanity lives under what the WRI calls “highly water-stressed conditions” for at least one month a year.

Adapting will require not only new technology but a new politics. Villages, regions and countries will need to collaborate to share scarce water and build flood defences. The needs of farmers, who use 70% of the world’s freshwater, must be balanced with those of the urbanites they feed, as well as industry. In short, a politics of trust, give-and-take and long-term planning is needed. Yet the spread of “them-and-us” demagoguery makes this harder. A global study by Jens Marquardt and Markus Lederer of the University of Darmstadt notes that populists stir up anger, sow distrust of science and dismiss climate policies as the agenda of liberal elites.

Around 97% of the water on Earth sits in the salty ocean; land-, lake- and river-bound life depends on the remaining 3%. Although the amount of water on the planet is immutable, the daedal workings that move it around are not. The water cycle is made up of a dizzying number of processes, many of them non-linear, which operate across various timescales and areas. All are, ultimately, driven by the energy of the sun, which makes seawater evaporate, plants transpire and, by disproportionally heating the tropics, powers ocean currents and weather systems.

Global warming alters the ways water behaves. It intensifies the water cycle, increasing the severity of both very wet events and very dry ones . Warmer air can hold more moisture, which also evaporates more readily up out of warmer oceans. More moisture in the atmosphere means more can fall back out as rain or snow. This increases the likelihood of heavier deluges in wet regions . That, in turn, means less potential precipitation is left for drier spots. “Thirsty” air there is more likely to suck moisture out of the soil, prolonging and worsening droughts.

The UN reckons that, between 2002 and 2021, flooding affected around 1.6bn people, killed nearly 100,000 and caused economic losses of over $830bn. Droughts, in the same period, affected 1.4bn, killed over 20,000 and cost $170bn. The World Bank estimates that by 2099, the global supply of freshwater per head will fall by 29% from what it was in 2000; and by a massive 67% in Africa, while rising 28% in Europe (see chart).

In Chile, “too little” is becoming a crisis, for which politics is nowhere close to finding a solution. It is the most water-stressed country in South America. “Santiago [the capital] is OK now but in ten years it might not be,” warns Jessica López, the public-works minister.

For centuries, Chileans who wanted water simply took it from streams and rivers, or sank wells to pump groundwater. But as parts of the country dry up, rules written in wetter times are increasingly out of date. Intense distrust between left and right—in a country that has seen massive protests in recent years—makes them hard to revise.

Conservative governments granted many landowners “water rights”, allowing them to pump a generous amount each day, for free and for ever. Today, the total volume of granted water rights far exceeds what can sustainably be extracted. So farmers like Mr Meneses have had to sit down with their local water association and agree on how much everyone can pump. Yet some people cheat, sinking illicit boreholes. Tension between big farmers, small farmers and villagers is high. “We’re surrounded by farms with illegal wells, and that’s why we have no water,” says Erica Díaz, a hard-up villager who relies on water trucks and recycles her washing-up water onto her vegetable patch.

Conservative Chilean landowners think of “water rights” as a natural part of property rights. But water is not like land. A house need not encroach upon a neighbour; but a well depletes groundwater for everyone. Granting a fixed volume of water rights in perpetuity is nuts.

Meanwhile, the Chilean left push the notion that water is a human right. A draft constitution , backed by the current government but rejected by voters in 2022, mentioned “water” 71 times, affirming everyone’s right to it, especially if they were poor or indigenous, but giving little clue as to how that right might be delivered.

The trickiness of water politics is on display at a meeting of small farmers in Punitaqui, a town in northern Chile. Everyone agrees water is too scarce. Some farmers complain big companies have taken an unfair share. Others complain of widespread criminality—including a water inspector getting death threats. An expert shows how to use ultrasound to detect leaks, which are common. Yet many farmers in the room admit they don’t even know where their local pipes are buried.

In one sense Chile has plenty of water: to the west is the Pacific Ocean. But getting a permit to build a desalination plant can take more than a decade. The problems are political more than technical. Just for permission to use a bit of shoreline for a plant, a firm must apply to the ministry of defence—taking three or four years. The archaeological-monuments council needs to be assured nothing of cultural interest is being damaged. That can take another three or four years. And then transporting water is a bureaucratic maelstrom.

Chile needs to think about water logically, says Ulrike Broschek of Fundación Chile, a think-tank. Desalination is useful, but unless powered by renewables it is bad for the climate. By one estimate, global emissions from desalination could match all of those from Britain by 2025.

In Chile, bigger, cheaper gains are to be made. Farms, which account for four-fifths of water use, could use drip irrigation and hydroponics more. If farmers paid directly for water, they would use it more efficiently. Cities, instead of having impermeable pavement everywhere, could use “rain gardens” to capture rain and recharge the groundwater below. And the rules need to be simpler: 56 public bodies regulate water, with no overall co-ordinator, Ms Broschek complains.

Ms López, at least, offers an encouragingly pragmatic view. A pending bill will speed up permits for desalination, she promises, and more water infrastructure will be built. More broadly, she argues that water “needs to have an appropriate price”.

Elsewhere, sensible water pricing is as rare as it is necessary. Even in places where it has been shown to work, it can be politically fraught. Take Australia, another dry country where farmers use more water than everyone else combined. Federal and state governments thrashed out an agreement in 2012 to conserve water in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s biggest system of interconnecting rivers. It relied on an existing scheme allowing farmers to buy or sell water entitlements. The goal was to save 3,200 gigalitres (gl) by 2024, either by “buying back” entitlements from farmers or by investing in projects that could save equivalent amounts, such as more efficient irrigation systems.

Australia has conserved about 2,130gl of water, equivalent to over 20% of what was previously consumed. Meanwhile, farm output has risen. It helps greatly that the country is rich. The government has pumped A$13bn ($8.8bn) into water-saving. Systems for measuring water use are sophisticated. When Malcolm Holm, a dairy farmer, needs to irrigate his pastures, he orders water online. Sensors measure out the volumes. Locks are raised, and it trickles into his fields. The system sustains his 1,200 cattle.

Yet nearly everyone is unhappy. Environmentalists say the targets should be more ambitious. Farmers say they are too strict. No one is forced to sell their water to the government, but because many do, the system reduces the total amount available to trade for irrigation. This is one reason why water prices have risen in the past decade. That is the point: higher prices spur conservation. But they also threaten rural livelihoods. Protests have erupted in rural New South Wales. “Preschools are struggling to get children in. Footy clubs haven’t got enough players,” says Linda Fawns, a councillor in Deniliquin, a small town. Jamie Tasker, a local agricultural mechanic, claims the government is “scaremongering” about the environment and squeezing irrigation to shore up city votes.

Almost nine out of ten Australians live in cities, and politicians, certainly, do not want their taps to run dry. But priorities change as parties alternate in power. The (conservative) Liberal Party, which is more pro-farmer and reluctant to do much about climate change, stopped doing water buybacks. The Labor Party, in federal power since 2022, resumed them.

Allegations of water theft abound. Last year a farmer was fined a mere A$150,000 for illegally taking over A$1.1m-worth of groundwater. “Theft is a business model, because fines don’t fit the crime,” grumbles Robert McBride, who runs an outback sheep station.

The Murray-Darling plan comes up for review in 2026. As droughts grow worse, the government ought to buy back more water, thus raising water prices and driving the least water-efficient farms out of business. They won’t go quietly.

From conflict to compromise

If the politics of water is touchy in well-off, stable places like Australia and Chile, it is explosive in poorer countries. Climate change seems to be making the weather more erratic in many of them, for example, by magnifying the variability inherent in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation , a global driver of monsoons and their rains.

In April and May floods in Kenya were the worst in memory. Bridges, schools and railways were destroyed. Perhaps 300 people died. Following years of drought, the government was caught off-guard, says Kennedy Odede of SHOFCO , an NGO serving Kenya’s slums. “When it started raining, people were happy. Nobody was expecting there to be too much.”

The government should have been better informed. Persistent drought paves the way for flooding, since the soil hardens and the water has nowhere to go but sideways. Kenya’s populist president, William Ruto, ignored warnings last year of impending floods.

Benninah Nazau, a vegetable hawker in Mathare, a Nairobi slum, recalls rain pounding on her tin roof at 5pm on April 23rd. When she peered out, she saw tables and chairs swept along by the nearby river. By 1am the water was surging through her home. She grabbed her five children and took them to higher ground, unable to salvage any possessions. “It was life or death.” Neighbours were carried off in the deluge.

Political dysfunction makes cities less resilient. Rules barring the construction of homes dangerously close to the river—such as Ms Nazau’s, which was only six metres—are ignored. Landowners bribe officials to look the other way when they flout planning codes. Builders pave over wetlands.

Whereas scarcity has an obvious solution—higher prices—the problem of too much water does not. Flood defences must be built and people discouraged from living in the riskiest places. But where, and how? Kenya’s government is sponsoring tree-planting along Nairobi’s river banks, to help hold back future floods. A moratorium has been placed on new building permits in the city. Officials are evicting people from homes built 30 metres or less from the riverbanks and destroying the buildings. In the worst-affected part of Mathare, all that remains is rubble and a stench of sewage. Each household was offered 10,000 shillings ($77.60) compensation.

Many residents, however, are resisting. Some are still in shacks by the river, refusing to leave. Others want more compensation. Many distrust the government, widely seen as corrupt. Some Kenyans think politicians deliberately caused the flooding, to pave the way for the slum clearances that followed. Belief in such far-fetched conspiracy theories makes co-operation between state and citizens less likely.

Squabbles over water can turn violent. The Water, Peace and Security partnership, a global body, crunches data to predict water-related conflicts. Its latest update, in June, notes that herders and farmers across the Sahel are fighting over scarce water. Drought-related skirmishes are expected in South Africa, Madagascar and Mozambique, and floods in Iran and Afghanistan have displaced populations into areas where they may not be welcome.

Tensions between states are common, too. As rivers grow more erratic, negotiations between downstream countries and upstream ones may grow more fraught. Dry countries (such as China and the Gulf states) are buying up farmland in Africa and the Americas to secure future supplies of food. In effect, they are importing vast quantities of water in the form of wheat and soyabeans. This could become a political flashpoint.

Water wars between states are fortunately rare. But Egypt is furious about an Ethiopian dam that could disrupt its access to the Nile river, from which it gets nine-tenths of its water. Talks over how to share the water keep failing. Egyptian officials hint they might go to war. They may be bluffing, but no one can be sure.

To avoid water wars, countries need to use water more efficiently (Egypt wastes it copiously) and negotiate more amicably. Much work needs to be done in both areas. The world spends roughly 0.5% of GDP on water, the World Bank estimates, but 28% of allocated public funds go unspent, and a typical water utility has “efficiency losses” (leaks and theft) of around 16%. As for amicable haggling, three-fifths of the world’s 310 international river basins lack frameworks to govern disputes.

Another thing that makes water policy hard is that many people—such as those whose homes are too costly to defend from floods, or whose crops wither—will eventually have to move. Chilean vineyards are already shifting south. Outback towns will shrink. Inundated Africans and Asians will keep migrating to cities or abroad.

Rich countries may be able to help compensate those whose homes and fields are rendered worthless, but the process will be disruptive everywhere. Nonetheless, it should be manageable. The WRI estimates that solving the world’s water crises would cost 1% of GDP per year until 2030, and that every $1 invested in sensible ways to do so would yield $6.80 in benefits. However, getting the politics right will require calm, collaborative leadership, disproving the epigram attributed, perhaps erroneously, to Mark Twain: “Whisky’s for drinking; water’s for fighting.” ■

More from International

Indian tourists are conquering the world

A booming middle class, budget flights and Bollywood

Can Donald Trump’s Iron Dome plan keep America safe?

In a dangerous world, cutting-edge missile defence is all the rage

Why the war on childhood obesity is failing

Sugar taxes and obesity drugs will not be enough

Paris could change how cities host the Olympics for good

The games will test the success of new solutions to old bugbears

Could America fight its enemies without breaking the law?

The speed and intensity of prospective conflicts could test the laws of war

How China and Russia could hobble the internet

The undersea cables that connect the world are becoming military targets