Farm Legislations and Minimum Support Price
- PDF / 29,648 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595 x 842 pts (A4) Page_size
- 40 Downloads / 170 Views
been a legal guarantee so far, why it should be now guaranteed. But, as discussed above, the argument of the Centre doesn’t hold water since the MSP was enforced hitherto on APMCs as floor price by the State Governments, which can’t be done after these two legislations are enacted as, they create parallel free market outside the APMC. The proponents of legislation cite Sec 5 which talks of “guaranteed price”. Sec 5 reads as below: “5. The price to be paid for the purchase of a farming produce may be determined and mentioned in the farming agreement itself, and in case, such price is subject to variation, then, such agreement shall explicitly provide for — (a) a guaranteed price to be paid for such produce; (b) a clear price reference for any additional amount over and above the guaranteed price, including bonus or premium, to ensure best value to the farmer and such price reference may be linked to the prevailing prices in specified APMC yard or electronic trading and transaction platform or any other suitable benchmark prices: Provided that the method of determining such price or guaranteed price or additional amount shall be annexed to the farming agreement.” The “guaranteed price” is nothing but price agreed to be paid by purchaser despite variations in price. It’s not same as MSP. If MSP had been prescribed in Sec 5, then purchaser or corporates couldn’t have entered into farming agreement with farmers to sell his produces at a price less than MSP. Therefore, the farmers forced by indebtedness, etc are likely to be compelled to sell their farm produces at a lower price dictated by the purchaser who are corporate known as commodity houses. This exploitation is likely to occur in buyers market or in the market where there is less demand for farmers products. Therefore, the fears of farmers are not misleading fears. The farmers demand for prescription of MSP under the law is a legitimate demand. The fact that it was not prescribed hitherto has no substance. Because, as stated above, the MSP fixed by the Central Govt by administrative order was implemented by the State Govt through APMC which was the exclusive place to trade the farm produces. When APMC market is knocked out and outside trading is permitted by giant corporates under the new legislations, legal guarantee of MSP becomes necessary to protect farmers from exploitation. The present administrative orders fixing MSP have no legal validity. The orders cannot overrule the farming agreement freely entered into by farmers though under compelled conditions of indebtedness, etc. On the question whether Parliament has necessary competence to enact both the legislations FPTC and FAPAFS, the answer it seems, is in the negative prima facie. In conclusion, the legislations which were passed hurriedly in Parliament do not augur well for democracy. The farmers have fears of exploitation and colonisation by corporates in the name of free trade. Their demand of minimum support price is legitimate. The APMCs despite draw backs have not been unfair to farmers.
DOI: 10.100
Data Loading...
