If the now-repealed farm laws remain extremely crucial for much-needed farm sector reforms, pursuing due process to bring them back on the policy agenda is even more so. From the hasty passage of the three legislations in 2020 in a depleted, pandemic-hit House (they were introduced as ordinances before that) to the rather sudden release of the Supreme Court-appointed panel report on these laws a few days back, it is clear that due process has taken a beating. This is a pity, as the three farm laws — on creating alternatives to the APMC marketing infrastructure; relaxing norms on stockholding of essential commodities; and devising a framework that encourages contract farming — would have avoided all the needless controversy, had the Centre ensured the passage of the Bills after due deliberations and debate, both within and outside Parliament. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, set up a panel in January 2021 to evaluate the farm laws and create a stakeholders’ consensus. The panel submitted its report in March last year, but the apex court inexplicably failed to release it despite numerous pleas to do so. This added to the climate of unease — an irony, because the report, released suo moto by one of its members a few days back, actually contains a number of constructive suggestions on how to improve on the laws and bring the States on board.

With the recent State elections going in the ruling party’s favour, the time is ripe to revive the theme of farm sector reforms, provided the Centre proceeds with more tact, patience and openness in negotiations with stakeholders than it has shown in the past. The report’s finding that of the 73 farmers’ organisations it spoke to, 61 of them representing 33 million farmers “fully supported the Acts — a majority constituting 85.7 per cent of total farmers” — suggests a way forward. However, it also raises the question of why this information was not placed earlier in the public domain. It could perhaps have prevented the events that led to the repeal of the laws in November.

The panel has suggested salutary measures to enlist the support of the States, such as allowing them “flexibility in the design and implementation of the laws” and creating an agriculture marketing council, like the GST Council to implement the laws in a cooperative spirit. With respect to stockholding limits in the Essential Commodities Act, it suggests a further relaxation of price triggers for perishables and non-perishables, with the price rise being in existence for at least a month. It favours a shift away from open-ended procurement to one that is tuned to price stabilisation, citing the operations of NAFED with respect to pulses and oilseeds as the right approach. The promotion of FPOs, with closer interaction between farmers, exporters, processors and other bulk buyers can be facilitated through government hand-holding. Buyers need to be put through better KYC processes, with convincing dispute settlement mechanisms. These, and other suggestions, can prepare the ground for a new start. As the panel says, the “trust deficit” caused by botched processes of the past should not recur.

comment COMMENT NOW