 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor. Talk can do press bell button for notifications. The Lok Sabha has recently passed three bills concerning the farmers. Or if I may say so, the agriculture sector. These three bills being first, the farmers empowerment and protection agreement of price assurance and farm services bill. The second being the farmers produce trade and commerce promotion and facilitation bill. And the third being, you know, the essential commodities amendment bill. The bills will now be, you know, tabled in the Rajya Sabha as they have already been passed by the Lok Sabha. There has been a lot of, you know, noise, protests, you know, doubts and confusion. About the intent and understanding of these bills. The government claims that the proposed laws are aimed at helping small and banished farmers, the marginalized farmers. Nevertheless, the bill has sparked massive protests in predominantly agriculture dependent states where farmers are panicking with regard to the proposed law, you know, intending to harm their income and livelihood. Let me explain to all the viewers some salient provisions of these bills. And once I have done that, I will, you know, also let you know about what apprehensions and doubts and confusion or misconceptions farmers have or the critics have with regard to the new bill. Predominantly, the farmers produce trade and commerce promotion and facilitation bill. As I'm speaking in English, I personally feel that I should also do this lecture in Hindi language so that, you know, this lecture or video talk should reach as many farmers as possible and including their family members. Perhaps I will do that soon. I asked myself, you know, why did the government think of bringing about these new laws? Where was the need? Well, on the face of it, I do not see anything wrong with these proposed new laws. Though it is natural that, you know, when you shake the age old system, there is bound to be resistance. But I think that the old system has outlived its utility and it was not helping the farmers to grow. It is high time that the farmers realize that they are also traders in a sense. They're also businessmen, they're significant part of the economy, business and commerce. They need to get the best price for their produce and that too in an open market, in a transparent manner. The agricultural markets in India are primarily regulated by state agriculture produce market committees or marketing committees, APMCs. They were, you know, established under respective state laws to ensure fair trade between the buyers and sellers for efficient price discovery of farmers produce. But these market committees have not helped the farmers as they were expected to. Most agriculture produce market committees have a limited number of traders, you know, who are operating within the domain, thereby leading to the cartelization and jeopardizing fair competition. And one has also seen unjustified deductions in the form of commissions, charges and market fees. The entry of new persons into market yards is almost next to impossible because of the cartelization of traders, commission agents and other operators, you know, leading to oppressive competition and unfair pricing of agriculture produce. The APMC regime disallows in a way free trade of farmers produce and does not support, you know, marketing at multiple channels. And APMC also does not propagate farming under pre-agreed contracts. There have been reforms suggested in the agriculture sectors as to trade and commerce of the farm produce for several decades but no reforms have been brought about. And it has not attracted private investment into the agriculture sector because of that reason. Hence, I feel that the introduction of these bills was highly essential in order to boost the agriculture sector. Let me brief you first about the farmers produce trade and commerce promotion and facilitation bill. Before, you know, proceeding to the substantive provisions of the bill, you know, I would like to share with you the three main objectives. Behind this bill, the object why the government wants this particular law first to provide for the creation of an ecosystem where the farmers and traders enjoy the freedom of choice relating to sale and purchase of farmers produce and facilitates remunerative prices through competitive alternative trading channels. That first objective. Second, to promote efficient, transparent and barrier free interstate, interstate trade and commerce of farmers, you know, produce outside the physical promises of the markets or the markets notified under the state agriculture, you know, produce market legislation. Third, to provide a facilitative framework for electronic trading and matters connected therewith or incidental there too. Now moving on to the substantive provisions of this new law to be the proposed new law. First, you know, farmers produce is now a matter of business trade and commerce. The farmers produce trade and commerce promotion and facilitation bill. Permits and enables interstate and interstate trade of farmers produce outside the market locations of the state agricultural produce market committees. Hence, you know, the farmers can now trade their produce outside the trade areas. That is any place of production, collection and aggregation of farmers produce, including, you know, farm gates, factory premises, you know, warehouses, sea loss and, you know, even cold storages. Two, farmers trading will be on the electronic platforms now. The bill allows and enables the electronic trading of scheduled farmers produce that is agriculture produce regulated under any state APMC act in the specified trade area. There shall be an electronic trading and transaction platform to facilitate the direct and online buying and selling of such produce. It's historical and it will be done through electronic devices and the Internet. And quite transparently, the entities which can establish and operate such platforms would include companies, partnership firms or registered societies, having a permanent account number, a PAN number under the income tax act or any other document, you know, notified by the government from time to time. And it can also be set up by a farmer producer organization or agricultural cooperative society. These platforms. Then third sale in feature state market fee eliminated. Yes, the bill forbids and bars state government from levy any market fee says or levy on farmers, traders and electronic trading platforms for the trade of farmers produce, which is transacted in an outside trade area or in other words outside the physical areas of the agricultural produce market committees. Now, let me take, take up the farmers, you know, empowerment and protection agreement on price assurance and farm services bill. I mean, this is interconnected with the previous bill. First, formalization of farming trade transaction. This second bill provides for a farming agreement or contract between a farmer and a buyer before the production or rearing or nurturing of any farm produce. It also stipulates the minimum and maximum period of agreement. You know, minimum being one crop season or one production cycle of livestock. Whereas the maximum period being five years, you know, unless of course, you know, if the production cycles are more than five years, then it could be even beyond five years. Second, commercials of farming produce. You know, as per this bill, the pricing of farming produce shall have to have shall have to be declared in the agreement. However, where the price prices are exposed to variation, the agreement will clearly provide for a guaranteed price for the produce as well as for any additional amount above the guaranteed price. The pricing will have to have some basis behind its calculation and determination, you know, which will have to be mentioned in the agreement. So that's very transparent provision, you know, transparency enhancing provision, if I may say so. Third, dispute resolution mechanism. You know, wherever there is an agreement, there must be a dispute resolution clause. This bill provides that a farming agreement shall provide necessarily for a consolation board as well as a consolation process for settlement of disputes, if any. At the first instance, all disputes shall have to be referred to this board for resolution, failing which, you know, the board may approach the concerned SDM, the Subdivision Magistrate for Resolution of the Dispute. And parties will also have a right to appeal to an appellate authority, you know, presided by the collector or additional collector, you know, against the decision given by the SDM, by the Magistrate. The decision as to dispute shall be taken in a very time bound manner, in a very time bound fashion, that is not more than 30 days at each stage or level. And as I've explained, there are three stages for resolution of disputes. Each stage cannot take more than 30 days. Now, the most important offshoot of the dispute resolution is that no action, no action can be taken against the agricultural land of the farmer for recovery of any dews. So, I mean, you cannot take away the agricultural land of the farmer in order to execute the dews. Now, in so far as the Essential Commodities Amendment Bill is concerned, basically, this amendment allows the central government to regulate the supply of certain food items, you know, including cereals, pulses, potatoes, onions, edible oil seeds and oils, only in extraordinary circumstances, which include war, you know, famine, you know, extraordinary price rise and natural calamity of grave nature. Further, this amendment necessitates, requires imposition of any stock limit on agriculture produce that must be based on price rise and there is a, you know, formula assigned to it. So, the stock limit can be imposed only in case of price rise. Now, the doubts in the mind of farmers and some critics has been, you know, predominantly on the following grounds. Or for the following reasons. First, there is a worry, fear or concern that the farmers will not be in a position to get paid at the minimum support price, the MSP and the commission agents fear they will also be hit as the business is going beyond the cartels and physical bounds. Because farmers can sell now outside the physical bounds of the agriculture committees. Now, some critics also feel that this is a step towards corporatization of agriculture and farming business, which may not be in the interest of farmers in agriculture sector. But there is no basis behind that argument. Third, the agriculture dependent states like, you know, Punjab and Haryana also fear losing revenue because, you know, as per the proposed law, they are now prohibited barred from living and collecting the market fee. Cess, you know, in other words, Monday fees in those transactions where farmer will be selling the produce outside the state agriculture produce markets. Yes. So, you know, so they will lose revenue, but farmers will gain by all means. Fourth, you know, it is a matter of fact that these states, you know, earn huge revenue from the central procurement agencies who purchase produce like wheat and rice for the central pool from these state states. Now, if central agencies do not buy from the state Mondays, you know, this will result in a massive loss of commission for the states. But farmers will be the gainers and the platform providers would be also the gainers. But I am of the primary facing opinion that these three bills or proposed laws intend to boost the accessibility of buyers for farmers produce. They grant flexibility and enable the farmers to trade freely without any restrictions whatsoever. With no license required, no stock limits. These proposed laws are aimed at increasing market competition so that the farmers get the best prices for their produce. So overall, great initiative for the benefit of the farmers.