 Friends, for the last one month, I have been receiving many requests from within and outside India to share my objective views regarding the two new farm laws. Actually, there are three laws, third being the essential commodity laws, but in principle there are two laws. But as the window of the timeline which is allocated to me is only 20 minutes, hence I will not be able to take you through each and every provision of these two laws, rather I would be focusing more on bringing about clarity regarding the effect, impact and consequence of these two laws. There are massive apprehensions and reservations about the implications of these two laws. So it is fundamental for all of us to get to know about these laws scrupulously and consensiously. I am saying this because we must realize that these laws are incredibly unique and these are based on, according to me, four key broad considerations, scientific, economic, social and legal. Now what mistake most of us are doing is that we are looking at these laws from a very short-sighted approach, short-sighted or narrower perspective, which is causing prejudice in our minds. These laws must be understood in the background of, as I mentioned, scientific, socio-economic and legal parameters, which have to be put together. I mean, you cannot deal with them in compartments. So let me try to bring forth my own understanding as to the legitimacy and reasonableness of these two laws, which I consider are based on the research done by me and what I comprehend. Let me first give you a brief analysis of the existing regime which operates under the Agriculture Produce Market Committee's APMC Act. Then I will take you through the new laws and finally I will cover the significance attached with the socio-economic and scientific grounds around agriculture. So first, under the APMC regime, the farmers are obligated to sell their produce through the auction which are conducted in the markets or Mondays, which operate under the said APMC Act and they are led by the licensed traders. In other words, wholesalers or retail traders or food processing entities cannot purchase farm produce directly from the farmers. They have to go through the Mondays only and Mondays have monopoly. Or I would even go to the extent of seeing a cartel or domination in a way. The licensed traders and commission agents run an informal syndicate at Mondays. Auctions are, I am told, hardly transparent. Now the payments to farmers under the APMC Act are delayed considerably in the Mondays. And if on the spot prompt payments are made, they imply indiscriminate discounts at the cost of the farmers. There is hardly any organized paperwork to support these sale purchase transactions. What does that lead to? Well, all this makes a farmer completely discredited with no good financial standing at all. Practically speaking, the farmers can receive just about one fourth to one third of the market rates at the Mondays. This is not all. To make everything more than worse, the middlemen at the Mondays charge commission on both seller, that is the farmer and the buyer. Even the market retailer or wholesaler or food processor. And what value addition do these commission agents do? Nothing. I won't say negligible, but it's nothing. These agents have no resource or amenities to do grading or sorting. They are just simple brokers who are just facilitating trade and commerce and for which they are charging huge commissions. Each and every transaction in a Monday is imperiled to market tax and market sis. That's again additional cost on the farmer. The process of getting a license at a Monday is more of an inheritance model because you need a shop or a warehouse in the Monday to get a license. Which is next to impossible to find for a new aspirant entrant. Because all the shops and wholesale warehouses are taken. Now let us deal with the new laws one by one. Explaining how the provisions are actually intended to help the farmers and not to jeopardize or endanger their livelihood or incomes. As is being perceived by a section of the society. First, the farmers produce trade and commerce promotion and facilitation act 2020. In short, let us call it FPTC act. It provides for the creation of an ecosystem where the farmers and traders enjoy enormous freedom of choice relating to sale and purchase of farmers produce. They can sell within APMC Mondies or outside them. So APMC Mondies are not eliminated by the new law. How does this FPTC act benefit the farmers? That's my question and my answer is this will facilitate remunerative prices through competitive alternative trading channels. It is natural that when you have more buyers one gets better sale price. And the end user which is the consumer like one of us also gets a good quality produce at a better price. And more choice as well because so many commissions and taxes and cases are eliminated out of the cost. The provisions of the statute go to promote efficient, transparent and barrier free interstate and intrastate trade and commerce of farmers produce. Outside, obviously the physical premises of the market or deemed market are notified under various state agriculture produce market legislations. So not only that, the statute is that is the act also provides a facilitative framework for electronic trading which is the future. I mean I can take you through each and every provision of the act. Each provision is a measure to grant I would say protection and security to the farmers. The significant misconception is that this act affects and governs state APMC or Mondies. This is absolutely false perception. This act talks about trade and commerce outside the physical boundaries of any trading areas public or private run by the market committees formed under each state APMC act. APMC commission agents and operators I think are nervous because they have to come now compete with more transparent, efficient and professional competitors. Their cartel, the existing cartel is getting broken down. It is collapsing or is under the scanner. Now giving you some instances of statutory provisions specific ones under this act. Section 4 for instance obligates every trader who transacts with farmers to make payment for the trade traded farmers produce on the same day or within maximum 3 working days if procedurally so required. Section 6 categorically mandates that no market fee or ses or levy by whatever name called under any state APMC act or any law shall be levied on any farmer for trade and commerce. So there is no commission, no levy, no tax, no ses on the farmer. Now talking about dispute resolutions, it is an admitted fact that all the courts of law today are over burdened with litigation cases. The litigants in India are frustrated because of the delay in injustice. For 6 years and decades for resolution of disputes and for poor people the administration of justice system is largely inaccessible due to heavy cost of litigation and logistical issues as well. Courts are located far off. Now alternative dispute resolution mechanism is the need of the are and has been globally embraced due to its transparency, efficiency and above all speedy disposal. Now that is what section 8 of this act, FPTC Act says or enables an efficient process of consolation by no other than the nominated representatives of the farmer who is involved in the dispute. The law provides for serious penalties and rapid recovery from the traders in favor of the farmers. And in the interest of justice, there are three layers of alternative dispute resolution available to the farmers and there is no litigation cost at all. So according to me the farmers under the new law gets to sell their produce right at their doorstep, gets prompt payments and in case of any dispute the justice is available to him right at the threshold. What more would a farmer need? You tell me, what more would a farmer aspire to succeed, to earn well, to be happy and grow? Now taking up the second law, the farmers empowerment and protection agreement on price assurance and farm services act 2020. In short we can call it as APAFS act, you know agreement of with regard to price assurance and farm services. It provides for a standardized national framework on farming agreements that protects and empowers farmers to engage with agribusiness firms, processors, wholesalers, exporters or large retailers for farm services and sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price under a framework which is fair and transparent. Remember that already there are 20 states, around about 20 states in India which have adopted contract farming. Even the state APMC acts for you know provide for contract farming but it's all you know zigzag haphazard. There is no uniformity. The new law simplifies standardizes and improves earlier versions. The new act swings I would say the balance in favor of the farmers. It eliminates the complex system of registration, licensing, deposits and numerous other compliances in contract farming provisions in various states. Now discussing for instance some of the specifics of this act, section 3 of the act I would like to quote. Specifically you know it places the responsibility of all compliances of legal requirement for providing farm services on the sponsor or the farm service provider beg your pardon. And you know what farm services include under the act these include supply of seeds, feed, fodder, agrochemicals, machinery and technology, agricultural advice, nonchemical, agro inputs and such other inputs for farming. This is so beneficial for the farmers as a whole. This is the new era of modern technology and infrastructure. Why are rural youth are migrating to the urban and not wanting to engage in agriculture? Have you pondered over that? Because agriculture is strenuous and involves physical hardship today in the absence of modern means of technology, comfort, infrastructure and tools of agriculture. They are all very primitive, does not attract youth at all. Now because agriculture is not lucrative because of old technology. The number of you know migrants who moved from rural to urban areas stood at 52 million as per census of 2001. The share of rural to urban migrants in the population rose from 5.06% in 2001 to 6.5% in 2011. And so we need to make an honest endeavor to overcome these challenges to stop the migration from rural to urban. Further section 3 of the act also says that no farming agreement shall be entered into by a farmer in derogation of any rights of a sharecropper. You know what sharecropper is. We call in Hindi Bataidar or Mojira or simply putting it a tiller or occupier or a tenant of the land. And the agreements of farming cannot be endless in perpetuity under the act. The act prescribes having mutually acceptable quality, grade and standards of a farming produce which are compatible with the agronomics practices, agro-climate and such other factors which are relevant and government agencies will provide full assistance and aid to the farmers on this decision making. I mean this will undoubtedly enable a high grade quality of produce which will fetch lucrative price and not only in domestic markets even in international markets. This will obviously encourage farmers to venture into newer ideas and non-conventional crops other than petty and wheat which has become very popular because of MSP. Now most importantly I mean I will discuss MSP as well later in my lecture. You know section 5 of the act prescribes about the guaranteed price to be paid for the purchase of a farming produce in the farming agreement. A guaranteed price to be paid to the farmers. Also section 6 makes the buyer responsible for taking the delivery of any farming produce and making payment on the spot. This thoroughly secures the farmers, thoroughly secures the farmers by any means. Now for addressing the farmers' fear of losing their land, section 8 of the act directly prohibits any farming agreement leading to any transfer including sale, lease and mortgage. Or even raising any permanent structure or making any modification on the land or premises of the farmer unless the sponsor agrees to remove such structure and restore it back to its original condition at his own cost. So I mean farmer can never lose his land under any of the statutes, never. All disputes under the farming agreements will be resolved by enlarging in the same manner as discussed earlier under the previous new law FPTC act. You know there is the same mechanism of dispute resolution, alternate dispute resolution. Now let me, as I am short of time, let me finally address the issue of MSP. The farmers are, you know, amplifying a lot about this issue of MSP which according to me is a non-issue. Let us understand briefly, you know, what is the concept of MSP? What is this minimum support price? What is it? You know, we need to understand this concept in some brief words. Well the minimum support price is an agricultural product price that is set by the Government of India in order to purchase directly from the farmer. Now how is this rate fixed? Well this rate first of all acts as a safeguard for the farmer as it provides a minimum price or a minimum profit let's say for the harvest irrespective of the market conditions. Now in India a committee set up under Swaminathan, MS Swaminathan in 2006 had recommended that MSP should be, must be, you know, at least 50% more than the cost of production. The centre currently fixes MSPs for 23 farm commodities based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices, CACP in short form. Now these are according to me 7 serials and 5 pulses and some commercial crops as well. It is not a statutory provision, it is only a government policy that is part of an administrative decision making. The government declares MSPs for crops but there is no law mandating their implementation. It is just a government's public policy measure. Now as per certain reports merely 89% of the rice produced by the farmers, 89% of the rice produced by the farmers in Punjab is procured by the government. And if I was to talk about Haryana it is 85%. Now farmers in Punjab and Haryana face no price risk and this in fact incentivises the farmers to grow more and more paddy and wheat and not to venture in any other crop. But this is dangerous according to me and I will tell you why as we go along, you know. Now let me touch upon some socio-economic and scientific reasons behind the logic and reasonableness of the new laws where I will also connected with paddy and wheat and MSP. First, do you know for a fact that when India became independent, agriculture accounted for about 55% of the GDP? Yes. And employed 60% of the population. The same GDP contribution from agriculture share has fallen down significantly and hugely to 17% from 55% to 17% in 2019-2020. And still agriculture continues to employ about half the country's population. So something has gone seriously wrong somewhere because half of India's population depends on the sector for income but their contribution to the GDP has not been impressive at all. It is sliding down hugely. So agriculture definitely needs reforms. It definitely needs private investments for modernisation and revamp. Second, there is also imbalance between domestic demand and supply. India is holding a huge surplus of some commodities and at the same time it is importing huge quantities of edible oils and pulses. India is also importing fruits and vegetables which can be very well grown in India domestically and could be sold for price definitely better than wheat and rice but nobody is venturing into it because of MSP. Third, do you know that agricultural divisions, this is important, do you know that the agricultural divisions such as horticulture, milk and fishery are witnessing better annual growth? It is about 4-10% as compared to the miserable dismal growth rate in cereals which stands at 1.1%. This is because in the latter case there is MSP, minimum support price and other government level interference whereas in the former case the market intervention by the government is negligible. So wherever government doesn't interfere there is more growth. Now do you know that India still remains outside the international agreement on agriculture at WTO? Because countries in WTO have opposed India's MSP mechanism which is a subsidised mechanism. It is opposed to open and free market concept which makes the participant more sustainable in the open and free market in the long run. Indian farmers I would say need to wake up and compete within India and even internationally. They can become really big and if I was to compare them with farmers in China and Israel they are doing exceptionally well. Now more importantly do you know that the private sector investment represents less than 2% of the total investments in the agriculture sector and less than 0.5% ridiculous of the annual investments of the corporate sector in the Indian economy. So so low. Not to boost and modernise the agriculture sector. There is an urgent necessity by all means to stimulate private sector investments. There is a need. And coming back to the China point do you know that China produces 3 times more agri-output than India from a smaller cultivable area and only about 26% of China's workforce is in agriculture as compared to India's 50% or let's say 42% to be precise in the agriculture sector. Now the average holding size in China is much smaller. Hence there is no question that small holders can also do marvels. I mean if they are offered the proper incentives, good quality infrastructure and research support and yes and the right institutional framework to operate. So I mean India can overtake China you know if these farm laws are executed in the right spirit. And do you know that in the state of Punjab almost 80% of its agriculture blocks have got over exploited. Meaning the withdrawal of water in those blocks 80% blocks is much more than the recharge or replenishment as Sardara Singh Joel a legendary you know Indian agriculture economist once remarked. This is a disaster in the making and a business as usual scenario will lead to desertification of Punjab because it's losing water and this is because you know paddy cultivation on more than 3 million hectares in Punjab 3 million hectares for paddy. This tent amounts to producing rice at the cost of depleting sweet ground water as another acclaimed agriculture economist Ashok Gulati also you know quoted a famous proverb it really appealed to me. The proverb says we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children we don't inherit it from our ancestors we borrow it from our children. I could have said much more regarding scientific and socio economic aspects but there is time constraint and I have already exceeded the allocated timelines. Hence let me close my lecture now you may feel free to throw questions at me via the with the moderator. Thank you so much. See you again. Bye bye.