The corrupt character of overall Punjab administration (both state and central govt officials included) makes MSP regime lucrative for a wider section of society. This section knows how to control the govt through votes, elections funding, organizing protests. There are overseas connections as well. This section owns all the capital and land of the state, and as a result controls all the labour, through its exploitative, feudal practices. Any intervention by Centre is met by a religious card front ended by Gurudwara committees. There is nothing much that Centre can do here except for waiting for all ground water to dry and state become a desert. If there is a solution, it has to come from the State Government which should chalk out a long-term program with measurable, step by step, periodical outcomes. In the current set up, I have no hope of recovery for Punjab.
There is much logical and rationale in what you say. The only glimmer of hope that I see is that when Disaster— zero ground water—begins to hit some parts of the state, maybe better sense will dawn.
Thanks Bro for your feedback. You’re already a celebrity among the thinking beings. As such your views do have a great effect on firming up opinions. A slight tilt in the nuances can have great influence on the way people perceive your stance in a particular topic.
Addendum: I perceive the now dead farm laws as ill conceived children of the powers that be sired by (foreign?) vested interests and hence still born. 🙏🙏🙏
Well argued article. But I am sorry to disagree with you on one count that the proposed / withdrawn farm laws were a lot opportunity.
Reasons are given in the below write up which I attempted with the help of AI search. Both the way the bills were passed (first as ordinances) and they were withdrawn (without taking the parliament in confidence), show the arrogance of the govt.
Here is my detailed reaction:
The 2020 Indian Farm Bills: A Misguided Approach to Agricultural Reform
In his Substack post “MSP and Punjab: Time to Outgrow the Crutch,” KBS Sidhu argues that Punjab’s reliance on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system is unsustainable, citing environmental pressures like groundwater depletion as a potential catalyst for farmers to adopt market-driven reforms akin to the 2020 Indian Farm Bills. While the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandi system has flaws, particularly its exploitative arhtiya (middlemen) structure, the Farm Bills—rushed through Parliament without adequate consultation—were not a solution to farmers’ distress. The bills’ failure to address systemic issues, coupled with the government’s exclusion of farmers, suspicions of foreign corporate influence, and lack of legal protections in contract agreements, rendered them anti-farmer. Moreover, the dissolution of the mandi system in Bihar serves as a cautionary tale, where small and even large farmers faced economic ruin. Genuine reform requires inclusive dialogue with stakeholders to tackle distress, environmental degradation, and toxicity in agriculture, rather than hastily imposed legislation.
1. Lack of Farmer Consultation and Trust
The 2020 Farm Bills—the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act—were introduced as ordinances on June 5, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, a time of restricted public engagement. Passed in Parliament in September 2020 with minimal debate and a controversial voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, the bills bypassed the consultative process expected for agricultural policy, a state subject under India’s Constitution. This lack of transparency alienated farmers, particularly in Punjab and Haryana, where MSP supports 75–80% of wheat and paddy procurement, serving as a critical safety net for small and marginal farmers who make up 85% of India’s agricultural workforce.
The government’s failure to codify MSP guarantees, despite assurances, deepened distrust. Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar’s statement that MSP was “not a part of the law” (The Hindu, December 2020) heightened fears that the bills aimed to dismantle the mandi system, leaving farmers vulnerable to market volatility. The resulting protests, with tens of thousands of farmers encircling Delhi, culminated in the bills’ repeal in November 2021, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi admitted the government failed to “convince” farmers (The Hindu, November 19, 2021). This exclusionary approach underscores that the bills were not a farmer-centric solution but a top-down imposition.
2. Suspicions of Foreign and Corporate Influence
The Farm Bills’ origins raised suspicions of influence from foreign or corporate interests, undermining their legitimacy. The bills’ emphasis on deregulating trade, promoting contract farming, and removing stockholding limits aligned with neoliberal reforms advocated by global institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Gita Gopinath, IMF Chief Economist, praised the bills as “very important steps” (The Economic Times, October 2020), fueling perceptions of external pressure. In Punjab, farmers targeted conglomerates like Reliance Industries and the Adani Group, suspecting they would dominate markets under the new framework, as evidenced by protests against Reliance Jio towers in December 2020 (The Indian Express, December 28, 2020).
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, which facilitated contract farming, was seen as favoring large agribusinesses, potentially with foreign ties, over small farmers. The government’s lack of transparency about the bills’ drafting process and its dismissal of concerns as “misinformation” or foreign conspiracies (e.g., alleging Khalistani involvement) failed to address these suspicions. Sidhu’s post, while highlighting environmental concerns, overlooks how the bills’ corporate-friendly design alienated farmers wary of external influence.
3. Inadequate Legal Recourse in Lease Agreements
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act promised to empower farmers through contract farming but failed to provide robust legal recourse in disputes, particularly over land leases. The act restricted farmers’ access to civil courts, directing disputes to conciliation boards or Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs), who, as government appointees, could favor corporate interests. This was particularly concerning for small farmers in Punjab, where land is a primary asset, as companies defaulting on lease agreements could leave them economically stranded. The Wire (September 23, 2020) reported fears that the bills’ weak dispute resolution mechanisms exposed farmers to exploitation by powerful agribusinesses, a concern rooted in precedents like PepsiCo’s 2019 lawsuits against Gujarat farmers over patented seeds (The Hindu, April 26, 2019). Sidhu’s optimism about market reforms ignores these legal vulnerabilities, which could exacerbate farmers’ distress.
While Sidhu rightly points to environmental challenges like groundwater depletion, his implication that the Farm Bills were a step toward reform overlooks their inadequacy in addressing farmers’ distress and the mandi system’s flaws. The APMC mandi system, particularly in Punjab, is riddled with issues, including exploitation by arhtiyas, who charge high commissions and trap farmers in debt cycles. However, the bills’ approach—effectively bypassing the mandi system without reforming it—was no solution. Bihar’s experience after abolishing its APMC system in 2006 is a stark warning: small landholders faced extreme poverty, and even large farmers struggled as agriculture became unprofitable without MSP or regulated markets. A 2019 study by the National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research found that Bihar farmers received 20–30% lower prices for their produce post-APMC, with no significant private investment to offset losses (The Print, January 2021).
The Farm Bills’ hurried passage ignored these lessons, offering no alternative safety net for Punjab’s farmers. Had the government been serious about addressing distress, depleting groundwater, and rising toxicity in the agricultural supply chain (e.g., pesticide overuse), it would have pursued reforms through extensive consultation with farmers’ groups, agricultural scientists, and state governments. This could have included modernizing mandis, regulating arhtiyas, incentivizing sustainable crops, and ensuring MSP continuity. Instead, the bills’ rushed implementation, without parliamentary or public debate, exacerbated fears of corporate takeover and economic insecurity, as evidenced by the year-long protests.
Conclusion
KBS Sidhu’s call to move beyond MSP as a “crutch” oversimplifies Punjab’s agricultural challenges and endorses the flawed logic of the 2020 Farm Bills. While the mandi system requires reform to address arhtiya exploitation and environmental concerns, the bills’ exclusionary process, corporate-friendly design, and lack of legal protections made them an inadequate response to farmers’ distress. Bihar’s post-APMC struggles highlight the risks of deregulation without safeguards. Genuine reform demands inclusive dialogue with farmers, scientists, and other stakeholders to address groundwater depletion, toxicity, and economic vulnerabilities, rather than hastily imposed legislation. The bills’ repeal in November 2021 reflects the triumph of farmers’ resistance and the need for a more collaborative approach to agricultural reform.
References
• The Hindu, “Farm Laws Repealed: PM Modi Says Govt Failed to Convince Farmers,” November 19, 2021.
• The Economic Times, “IMF’s Gita Gopinath Calls Farm Bills Important Steps,” October 2020.
• The Indian Express, “Punjab Farmers Target Reliance Jio Towers,” December 28, 2020.
• The Wire, “Why Farmers Fear the New Farm Bills,” September 23, 2020.
• The Hindu, “PepsiCo Sues Gujarat Farmers Over Potato Variety,” April 26, 2019.
• The Print, “Bihar’s APMC Abolition Left Farmers Poorer, Shows Data,” January 2021.
Disclaimer: I lot of precaution has been taken to ensure the correctness of the contents, yet as I have sought help from AI also, there may be some inconsequential factual errors.
The thrust of my eye article is not whether the three farm laws were good or bad – what I intend to say is that they were definitely the death-knell of the artiya system, and that their repeal has not brought any additional or incremental prosperity to the farmer himself.
Sir,
The corrupt character of overall Punjab administration (both state and central govt officials included) makes MSP regime lucrative for a wider section of society. This section knows how to control the govt through votes, elections funding, organizing protests. There are overseas connections as well. This section owns all the capital and land of the state, and as a result controls all the labour, through its exploitative, feudal practices. Any intervention by Centre is met by a religious card front ended by Gurudwara committees. There is nothing much that Centre can do here except for waiting for all ground water to dry and state become a desert. If there is a solution, it has to come from the State Government which should chalk out a long-term program with measurable, step by step, periodical outcomes. In the current set up, I have no hope of recovery for Punjab.
There is much logical and rationale in what you say. The only glimmer of hope that I see is that when Disaster— zero ground water—begins to hit some parts of the state, maybe better sense will dawn.
Thanks Bro for your feedback. You’re already a celebrity among the thinking beings. As such your views do have a great effect on firming up opinions. A slight tilt in the nuances can have great influence on the way people perceive your stance in a particular topic.
Addendum: I perceive the now dead farm laws as ill conceived children of the powers that be sired by (foreign?) vested interests and hence still born. 🙏🙏🙏
We believe in reincarnation— moreover, these can always be resurrected or re-enacted.
Won’t use the word exhumed.
Well argued article. But I am sorry to disagree with you on one count that the proposed / withdrawn farm laws were a lot opportunity.
Reasons are given in the below write up which I attempted with the help of AI search. Both the way the bills were passed (first as ordinances) and they were withdrawn (without taking the parliament in confidence), show the arrogance of the govt.
Here is my detailed reaction:
The 2020 Indian Farm Bills: A Misguided Approach to Agricultural Reform
In his Substack post “MSP and Punjab: Time to Outgrow the Crutch,” KBS Sidhu argues that Punjab’s reliance on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system is unsustainable, citing environmental pressures like groundwater depletion as a potential catalyst for farmers to adopt market-driven reforms akin to the 2020 Indian Farm Bills. While the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandi system has flaws, particularly its exploitative arhtiya (middlemen) structure, the Farm Bills—rushed through Parliament without adequate consultation—were not a solution to farmers’ distress. The bills’ failure to address systemic issues, coupled with the government’s exclusion of farmers, suspicions of foreign corporate influence, and lack of legal protections in contract agreements, rendered them anti-farmer. Moreover, the dissolution of the mandi system in Bihar serves as a cautionary tale, where small and even large farmers faced economic ruin. Genuine reform requires inclusive dialogue with stakeholders to tackle distress, environmental degradation, and toxicity in agriculture, rather than hastily imposed legislation.
1. Lack of Farmer Consultation and Trust
The 2020 Farm Bills—the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act—were introduced as ordinances on June 5, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, a time of restricted public engagement. Passed in Parliament in September 2020 with minimal debate and a controversial voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, the bills bypassed the consultative process expected for agricultural policy, a state subject under India’s Constitution. This lack of transparency alienated farmers, particularly in Punjab and Haryana, where MSP supports 75–80% of wheat and paddy procurement, serving as a critical safety net for small and marginal farmers who make up 85% of India’s agricultural workforce.
The government’s failure to codify MSP guarantees, despite assurances, deepened distrust. Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar’s statement that MSP was “not a part of the law” (The Hindu, December 2020) heightened fears that the bills aimed to dismantle the mandi system, leaving farmers vulnerable to market volatility. The resulting protests, with tens of thousands of farmers encircling Delhi, culminated in the bills’ repeal in November 2021, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi admitted the government failed to “convince” farmers (The Hindu, November 19, 2021). This exclusionary approach underscores that the bills were not a farmer-centric solution but a top-down imposition.
2. Suspicions of Foreign and Corporate Influence
The Farm Bills’ origins raised suspicions of influence from foreign or corporate interests, undermining their legitimacy. The bills’ emphasis on deregulating trade, promoting contract farming, and removing stockholding limits aligned with neoliberal reforms advocated by global institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Gita Gopinath, IMF Chief Economist, praised the bills as “very important steps” (The Economic Times, October 2020), fueling perceptions of external pressure. In Punjab, farmers targeted conglomerates like Reliance Industries and the Adani Group, suspecting they would dominate markets under the new framework, as evidenced by protests against Reliance Jio towers in December 2020 (The Indian Express, December 28, 2020).
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, which facilitated contract farming, was seen as favoring large agribusinesses, potentially with foreign ties, over small farmers. The government’s lack of transparency about the bills’ drafting process and its dismissal of concerns as “misinformation” or foreign conspiracies (e.g., alleging Khalistani involvement) failed to address these suspicions. Sidhu’s post, while highlighting environmental concerns, overlooks how the bills’ corporate-friendly design alienated farmers wary of external influence.
3. Inadequate Legal Recourse in Lease Agreements
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act promised to empower farmers through contract farming but failed to provide robust legal recourse in disputes, particularly over land leases. The act restricted farmers’ access to civil courts, directing disputes to conciliation boards or Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs), who, as government appointees, could favor corporate interests. This was particularly concerning for small farmers in Punjab, where land is a primary asset, as companies defaulting on lease agreements could leave them economically stranded. The Wire (September 23, 2020) reported fears that the bills’ weak dispute resolution mechanisms exposed farmers to exploitation by powerful agribusinesses, a concern rooted in precedents like PepsiCo’s 2019 lawsuits against Gujarat farmers over patented seeds (The Hindu, April 26, 2019). Sidhu’s optimism about market reforms ignores these legal vulnerabilities, which could exacerbate farmers’ distress.
4. Flawed Approach Despite Mandi System’s Shortcomings
While Sidhu rightly points to environmental challenges like groundwater depletion, his implication that the Farm Bills were a step toward reform overlooks their inadequacy in addressing farmers’ distress and the mandi system’s flaws. The APMC mandi system, particularly in Punjab, is riddled with issues, including exploitation by arhtiyas, who charge high commissions and trap farmers in debt cycles. However, the bills’ approach—effectively bypassing the mandi system without reforming it—was no solution. Bihar’s experience after abolishing its APMC system in 2006 is a stark warning: small landholders faced extreme poverty, and even large farmers struggled as agriculture became unprofitable without MSP or regulated markets. A 2019 study by the National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research found that Bihar farmers received 20–30% lower prices for their produce post-APMC, with no significant private investment to offset losses (The Print, January 2021).
The Farm Bills’ hurried passage ignored these lessons, offering no alternative safety net for Punjab’s farmers. Had the government been serious about addressing distress, depleting groundwater, and rising toxicity in the agricultural supply chain (e.g., pesticide overuse), it would have pursued reforms through extensive consultation with farmers’ groups, agricultural scientists, and state governments. This could have included modernizing mandis, regulating arhtiyas, incentivizing sustainable crops, and ensuring MSP continuity. Instead, the bills’ rushed implementation, without parliamentary or public debate, exacerbated fears of corporate takeover and economic insecurity, as evidenced by the year-long protests.
Conclusion
KBS Sidhu’s call to move beyond MSP as a “crutch” oversimplifies Punjab’s agricultural challenges and endorses the flawed logic of the 2020 Farm Bills. While the mandi system requires reform to address arhtiya exploitation and environmental concerns, the bills’ exclusionary process, corporate-friendly design, and lack of legal protections made them an inadequate response to farmers’ distress. Bihar’s post-APMC struggles highlight the risks of deregulation without safeguards. Genuine reform demands inclusive dialogue with farmers, scientists, and other stakeholders to address groundwater depletion, toxicity, and economic vulnerabilities, rather than hastily imposed legislation. The bills’ repeal in November 2021 reflects the triumph of farmers’ resistance and the need for a more collaborative approach to agricultural reform.
References
• The Hindu, “Farm Laws Repealed: PM Modi Says Govt Failed to Convince Farmers,” November 19, 2021.
• The Economic Times, “IMF’s Gita Gopinath Calls Farm Bills Important Steps,” October 2020.
• The Indian Express, “Punjab Farmers Target Reliance Jio Towers,” December 28, 2020.
• The Wire, “Why Farmers Fear the New Farm Bills,” September 23, 2020.
• The Hindu, “PepsiCo Sues Gujarat Farmers Over Potato Variety,” April 26, 2019.
• The Print, “Bihar’s APMC Abolition Left Farmers Poorer, Shows Data,” January 2021.
Disclaimer: I lot of precaution has been taken to ensure the correctness of the contents, yet as I have sought help from AI also, there may be some inconsequential factual errors.
Thanks Big Bro for your insights. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The thrust of my eye article is not whether the three farm laws were good or bad – what I intend to say is that they were definitely the death-knell of the artiya system, and that their repeal has not brought any additional or incremental prosperity to the farmer himself.