Farmers protesting the three new agriculture bills -- Farmer's Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, Farmer (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 -- are calling for the continuation of colonial rule, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Executive Director representing India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Bhutan, Surjit Bhalla, has opined.
In an op-ed for Indian Express, Bhalla wrote that the old farm laws that facilitated the creation of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) were put in place about 150 years ago for the British to procure raw cotton for mills in Manchester. The cotton produced thus was then sold to the Indians for hefty profits. The APMC made sure that cotton farmers were obligated to sell to the colonial masters in a market regulated by them.
The opposition to the new farm laws from several quarters comes despite the fact that the monopoly APMCs exercise over farm produce has been recognised and opposed by several political parties and farmers' unions in the past, he writes. In 2008, the Bharat Kisan Union had protested for the right of farmers to sell to corporates, and in 2019 the Congress had promised implementation of these very laws in its manifesto for the Lok Sabha election.
Bhalla further states that "for reasons best known to the 'political' economists" when the economy was liberalised in 1991, leading to doubling of GDP growth to an average of 6 percent over the next 30 years, but agriculture was not freed.
The APMC is used by the government to procure all its food, which is then distributed to the bottom two-thirds of the population through ration shops. Bhalla writes that only 6 percent of the farmers in the country -- all large landholders primarily from Punjab and Haryana -- sell their produce through APMCs. Punjab and Haryana account for the about 60 percent of wheat procurement and nearly a third of rice procurement. He points out that leakages in this system were first identified by former Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi in 1985 when only 15 percent of the food procured reached the poor.
Of the over two million farmers in Punjab and Haryana, less than 5 percent have lands more than 10 hectares large. Not more than 2,00,000 farmers from these states are participating in the ongoing protests. When compared to the total 100 million very small, small and large farmers in the country, this makes up about 0.2 percent of cultivators with a "reason" to protest, Bhalla observes. He further notes that the reason seems to be their desire to remain some of the richest farmers in the country, especially given the fact that they are not taxed -- a move that does not benefit the poor farmers who do not earn enough to be taxed.
Bhalla further states that "ideologically motivated domestic and international media" has labelled the farmers' protest taking place in New Delhi as the largest demonstration in the world. What he finds difficult to believe is that the richest 2,00,000 untaxed farmers are being supported by 100 million poorer ones.
Disagreeing with World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu, Bhalla questions the "moral strength" of the protesting farmers. Basu had tweeted, "I’ve now studied India’s new farm bills & realise they are flawed & will be detrimental to farmers. Our agriculture regulation needs change but the new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers. Hats off to the sensibility & moral strength of India’s farmers.”
Bhalla writes that although the farmers were sensible, because they wanted to retain their wealth, even if it was "undeserved", the morality remained to be examined. As pioneers of the Green Revolution, Punjab and Haryana received subsidised electricity and fertilisers -- which have helped them exploit the water table and soil nutrients. This impetus has helped the farmers of the two states drive agricultural growth at a faster rate.