![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The complex interconnected issues, interests and factors that led the BJP Government in India to introduce the Three Farm Laws in what it claimed were progressive and subsequently repealed following the successful protests by farmers who saw them as threats to their livelihoods and culture and further resistance by states fighting off encroachment on their powers are multifaced. These include persistent political tensions in India's asymmetrical federalism, fears around livelihoods, concerns of cultural annihilation, effects of market orientated World Trade Organization rules and efforts by the CAIRN group of countries to penetrate the Indian market.
KEYWORDS:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 See entry 14, Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases. Also see entry 28, Markets and fairs.
2 ‘ … together, they account for only 6 percent of total farmers in the country, who have gained from selling wheat and paddy directly to any procurement agency.’
3 See tables on percentage of rice and wheat procured by government in these states in comparison to others.
4 ‘A second claim is that procurement is relevant only for farmers in Punjab and Haryana, and, to some extent, western Uttar Pradesh. While the procurement system for rice and wheat was established following the Green Revolution mainly in Punjab and Haryana, it is no longer the case that procurement is restricted to these two States. This factoid relies on older data, when Punjab and Haryana were virtually the sole providers of public stocks of rice and wheat.’
5 Statements of Objects and Reasons, items 3 and 4.
10 Chapter II, item 6.
11 Item 2 a and b.
12 Chapter II item 7.
13 Chapter III Dispute Settlement (p5).
15 Ditto p5-6 no 5.
18 Australia 4331 average farm. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/7121.0Main+Features12015-16
20 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Uruguay, Vietnam and Ukraine as observer.
21 Annex 1.
22 The Agreement on Agriculture, (the ‘Agreement’), came into force on 1 January 1995. The preamble to the Agreement recognizes that the agreed long-term objective of the reform process initiated by the Uruguay Round reform program is to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system. The reform program comprises specific commitments to reduce support and protection in the areas of domestic support, export subsidies and market access.
24 ‘The 5 per cent threshold applies to developed countries whereas in the case of developing countries the de minimis ceiling is 10 per cent.’
25 See Annex 3.
26 See Annex 3 Article 9.
27 Part XI, Article 8, Number 4.
28 The following ID numbers show number of times issues around support were raised by various countries since 2002 when using The World Trade Organization’s page here: https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SearchResult.aspx
98036, 98037, 98038, 98039, 98040, 98041, 98055, 98061, 98062, 98063, 98064, 98065, 98066, 98068, 97001, 97051, 97054, 97140, 95089, 95090, 95092, 95101, 93198, 93198, 93220, 93228, 93233, 93236, 93268, 93272, 93273, 93290, 93311, 91099, 91167, 91175, 91177, 88080, 87139, 85088, 79015, 77083, 77112, 77114, 75048, 75073, 75075, 75076, 75123, 66068, 64063, 34033 32039, 31039, 31040.
29 https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SefrchResult.aspx
Following ID numbers show the number of times issues around support were raised by the EU since 2002.
98037, 98055, 98062, 97001, 93198, 75073, 75075 75076, 66068, 31039.
30 https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SefrchResult.aspx
Following ID numbers show the number of times issues around support were raised by Paraguay since 2002.
98039, 98064, 95101, 93233.
31 https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SefrchResult.aspx
Following ID numbers show the number of times issues around support were raised by Australia since 2019.
91099, 93220, 98061, 98036.
32 https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SefrchResult.aspx
Following ID numbers show the number of times issues around support were raised by the USA since 2002.
98041, 98065, 97051, 97054, 95089, 95090, 95092, 93272, 93273, 91167, 91175, 91177, 88080, 79015, 77083, 77112, 77114, 75048, 34033, 32039.
33 https://agims-qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/SearchResult.aspx
Following ID numbers show the number of times issues around support were raised by Canada since 2002.
32039, 87139, 88080, 91101, 93290, 93236, 98068.
34 Section 1.3.7.2.
35 Brazil, Canada, Colombia, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Thailand, Ukraine and the United States.
36 Number 6.
37 Federal Government, K C Wheare 1951 Oxford University Press.
41 Personal conversation with Indian officials.
42 Entry 27 list II Schedule VII. ‘Trade and commerce within the Province; markets and fairs; money lending and money lenders’.
43 Indian Constitution VIIth Schedule entry [33]. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,—
(a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;(b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;
44 https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013102/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/E.pdf Schedule VII List III entry 33 (pg 290).
33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of, the products of industries where the control of such industries by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.[2]
45 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/legislative_references/1946.pdf Act no XXIV of 1946 p. 63.
46 https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013102/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/E.pdf Article 369 (p 224).
47 ‘The repealed APMC act, provided freedom to all the intermediaries to operate outside the market yards and the requirement of obtaining license for trading was abolished. While this has facilitated farmers to directly reach out to markets on the one hand, it has also resulted in an increased number of intermediary participation. The envisaged private participation in development of market infrastructure has not happened.’
48 ‘It is instructive too to look at farmer wellbeing in models where agribusiness has been consolidating over the past decades. In the US, in 2018, the farm share was 14.6 cents of each food dollar expenditure. The European Commission noted in response to a 2015 question in its parliament that the ‘value added for agriculture in the food chain dropped from 31% in 1995 to 24% in 2005, mainly in favour of other food chain actors’. By 2011 it was 21%, versus a value added of around 28% for the food industry and 51% for food retail and food services, suggesting that the highest value addition occurred at points in the supply chain farthest from the farmer, accruing to non-farm actors in the chain! In contrast, the Indian numbers compare surprisingly favorably. A 2012 study estimates that farmers obtain 37 and 48 per cent of the retail price of fruits and vegetables in Gujarat. A recent study by the RBI in 2018–19 notes that the farmer’s share in consumer’s rupee ranged between 32% and 68% for horticulture, 40–89% for foodgrains and oilseeds (RBI, 2019).’
49 Part IV, Trade and Development. Article XXXVI Principles and Objectives.
50 Comparative advantage.