[ad_1]
On November 19, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi repealed three conflicting farm laws following protests by farmers for more than a year. The legislation sought to abolish subsidies for farmers and regulate the prices of crops.
Supposedly designed to “modernize” the agricultural sector, these policies would ultimately leave millions without the need for government support, and at the behest of the private sector and international corporations, in an industry rife with inequality.
These detrimental laws have had a profound effect on Western countries for their capitalist agenda that is ready to lead Indian farmers to poverty. To prevent this, the Indian government must establish policies that can sustain the livelihood of farmers and discard these bad designs from the West.
While the government was forced to turn the tide, Indian farmers are still facing major challenges by pushing the poverty crisis and many to commit suicide. Currently, there are no government regulations on how much or how much a farmer can earn.
Current subsidies help farmers to thrive, but it is still often impossible to make a profit because of the high cost of production and the low prices that crops are sold. Farmers are now urging the government to put in place rules to prevent crops from being sold below actual input costs and to ensure a fair return on their farms.
One solution would be for the Indian government to legalize the minimum support price (MSP) in its agricultural policy across the country, which is currently only available in some states. Indian farmers are now demanding an MSP mandate to ensure that the price of their crops will establish a formula that will make sustainable farming and the price of crops available to the public for the small farmer.
So what is stopping the Prime Minister of India from moving forward and implementing the MSP? In addition to its well-known proximity to the Indian business sector and its secretive support for monopolies, it is also under great pressure from the World Trade Organization and countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia.
In recent decades, these Western countries have been pushing India to remove subsidies from its agricultural sector through the WTO. In 2018, the US said that India underestimated the wheat and rice MSP. In 2019, both Canada and the US came out against India’s high level of MSP, which is labeled as MPS in WTO terminology, which was particularly criticized by Australia for making sugar cane subsidies and making a formal complaint. In July 2020, Canada joined Paraguay in accusing India of bringing subsidies beyond its limits.
The WTO sets rules for domestic farm products, as well as inter-country agricultural trade, to promote free trade and limit subsidies that create “market distortions”. The subsidy allows developed nations to reach 5 percent of the value of production and developing countries to reach 10 percent.
These policies, however, are largely based on the structure of the agricultural sector in the structure of the agricultural sector in rich Western countries, where farm sizes tend to be large — 400 acres (162 acres) in the U.S., for example. A subsidy of 5 per cent is enough for agricultural enterprises.
In contrast, the average farm in India is about two acres (0.8 acres). The 10 per cent subsidy allowed by the WTO is not enough for a farming family to survive. As a result, some Indian states have set the MSP at 50 per cent of the production costs of some crops. However, farmers have argued that the formula used to calculate the MSP provided by state authorities does not often reflect the actual costs involved.
Moreover, what India does not recognize in the campaign against India is that it provides other incomes to citizens, including farmers, that are not available in developing countries. In the U.S., for example, there are food stamps, welfare, spending checks on economic downturns, unemployment benefits, social security, and some health insurance to help struggling families.
The infrastructure of developing nations does not support the creation of similar social policies. An Indian citizen cannot have any other assistance besides his main income.
In the case of farmers, who make up about 60 per cent of India’s population, being dependent on the global market and local speculators can be devastating without any social or economic support. This is why India has extremely high suicide rates among people dependent on agriculture.
Without a guaranteed minimum income, farmers cannot survive. Without MSP, the threat of extinction of small farms is imminent. When that happens, where will the food come from? India will have to import, and here is the interest of Canada, the US and Australia.
The 1.3 billion-strong South Asian nation is a highly profitable market for these western countries. To top it off, it seems that neocolonial policies are being perpetuated, with the WTO operating as the new East India Company.
While agriculture may be an economic sector for the West, it is much more so for India. Indian farmers do not produce the food that their countrymen consume, but are closely associated with their land in their culture and personal life. They call their farmland a “mother” and see that their relationship with their family is that of a relative – a “navel” that cannot be severed by politics.
Although the West does not understand the cultural importance of agriculture, the Government of India does. There is no reason for Western agricultural policies to fail and for Indian farmers to be subjected to the whims of imperialist nations or companies.
His job is to protect India’s national interest in the prosperity of Indian farmers. Accepting the national MSP would be a big step in that direction.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial attitude of Al Jazeera.
[ad_2]
Source link
