Assured Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all the crops, which has become a major demand of the protesting farmers, had not only got the backing of the Commission for Agriculture Cost and Price (CACP), but even from the Working Group on Consumer Affairs, under the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. While CACP had batted for making MSP part of a legislation in 2018, the working group, in its report submitted to the government a few years back, had recommended continuation of MSP till markets become sufficiently competitive. In a report submitted to the previous UPA government, the working groups had recommended ‘advance declaration of MSP’ and said: “Until markets become sufficiently competitive, there is a case for intervention by the government. In order to achieve self-sufficiency in food production, the Government of India may continue the policy of declaring a Minimum Support Price of various crops well before the start of sowing season. Further, MSP could be linked to inflation and farmers can get some idea as to how much revision would occur in the MSP.” Moreover, MSP so announced should be reviewed where necessary, it had further said. About the enforcement of the MSP, it said, “Since intermediaries play a vital role in the functioning of the market, at times they have advance contracts with farmers. In respect of all essential commodities, we should protect farmer’s interests by mandating through statutory provisions that no farmer-trader transaction should be below MSP, wherever prescribed”. It had argued that that market intervention for perishable products could also be introduced on a cost sharing basis between Centre and the state. “When the working group on consumer affairs that had the Chief Ministers of various states as its members had recommended about MSP for farmers’ crop, then why government is running from it?” questioned farm union leader, Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, General Secretary, Bharti Kisan Union (BKU) (Ugrahan). About contract farming this report recommended that to promote contract farming and mentioned that it needs organisation of farmers/ producers groups, legislation and effective implementation of the contract law, improvement in the quality of input delivery and research & extension services, training of farmers in maintenance of quality standards, provision of complementary infrastructure including IT kiosks (like e-Choupals) in rural areas; and development of an effective land administration system. It added that this will also require identification of a group of villages for each niche commodity and provision of credit and incentives to farmers to shift to the identified commodity. The group had recommended: “The price difference in the case of items like pulses, which involves processing and passing through various hands is very high. The main reason for such high prices of various differences is due to erratic supply. It would be better to promote the development of processing facilities which are cost efficient and create competitiveness. Processing units may be promoted at the village level with public assistance. Set up Technology Up-gradation Fund for modernisation of agro-processing facilities.” Kokrikalan said: “If such recommendations are implemented in letter and spirit by the government then the reforms will automatically take place and we do not need any new law like three agri bills, which are good for nothing.”
