Thread by @GorwayGlobal

A tweet thread.
Re: #FarmersProtest There is a great deal of ignorance and misinformation about the freedoms currently available to Indian farmers and big business houses., even before the #farmLaws were dreamt up by the #ModiGovt that is causing so much turmoil in India.

Take one example. When McDonald's (NYSE: MCD; Market Cap USD 158 Bn) opened in India, they found the Indian potato was not the right kind for their french fries. The Govt did not allow the import of American or European potatoes. What did they do?
Read on:

McDonald India went to the enterprising Indian farmer and did a deal "Grow this variety of potato, to these specs and we'll guarantee to pay this price and what's more we'll pick up your crop come what may". No #mandis no #APMC. #ContractFarming with guarantees.

For example, see this story from 2012- 8 years ago. McCain Foods was going to cultivate 8000 acres for a potato crop that would go straight from farm to processing centers to McDonald outlets to consumers as fries. economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/a…

Just in case that old news website does not open here is a screenshot. McCain already had 4,000 acres under potato in 2012 and were hoping to double this by 2014 in Gujarat alone.

Fast forward to May 2019, and there is this excellent review by Jayshree Sengupta in a piece for the Observer Research Foundation, presenting both sides of the argument for ciontract farming. orfonline.org/expert-speak/h…

The key thing here is that the mighty PepsiCo, - yes Pepsico - that great multinational Company headed up by India's own darling CEO Indira Nooyi - (NASDAQ: PEP; Market cap: 195 Billion USD, stock price 141 USD today up 1.2% on the day) wanted to sue small farmers.

That attempt by a giant Corporation to screw over poor farmers may have been amicably settled but not without a fight. Now you can see why India's savvy and knowledgeable farmers are not gung-ho happy about unbridled contract farming.

But here's the point. It's a contract! Two parties, One a big corporate - used to lawyers, accountants, and educated extension officers. The other, a small but proud farmer, who knows the land, the weather, the crop. "Behind every grain of rice is a bead of sweat"-the farmers

The company's agents could not tell a potato plant from a bean plant but they sure can enforce a contract, refuse to buy the crop on a technicality, He can mark down the crop quality and enforce a lower price. The role of the Government in this scenario is to even the scales.

Instead what do these #FarmLaws do? They take away the crutch from the struggling farmers - treating everyone like the tiny number of big and rich farmers and leaves them at the mercy of the corporate buyers and contract enforcers. Even worse:

As P Sainath points out it leaves the farmer with no legal recourse except to appeal, in the vent of a dispute, to the executive. See. this by P Sainath: ruralindiaonline.org/en/articles/an…

"No legal recourse, No civil court, no proceedings shall lie against any Governmenrt or officer" These are chilling words. It's like saying, "Farmer v. Big Corporate, and there'll be no Umpire." It will be a blood sport. And you wonder why the farmers are angry?!

Instead if the Government started with the interests of the small farmer they would have had a very different law. The MSP would be retained as a last resort price floor, Corporates would have to commit in advance to what and how much they wished to buy in each state.

Market regulation and intervention when markets fail the small players - that is the fundamental role of Governments. Not enabling the big beasts to play games. Conceptually the MSP is no different from a minimum wage law.

The Govt should create such conditions that the Corporates are forced to use their entrepreneurial skill to make profits by adding value not by reducing farmers to slave labour.
Time then to scrap these laws and rethink the whole farm policy
THE END