Budget 2023: Farmers Group Raises Concerns Over Proposal to Promote Private Investment in Post-Harvest Activities

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has expressed strong opposition to the Indian governments proposal to promote private and public investment in post-harvest activities, viewing it as a backdoor entry for the previously repealed farm laws. The SKM criticized the governments intention to hand over the agriculture sector to corporate entities, both domestic and foreign, and emphasized the importance of strengthening the public sector, cooperatives, and MSMEs in ensuring self-reliance and food security.

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), a prominent farmers' collective, has expressed strong reservations about the proposals presented in the interim budget by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman to promote private and public investment in post-harvest activities. The SKM views these proposals as a backdoor attempt to reinstate the three farm laws that were repealed after a year-long protest by farmers.

SKM's Objections to Budget Proposals

In a statement issued after the budget, the SKM criticized the government's intention to encourage private and public investment in post-harvest activities, including aggregation, modern storage, efficient supply chains, primary and secondary processing, marketing, and branding. The SKM contends that these proposals amount to handing over the agriculture sector to domestic and foreign corporate entities.

The farmers' collective emphasized that the policy of the Indian state since independence has been to protect agriculture from foreign and domestic monopoly capital to ensure self-reliance and food security. They argue that strengthening the public sector, cooperatives, and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) is essential, rather than allowing corporate houses to take over post-harvesting operations.

Unfulfilled Promises and Lack of Support

The SKM also expressed disappointment that the budget failed to address the issue of implementing the minimum support price (MSP) based on the C2+50 percent formula, despite the government's written assurance on December 9, 2021. They view this as a betrayal of farmers and the general public.

Furthermore, the SKM criticized the budget for its lack of substantial allocation for employment generation, minimum wage assurance, MSP, loan waiver, and price reduction. They highlighted the absence of increased funding for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) and the government's unwillingness to provide 200 workdays with a daily wage of Rs 600.

Call for Action and Objections to Foreign Investment

Terming the budget as anti-farmer and anti-worker, the SKM urged farmers to burn copies of the budget in their villages on Saturday. They also called upon people across the country to support the upcoming Grameen Bandh and Industrial/Sectoral Strike.

Additionally, the SKM objected to the finance minister's statement on encouraging sustained foreign investment and bilateral investment with foreign partners. They viewed this reference as denigrating India's status as a sovereign country and demanded an explanation from the finance minister regarding these foreign partners.

AIKS's Concerns over Reduced Spending on Agriculture

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), another member of the SKM, expressed concerns about the reduced spending on agriculture and allied activities in the budget. They pointed out that the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 would witness the lowest spending in the last five years.

The AIKS criticized the budget for its cuts in rural development, MGNREGA, rural employment, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana, cooperation, food storage and warehousing, plantations, crop husbandry, flood control and drainage, land reforms, fertilizer subsidy, food subsidy, dairy development, soil and water conservation, irrigation, nutrition, rural roads, housing, education, and health.

The SKM and AIKS's objections to the budget proposals highlight the concerns of farmers and agricultural stakeholders regarding the direction of agricultural policies. The government's emphasis on private investment in post-harvest activities and the lack of support for farmers' demands have raised apprehensions about the future of the agriculture sector and the well-being of rural communities.