Farmers are not beggars

Farmers are not beggars. They need to have freedom. 

People say, we fought with the Britishers and got freedom. But, people did not get freedom till 1991 and after that, gradually we are getting more freedom.

When a bill is introduced to give freedom to farmers to sell to anyone/anywhere he likes and to have any agreement with anyone, those who support freedom must encourage. Those whoever is against the portions of the bill that are giving freedom, are against the basic rights (freedom).

If the bill has any part which is nothing to do with freedom, and if people oppose, it is their right. But, opposing the part which gives freedom is nothing but opposing the basic rights.

Other Comments for the bill.

C: Government would reduce Minimum Support Price (MSP) after this.

A: Fight against that reduction. Not against the bill that gives freedom. 

C: Small Farmers won't benefit out of it. 

A: Not getting benefits out of some freedom is not a reason to curb freedom.

C: Prices would increase after this bill

A: Then, you become a farmer and get more money. Till you become rich by farming, whatever extra that you pay for food, consider it as a price that you are paying to the farmers for curbing their freedom from 1947 till 2020.

C: This change is not enough

A: Yes. This is a very very small change and many many more reforms need to be brought to change the state of farmers. This is a baby step in that direction. 

C: We cannot trust corporates

A: You are not asked to trust corporates. You have freedom to trust or not. 

C: It is replaced by a different set of middlemen from the existing middlemen. [And many other related questions]

A: So what? What is the problem?

C: Why are farmers opposing?

A: When everything is kept as it is, but more freedom is given, a sane person should never oppose. If there is a fear of future reductions in others like MSP, they should fight for the reduction of MSP rather than the bill that gives freedom. 

Whenever any reform is brought, which gives freedom to a particular sector, the first set of people/organizations that oppose is, the existing people/organizations in that sector. Because, they lose the hold on that sector with the new entrants in that sector.

For example, if any state government liberalizes the transport sector and allows anyone to run buses without government approval, the first set of people who oppose would be the existing private bus operators. They may give any kind of reasons (either stupid or reasons that may look good). The private bus operators would have paid crores of rupees as bribe to the ministers and other officials to start their service. When others start without any bribe, they would be at serious disadvantage, and they cannot match the fare and suffer serious losses.

C: Government may close APMC

A: Once the farmers are given freedom, it is possible that, other government channels would become redundant, especially, if the private channels offer competitive prices. In those cases, even if APMC becomes redundant, government should keep it there for the name sake, so that, private channels won't become syndicate [However if the market is really open, there is a less chance for players forming syndicate.] 

Government's business is not do business. But, it should make sure that, monopoly/syndicate is not formed. In case, if there is a monopoly or syndicate, government should bring their own business/service, mainly to break the monopoly and syndicate. Government's business should be limited to breaking the monopoly/syndicate.

Any leader can promise to bring something like APMC and can bring it. But, except leaders like P.V.Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee and Modi, no other leader is bringing the freedom to people. For a very very small problem (which can be solved by anyone), we should not stop a major reform like this.