More than half the farmers supporting or opposing farm laws have no information about them: Survey
New Delhi: More than half the farmers supporting or opposing the three recent farm laws have no information about them, a survey conducted by Gaon Connection has found.
The survey, "The Indian Farmer's Perception of the New Agri Laws", found that out of the 52 per cent who opposed them 36 per cent did not know the details of the legislations.
Similarly, of the 35 per cent supporting the agri laws, almost 18 per cent were not informed about them, the survey found. The new farm laws promise, among other things, freedom to farmers to sell their produce in the open market.
This face-to-face survey was conducted between October 3 and October 9 across 53 districts in 16 states of the country, according to a statement issued by Gaon Connection. The survey included 5,022 farmers as respondents.
As per the findings of the survey, released as 'The Rural Report 2: The Indian Farmer's Perception of the New Agri Laws', the biggest fear of these new agri laws among the respondent farmers (57 per cent) is that they will now be forced to sell their crop produce at a lower price in the open market, while 33 per cent farmers fear the government will end the system of minimum support price (MSP).
Further, 59 per cent respondent farmers want the MSP system to be made a mandatory law in India. A bigger proportion of marginal and small farmers, who own less than five acres land, support these agri laws in comparison to medium and large farmers.
"Interestingly in spite of slightly more than half (52%) the respondent farmers opposing the three new agri laws (of which 36% were not informed about these laws), almost 44% respondent farmers said the Modi government was 'pro-farmer', whereas about 28% said it was 'anti-farmer'. Further, to another survey question, a majority of farmers (35 per cent) said the Modi government supported the farmers, whereas about 20 per cent said it supported the private corporates/companies," the statement said.
During the last monsoon session of Parliament, three new agri bills were passed, followed by President Ram Nath Kovind giving his asset to them on September 27, which are now the law of the land.
The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, seeks to give freedom to farmers to sell their produce outside of the notified Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) market yards.
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, gives farmers the right to enter into a contract with agribusiness firms, processors, wholesalers, exporters, or large retailers for the sale of future farming produce at a pre-agreed price.
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, is meant to remove commodities like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, onion, and potato from the list of essential commodities and do away with the imposition of stock holding limits.
A section of farmers and farmers' organisations have been protesting against the new farm laws. To document the opinion and perception of the farmers on these new Acts, Gaon Connection carried out this rapid survey with 5,022 respondent farmers spread across all regions of the country.
The survey found that overall 67 per cent farmer respondents were aware of the recent three agricultural laws.
Meanwhile, two-third of farmers were aware about the recent farmers' protest in the country. Awareness about such protests was more among the farmers in north-west region (91 per cent), which includes the states of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Least awareness was reported in the east region (West Bengal, Odisha, Chhattisgarh) where less than half (46 per cent) were aware about recent farmers' protest.
Overall, 52 per cent farmers reportedly oppose the three new agri laws, whereas 35 per cent support these Acts. Of those who support these laws, almost half (47 per cent) favour them because they believe it will give them freedom to sell their crop anywhere in the country.
Among those who oppose these laws, the highest percentage of respondent farmers (57 per cent) said they did not support the three laws because "farmers will be forced to sell their produce at lower price in open market".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG Cos
New Delhi (PTI): Expanding the scope of its hearing in the Patanjali Ayurved case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday took a stern view of misleading advertisements by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice which takes "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health.
The court passed the order after Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they have issued unqualified public apology in as many as 67 newspapers over misleading advertisements and are willing to issue additional advertisements expressing their contrition.
The bench said the public apology published in newspapers were not on record and asked those to be filed within two days. It posted the matter for April 30 for further consideration.
While hearing the Patanjali case, the apex court said the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act and the related rules also needed a closer examination.
It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms which have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation".
"We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said.
The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws.
It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of Ayush asking them to not initiate any action under rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The bench also asked the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the petitioner in the Patanjali advertisements case, to "put its house in order".
It said several complaints have been made about alleged unethical acts by members of the IMA who prescribe highly expensive medicines and line of treatment. The bench also ordered impleading the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a respondent in the matter for effective assistance to the court.
At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd managing director Balkrishna, told the bench they have issued on Monday unqualified apology for the "lapses" on their part.
"Where? Why it is not filed?" the bench asked.
Rohatgi said it was issued on Monday in 67 newspapers across the country.
When the court asked the senior advocate why did the respondents wait for a whole week before publishing the public apology, Rohatgi said, "Its language had to be changed".
The court also quizzed him about the size of advertisements.
"Is it the same size of advertisements that you normally issue in newspapers?" it asked Rohatgi, who submitted "It costs tens of lakhs (of rupees)".
The bench ordered that the apology published be filed on record and added it wanted to see the actual advertisement published in newspapers.
"The said advertisements are not on record. It is submitted that the same have been collated and shall be filed in the course of the day with copies to counsel for the parties. Needful shall be done within two days with copies to counsel for the parties," it said.
The counsel said additional advertisement shall be issued by Ramdev and Balkrishna tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part.
The bench said it was necessary to implead the three central ministries in order to examine the steps taken to prevent the abuse of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
It said these ministries shall file affidavits enunciating the action they have taken to prevent the misuse/abuse of these statutes along with the relevant data since 2018.
The bench said licencing authorities of all states and UTs shall also be impleaded as co-respondents in the matter.
The bench told the IMA's counsel that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali, "the other four fingers are also pointing at you (IMA)".
On April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.
Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products
