1. Many of the people opposing the Farm Laws are not engaging with the economic argument squarely.

This has the problem of it the issue being framed as "development vs rights" when it should be about both.

Some thoughts on the economics of the Farm Laws and the problems.

2. Bluntly stated, Indian agriculture has an economic problem.

Small, fragmented landholdings make it difficult to earn much.

Lack of infrastructure for storage and transport means that people have to sell at low prices, and cannot manage price fluctuations.

3. Given the size of the population linked to agriculture, there just isn't an easy way for the state to provide the type of infrastructure needed.

Moreover the state tends to be an inefficient actor in such things, as it is buffered from prices and thus a duller actor.

4. The gamble with the Farm Laws is that large agro-businesses will - in their own interest - raise funds and create the infrastructure necessary to make agriculture competitive, and respond quicker to prices in a way to the most profitable crops are raised.

5. This large investment, both from India and abroad, will then allow India to move up the ladder from a producer of mainly primary products to processed foodstuffs, increasing the profitability of the agriculture sector.

In theory.

The reality is somewhat different.

6. Firstly, the experience of India in doing this trade-off has been terrible. Much of the NPAs that still dog us from the UPA years (exceeded now in the NDA-II years significantly) was based on the idea that the government would help the private sector, and it would invest.

7. Guess what? The private sector guessed wrong in a lot of cases. Their debts had to be written off - by taxes paid by common citizens, including indirect taxes on things like petrol and diesel.

The poor paid, and are still paying, for the mistakes of the rich and connected.

8. Secondly, one of the ways that government "helped" the private sector was by acquiring land, and a number of the people helped invested not at all, but just created "land banks" based on the presumption that real estate prices rise.

Imagine that happening to farmland.

9. Thirdly, the magic of the market - limited liability - only works if people are able to take risks & fail.

Thus they get to declare bankruptcy, and walk away to try again, only some of their wealth lost.

A farmer who only has his land has nowhere to go - unlimited liability.

10. Fourthly, there is no good reason to believe that large agro-businesses will be good ecological actors, rather the opposite.

It is worth remembering that it is the "business as usual" approach that has brought a human-led Sixth Global Extinction.

11. Merely allowing more market access significantly increases risks to the people least able to weather them.

It has a history of failure in India.

It is, without market incentives (hint, hint, state intervention) likely to be ecologically perilous.

12. That last bit is fairly well-documented through India's recent experiences with agro-businesses and contract farming with stories like these: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/indian-traders-boycott-coca-cola-for-straining-water-resources

13. The introduction of more private sector investment is not necessarily a bad thing, but given the experiences of India in terms of failed projects, land grabbing, and ecological mismanagement, this introduction has to have some safeguards.

Without it, this is suicide.

-end-