The indefinite strike by farmers and traders opposing the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2007 – passed by the Karnataka legislature -- has thrown awry the vegetable, fruits and commodities markets across the State. The agitators, mostly small and medium players,  have abandoned work for the last four days. Though the State Government has managed to keep the supply and price lines in check so far, the continued stir is bound to disrupt supplies and send prices soaring, hitting hard the hapless end user – the consumer. The wholesale as well as retail vegetable or fruit markets and the APMC yards, which handle nearly 350 commodities and other produce, have shut shop. Even oil and sugar traders operating out of APMC yards are hit. Apart from the thousands of agitators and their families, nearly two crore intermediaries such as porters, pushcart vendors and petty traders have been rendered jobless.

The amended law provides for contract farming and private market yards, which are seen as an open invitation to multinational companies (MNCs) with deep pockets to steer the agriculture sector, the backbone of the Indian economy. Contract farming, dubbed as contract killing, will eliminate small farmers and help a few rich farmers to monopolise land ownership. There are also genuine worries from small traders and petty vendors whose livelihoods may be at stake now.  It is also feared that MNCs will render the hapless small farmers bonded labour, exploiting and dictating crop varieties and cropping patterns. Although the MNCs should in effect get rid of the middlemen, the fears are that this may not happen.

The hurried passage of the Bill in the State legislature by JD (S)-BJP coalition partners and the Opposition Congress, has upset the minority Janata Dal (United) and CPM members, who intend to carry forward their fight for adequate debate on the “draconian” provisions. Kerala and Tamil Nadu Governments have rejected the amendments, although several other states have accepted the amendments. Instead of unilaterally passing the bill, the State Government should have gone for more public debate. There are many questions that the amendment has thrown up which require answers and the government should take the onus of providing these. Especially as these are crucial issues affecting the food security of the state.