EDIT
> But can ONLY sell the produce to the local Mandi.
This is factually incorrect. Only about 30% of produce is sold in mandis. [1] [2]
[1] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/agriculture/by-pushing-f...
[2] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/can-free-trade-...
I'm not sure if the Indian government does this, but in some countries the government breaks up monopolies and tries to prevent them from forming in the first place.
I think the new laws allow anyone to approach a farmer with a better deal, and if the farmer chooses, they can even try to sell directly to the end customers.
Agri needs reform, but that does not mean that the proposed ones are what is needed.
As for the claim that the new laws allow anybody to approach a farmer with a better deal; sure that works in theory -- but notice that 1) that only works if there isn't a monopoly that drives prices (consider Jio that successfully monopolized telecom in India and now effectively sets prices throughout the industry) 2) farmers would be contractually obligated to sell produce (which would be a long-term deal).
The issue might be alleviated if the government promises to enforce a minimum price on all contracts made, but it will do nothing of that sort.
As for selling directly to end customers, in my limited knowledge, that is not a thing in India.
[1]: https://www.emis.com/php/company-profile/IN/Bharti_Airtel_Se...
[2]: https://assets.airtel.in/teams/simplycms/web/docs/Airtel-Int...
> Bharti Airtel Services Limited (BASL) engages mainly in selling of hardware for internet and satellite business.
Also please do elaborate on what sources of revenue that Airtel has that cause its 300M in loss while (as you claim) it makes profits in their telecom?
"Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. provides telecommunication services. The Company offers mobile, voice, and data services, as well as fixed line, high speed broadband, IPTV, and DTH services. Bharti provides telecom solutions for enterprises and international long distance service carriers."
> Also please do elaborate on what sources of revenue that Airtel has that cause its 300M in loss
Not interested. The bottom line is that Bharti Airtel Services, the direct competitor of Jio, is making a profit, contrary to your beliefs. Jio is not a monopoly.
Where are the mandis going? If they are non-competitive, they are out. But if they lose their non-sense and compete, they can be around. Also, the people working at the Mandis (Mandi employees), they are also free to start their own company that compete with the Mandis.
> what prevents a monopolized market from then strong-arming farmers into bad deals? This law, which prevents monolopy. The current monopoly is the Mandi. How will be farmers be strong-armed to a bad deal if they have options to choose?
> This is factually incorrect.
My mistake, "But can ONLY sell the produce to the local Mandi at some states". Punjab is an example of were Mandis have complete power. While in other states like TN, Bihar, MP, UP and more have already changed the rule.
> Only about 30% of produce is sold in mandis.
that is a bit misleading as Mandis dont have prominence is all states. But in Punjab where they are there, no one is allowed.
They would be non-competitive because of the no taxation clause that the bill has -- allowing big corp to undercut the mandis. Not to mention that corps are known to take losses just to establish market monopoly (see Jio).
> But in Punjab where they are there, no one is allowed.
I don't understand why you cite the mandi as a monopoly, when in the existing system a farmer can choose to sell anywhere they want?
Let the big corps procure from the farmers, at a "competitive price" as you say. Why should they deserve tax breaks?
The fact of the matter is that the mandi is desirable and has contributed to the material success of Punjab's farmers. There is no doubt that there are inefficiencies and leakages, but to do away with them in deference to the gods of the "free market" is a bit questionable. Unrelated quote: "the quality of public education might not be very good, but that doesn't mean we do away with it".
As for your comparison with other states, I would recommend you check out this article: https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/why-punjab-should-not...
Pre-independence, during the Zamindar System (Indian version of Feudalism). The Zamindar owned the land and the farmers worked on it and the Zamindar compensated them what he felt like. The farmers had no leverage to bargain and was pretty much the salve of the Zamindar. This was the Indian version of slaves.
Similarly after the Independence, the Zamindar System was abolished. But a market yards (mandis) system came up, here the farmer either owns the land or rents out the land from someone. But can ONLY sell the produce to the local Mandi. The Mandi has the upper-hand in deciding the prices and the farmer cannot negotiate as no one else is allowed to buy it from the farmer. The Mandi effectively became a new/mutated (keeping up with the Covid times ;)) version of Zamindar aka Feudalism. The farmers are still technically slaves of the Mandi.
As per the new law, the farmer has to right to sell the produce to ANYONE, including the Mandi. So, the Mandi can quote the price and if anyone bids a higher price, they can get it. If need be, me as a consumer can buy directly and legally from the farmer.
As for the minimum price protection, the mandi does offer that service and that service will continue as per the current system if you agree to sell to the Mandi. But in many states, the state government offers an insurance were the farmer can enroll in it and if the crop is damaged due to weather or locust (like it happened recently) or failed to get a promised minimum price, the farmer will be compensated.
In the state of Tamil Nadu (couple of relatives are involved in farming there), this insurance/financing is done via the Banks. At each stage, the bank gives money for buying manure & seeds. Basically you can take a loan from the bank to do agriculture and if it fails or you dont get the minimum promised price, the loan is written off. So, the farmer can do the agriculture without spending any money from their own pockets and in case of loss, the bank writes off the loan.
There are similar systems in various states, because of the Mandis there is no competition and the state govt & Mandis and do what they feel like. Now with the new law, the Mandis are facing competition. Basically they opened a protected market to competition.
As you asked, the BJP is pushing to implement this law in an Agrarian country like India is because they know that the majority needs this law and they can use this to get votes in the next election.
Right now the whole protest is from the single state of Punjab where you have the oldest and the richest Mandis. You cannot blame the Mandis for getting upset in damaging their business.
Plus states like Kerala with very low farming and they don't have a mandi system but is ruled by the communist party is just sending their party workers to protest, just because they dont want the BJP to succeed. Their opposition is to the party that is implementing the change and not the law. That is the same case with most of the opposition.
To me, this is like the horse traders protesting when the Automobile came out or the coin-operated telephone people protesting when mobiles came about or like the fossil fuel industry crying about the advent of Solar & renewal energy.