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...