Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.

In its press release, SKM questioned the Minister’s assertion that the Seed Bill 2025 protects farmers and Indian agriculture, stating that farmers across several states are protesting against what they describe as the Bill’s corporate tilt. The organisation asked why the government proceeded with the legislation when agriculture is a state subject under the Constitution, and alleged that states were not adequately consulted. It also expressed concern over the proposed creation of a Central Seed Committee with powers over seed production, testing, and regulation, claiming that it lacks representation from all states.

The farmers’ body said the Bill does not explicitly guarantee the supply of good quality seeds on time and at affordable prices, which it argued should be a primary provision in any farmer-oriented seed legislation. SKM further contended that the Bill undermines provisions of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act by placing small traditional seed producers on par with corporate seed companies in terms of registration requirements. According to the organisation, farmers currently have the legal right to produce, preserve, exchange and transfer seeds among themselves, and any additional compliance burden could adversely affect these rights.

The statement also raised concerns about provisions that would allow foreign-tested seeds, including genetically modified (GM) seeds, to enter the Indian market. Citing India’s 15 agro-climatic zones and diverse soil and monsoon conditions, SKM argued that such seeds could pose risks to local varieties and “seed sovereignty,” defined as farmers’ control over genetic resources. It questioned why there is no explicit ban on GM seeds in the absence of what it described as a national consensus.

SKM further alleged that the Bill permits multinational corporations to expand their presence in Indian agriculture while weakening existing regulatory safeguards. It questioned whether the proposed law would dilute earlier restrictions under the Seeds Act of 1966 and the Seeds Rules of 1983, including provisions relating to imports and action against black marketing. The organisation called for mandatory independent testing and approval of imported seeds, plant varieties and saplings by Indian laboratories.

The press release also highlighted concerns about seed pricing, stating that vegetable and hybrid seeds are increasingly unaffordable for small farmers and that the Bill does not contain provisions to regulate prices or periodically determine fair rates. It criticised what it described as a lack of support for public research institutions such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), as well as farmers’ cooperatives and seed villages, alleging that the Bill favours large companies under an “ease of doing business” framework.

On the issue of compensation, SKM said the proposed legislation does not mandate accessible compensation for farmers in cases of crop failure due to spurious seeds, nor does it provide for recovery of lost profits, cultivation expenses, or fresh seed costs. It also objected to provisions that reportedly limit the filing of complaints to seed inspectors rather than allowing farmers to directly register complaints in cases of crop loss.

Additionally, the organisation questioned the requirement for QR codes on seed packets, arguing that many small producers lack reliable internet access and may face practical difficulties in complying with digital mandates.

Concluding the statement, SKM said that unless satisfactory answers are provided to the concerns raised, farmers across the country would demand that the government refrain from enacting the Seed Bill 2025 in Parliament. The organisation described the Bill as a threat to India’s agricultural sovereignty and farmers’ rights.

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

Search This Blog