RIL
released a statement on Monday, stating it has not purchased any agricultural
land to get involved directly or indirectly in corporate farming.
Key
points:
1.
Reliance releases statement quashing murmurs of purchasing agricultural land
for corporate farming.
2.
RIL backs farmer’s plea of wanting a fair and profitable price for their
produce.
3.
Demonstrators vandalized many mobile phone towers of the Reliance industries.
Reliance
says it is not interested in corporate farming:
On
Monday, Mukesh Ambani led Reliance Industries Limited (RIL)
stated the agency could constantly help the Indian farmers’ call
for a truthful and worthwhile rate on a predictable basis for his or her
produce, and that the agency had no plans to go into company on agreement
farming, now or withinside the future.
RIL’s
towers were vandalized by demonstrators:
The agency additionally stated that it had, via its subsidiary Reliance Jio Infocomm, stated a petition earlier than the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein it had sought pressing authorities’ intervention to forestall the vandalism of its towers. RIL is one of the 2 agencies farmer organizations trust are probably to enjoy the new farm legal guidelines. The different agency is Gautam Adani-led Adani Group.
Farmers’
protest gets the support of RIL:
Most
of the farmers which have been protesting in opposition to the 3 new farm legal
guidelines added approximately through the crucial authorities in September
have claimed that the brand new guidelines could provide undue benefit to large
agreement farming agencies. The farmers have additionally claimed that large
agencies along with RIL and the Adani Group have been buying massive tracts of
farmland in Punjab and Haryana, wherein they deliberate to adopt agreement
farming and installation personal mandis, which could undermine the
authorities-run mandis.
RIL
denies buying agricultural land directly or indirectly:
RIL
additionally sought to dispel this declare and stated that it had neither
bought any agricultural land withinside the 2 states nor could the agency ever
input into any long-time period procurement contracts to advantage an unfair
benefit over farmers.