Open Forum
New Delhi, 15
December 2021
Farm Reforms
ILL INTENT OR STAND BURIED?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The three farm laws have
been repealed, the farmers’ have called it a big victory, but a nagging question
lingers—whether it is a setback for reforms? Prime Minister Modi had insisted
that the laws were brought in by his government because it accorded topmost
priority to development of agriculture and welfare of farmers. However, the
latter did not see it is that and were firm these would benefit the corporate
only. Interestingly, the decision of the government to climbdown from its tough
stand is being seen more as a political move for the upcoming Assembly
elections rather than the intent the laws, as stated, were introduced.
Recall, eminent
economist Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, who headed government panels under the UPA, submitted
five reports urging such reforms and in January 2019, the Standing Committee on
Agriculture in Parliament rubber stamped the reformist prescriptions to be
implemented through these laws. But they failed to realise that Dr. Swaminathan
did not want the business houses to monopolise agriculture and earn handsome
profits, which would not have benefited the poor and low income farmers.
For agriculture to
give better returns, the strategy would not be encouraging big corporate houses
to enter the sector. There is need for imparting R&D by making the Indian
Council for Agricultural Reforms (ICAR) more effective by collaborating with CSOs
to reach grass-root levels. Issues such as soil heath, pest control, dryland
agriculture and exploring possibilities of producing value-added crops have to
be imparted to farmers at the village and/or block levels.
Questions have been
raised at reforms being stalled due to repeal of the laws by ‘reformists’who
view it as an ‘enormous setback’ to India’s reform process. Reforms per se don’t
help in achieving anything substantial when there is lack of proper governance
and corruption indicators are high. A look around globally would reveal better
ways to implement complex reforms, which unfortunately appear to be lacking in
this country.
Pramod K Joshi, agricultural
economist and a member of the Supreme Court-appointed committee on farm laws,
is quoted as saying the “repealing of the laws is definitely a setback to the
agricultural reform process. It is taking us back to where we were 18 months
ago. The negotiations of the government and farmers will again have to address
the same issues.”
Some experts in favour of the laws have stated: these made
a debut for corporatisation of agriculture, as it would have paved the way for
mechanisation of farming/commercial farming; the laws would have lent a big
support to the poor and small land-holding farmers who lack marketing expertise
and farm technology; as commercial farming is usually capital intensive, the private
investment envisioned would create better chances for small farmers, wherein it
would help the community to have a better scope for selling agricultural
products through proper marketing channels, in-house research and development
facilities.
But the farmers
refused to see it as benefitting the community. But here again questions have
been raised over community-- big and rich farmers or the small farmers?Besides,
the bills were aimed at framing agricultural policy for the entire
country and all commodities, not just a few States and a few crops. Thinking
about two or three States (read Punjab and Haryana) is narrowing the
perspective, which will end up hurting the farmer community at large.
However, State
governments don’t seem to have sufficient ability to manage complex reforms, if
ushered in. Implementation of infrastructure projects and public policies is
poor as there’s lack of coordination among agencies and unresolved contentions
among stakeholders. Moreover, most projects miss the target date due to
planning being done from above without caring for ground realities.
Liberal democrats are
of the opinion the aam admi (common man) must have the right to
participate in governance of his own affairs. Both during UPA and NDA, it has
been seen that the government pays lip service to consultations with different stakeholders.
In some cases, sections of stakeholders are invited at meetings and lectured
about government’s intentbut their views – as in the case of farmers – are not
given credence.
The clamour for
reforms, which are being emphasised not just by some political leaders but also
western educated economists, writing frequently in the media, fail to realise
the situation in India is widely different from that of western world. Not just
poverty and squalor among major segments of the farming community, but also the
very low land holding as also the large number of sharecroppers paint a picture
that has no comparison with the West, even China or Brazil.
It’s surprising that
a group has now emerged which regularly comments on various issues, concluding
the need for reforms. The word ‘reforms’ is possibly borrowed from the World
Bank, which urged India in this regard about two decades back. But there are
various aspects of reforms like expediting projects, imposing penalties for
delay, increasing efficiency of electricity companies, restructuring banks and
giving them autonomy etc. that need attention but not depriving the livelihood
concerns of the farming community.
The 15-month long agitation
is testimony to the fact that various farmers’ organisationsdid not see the
bills as reforms and thus stoutly opposed these. The present problem is that
farm unions are pitching for a legal guarantee for minimum support guarantee
(MSP) for all 23 crops, but experts believe this may disrupt the market
equilibrium and lead to inflation and a decline in agricultural exports. This,
obviously would affect the poor. To expand MSP to more crops may make matters worse.
Even setting the price for MSP is fraught, for only markets can truly determine
any price.
According to Niti
Aayog member, Ramesh Chand, segments like horticulture, milk and fishery, where
market intervention is virtually nil, showed 10% annual growth, whereas the growth
rate in cereals, where MSP and other interventions are quite high, remained at
1.1% after 2011-12. It is believed that though legal or mandatory status may
help farmers get desired prices, its repercussions may not be beneficial. There
are apprehensions that India’s farm exports, accounting for 11% of total
exports of commodities, may be affected if the MSP is higher than prevailing
rates at international markets.
It’s imperative to
draw up a strategic plan as the recentCOP26 summit has suggested. The
government’s attention must now be focused on sustainable agriculture and how
environmental concerns can be taken care of. For example, there should be an
endeavour for zero tillage farming in which stubble burning can be avoided by
keeping it on the field and recycled in the soil. Reforms like no tillage
method as also many other such ideas need to be implemented for soil quality
improvements and reduced water consumption.
The sustainability of
agriculture, which is deeply integrated with nature, cannot be brushed aside with
continuous use of dangerous agro-chemicals and applications of genetic
engineering. But simultaneously, reforms should be geared to increase earnings
of the small and medium farmers through technological and financial help, which
unfortunately,are quite poor compared with other emerging economies. All eyes
would now be on not only whether the Government keeps its promise made to the
farmers but whether its committee on MSP finds a common ground. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|