Farm Reforms
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The three farm laws have been repealed, the farmers’ have called it a big victory, but a nagging question lingers—whether it is a setback for reforms?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