The farmers’ fear that MSP will be discontinued is irrational. But panic and irrationality take over when didacticism replaces consultations in any set-up
Remunerative jobs for farmers might sound incongruous when remunerative pricing for their products is the argument of the season. Believe it or not, the Narendra Modi Government is currently looking for two seasoned persons whose main profession would be farming, who could be leaders of the Kisan movement. It is a Level 14 post in the pay band of Rs 1,44,200-2,18,200. Counterintuitively, they will not be deployed to win over the agitating farmers to the side of the Government. They will contribute towards determining the Minimum Support Prices (MSP), which the Government currently offers on 24 agri products, including rice, wheat and coarse grains.
For several years now, the Commission of Agricultural Cost and Prices (CACP) has gone without two unofficial members on its panel. Is that really news under this Government where many institutions have gone headless for years on end or held as additional charge by senior bureaucrats? This writer recently found out through an application under the RTI Act, 2005, that a position under Article 350-B of the Constitution of India viz. Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities has been vacant since February 2016. The Commission resultantly has not been able to file a single annual report of its activities before Parliament in the past four years. These two advertised positions are meant to fill vacancies in the CACP. The farmers had flagged this vacancy issue way back in February 2018. However, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare notified these only last month.
The Modi Government, to its credit, has substantially increased the MSP on most of the agri produces since taking office. However, it perhaps felt that appointing two unofficial members, representing the farming community, into the CACP was redundant. This mindset, one is afraid, is discernible in the formulation of the three agricultural laws as well. They were introduced through the Ordinance route on June 5. There is no evidence of any consultation with the State Governments, farmer unions, agri economists and allied stakeholders.
One can argue that consultations are lengthy processes. However, to obtain durable results, there is no shortcut to this grind. The consensus over the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was institutionalised through a GST Council comprising the Finance Ministers of various States. Though agriculture marketing is indeed in dire need of reforms but everything cannot be a surgical strike. Pulling rabbits out of the hat might not be the best way to pursue reforms. Having failed to drum up support from the States on the Model Agriculture Produce and Livestock Marketing (APLM) Act, 2017, and also the Model Agriculture Produce and Livestock Contract Farming Act of 2018 that the Centre had circulated, it decided to cut the Gordian knot by promulgating the three agricultural laws.
It cannot be gainsaid that the Modi Government initiated several welfare measures for the farmers. It would be sad to see them drowned in the din of the agitation. However, if only the Government had gone into consultative mode rather earlier, it could have linked certain national agricultural goals with the issue of remunerative pricing. These goals could be identified as crop diversification, reducing dependence on chemicals in farming, water conservation, reducing the regional imbalance in procurement, reforms in the APMC Act, increasing IT literacy in farmers to take advantage of eNAM (National Agriculture Market), improving the terms of trade with industry and so on. The Government could have generated a trust surplus rather than deficit as at present. It could have made the farmers an ally in its mission. However, at present, the Government is shy of quoting from its flagship commission report. The 14-Volume Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income (2017-2018) chaired by Ashok Dalwai, IAS, is nowhere in the Government’s discourse. This begs for an explanation.
The farmers, fearing the MSP will be withdrawn, want it to be legally guaranteed. The truth is that MSP itself has never been legally defined. Even the CACP, the commission which recommends the MSP every marketing season, is not a statutory body. However, it is the Siamese twin of co-born Food Corporation of India (FCI), a statutory body. The FCI, being established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, on the same day as the CACP (January 1, 1965), should be considered guarantee enough.
Without procuring food grains in both Kharif and Rabi marketing seasons, the Government will not be able to run its Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) and manage allocations under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme and Mid-Day Meal for long. These three are statutorily guaranteed under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013. The TDPS alone reaches out to 80 crore people through 24 lakh ration cards. Without the Government being sincere about TDPS, it would not have implemented the ‘One Nation, One Ration Card’ project. Thus as long as the FCI Act, 1964, and the NFSA, 2013, are in currency, the farmers have little to fear about the MSPs which have actually been significantly enhanced in the past six years.
However, this MSP-oriented rice-wheat agrarian culture has become the bane of Punjab despite contributing to its material prosperity. Punjab is reluctant to diversify its agriculture. With 75 per cent of its population relying on farming as a source of livelihood directly or indirectly (as per Punjab’s Agriculture Department’s website), which is far above the national average, the progress of industrialisation has been stymied. The introduction of rice cultivation on a commercial basis since early 1970s had led to the exploitation of groundwater and poisoning of soil through excessive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Water is a big issue in Punjab, which is why the Sutlej- Yamuna Link has been lying defunct for the past 40 years. However, Punjab virtually exports a huge quantity of water in every grain of rice it produces, meant largely for consumption by people outside the State. That Punjab’s wheat and rice contain the highest concentration of chemicals is also a cause for concern. The Government could promote crop diversification, like cultivation of pulses and oilseeds, which is likely to fetch higher profits through the MSP route.
The Supreme Court’s proposal of forming a committee having representation from the Government and farmers’ unions raises hope. A good way to defuse the farmers’ agitation would be to follow the repeal and re-enact principle. Merely repealing the three new farm laws — particularly the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 — might appease the agitating farmers. However, then the much-needed reformation in agricultural marketing would be left without a future roadmap.
(The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)
