A.S. Mittal.

Vice Chairman, Punjab State Planning Board and Chairman, ASSOCHAM, Northern Region Council.

 Ultimately, farmers have ended their year-long agitation against the three farm laws. The farmer mobilisation, particularly in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, prevailed and forced the government to repeal the laws. In a constitutional democracy, reforms, especially in agriculture where farmer is a key player, need negotiation. Therefore, the end of the farmers’ protests is a relief, and should mark a new beginning with reforms. Farm reforms are for the long haul.

There is consensus that Indian agriculture is in desperate need of reforms. These reforms are necessary for farm incomes to rise, productivity to increase, for better storage and distribution of produce and expansion to the global market, and to deal with matters such as declining soil fertility, water tables and climate challenges. Much conversation has taken place even among farmers on these issues, and there is realisation among stakeholders that a stalemate on farm reforms is neither sustainable nor desirable. But a further dialogue on reforms in agriculture hinges on rebuilding trust between the farming community and the government.

The conversation should continue and common ground has to be found on minimum support price (MSP) supported by aggressive export initiatives. The government, hopefully, will learn from the perseverance of the farmers that it needs to address their insecurity in a regime where actual price realisation is not easy and harvests are increasingly hostage to weather events. The dependence on MSP for few crops and Centre-led procurement is the consequence of imperfect and underdeveloped markets that impose costs on farmers.
Governments at the Centre and states have preferred to ride on electoral sops to win over farmers rather than address the structural issues that plague the agriculture sector, which employs about 55 per cent of India’s workforce. Engaging the farming community as an equal may help the government build a climate for reform.
There were elements in the farm laws that many people would agree to. But the package as a whole had some problems. The greater problem is: different states and agri zones in India require different parts of the packages. One size fits all doesn’t apply. This is why Centre had to face pushback on three farm laws. The Centre’s job was to provide a framework within which policymaking could be decentralised. States should be encouraged to legislate with greater consultation.

Agriculture is not just a state subject; its dynamics are determined by agro-climatic zones, not just by state boundaries. A state can also be divided into agri zones, according to soil and weather conditions. The National Agricultural Research Project launched by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) divided the country into 127 agro-climatic zones. The objective of defining these 127 zones was to solve the problem locally based on natural resources, climate conditions, water availability, production constraints and socio-economic conditions prevalent in that zone. If farmers in the Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) or Doaba (Punjab) region have a specific problem and can only grow specific crops, it is best left to the state government to address their concerns.
If the producer is not kept in mind while framing reform, it will serve nobody’s interest. The crops will not be commercially viable if they don’t fit into the supply chain properly. The supply chain comprises farmers at one end and consumers at the other end. The objective is that the farmers understand what the end consumers want, and can shift their production to get higher realisation. Of course, use of pesticides, which have an impact on health and the produce’s nutrition value, should be minimised.
The farmers’ agenda is better price and sustainable agriculture. The next generation of farmers have much higher aspirations which have to be met by agriculture; earnings have to go up, they cannot slip further. Hence the focus must be on adapting. And, this can be done by state governments because the income status of farmers is not uniform across the country. Each state is different, each agro-climatic zone is different. The same reform will not be successful everywhere.
The central government has already delegated procurement to certain states. Now, the next stage of reforms is to delegate intrastate distribution. This is good for states that have a high surplus of grains and a higher number of people below the poverty line as they need more food grains under the targeted public distribution system (TPDS). And they can procure and distribute within their state. The centralised procurement and distribution from the central pool or sending grains from surplus state to deficient state is reducing and this trend will only continue, given the financial pressures on the central government.
Farmers’ issues can be resolved if states are given freedom to make policies and the farmers understand its importance. Farmers should also try to look beyond the attraction of MSP-based wheat and paddy crops to better prices for cash crops. The government has a stated goal to double farmers’ income by 2022. To achieve this goal, inefficiency in management of grain stocks has to be curbed.
The government system of buying, storing, determining MSP and import-exports of agri produce has to be reformed. The cropping patterns have to be economically sustainable and farmers should be encouraged to sow three crops in a year, preferably a non-irrigated crop like a legume. Long-term solutions lie in augmenting productivity, promoting new crops which can fetch better international prices, diversifying from wheat and paddy to oilseeds, pulses and other cash crops. New destinations should be explored by state agri-export corporations to increase the export of processed cereals, dairy, poultry, fisheries, meat, horticulture produce and ready to eat food.

Source: News 18