Updated: December 19, 2020 9:54:20 am
Farmers protesting against new agricultural laws on the Singhu border.
In the early 1960s, near-famine conditions prevailed in India and about 10 million tonnes of wheat had to be imported from the United States under the PL480 program. The situation in the country was called pejoratively the existence of “ship to mouth”, since the food grains that arrived through the ships were consumed immediately.
In 1963, visionaries like MS Swaminathan approached Norman Borlaug, who ran a wheat improvement program at CIMMYT (then the Rockefeller Foundation), in Mexico, to provide seeds for some of their high-yielding dwarf wheat varieties / populations. India. . Those seeds were distributed to the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI, also called “Pusa Institute”) in New Delhi and some of the newly established agricultural universities such as the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and UP Agricultural University in Pant Nagar. . From these, the institutes selected the wheat populations. The resulting miraculous gains in wheat yield and production ushered in the “Green Revolution”.
Although the Green Revolution occurred due to a confluence of favorable government policies, the efforts of agricultural scientists and the adoption of new varieties / selections of wheat by farmers, the contributions of Punjab farmers (Haryana included) were highlighted. Swaminathan described the efforts of these farmers as: “The enthusiastic, hard-working, skilled and determined Punjab farmer has been the backbone of the revolution. Farmers, young and old, educated and uneducated, have easily adapted to the new agronomy. “
By 1974, hard-working farmers in the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western UP had achieved self-sufficiency in the production of food grains (mainly wheat and rice, the staple foods of India), ridding the country of the “Bowl of begging ”.
No matter which organization, policies / rules enacted without including affected people will surely face resistance. A proactive approach is always better than a reactive one. From the farmers’ point of view, the ordinances were unfairly enacted in June 2020, during the COVID-19 shutdown, without consulting them. Then the bills were hastily passed during the monsoon parliament session. Farmers were already reeling under the ravages of the COVID-19 shutdown. I know first-hand that the farmers were unable to sell their vegetables and fruits due to the closure. With the loss of income during the shutdown and the imposition of new laws, supposedly to help them, farmers were hit by a double whammy. The proposal to double farmers’ incomes by 2022 now rings hollow.
Farmers in the “food plate” states have been selling food grains (mainly wheat and rice) at the minimum subsistence price (MSP) since the mid-1960s. This has helped the central government create a core group of food grains and the Public Distribution System (PDS) to help the poor. However, the MSP is not guaranteed in the recently enacted farm laws, which is the main bone of contention. Some people affiliated with the central government claim that such “support” cannot be guaranteed in law.
APMC (Agricultural Product Marketing Committees) are threatened by new agricultural laws. Many experts believe that MSP and APMC go hand in hand. This has created uncertainty in the minds of farmers about the continuation of the MSP. Even though the central government has indicated that the new agricultural laws are aimed at eliminating “middlemen” (arhtiyas), farmers feel that a new class of middlemen, that is, lawyers belonging to large companies, with whom they would have to deal in selling your products, it would arise. Thus, small farmers would be at a clear disadvantage: more than 80 percent of farmers own less than five acres of land.
According to the central government, the new laws will guarantee contract farming. Farmers fear that large companies will usurp their land and will not pay them an agreed price under the pretext of the “poor quality” of the products. They feel that big companies could become monopolies and exploit both farmers and consumers. Farmers fear being turned into workers.
MSP has been doing well since the mid-1960s. There is a saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” So there is no need to play with the MSP. A clause should be added in the law to the effect that no matter who buys the product (the government or a private entity), the farmer must receive an MSP. The recommendation of the National Farmers Commission to provide an MSP of 50 percent above the farmer’s input costs should be implemented.
APMC should be continued. Fees collected by “Juntas Mandi” (for example, the Rural Development Fund) have helped build connecting roads. No private organization will do this. MSP should be determined based on the quality of the grain. For example, wheat varieties grown in the “dinner plate” states contain 11% protein compared to 7% protein grown elsewhere. Therefore, the food plate states deserve a special MSP. The government should promote crop diversification by purchasing crops other than wheat and rice from MSP. This could help conserve the dwindling groundwater supply, which is a serious problem in these states.
To encourage farmers to grow high-value crops, such as vegetables and fruits, the government must establish a proper cold chain infrastructure so that perishable products can be kept longer and sold at the right time. Farmers’ staying power must be improved so that they do not have to sell all their produce immediately after harvest. Some progressive farmers should be included in the Niti Aayog so that they can share their input before new policies / laws are enacted that affect them.
India has produced several world food awards, including MS Swaminathan, Gurdev S Khush, Surinder K Vasal, and Rattan Lal. These intellectuals should be in the “Agricultural think tank.” They should be consulted by Niti Aayog. The genuine concerns of farmers must be addressed as soon as possible so that they can continue to produce the food and fiber needed for an ever-growing population. India’s population is increasing at a rate of 15 million per year. People can survive without many things (including education), but not without food. The slogan should be promoted: “If you ate today, thank a farmer”.
This article first appeared in print on December 19 with the title “MSP ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The writer is a former Vice Chancellor of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
