If the spate of suicides by farmers has attracted public attention to the agrarian crisis, the report of the National Commission on Farmers (NCF) succeeds in focusing on the farmer rather than farming alone. Thus, most of the Commission's recommendations seek to improve agriculture as a means of ensuring a minimum income for farmers. Indeed, the Commission has mooted that agricultural progress be measured in terms of the net income of farm families rather than just the millions of tonnes of commodities that they produce. If this is done, the agricultural scene and the loss of momentum would paint a much bleaker picture than is captured in the production data. The income erosion of farmers is borne out also by the shrinking share of agriculture in the total GDP, without a significant reduction in the population dependent on farming; naturally, this translates into a rather sharp decline in farm income when seen in comparison with the income of non-farmers. Growing indebtedness and a level of crop risk that does not assure livelihood sustainability are among the consequences of this tragic trend. | |
| The Commission has gone on to suggest wide-ranging measures to address the problem. The most notable ones are procurement of grain at market prices, instead of the minimum support prices (MSP), which exists today; lowering of interest on farm credit to 4 per cent; reversal of the decline of investment in agriculture; an end to the diversion of prime farm land for non-agricultural purposes, including the newly proposed special economic zones (SEZs); and putting agriculture on the Concurrent List of the Constitution so as to give the Centre a more direct role. These propositions are well-intentioned, but that does not mean that all of them can, or will, be implemented. A proposal like moving agriculture to the Concurrent List will be unacceptable to most states. Similarly, lowering the interest rate on farm credit may make institutional credit less than viable, and therefore leave room for informal credit systems to flourish""at much higher rates of interest. |
| |
| That said, many other suggestions are within the realms of political and practical feasibility and, as such, merit consideration. The Commission's plea for making a distinction between the MSP and the procurement price falls in this category. After all, much of the wheat bought by the private trade this year was at prices higher, albeit only marginally, than the MSP. Also worth pondering over is investment in agriculture. It was in the 6th Plan (1980-85) that public investment in agriculture (much of it being on irrigation) reached its peak. As it happens, this was the only period when the agricultural growth rate (5.7 per cent) exceeded that for GDP as a whole (5.5 per cent). Investment since then has been on the slide, and so have farm growth rates. Equally well-placed is the stress laid by the Commission on employment and income generation in the rural non-farm sector, and the promotion of supplementary income-yielding activities like fisheries, livestock, poultry and others. This will obviously improve livelihood security, vital to prevent extreme acts like suicide. It is now up to the government to act on the recommendations. Fortunately, the timing of the report is such that some action may ensue""if nothing else, then by weaving some of the proposed measures into the new avatar of the 20-point programme that the UPA government intends to revive. |
| |
|
| |
