Good intentions of government on agricultural infrastructure development must translate into results
The good intentions of governments must translate into positive results. Politicians and economists refuse to learn from history, which is why they make the same mistakes.
At the turn of the 14th century, Ala-ud-din Khilji faced a problem. Limited revenues had obviated the possibility of increasing salaries of a large standing army and administration. Khilji had realised that the key to increased prosperity lay in not increasing wages but in reducing prices of essential commodities and provisions to enable people to afford more.
UPA 2 wrongly believed that an increase in wages could offset increased inflation. Wages never did ease the pain. How wrong it was is evident from the electoral drubbing it received.
Economists would refer to similar situations in current conditions as containing inflation. Khilji did so by controlling prices, appropriating and regulating supplies. Even the idea of government procuring, storing and transporting grain- la the Food Corporation of India (FCI)-has originated from his policies of filling the royal stores with grain that would be sold in times of scarcity at regulated prices. In 1964, five decades ago, Lal Bahadur Shastri became the prime minister and inherited a food crisis.
The fact that India suffered pangs of a famine like it would never suffer again is something most people do not remember. Shastri personally advocated for backyards to be used to grow vegetables and campaigned for masses to "miss a meal a day".
He appealed to farmers to increase output by growing more than a single crop a year. He promoted the green and the white revolutions. Farmers responded; for example, in 1964, not a kernel of rice grew in Kota but today farmers sell over two lakh tonnes of rice in the Kota market yard. Without any historic insight, and nourished on a subsidised diet, people today criticise the green revolution.
It was in those trying times that the FCI was set up under The Food Corporations Act, 1964. Even though times have changed, problems persist. The very problems that confronted India then confront the current Prime Minister. The regime of routine responses must be broken. Rather than following a 600-year-old archaic process, the new Government initiated the process of restructuring the FCI.
We suggest it be broken into three dynamic entities: one to procure and transport, another to store and the third to distribute grain. This will reduce wastage and lead to better accountability and delivery.
The Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) that recommends a Minimum Support Price (MSP) too needs urgent restructuring as it has failed to meet its objectives. The post of the chairman of the CACP is vacant since March. Recent increases in MSP are no more than 4 per cent, less than the rate of inflation or the increase in consumer price index.
This is in absolute contrast to the Prime Minister's promise of assured profits of 50 per cent to farmers. Increases are much less than the rise in cost of cultivation, especially in this year of abnormal weather. The same political parties that would cry foul every time a minuscule MSP increase was announced, are quietly doing the same now that they are in power at the Centre. The opposition is simply missing, so not even a whimper for the farmers. The indifference is unpalatable.
The policymakers of yesteryear gave a scientific temperament to the national agriculture policy and developed agriculture infrastructure. This, along with the sheer perseverance of the Indian farmer, was the genesis of the country's transformation from a 'ship-to-mouth existence' to one of overflowing granaries-something that has, ironically, got India in trouble at the WTO. Subsequent policies, rather than incentivising self-sustainability, have forced farmers on a path where they seek to survive on dole-outs.
The good intentions of governments must translate into positive results. Politicians and economists refuse to learn from history, which is why they make the same mistakes, solve the same problems year after year, decade after decade and even centuries after. There is also major concern about who the policy influencers will be. With a clear majority in Parliament, the BJP is free to do what it wills but will not be free from the consequences of the choices it makes-nor will we farmers be.
The Prime Minister has, in his wisdom, decided to disband the Planning Commission and asked for suggestions. Considering the fact that farmers are the largest section of the society, it's only logical to have a farmer on board the new authority. If we don't evolve in that direction, it will be as the old Indian adage goes: how does it matter to us whether Ram reigns or Ravan?
Ajay Vir Jakhar is chairman of the Bharat Krishak Samaj