The theme of invincibility of a man is rendered otiose in the vortex of tangled directions – Hamletian tragic moment ‘to be or not to be’. The bold peasantry must resolve today by their own hindsight, yes their own hindsight, to plough the terrain of their own destiny with their innate virtues of grit and strength, which so bounteously bless their magical hands to splendidly bestow on the rock-hard surfaces of mother earth, the greenest sprouts of life.
Politicization of human ‘helplessness’, perceived or real, is indeed a great source of nourishment for the withering political narratives of the organized outfits of power seekers in the political trajectories. Such ‘helplessness’ may be in the form of actual pain arising from any politically-guided transition of the economic paradigms relating to an identified target group. Such ‘helplessness’ may also be in the shape of politically -projected consequence identifiable as ‘simulated pain’ in contrast with the ‘actual pain’. A stage-setting of ‘helplessness’ , howsoever created or howsoever developed, soon turns into a locus of ‘justification culture’ for the organized political anti-narrative against the politically-guided scripts for paradigm-shifts of any socio-economic group. Here in the political evaluation the substance of the narratives and counter-narratives turns redundant and only velocity and pitch of the sounds in the street shows of ‘point-counter-point’ weigh and literally overshadow the reality.
For the power seekers on the prowl, especially the outfits describable as ‘specially-abled political class’, due to eroded numerical strength in the parliament, street protests remain and work as the only survival kits. For those who do not succeed in the legislatures and quintessentially lack any worthwhile substance to justify a favourable judicial review, street narratives, loud and violent , remain the only way to rule out their existential obliteration from public memory. Such street narratives are certainly not value-based and are also free from any accountability aspect for their authors and executors. As the street narratives are not verifiable by any spot test, the feasibility of a subsequent falsification does not unnerve the hardcore politicians to organize battle-formations for street protests for saving the fading of political colour of their party flags.
Such practices , tactics and strategies of street protests, through means and methods of bullying and arm-twisting dehors the constitutionally recognized institutional routes, being in the nature of value-free and accountability-free political party carnival, through media-support, generates valuable imprints across the trails and tracks of state politics. The reality in the illiteracy-ridden democracies is more aggravated and the imprints in the public life remain blood-stained .
Thus the scripts of nation building often turn blurred, distorted and unless robustly implemented also falter half-way , without ever shaping the course of events.
In the present day scenario, the ‘helplessness’ of the farmers, through a simulated pain setting has launched multiple anti-narratives in the streets- theatres of the ‘specially-abled politicians’. The contrapuntal narratives in these theatres need to be critically read, articulated and objectively evaluated. In this direction an overview of the historical realities deserves to be borne in mind ,before initiating the task of critiquing and evaluating the politically-projected attributes of ‘helplessness’ of the farmers community which form foundation of the counter-narratives.
In the year 1950 agriculture accounted for 54% of national income of India, while 70% of workforce of India( close to 100 million) was engaged in agriculture. However, in 2019-20 agriculture contributed only 17% (in gross value added terms) of national income of India, while the proportion of workers engaged in agriculture declined only to the extent of 54% ( 144 million) of the total workforce. Apart from the above, 86% of land-holding in agricultural activity is small( 1 to 2 hectares) and marginal(less than one hectare). For the sake of reference, it needs to be understood that one hectare is roughly equal to the size of half of a football field.
Thereafter a phase described as Green revolution brought much-needed positivity and proverbial ‘cheer’ to the agricultural sector. The leader of the green revolution Norman Barlaugh, under leadership of M S Swaminathan, the then Minister of Agriculture (During the regime of Sh. Lal Bahadur Shastri) leveraged agricultural research and technology to increase productivity. The Green Revolution initiative was first introduced in Punjab. Thus Punjab, in the year 1970, by producing 70% of total food grains became a national leader in agriculture. Even the income of farmers in Punjab increased by 70%. Punjab thus turned into a role model for other States. The ascending graph in agriculture in Punjab, under the politics of status quoism and politics of electorally-relevant ‘freebies’, not only adversely tilted mid-way but started slipping in the State-wise rankings, slot by slot.
Thus today the national level scenario stands reshaped over the years and Punjab , for various political reasons, has suffered one after another jolt in agricultural performance. Officially the Digital India Land records Modernisation Programme is undertaken by the Department of land Resources of Government of India. The said Programme maintains an updated a data record based on multiple indicators. As per the said data records in the year 2-020 three States lead the agricultural scenario in India in terms of production etc. These are Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Maharshtra. Punjab has unfortunately slipped steadily to 16th rank and Haryana stands at 18th rank.
The report of Committee on State Agrarian Relations and Unfinished Tasks in Land reforms (2009) is an eye-opener qua the politics of non-performance in the agricultural sector.
The State list and Concurrent list issues can never remain isolated from responsibility and performance parameters. Such claims need to be viewed from the angle of State-led amelioration policies and performance in favour of the farmer community. The protection of the farmer community from State neglect also forms part of political agenda. As the facts bear out, even requisite land surveys are not carried out by the States. Official data in public domain shows that data updation is carried out only to the limited extent of 11.05% of total villages. The non-updation of land records digitally carries a serious risk of exclusion of farmers (who remain digitally unregistered by the defaulting States ) from the data-based studies and policies.
The strength of farmers under Pradhan Mantri Kissan samman Nidhi( PM –Kissan) is 111 million.The privileged among the farmer community are not covered under the aforesaid PM-Kissan scheme. The landholdings have grown from 138 million in 2010-11 to 146 million in 2015-16 ( last agricultural Census). This indicates the disturbing trends of land fragmentation.
A study recently carried out by one Sh Ramesh Chand, who is presently a member of Niti Aayog, statistically establishes that an agricultural land- holding of the size of less than 0.63 hectares does not protect a farmer from falling below poverty line.
Another relevant parameter in agricultural studies is called ‘terms of trade’ which signifies ratio between the price of inputs ( seeds, fertilizers etc.) and price of the output ( price of the produce received). A recent research by one Sh. Himanshu, a JNU scholar , shows that the ratio of terms of trade must necessarily be 100 : 200 (minimum twice the aggregate value of input cost) to save the farmer from critical impoverishment.
The States have always remained politically engaged in improving the financial lot of the farmers. Various steps in this direction have been taken from time to time. A large number of Committees were constituted and their recommendations were implemented. The scenario at the ground has shown some signs of improvement, but the actual performance on the ground has been far less than the desired levels.
A body with nomenclature of Commission For Agricultural Costs and Prices came into existence on 01.01.1965 on the basis of L K Jha Committee report. Sh L K Jha , the then secretary to the Prime minister, was appointed as chairman of the Committee constituted on 01.08.1964 during the tenure of C. Subramanium Agriculture Minister. Originally the body was named Agricultural Prices Commission. However, it was re-named as Commission For Agricultural Costs and Prices( CACP) in the year 1985.
Minimum Support Price ( MSP) is a mechanism to protect the farmer from exploitation. The MSP is announced at the beginning of sowing season of certain crops on the basis of recommendation of Commission For Agricultural Costs and Prices ( CACP).
MSP is a concept introduced by one Dr frank W Parker the Chief Agriculturalist of UN Mission to India in the year 1959. A letter addressed by Dr Parker to Sh. Ajit Parsad Jain, the then Agriculture Minister in Central Government, the issue of pricing was highlighted with suggestion for MSP at least for major crops. However, the man who gave actual shape to idea of MSP was Subramanium, the then Agriculture Minister in the year 1964. He was more famous for Green Revolution in India.
The MSP is announced for 23 crops only. Besides Sugarcane , the 22 crops include 14 kharif crops, 6 Rabbi crops while other two are commercial crops. As per data released by NSSO on key indicators on Situal Agricultural Households in India only six percent of farmers gain from MSP. Roughly the same percentage of agricultural produce in value terms is sold at MSP. Thus even existing scenario does not benefit 94% of farmer community from MSP benefit.
MSP is implemented by Price Support System through public agencies such as FCI, NAFED, Central Warehousing Corporation( CWC) Small Farmers agri-business Consortiums ( SFAC) are financially empowered to ensure procurement at the Minimum Support Prices. However, actual procurement is only for few crops such as wheat, rice etc.
For the sake of reference it be noted that In 2019-20 201.14 lakh tonnes of wheat and 226.56 lakh tones was procured from Punjab and Haryana.
Total procurement for Rs 80293.21 Crores was effected by the Central Government.
Till 1970s government announced two administered prices, namely, MSP (Minimum Support Price ) and Procurement Price( Price at which Khariff and Rabi cereals are procured by Public agencies, such as, FCI for the purpose of release for PDS).
For the crop of sugarcane there is a separate mechanism of price control. Under the provisions of Essential commodities Act, a Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966 was passed by government of India, which , inter alia, lays procedure for fixing Statutory Minimum Price ( SMP)of Sugarcane. In October 2009, the said Statutory Minimum Price was substituted by Fair and Remunerative Price ( FRP). State advisory Prices are also announced by states for sugarcane crop. Usually the State Advisory Prices are higher than SMP.
There is another scheme described as Market Intervention Scheme or MIS. The said MIS is implemented by the Department Of Agriculture and Cooperation. The scheme comes into play only when there is sudden variation of prices to the extent of 10% from the benchmark. The scheme envisages procurement of the produce by the government till stabilization of the market. The costs incurred under MIS operations are shared by Center and State governments in the ratio of 50:50, except in North Eastern States where ratio is 75: 25.
As regards Mandis, credit for establishing the present day dedicated agro- mandis is attributable to Sir Chhotu Ram, whose single-handed initiative led to establishment of Agricultural Produce Market Committee in the year 1939. As on date there are about 7300 APMC-mandis. This figure includes even sub-market yards. Sir Chhotu Ram dreamt of Mandis free from all middlemen. The rise of Arthiyas certainly negates the dream project of the great leader of the farmers.
The three farm bills recently cleared by both the Houses and now signed by the President of India are ;
a) Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce ( Promotion and Facilitation ) Bill 2020
b) Farmers ( Empowerment and Protection ) Bill 2020
c) Essential Commodities ( Amendment ) Bill 2020
The recent Bill , titled ‘The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce ( promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020 ( Bill No 113 of 2020) indeed is a legislative device to create an ecosystem where the farmers and traders enjoy the freedom of choice relating to trade of farmers’ produce.
The said Bill through its Statutory scheme of 20 sections seeks to broad-base the freedom of choice for farmers, which the extant Statutory system of APMC- mandated principal yards and sub yards cannot provide. The Bill also seeks to synchronize the extant market dynamics of farmers’ produce with the present and future challenges of e-commerce and exports of agricultural produce with elimination of intermediary-intervention. The following highlighted objects of the Bill( Bill 1122 of 2020) spell out fair justification of the legislation;
(a) freedom of choice to a farmer or trader to conduct trade and commerce in a trade area;
(b) no trader shall be allowed to trade in a scheduled farmers produce unless such a trader has a permanent account number or such other documents as may be notified by the Central Government;
(c) to allow any person or any farmer producer organization or primary agricultural cooperative society to establish and operate an electronic trading and transaction platform for facilitating inter-state and intra-state trade and commerce of a scheduled farmers produce;
(d)no market fee or cess shall be levied on any farmer or trader or electronic trading and transaction platform for trade and commerce in the scheduled farmers produce in a trade area;
(e)a dispute resolution mechanism in case of disputes between the farmers and traders;
(f)to enable central Government to develop a “ Price information and Market Intelligence system” for farmers produce and dissemination of such information.
As regards the Bill The Farmers ( Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill 2020 ( Bill no 112 of 2020), the said legislative measure contemplates creation of a national framework on farming agreements that protects and empowers farmers to engage with agri-business firms, processors, whole-sellers, exporters or large retailers for farm services and sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price framework in a fair and transparent manner and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 111-C of 2020) delineates the statutory scheme of stock limit regulation of perishable and non-perishable food items. The amendment contemplates prohibition of stocking such food articles in the circumstances when price fluctuation of the food article is not justified on the basis of balancing the market scenario for the common benefit of consumer-producer. The benchmark of 100% of retail price fluctuation is stipulated for horticulture produce and 50% of price fluctuation in non perishable produce and the stock limits would be accordingly regulated.
As regards MSP, it is a matter of common knowledge that a political discourse between MSP and Universal Basic Income (UBI), which is pending since 2016,is yet to shape into a conclusive result. The actual MSP-related dynamics, which, on ground zero, have mercilessly left out 94% farmer community from its protective umbrella so far, deserve to be evaluated vis-a-vis the UBI option.
Even if MSP is to continue in its present and practically withered form, how to make this tool a panacea for the financially disadvantaged community of farmers is an existential question than the proposed measure of legally recognizing MSP as inevitable benchmark for farming contracts. The deterrent effect of such legal stipulation does not hold promise for accomplishment of intended objects by such legislative restrictions.
Future for the bold peasantry of India to capture and rule the epicenter of the large markets has finally arrived. Let us not stop it. Let us join hands to shape it.
“Future comes too soon and in a wrong order….Our moral responsibility is not to stop future, but to shape it…. To channel our destiny in humane directions and to ease the trauma of transition…”
Alvin Toffler ( Future shock )