Income Support Announcement represents a tectonic shift, but inadequate -- My Interview

Chandigarh: Last week, while presenting the Narendra Modi government’s last budget, acting finance minister Piyush Goyal announced a direct income support scheme for small and marginal farmers across the country. Under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme, farmers owning less than two hectares will be provided Rs 6,000 per annum by the Centre.

Punjab-based agriculture policy expert Devinder Sharma was among the first, in 2013, to propose the idea of direct income support for farmers. On the sidelines of the 4th International Dialogue on Himalayan Ecology in Chandigarh, The Wire spoke to Sharma about the need for income support, the adequacy of the Centre’s scheme and other reforms that the agriculture sector needs.

The interview has been edited for clarity.

Why did you feel, as early as you did, that India’s farmers needed an income support scheme?

When I looked at the agriculture sector as a whole, there was a very clear message. Farmers were suffering as a result of two things – 1. Lack of public sector investment and 2. Denial of rightful income. I also understood that farmers were victims of market volatilities. There was no way that the markets would be able to rescue farmers.

Looking at global agriculture, it was obvious that agriculture was in decline across countries because farmers were being denied their rightful income.

And you felt that this was happening primarily because of the way markets were designed?

It was primarily because of the economic design. Agriculture is being sacrificed to keep economic reforms alive. Farmers don’t realise that when they cultivate crops, they actually cultivate losses. The same principle works globally, not just in India. The state of Indian agriculture is a result of the economic model that we have borrowed from the West.

Also read: The Trials of an Accidental Farmer in Tamil Nadu

If you look at American or European agriculture, the share of population engaged in agriculture is much lower than that in India. But still it was surviving because of substantial state subsidies including direct income support to farmers.

So you don’t agree with the argument that is sometimes made that we have too many people in agriculture and that is the basic problem.

No, I don’t agree with that. Agriculture cannot survive without subsidies because otherwise volatility of markets will mean that farmers are denied their rightful income.

The prevailing economic design wants two things from agriculture – 1. Provide cheap raw material for the industry and 2. Keep food prices low to keep a check on inflation.

Institutions and think-tanks keep telling us that we have to move people from rural to urban areas. But they don’t say what they will do in urban areas. The idea is that they will provide cheaper labour as daily wage labourers. That is the economic design. Is that a sensible design?

Devinder Sharma. Credit: Youtube

How do you view the recent announcement by the Central government that it will be providing Rs 6,000 per annum as a direct income support to small and marginal farmers?

The announcement itself is a tectonic shift. The time has come when we need to shift from price policy to income policy. Price policy has failed and income policy is the only way to bail out farmers. So, in that sense it is good and it is a big shift.

Is it adequate?

The thing is, it has not been done in a way that it can make an impact now. Rs 6,000 means Rs 500 per month. How do you expect to solve agriculture distress by Rs 500 per month?

What would have been a figure that would have been adequate?

I would say Rs 6,000 per month. I know that there are limitations and that won’t be possible. But still they could have doubled what they have given. They could have provided Rs 12,000 per year to begin with.

And there is no lack of money. I will tell you why. Over the last few years India has provided several lakh crores to the industry. We have provided them fiscal stimulus packages, we have waived their loans through bank recapitalisation.

Also read: Farmers’ Crisis: Are Loan Waivers, MSP Hikes, Assured Income the Solutions?

Did anybody ask the question ‘where will the money come from?’ No questions on ‘fiscal slippage’ either.

Why are these questions only asked when we have to give money to farmers? Nobody wants to close the tap which gives money to corporates.

Why is it important to move from a price policy to an income policy?

If you see in the last three years, prices of crops have continued to be well below MSP. For certain crops they have remained 40-50% below MSP throughout the season. It is clear that the price policy is not working. The economic design ensures that farmers don’t get the rightful price for their produce.

So is an income policy by itself going to be enough to address agrarian distress?

No, you need other reforms. We need to set up enough functional markets. We need to have mandis within a five-km radius so that farmers can easily reach them. Our credit policy needs urgent reforms. We need to move from chemical to non-chemical agriculture. Our storage capacity needs to increase for that we need to invest in warehouses.

There need to be multiple reforms to solve the problem. If industry can be provided 7,000 steps for ease of doing business, why can’t we provide at least 1,000 steps for ease of doing agriculture?

Income Support Announcement represents a tectonic shift, but inadequate. The Wire. Feb 6, 2019

https://thewire.in/agriculture/interview-income-support-announcement-represents-a-tectonic-shift-but-inadequate

READ MORE - Income Support Announcement represents a tectonic shift, but inadequate -- My Interview

Direct Income Support for farmers is a welcome move.

Finance Minister Piyush Goyal in his Budget speech announced a direct income support of Rs 6,000 per year for small farmers owning less than 2 hectares of land, which is certainly meagre by any standards, but is a tectonic shift in economic thinking around the role of agriculture for development. It entails a paradigm shift from the existing ‘price policy’ to move towards ‘income policy’ unlocking the immense growth potential existing in agriculture.  

The announcement of a direct income package of Rs 6,000 for 12-crore small farmers, which actually boils down to Rs 500 per month to be paid in three instalments, is certainly too meagre by any standards. Although the Finance Minister has made a budgetary provision of Rs 20,000-crore for the remaining period of the fiscal to enable the first instalment of Rs 2,000 to be credited in the bank accounts of beneficiary farmers before the forthcoming general elections, the petty amount has evoked sharp reaction from the distressed farming community. And rightly so.

I don’t know how a direct income support of Rs 500 per month per small farming household will be able to pull out 12-crore small and marginal famers from the terrible agrarian crisis that prevails. Nor do I understand how this meagre support will help in reducing the spate of farm suicides. There is hardly a day when farm suicides are not being reported from one part of the country or another. Take the case of Punjab, where even after the loan waiver of Rs 2-lakh per farmer was initiated in January 2018, as per Bhartiya Kisan Union calculations there have been 430 farm suicides reported in the year gone by. Therefore the question that needs to be asked is how did the policy makers conceive of the idea to provide a paltry direct support which will not even make an iota of a difference.

Considering that the average income worked out by Nabard All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016-17 stands at a paltry Rs 8,931 per month, it is quite certain that the direct income support of Rs 500 per month will not be enough in achieving the objective of doubling the farm income. Nor is this amount fit enough for any significant farm investments the farmer would like to make. Economic Survey 2016 had earlier computed the average income of a farmer in 17 States, which means roughly half the country, at a pitiful Rs 20,000 a year. In other words, the average income of farming family in half the country stood at less than Rs 1,700 per month. I shudder to think how several million farmers survive in that miserly income.

Since the government has already made an annual budgetary provision of Rs 75,000-crore for PM-Kisan (beginning with the full-fledged budget expected after elections) there is no reason why the direct payment amount couldn’t have been double. At Rs 12,000 per small farmer, the budget allocation would have certainly doubled, which means a hike in budgetary allocation to Rs 1.5-lakh crore. To the question where will the money come from, the best and easy instrument available for the Finance Minister was to immediately scrap the annual fiscal stimulus package of Rs 1.86-lakh crore being doled out to the industry, in operation since the global economic meltdown in 2008-09. While there is no economic justification for the package, it continues to be paid for ten years now. In simple words, Rs 18.60 lakh crore has been paid to the industry since 2008-09 and no question has ever been raised about the fiscal imbalance accruing. I see no reason why this money couldn’t have been transferred to farmers account.    

Like in Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu scheme, the Centre too has kept the direct income support limited to land owning farmers. The only difference being that while the Rythu Bandhu scheme is open ended, which means even if a farmers has ten acres of land he will get a proportionate support, the Centre is restricting it to farmers owning less than 2 hectares. It however excludes tenant farmers, who form nearly 40 to 50 per cent of the farming population, from getting the same benefits. At the same time, direct cash payments landing in the bank accounts of absentee landlords remains a big problem.

Nevertheless, as someone who has been a strong advocate for direct income support, it is gratifying to see direct payments now becoming an economic necessity. Agriculture has been and still remains a victim of the tyranny of markets. For more than four decades now, agriculture incomes had remained static with many studies providing an empirical evidence of declining real farm incomes. I have always maintained that agriculture has been deliberately kept impoverished to keep the economic reforms alive. Keeping the food inflation low and by ensuring a cheaper raw material for the industry, the entire economic burden has been quietly passed on to farmers.

An economic model, where agriculture is treated with disdain and has been very cleverly projected as an uneconomic activity, has to be reversed. To say that the Rs 500 a month cash dole to small farmers may be increased in the future as the government's resources grow is a reflection of the same faulty economic thinking. As a result most economic resources have been slowly and steadily shifted to the industry. Since 2004-05, the industry has got Rs 55-lakh crores of tax concessions. Niti Aayog estimates these concessions to be 5 per cent of GDP. Knowing that income saved is income earned, this in reality is no less than direct income support. In addition, the industry has been provided with massive incentives, which in reality are subsidies. On the other hand, an OECD-ICRIER study has worked out a total loss of Rs 45-lakh crores in the period 2000 and 2017 on account of low farm prices.

If only the farmers were paid their legitimate dues, the face of agriculture would have been much bright. In addition, I fail to understand why governments have refused to take steps for ease of dong farming. Agriculture alone has the potential to reboot the economy, and can sustain millions of livelihoods thereby reducing the pressure on job creation.

Providing direct cash payments to small and vulnerable groups is the first step in augmenting farm incomes. I am sure with the passage of time direct cash amount will see an incremental increase. This has to be simultaneously followed with the setting up of a Farmers Income Commission, with a mandate to ensure a minimum monthly income of Rs 18,000 per farming family per month. This will open the doors to agriculture receiving more public sector investments, more holistic reforms, and in bargain being turned into an economic activity. # 

Farmers need much more than cash dole. The Tribune. Feb 6, 2019

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/farmers-need-much-more-than-cash-dole/724400.html

READ MORE - Direct Income Support for farmers is a welcome move.

Direct Benefit Transfer is not Direct Income Support

No sooner did Finance Minister Arun Jaitley say that “agriculture needs a lot of support for the Indian economy to grow at a steady pace” hinting at the possibility of a package of proposals to be announced for the distressed agriculture sector, a wave of industry sponsored voices across the country, including the credit rating agencies as well as the investment portfolio economists, have begun to question the need for such ‘populist decisions’.

“The aggregate fiscal deficit will come in higher at 3.2 per cent in financial year 2020, which is higher than the financial year 2019 mid-year outlook forecast of 2.8 per cent,” India Rating warns. “A fresh round of economic crisis is in the making”, screams another headline. For almost a month now, ever since the State governments in the Hindi heartland of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan announced farm loan waivers, bankers and economists have been crying foul. Some are even questioning the fiscal prudence of providing direct income support along the lines of the Rythu Bandhu scheme in Telengana that provides financial assistance to small and marginal farmers.

Before we try to analyse the question of fiscal imbalances, let’s first look at what measures are likely to be announced in the forthcoming interim budget. Quoting sources several newspapers had earlier reported that the farm package would include interest-free loans without collateral and a direct income support package of Rs 10,000 per acre per year. Among the numerous suggestions was a proposal from the State Bank of India for a financial support of Rs 12,000 per family per year in two instalments, to be split for each of the cropping season. Niti Aayog had its own estimates.

Meanwhile, constrained by the outgo on tax revenue foregone, latest reports saying that the government has hardly any fiscal space left for the proposed additional spending on agriculture. The easy option being contemplated by Niti Aayog therefore is to combine all farm subsidies, including subsidies on fertilizer, crop insurance, irrigation and interest subvention, and transfer it in cash to farmers. Since the Finance Minister had already budgeted Rs 70,100-crore for farm subsidies for the fiscal year 2018-19, ending on March 31, the cash transfer of subsidies will not entail any additional budgetary expenditure.

While news agencies say that the rupee and bonds rebounded after the report pegged the cost lower than the over Rs. 2-lakh crore estimated initially, it is certainly not a farm package that is expected to enthuse farmers. Already reeling under terrible distress, with real farm incomes declining for four decades now, agriculture is in urgent need of immediate relief as well as a series of strong measures for course correction leading to an increase in farm incomes. But if direct benefit transfer (DBT) is all that the government has up its sleeves, there seems to be no respite in offing for the beleaguered farming community.

Direct benefit transfer is basically a change in mechanism to deliver subsidies. Launched on Jan 1, 2013, the focus of direct cash transfer is to bring in transparency and reduce pilferage in subsidy distribution. Therefore DBT can by no means be considered as a direct income support measure. DBT only replaces the input subsidies that the farmers are getting for crop cultivation. The cash that the farmers get eventually will be used for paying for inputs like fertiliser, pesticides, irrigation etc. In other words, the cash payment is merely a replacement of the subsidy component.   

There is a clear cut difference between DBT and direct income support that the policy planners must understand. Niti Aayog however is giving an illusion of income support when in reality it actually ends up computing the total subsidy outgo and presents it deceptively as an income support of roughly Rs 15,000 per hectare. It is worrying to see many mainline economists too propagating the same line, which in real sense means that there is a visible reluctance to really help the farming sector in distress, and to initiate steps to bail it out in the long run. DBT is being wrongly projected as a continuation of Telengana model of direct income support, which has now been adapted in divergent forms by Odisha, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Karnataka.

Although agriculture needs a holistic approach to draw it out from the terrible crisis that it has sunk into over the decades, my suggestions to the government would be to initiate the following:  

1) After the farm loan waiver, which benefits roughly 30 to 40 per cent of the farming population, the remaining should be provided with a one-time direct income support of at least Rs 50,000 per family. These are the people who had timely repaid the crop loans and are also in need of immediate relief. This will also ensure that credit line in future is not squeezed. As to where the money will come from, it will come from the same kitty from where economic stimulus package of Rs 1.86-lakh crore for India Inc which still continues since 2009, came from.       

2) Time has come for setting up a Farmers Income Commission with the mandate to ensure a monthly income of Rs 18,000 to every farming family. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) should be renamed as a Commission for Farmers Income and Welfare with the mandate to ensure a minimum monthly living income package of Rs 18,000, which should incorporate the income accruing from MSP, FPO and other market interventions. Take the average farm income in every district, and whatever is the shortfall should be paid by income transfer directly in Jan Dhan accounts of farmers.

3) Time to revisit the FRBM Act which provides for a limited outlay for agriculture and rural sectors. For instance, according to CBGA only 6.7 percent of the Madhya Pradesh budget in 2017-18 went for agriculture and allied activities whereas 85% of the population is directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture. Similarly, the macro-economic policies the Reserve Bank of India lays out too are responsible for keeping farming impoverished. By mandating the inflation target at 4 per cent, it actually deprives farmers of the rightful income.

4) Expand the existing network of regulated markets. Against the requirement of 42,000 APMC mandis in 5-km radius, only about 7,600 mandis exist at present. Also, make it obligatory for trade in eNAM markets to purchase at the MSP that is announced for 23 crops. The modal price that eNAMs provide, which is based on the average of the day's price, is nothing but a distress price actually aimed at helping in commodity trading. It is time to learn from the failure of eChaupal that too had the same objectives of eNAM. #

Direct benefit transfer no cure-all for farm crisis. The Tribune. Jan 25, 2019.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/direct-benefit-transfer-no-cure-all-for-farm-crisis/718855.html?fbclid=IwAR29TlgzW196zfysvl9IG9r2cxjFXUvdXAV7K9jKOI_MgV5Wi6xDemPJWZQ

READ MORE - Direct Benefit Transfer is not Direct Income Support

Let 2019 be an Year of Agricultural Reforms

For four years in a row, Pradeep Sharma, a potato grower from Agra district in UttarPradesh has been suffering losses. Cultivating potatoes in 10 acres this year, he brought 19,000 kg to the mandi only to get a profit of Rs 490 after selling his entire produce. In anger, he sent his paltry earnings to the Prime Minister saying perhaps he will come to understand my problems. A few days earlier, a Madhya Pradesh farmer, Bherulal Malviya, had died of shock after selling his 27,000 kg of onions for just Rs 10,000 in Mandsaur market.

Such distressing media reports depicting the misery of the farming community have donned the media headlines for quite some time now. With losses mounting over the years, farmers have been literally surviving on loans, taking credit from both formal and informal sources. As of Sept 2016, Rs 12.60-lakh crores was the outstanding agricultural loan. Compare this with the average income of Rs 20,000 per year in 17 states, roughly half the country, the desolation is clear. 

Picture the terrible agrarian distress that prevails in the ongoing debate over whether farm loan waiver is the right answers to address farmer’s woes, and secondly, how will the state governments bear the fiscal burden? The speed at which the newly elected Chief Minister’s of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have announced farm loan waivers soon after assuming office, questions are being asked over the ‘economic viability’ of an otherwise ‘politically sound’ measure, the bigger question being tossed around is where will the money come from?  

It doesn’t end here. After Telangana launched the trend-setting Rythu Bandhu programme providing a fixed amount of Rs 8,000 per acre (now raised to Rs 10,000) per year as direct income support to farmers, it has triggered a chain reaction among States to announce similar or improved versions of financial aid. First, the erstwhile Congress government in Karnataka came up with similar package to provide Rs 5,000 per hectare to dryland farmers, and after the recent electoral debacle in the Hindi heartland, and fearing the Congress and BJP’s promise to waive farm loans if voted to power, and obviously in an effort to woo farmers ahead of the forthcoming Assembly elections, Odisha declared an economic package. Instead of a loan waiver, Odisha announced Rs 10,180-crore package for three years under the Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation (KALIA) programme for land owning farmers, tenant farmers as well as landless labourers and sharecroppers. This will benefit 57-lakh households.

Jharkhand was quick to follow it up with Rs 2,250-crore schemes to help 22.76 lakh small and marginal farmers with a financial support of Rs 5,000 per acre per year, with an upper limit of 5 acres. And while Haryana is contemplating a pension scheme for farmers, West Bengal was quick to come up with Krishak Bandhu Scheme under which each farmer will get cash support of Rs 10,000 per acre per year. In addition, it will provide a life insurance cover of Rs 2 lakh per farmer, irrespective of the cause, for farmers between the age of 18 and 60. The premium will also be paid by the state government.

Let’s first look at the loan waivers. After Chhattisgarh announced the farm loan waiver, Rs 1,248-crore has already been transferred to bank accounts of 3.5 lakh farmers in the first phase, waiving a maximum of Rs 2-lakh each. In Punjab, despite the slow progress, a total of 4.14 lakh small and marginal farmers who had defaulted on cooperative and commercial banks have got a loan waiver of approximately Rs 3,500-crore. For the country as a whole, a total of Rs 2.3-lakh crore of farm loans announced by Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu will benefit and estimated 3.4-crore farm families.

Compare this with corporate loan write-offs. This will tell us where the money is getting siphoned-off. According to the Reserve Bank of India, in the four year period between April 2014 and April 2018, Rs 3.16-lakh crore has been written-off while only Rs 32,693-crore of the outstanding amount has been recovered. Accordingly, as on Sept 30, 2018, besides the public sector undertakings, there were only 528 borrowers who had non-performing assets (NPAs) of Rs 6.28-lakh crore while only 95 of them had defaults exceeding Rs 1,000-crore. While no questions are being asked about the ‘economic viability’ of the massive write-offs of a handful of corporate waivers, a lot of heat is being unnecessarily generated over farm loans depicting a clear-cut bias in economic thinking.

Meanwhile, gross NPAs have further increased by a whopping 11.2 per cent reaching Rs 10.39-lakh crore in 2017-18, and only Rs 40,400-crores have been recovered through the much touted Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Sarfaesi Act. The surge in NPAs is happening despite providing an economic stimulus of Rs 18.60-lakh crore to the industry in the past 10 years. It was in 2008-09 that the government started a stimulus package of Rs 1.86-lakh crore to the industry at the time of global economic meltdown in 2008-09, a package that still continues. In simple terms, the industry is getting a direct income support every year.  

Although considered to be ‘less distorting’ than farm loan waivers, reports indicate that the Centre is looking at the possibility of providing a direct income support of Rs 4,000 to farmers. Estimates point that the proposed direct support will cost the exchequer Rs 2-lakh crore. While this amount may appear big, the fact of the matter is that Rs 4,000 a year comes to less than Rs 340 a month, almost equal to the price of two cups of coffee/tea at any trendy coffee shop. If Rs 340 per month is considered to be an appropriate financial sop for the beleaguered farming community, it only shows the extent of deprivation and income inequality that prevails.  

While farm loan waivers are an economic necessity, and the state governments will have to find adequate resources, direct income support should not be seen as a permanent solution to the agrarian crisis. Agriculture needs a set of robust reforms in addition to the immediate sops being considered. Let 2019 be the year of agricultural reforms, and if the government can provide 7,000 steps, both small and big, for ease of doing business I see no reason why a similar amount of initiatives cannot be considered for ease of doing agriculture. After all, it involves 52 per cent of the country’s population. There lies the perfect economic prescription for Sabka saath, Sabka Vikas.

Let it be year of farm reforms. The Tribune. Jan 4, 2019
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/let-it-be-year-of-farm-reforms/708313.html

READ MORE - Let 2019 be an Year of Agricultural Reforms

After Dec 11, agriculture has been pushed to the center stage of Indian politics. But will it usher in a new renaissance?

The writing was on the wall. The anger that rural Gujarat voters had exhibited in last year’s Gujarat Assembly elections, edging the ruling BJP overwhelmingly in the Saurashtra region, was a clear pointer to the serious agrarian distress that prevails in the hinterland. Failing to keep a tab on the rural pulse, and unable to assuage the growing farmers anger that was spilling on to the streets, the electoral debacle in the predominantly agricultural belt of central Hindi heartland – Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan – was already scripted.

Interestingly, while Congress romped home riding on the promise of farm loan waiver and a higher procurement price for paddy, K Chandrashekhar Rao in neighbouring Telangana swept the Assembly polls riding the popularity of a direct income support scheme Rythu Bandhu for farmers. Under the novel investment scheme, the first of its kind in the country, land-owning farmers will get a support of Rs 8,000 per year, to be split in two -- Rs 4,000 each for kharif and rabi crop season. Benefitting nearly 58 lakh farmers, Telangana government has made a budgetary provision of Rs 12,000-crore for this scheme for 2018-19. The direct payment amount has since been raised to Rs 10,000 per farmer, and soon thereafter Jharkhand has been quick to follow up by launching a similar scheme providing Rs 5,000 per acre.

The speed at which the newly elected Congress governments in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan implemented the farm loan waiver promise clearly shows the political urgency the party felt it needs to accord to agriculture. While Madhya Pradesh has waived outstanding farm loans to a maximum of Rs 2 lakh per farmer, which is expected to cost Rs 35,000-crores, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have announced a full loan waiver costing the state exchequer Rs 18,000-crores and Rs 6,100-crores, respectively. More than 8.3 million small and marginal farmers stand to benefit from the loan waiver when fully implemented.

Undeterred by the warnings being issued by economists, bankers and planners saying that farm loan waiver will upset the balance sheets and set in a bad precedence, Congress President Rahul Gandhi has warned “My message to farmers is that this country belongs to you and the Congress and other opposition parties will work together to ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi to write off your loans. We’ll not let him sleep until he waives your loans. If Modi doesn’t act, the Congress will do it 100%.” 

His argument is backed by sound reasoning. After all, when corporate bad loans to the tune of Rs 3.16 lakh crore between April 2014 and April 2018, were written-off, there was no hue and cry from the economists or bankers. Travelling through the rural belt before the elections, angry farmers did confront me at a number of places asking if huge loans of corporate can be written-off why not for farmers. In fact, their anger was specifically directed at former Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian, who had gone on record saying that corporate loan write-off leads to economic growth. On the other hand, when farm loan waivers were first announced in Uttar Pradesh after the Yogi Adityanath government was sworn in, former RBI governor Urjit Patel had said that it will upset the national balance sheets and lead or moral hazard.

Nevertheless, the clear electoral verdict in the Hindi heartland has finally brought agriculture to the centre stage of Indian politics. Agriculture has emerged on the top of the political agenda, and the message has gone loud and clear. It is probably for the first time that the electoral verdict has brought in a visibly renewed confidence among the farming community. Rising above the divisive electoral policies that kept them split on the basis on religion, caste and ideologies, they now feel their collective electoral strength. The recent election results have shown them the power to topple governments. This is a major factor that will certainly influence the 2019 general elections.

After all, in a country which roughly has 50 per cent population engaged directly or indirectly in farming, farmers are finally in a position to be a lot more assertive. For over four decades now, real agricultural incomes have remained frozen. A recent OECD study has shown farm incomes have remained static in India for the past two decades. Earlier, an UNCTAD study had shown farm gate prices across the globe, factored against inflation, had remained static between 1985 and 2005. A recent Niti Aayog study has concluded that real farm income had only grown at less than half a percent, 0.44 per cent to be exact, in the five year period between 2011-12 and 2015-16 despite the fact that production had gone up steadily.  

Farmers in reality are being penalised to grow food. Barring a few exceptions, they have been consistently paid less than the cost of production over the years. To maintain food inflation under control, the entire economic burden has been conveniently passed on to farmers. To be born in debt and live in debt all through his life is virtually like living in a hell. Credit pe credit, was the only way to survive, and the debt kept mounting. Such is the economic deprivation that prevails, that even the Economic Survey 2016 stating that the average income of a farming family in 17 states of India or roughly half the country stands at a mere Rs 20,000 per year failed to shock the nation. With policies and economics failing farmers, the emergence of farmers on the political horizon is the only way forward. Only time will tell whether this political turnaround will usher in the new renaissance. #

After Dec 11, farm crisis on top of political agenda. Deccan Herald. Dec 23, 2018

https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/sunday-spotlight/after-dec-11-farm-crisis-top-709477.html

READ MORE - After Dec 11, agriculture has been pushed to the center stage of Indian politics. But will it usher in a new renaissance?

Direct Income Support is the need of the hour

Riding on the popularity of the Rythu Bandhu scheme, which provides Telangana farmers with a direct income support of Rs 8,000 per acre per year, Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao romped home sweeping the electoral verdict in recent Assembly elections. Encouraged by the positive response, and knowing it could pay him rich dividends, he had raised the amount to Rs 10,000 per year just before the elections.  

The first of its kind in the country, and what essentially began as an exercise to work out an input subsidy scheme to offset the cost of seed, fertiliser and pesticides, the Rythu Bandhu scheme has finally turned into a direct income support for the debt-ridden farming community. Under the novel investment scheme, land-owning farmers will get a support of Rs 4,000 each for kharif and rabi crop season. Benefitting nearly 58 lakh farmers, Telangana government has made a budgetary provision of Rs 12,000-crore for this scheme for 2018-19. More than the budget provisions, what makes this scheme effective is the way it was implemented. Within a month the land records were put in order, and the distribution of money has been as per the promise. Buoyed by the public response, and the appreciation it has received from a wide array of experts, economists and others, KCR is now keen to replicate it across the country. “This will require an additional Rs 3.5-lakh crore. It shouldn’t be a problem allocating the amount for farmers. It will be fruitful for them,” he said.

It is a question of priorities. Finding financial resources for a terribly distressed farming community should not be a problem, if the intent is clear. According to the 2016-17 NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey, Telengana (79%), Andhra Pradesh (77%) and Karnataka (76%) are among the top in the chart in the list of States with highest indebtedness. That farmer’s had expressed their gratitude for a slender income support of Rs 8,000 per year, which narrows down to roughly Rs 666 per month, is only a reflection of the acute rural deprivation that prevails. This shows the urgent need to pullout majority households from indebtedness. Writing-off outstanding loans is one way to address the complicated issue, providing direct income support is perhaps less distorting and more beneficial in the long run. After the loan waiver, direct income support followed by a more comprehensive assured income programme must begin. 

Several years back, when I first called for providing farmers with direct income support, mainline economists had laughed it off. At a time of globalisation and economic liberalisation, where markets ruled the roost, a number of questions were thrown up. It has taken some years for the people to grasp the implications, understand what I meant, and while the idea was sinking in, KCR certainly set the ball rolling. There are gaps but with the passage of time the scheme will get better. I am sure tenant farmers will subsequently be included, and there will be mechanisms to draw out absentee landlords and government/private sector employees who also hold agricultural lands. 

Telangana’s example was soon followed by Karnataka in a much truncated form. Just before the last Assembly elections in May, the outgoing Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah launched a new scheme, called Raitha Belaku, extending a direct income support of Rs 5,000 per hectare for dryland farmers, with an upper cap of Rs 10,000. The scheme entailed an expenditure of Rs 3,500-crore every year, and around 70-lakh farmers would directly benefit, he had claimed. And with news reports of Congress toying with the idea of providing Rs 3,000 per month by way of income transfer to small and marginal farmers in Madhya Pradesh, I am sure assured farm income will eventually become a norm rather than an exception. Even in Punjab, considering that every third farmer is below the poverty line, direct payments for marginal farmers should be tried.

Agriculture has been on the receiving end for over four decades now. As per Economic Survey 2016, the average income of a farming family in 17 States of India, which means roughly half the country, stands at a meagre Rs 20,000 a year. According to Niti Aayog real farm incomes in the five year period, between 2011-12 and 2015-16, grew at less than half a percent every year, 0.44 per cent to be exact. No wonder, the rural landscape remains equally depressing – falling incomes, mounting rural indebtedness, rising farm suicides, unmanageable glut at the time of harvest, and swelling rural to urban migration. At a time when tax concessions to the tune of 5 per cent of GDP are given to big business, public investment in agriculture has remained as low as 0.3 to 0.5 per cent of GDP.

With declining farm incomes and public sector investment shrinking over the years, agriculture has been a victim of a deliberate bias in economic thinking. For all practical purposes, agriculture is considered to be a non-economic activity. The macro-economic policies are heavily tilted against agriculture. While farm loan waivers, for instance, are considered to be a drag on the national economy, it is believed that huge corporate write-offs lead to economic growth. Unlike farm loan waivers, which become a State government’s headache, the corporate loans are the responsibility of banks and are seen as non-performing assets (NPAs) of the banking sector.

Direct income support will to some extent help in addressing these glaring disparities. At a time when farmers face extreme volatility in markets at times of harvest, and price distortions because of unwanted imports, direct payments will act as an agricultural safety net. It has to be accompanied by several initiatives in agricultural reforms, including redesigning credit, markets and cropping patterns and finally leading to an assured monthly income package to make an everlasting impact. 

To begin with, two steps are important:

 1.  Farm loan waivers too needs be clubbed with bank NPAs, and should be treated the same way as corporate write-offs. Since both the corporate and the farmers take loans from the same banks, how can the default by farmers become a State’s headache, which is expected to provide for loan waivers thereby adding on to its fiscal responsibility? While at the same time corporate bad loans are treated as a bank's headache? Why not treat farm loans as also bank's responsibility? Freeing up farm waivers will give State governments more room to provide for direct payments and to enhance farm incomes.

       2.  The Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices (CACP) which fixes the MSP for 24 crops, needs to be now renamed as Commission for Farmers Income and Welfare with the mandate to ensure an assured monthly farm income of at least Rs 18,000 per month per family. This should be based on the average income derived from direct payments, MSP, FPOs etc, at a district level and the balance should be paid by income transfer.  #

Direct payment to farmers is a safety net. The Tribune. Dec 20, 2018.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/direct-payment-to-farmers-is-a-safety-net/701050.html?fbclid=IwAR1XMZR5etyN73eficpO81b7optg7Ecw64qcqEUQ9w8jYC4bVAGae43zoDc

READ MORE - Direct Income Support is the need of the hour