PM Narendra Modi at the virtual interaction with farmers Friday | ANI
PM Narendra Modi at the virtual interaction with farmers Friday | ANI

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi Friday announced the rollout of Rs 18,000 crore under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme to nine crore farmers. The money will reach the farmers as a direct benefit transfer to their bank accounts.

This means every farming family in the country will get Rs 500 a month or Rs 6,000 in a year.

Ads code goes here

In episode 648 of ‘Cut The Clutter’, ThePrint’s Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta called the prime minister’s address “a combination of conciliatory, aggressive, and a bit of electioneering”, amid an ongoing farmers’ agitation against the three contentious agriculture laws.

Gupta said the PM was aggressive towards the Opposition by calling out West Bengal, because the state government has insisted that the funds be sent separately in its account. The PM had said that as many as 70,000 farmers in Bengal will miss out on the benefits of the scheme.

Gupta said Modi was conciliatory with the farmers because in his speech he had pitched the three agricultural laws as reforms that will benefit them.


Also read: How deaths of Karima Baloch and Sajid Hussain indicate resurgence of Cold War dirty tricks


Why agriculture reforms are required

Giving several examples of the problems and risks that farmers face, Gupta also said that agricultural reforms are the need of the hour, but added that they “cannot be forced upon them (farmers)”.

He detailed some of the ongoing situations. First, when prices of tomatoes in Maharashtra had dropped to Rs 1 per kilo; second, the price rise of onions during September-October; and third, the government having to pay a subsidy of Rs 3,500 crore to export sugar.

Agreeing with the PMs move of providing direct benefit transfer and supporting subsidy, Gupta said this was the first step in which farmers can be helped.

Gupta stated that subsidy was required because agriculture is a low profit and low yield, but an important business. He also said that agriculture was a facade for hiding enormous underemployment in the country. Too many people are employed in agriculture, producing too little value, he added. And one way to help this sector was to make direct benefit transfer of agricultural subsidy, restore input and produce farm gate prices somewhere close to markets.

Gupta also talked about former agricultural secretary Siraj Hussain’s article on the need for Punjab and Haryana farmers to diversify from wheat and rice cycles. Gupta insisted on the need to shift their cultivation patterns to less water intensive crops. The cultivation of paddy is water intensive and the amount produced is much more than the requirement.

Giving a similar reference to the onion cycle, Gupta said, “India does not have the best storage facility. When the farmers start selling their harvest of onions, glut creates more supply over demand leading to falling prices, troubling the farmers. During the sowing season, the country has to import onions due to lack of storage facilities. The high prices affect consumers and the media pays attention to the city folk creating a fuss but not much attention is given to the plight of the farmer.”

Sugar production is another water-intensive technique which farmers in Maharashtra have been undertaking. The process involves diverting groundwater towards a water intensive crop in a dry state, pushing villages further towards drought. This becomes problematic because most of the sugar mills are owned by politicians. Gupta referred to the matter as the “elephant in the room, which no one wants to talk about”.


Also read: Nepal’s latest crisis and its unstable political history with 49 PMs in 58 years


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

3 COMMENTS

  1. It’s clear and understood from Shekharji’s episode on Cut the clutter No. 648, that for having uniform pricing of perishable food products it’s important that private players come in and establish a robust supply chain from which all shareholders from the framer to the consumers have stability of price and supply. A good example when this supply chain works well can be seen in the case of imported apples which are now available any time of the year and the price has been stable for years.
    These stable supply chains are a result of perfect market competition. It’s here where the Government is failing the farmers. When you have clear evidence that certain influential business houses are getting silos were house etc.. ready even before the farm laws were put on the table; it’s obvious that the Government may not encroach perfect competition to take over.
    It’s surprising that the Aadtiya families who for generations are working in the mandis are not putting up modern silos etc…this simply begs the question on the Government’s commitment to putting a perfect supply chain in place.
    Thus the questions from the farmers that like in the telecom sector the Government policies have led to virtually a last man standing/ winner take all policy, destroying all the competition including state run navratna companies; why is the Government shying away from MSP when the supply chain rules are not in place. Trusting this Government given its track record is a difficult pill to swallow.
    Hope you could do an episode on how supply chains in absence of FCI and mandis would operate and is the government in the mood of setting up a level playing field.

  2. Today’s Edit in IE talks of a trust deficit between government and farmers from India’s granary. Both sides know the present system of production and procurement of wheat and rice is fiscally and environmentally unsustainable. Then why the fudge. GoI should talk to Punjab and Haryana, try to work out a ten to even fifteen year roadmap to a desired change of cropping patterns. Also to deal with knotty problems like charging agriculture the actual cost of power. We must rediscover the capacity to listen respectfully. Sanvad, in Sanskrit.

  3. What does it mean? A law or reforms always need to be enforced, then only it has some sense. It is not meant to just blacken the papers.What if govt brings a law to curb corruption, or control traffic or against any kind of discrimination but not get enforced because people are protesting as they don’t want it.In such case, govt should handle the protests and find a way out to resolve. A Govt job is to create the laws through Democratic and Constitutional process, enforce fully and get desired result. And it is law abiding citizens duty to abide by the laws. That’s why people voted for government, not for just cosmetics changes and sugar coated word of assurances. If people are not satisfied, they can use their Democratic rights and decides about the government.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here