Harvest of words

As Wednesday’s debate on agriculture in Parliament showed, MPs of all colours are second to none when it comes to speaking in defence of the Indian farmer’s interests. But the real needs of farmers are not well understood. From the Congress, which initiated the debate with an adjournment motion, to the Telegu Desam, which momentarily broke ranks with the National Democratic Alliance, all used strong language. The general sense of the House was that the farmer was in trouble and government policy was to blame. Even Agriculture Minister Nitish Kumar appeared to concede that all was not well when he put the onus for WTO agreements on agriculture on the previous Congress government and said the NDA was trying to undo the damage. However, it turned out to be just politics as usual. After everyone had made a bid for the rhetorical high ground, the motion was decisively defeated and it is no clearer what, if anything, needs to be done and is going to be done. If only there was less sound and fury and more purposefuldiscussion, the farmer could hope to see some positive outcome.

According to what various speakers said, Indian agriculture is plagued by falling commodity prices, rising input prices and a flood of cheap agricultural imports. In short it was a plea for the old ways, for subsidised power, fertilisers, water and seeds together with high procurement prices and high tariff walls to keep out competition. The past certainly beckons but political parties have no business going there and should return to the future. At the very least they should recognise that farmers would be better off with less government interference. Too much intervention is the main reason for the mess in agriculture. Bureaucrats and politicians might think otherwise but they are not the best judges of what should be grown and when and where. But that is precisely what they do by setting prices for agricultural commodities. Farmers do not need the government to hold their hands. They need reliable supplies of water and power, good roads, properly functioning markets, good credit delivery mechanisms,insurance against the risks of crop failure or a collapse of prices. What they get instead is heavy-handed government intervention, mainly through market-distorting procurement price policies and controls on the movement of foodgrain.

Two of the effects of procurement prices set progressively higher under pressure from farmers’ lobbies and state politicians are very visible today. One, the overproduction of rice and wheat and a mountain of foodgrain which mocks the government’s efforts to deal with it. Two, since Indian wheat and rice are priced out of the international market, they can only be exported if more subsidies are available. Checkmate. Certainly farmers’ suicides are an emotive issue. The particular causes of those tragedies need to be probed. But it is wrong to blame agricultural reform, such as it is, for them. On the contrary, the demand should be for focused, comprehensive, speedier reform and for higher capital investment in rural infrastructure in place of the present tinkering that passes for reform.