Consequent to the 26 June 2006 advise of Sh. Prem Prashant,
Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and Chairman, HIPA Executive Committee,
the first initiative of the Public Policy Discussion Forum of HIPA was organized
on 6 July, 2006 in collaboration with the Directorate of Agriculture. The daylong discussion on the ‘Draft National Policy for Farmers:
Primary Sector Growth Interests of Haryana’ was inaugurated by Shri H.S.Chatha,
Agriculture Minister, Haryana. Ms Asha Sharma, FCPS Agriculture delivered the
keynote address. Dr. G. Prasanna Kumar, Director General, HIPA set the agenda
for discussion by drawing attention of about 40 participating officers to the
“Primary Sector and the 11th Plan: The Haryana Context” (The text can be
viewed at HIPA website http://hipa.nic.in/jgeorge.htm
for other related publications.)
Earlier Shri R.K.Khullar, Director of
Agriculture welcomed the Agriculture Minister and distinguished participants. Ms Navraj Sandhu, Chief
Administrator, Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) proposed a vote of
thanks. The fruitful discussion was
termed very timely as it is preparatory to the 25 August 2006 consultation in
Chandigarh between the State Government and the National Commission on Farmers
headed by Chairman, Prof. M.S.Swaninathan.
A preparatory meeting on 18 June 2006 at CCSHAU
campus preceded this discussion.
The meeting considered three basic premise of the draft national policy for
farmers. The three primary issues with special reference to Haryana could be
categorised as follows: Exploring the matrix of agriculture (crop husbandry),
livestock and environment (including horticultural and non-timber forest
produce); changes in the rural economic environment and identification of
various segments of farmers in Haryana who will be impacted by the policy
draft.
The July workshop witnessed a number
of presentations by the scientists that attempted to provide specific instances
to reconnect the science with farmers in the field on the one hand and the
agriculture department officials on the other. Currently the great disconnect
between the scientific fraternity and farmers field has been a matter of great
concern finding articulations by the President Dr A.P.J.Kalam, PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh
and the Approach paper to the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
All these concerns are pivoted on the premise that agriculture should grow at least
at the trend growth rate of 4% and technology must be the engine for this
growth. In other words, second green revolution must be ushered in at any cost.
And if the public agencies are not able to meet the cost the public-private
partnership (PPP) mode must be facilitated. This simplistic solution to a
complex problem of agriculture appears to affect Haryana to a great extent.
Obviously, the question arises why Haryana?
Haryana agriculture has developed on the foundation of providing food security to the
nation. In this milieu, the major cereal crop, namely, wheat got added impetus
from the MSP regime. The state agencies played a leadership role in this milieu
and therefore the new marketing mantra has found these agencies incapacitated.
The level playing field concept must be applied to these public agencies as
well as they know the nuances of matching inputs’ supply with farmers
expectations of remunerative prices. The competitive market dynamics must
provide choices to farmer-suppliers as well as consumers. The draft policy
document appears to negate this choice concept. What is indeed needed is a
smallholder friendly policy draft that will be state specific and bottoms
driven.
The National Policy draft in Chapter 3 elaborates on
various constituents but the concerns of Haryana does not fit into their
analytical rigour, that leaves much to be desired, any ways.
The quality and quantum of land and water are the
dominant concerns for the state. With the deepening of water table the quality
of water is bound to influence the crop sequencing and output. Therefore, the
steamrolling of diversification agenda into the state in the “one-size-fits-all
(OSFA)” has to be examined in greater depths. The “nimble diversified system”
exists only in USA that survives on state subsidies of all hues.
The prescription of the National draft policy, in
this instance, to set up national level authorities for every aspect of
agriculture is not only disastrous but regressive as well.
The seven-point strategy suggested by PM in May 2006
end and the strategies suggested the President Kalam and the Union Agriculture
Minister, Mr. S. Pawar have a common thread with the National draft policy. All
of them have a mutual admiration and are large farmer oriented. The smallholder
agriculture in Haryana has a comparative advantage centred on smallholder
farming community. This advantage is available to the state agencies as well
that are associated with the agriculture sector.
The law of diminishing returns when revisited in the
contemporary complex scenario raises the spectre of capital starvation. The
capital malformation in the agriculture sector has been matters of
investigation by many national level committees but the national draft appears
to dismiss this in a jiffy as if increasing flow of credit to the farm sector
will kill many ills residing in the segment.
The silver lining averments in the national draft has
left the state with mixed feelings. The segmented and short-term perspective of
all the programmes and initiatives are centrifugal in nature. This strongly
militates against the federal framework of the constitution. For instance,
National Horticulture Mission, National Rainfed Authority, Changes in APMC Act,
Integrated food law, etc. takes away the ground realities to adjudicating
authorities in Delhi. The farmer is left high and dry.
In the final analysis, the discussion was aptly
summed up by the Chair of the session, Dr. G. Prasanna Kumar after hearing the
farmers’ viewpoints. These are Contract farming pathways have to be tread
cautiously by incorporating safeguard clauses for smallholder farmers,
liability options for ‘monopsonistic’ practices by the integrators; involvement
of SHGs in farming especially in increasing choices in the marketing channel;
irrigation and other boards and corporations engaged with agriculture sector at
any stage must work in coordinated manner; rainwater harvesting mechanism to
start with micro to meso to macro; frequent consultations with farmers; and
showcasing best practices in Haryana. A question was raised in the beginning
itself as to who sets the research agenda for the agricultural scientists. The
trinity of agricultural scientists-agriculture department functionaries-farmers
need a close look and the middle player, i.e., the department must challenge
itself to raise the bar as well as set the research agenda for the Haryana
specific agriculture.
The raising of the bar in a globalised era involves
looking much beyond the state and the nation. The State is well poised to
explore the GATS of the WTO and must pursue it with vigour and
sustainability.
The state has the opportunity “now and here”. It must
be seized with both hands. The state agencies have played stellar roles in
ushering in the first green revolution. The welfare oriented state agencies
cannot abdicate its responsibilities of growth with social justice.