Agri Policy, Related Imports & Social Cohesion
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Sept. 2016
There has again been too little debates on policy side in the electoral battles while too much focus on personalities. This is even as it is quite evident that the policy side debates can easily be won over to conjure up ‘floating votes’ to make an impact. The parties and leaders however continue to ‘not to learn’ mantra, since they are much more comfortable with the identity politics rather than policy politics since the policies can be changed or twisted anytime and they would want it that way. Besides, noise levels in media seldom throw any clarity regards policies being pursued by government and leaders are often seen vacillating between contrary positions.
Take the epoch making Agricultural sector for example. What we keep on hearing is that government wants to double farmer’s income, bring down input costs and ensure remunerative prices as one of its key goals and promises to farmers. Now comes political lethargy in the policy making as well as its communications. The government leadership wants or is seen to build buffer stock for pulses whose prices has shot up for past 2-3 years due to shortage of domestic produce. Its response is to tie up production from friendly countries over a long period so ensure plentiful supplies. We also continue to import oil-seeds or edible oils in large quantities from some other friendly countries. We also have water guzzling corps of rice, sugarcane and cotton. In cane and cotton we have comfortable surplus despite a water scarcity prevalent over large swathes even in a rather watery year of abundant monsoons. Now why the high prices isn’t an incentive for Indian Farmers to be ushered in to change his cropping from water guzzling crops is something, our socialists have regularly failed to question. There clamour has been rather to ask for a minimum support price for Cotton and Cane as a trend. Their efforts continue even if their influence on power is in wane.
Not one political party or leader who all seems to be championing the cause of farmers has raised any finger on the policy. Though it is the policy that seems to be largely resposible for current low sowing of the low water crops like Jowar, Bajra, Raagi etc. where farmers moved to Wheat which had a rising Minimum support price and a healthy stocking limits by FCI. The backing by other support such as fertilizers and irrigation support doles in form of diesel subsidy are also a case in point. The concerns for farmers is raised to suffice “farm to chair” policy of the party rather than to play any constructive politics. Focus is to ensure enough revenue from mill owners, industrialist and their subsequent welfare often by restructuring of bank debts, rahter than turnaround of situation. The result is farmer's death/suicides and again a clamour for vote-banks arund the same situation. It is also true that raising such issues would require the political workers much more efforts that laying down “Khats” or “Chairs and Chatais” for the Sabhas of their people friendly leaders. The speech writers would also need to conjure up much more information to be presented convincingly to semi-literate people in the villages, some of whom may be reluctant to change in absence of clarity about incentives. The government policies as well as market structure currently seem tunes towards the crops such as cane, cotton and rice while detrimental for those requiring lesser water such as oil seeds and lentils. The result is huge expense on subsidies which often end up with political middlemen and low profit to farmers; something political leaderships would not want to disturb although each would keep making promises of “Acche din”. The commercial news media now knows its role so am not writing anything about it.
While the quest for farming jobs is capitalized by political leaders to disrupt various cities in rather modern and industrially advanced southern states. Then we also have pressures on commercial sector jobs wherein local political leaderships again exploit situations to disrupt livelihoods of self-employed workers from afar in the West. The party in power at centre held a promise of free movement of people throughout including some of the rather disturbed areas, but the actions to curb such violence has been lesser than what was expected. With waning of the ‘socialist’ influence, the response of the socialist has been to join the sectarian politics rather than taking a stand on issues and it is assumed that such politics is likely to be a key to victory for eternity. This is even as nearly all Sangathans seem to be under pressure and there has been a regular tone down of past stands although the winners may have continued with the practices of past away from the gaze of media. Let’s watch the ‘game’ evolve further…
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Sept. 2016
There has again been too little debates on policy side in the electoral battles while too much focus on personalities. This is even as it is quite evident that the policy side debates can easily be won over to conjure up ‘floating votes’ to make an impact. The parties and leaders however continue to ‘not to learn’ mantra, since they are much more comfortable with the identity politics rather than policy politics since the policies can be changed or twisted anytime and they would want it that way. Besides, noise levels in media seldom throw any clarity regards policies being pursued by government and leaders are often seen vacillating between contrary positions.
Take the epoch making Agricultural sector for example. What we keep on hearing is that government wants to double farmer’s income, bring down input costs and ensure remunerative prices as one of its key goals and promises to farmers. Now comes political lethargy in the policy making as well as its communications. The government leadership wants or is seen to build buffer stock for pulses whose prices has shot up for past 2-3 years due to shortage of domestic produce. Its response is to tie up production from friendly countries over a long period so ensure plentiful supplies. We also continue to import oil-seeds or edible oils in large quantities from some other friendly countries. We also have water guzzling corps of rice, sugarcane and cotton. In cane and cotton we have comfortable surplus despite a water scarcity prevalent over large swathes even in a rather watery year of abundant monsoons. Now why the high prices isn’t an incentive for Indian Farmers to be ushered in to change his cropping from water guzzling crops is something, our socialists have regularly failed to question. There clamour has been rather to ask for a minimum support price for Cotton and Cane as a trend. Their efforts continue even if their influence on power is in wane.
Not one political party or leader who all seems to be championing the cause of farmers has raised any finger on the policy. Though it is the policy that seems to be largely resposible for current low sowing of the low water crops like Jowar, Bajra, Raagi etc. where farmers moved to Wheat which had a rising Minimum support price and a healthy stocking limits by FCI. The backing by other support such as fertilizers and irrigation support doles in form of diesel subsidy are also a case in point. The concerns for farmers is raised to suffice “farm to chair” policy of the party rather than to play any constructive politics. Focus is to ensure enough revenue from mill owners, industrialist and their subsequent welfare often by restructuring of bank debts, rahter than turnaround of situation. The result is farmer's death/suicides and again a clamour for vote-banks arund the same situation. It is also true that raising such issues would require the political workers much more efforts that laying down “Khats” or “Chairs and Chatais” for the Sabhas of their people friendly leaders. The speech writers would also need to conjure up much more information to be presented convincingly to semi-literate people in the villages, some of whom may be reluctant to change in absence of clarity about incentives. The government policies as well as market structure currently seem tunes towards the crops such as cane, cotton and rice while detrimental for those requiring lesser water such as oil seeds and lentils. The result is huge expense on subsidies which often end up with political middlemen and low profit to farmers; something political leaderships would not want to disturb although each would keep making promises of “Acche din”. The commercial news media now knows its role so am not writing anything about it.
While the quest for farming jobs is capitalized by political leaders to disrupt various cities in rather modern and industrially advanced southern states. Then we also have pressures on commercial sector jobs wherein local political leaderships again exploit situations to disrupt livelihoods of self-employed workers from afar in the West. The party in power at centre held a promise of free movement of people throughout including some of the rather disturbed areas, but the actions to curb such violence has been lesser than what was expected. With waning of the ‘socialist’ influence, the response of the socialist has been to join the sectarian politics rather than taking a stand on issues and it is assumed that such politics is likely to be a key to victory for eternity. This is even as nearly all Sangathans seem to be under pressure and there has been a regular tone down of past stands although the winners may have continued with the practices of past away from the gaze of media. Let’s watch the ‘game’ evolve further…
