Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Context: The two differing approaches to agriculture amidst pandemic reflect a lack of intellectual clarity about the future of Indian agriculture. 

The Liberal Approach: 

• Ordinances promulgated by the Centre: It seeks to achieve three objectives:

• To entitle 
• farmers and traders to carry on trade and commerce in agricultural produce outside a licensed Agricultural Produce Market Committee market.
• Sets up a framework for formalising contract farming — contracts between farmers and traders — for selling agricultural produce harvested in the next season.
• Defines the limited circumstances under which the government may regulate the supply of agricultural produce via the Essential Commodities Act.

• For E.g. it states that stock limits may be imposed only where the price of agricultural produce goes beyond a certain defined threshold.

• Ordinance promulgated by Karnataka:  allowed farmers to sell agricultural land to non-agriculturalists.
• This move is contrary to the age-old policy goal in India where farmers have been discouraged to sell their lands, especially if the buyer is not a farmer.
• The restricted selling has destroyed the value of farmland and was thus disadvantageous to impoverished farmers who wanted to leave farming.
• Deemed as Progressive Approach:  
• The approach indicates a move towards a market-led agricultural sector that is free of arbitrary state intervention and based on contract enforcement and the rule of law.

The Soviet styled Centrally planned Approach:

• Steps taken by Telangana: With the intent of encouraging crop diversification and allow farmers to obtain better prices, the state has the following objectives:

• Farmers have to grow paddy on 50 lakh acres, cotton on 50 lakh acres, and red gram on 10 lakh acres.
• Farmlands close to urban areas will grow vegetables and horticultural crops.
• Non-compliance will lead to exclusion from the benefits of Rythu Bandhu income support scheme.
• Deemed as Regressive Approach: It increases the imprint of the state on agriculture and subjects the farmer to its enforcement machinery as well. The policy is problematic for two reasons:
• The state does not have better information than the farmers;

• Ignores the well- documented impact that minimum support prices offered by the state have on cropping decisions.
• Procurement by the state often fails for several reasons, such as its timing, the capacity of the state government, and the awareness levels of the farmers themselves.

• State failure in procurement will be borne by either the farmers or the taxpayers.

• Cultivation of single crops will lead to a fall in their prices.
• If the states sell it in the open market at lower prices, the loss is borne by the taxpayers.
• If the programme fails, the farmers will lose money.

Conclusion: 

• On the one hand, we see some green shoots of liberty for the Indian farmer. On the other, a state is regressing to the universally failed policy of centrally planning agriculture. 
• Farm policy reflects a lack of clarity about the future of agriculture