And once again, we are right where we began.
"Give them cheap credit."
"Farm loan waiver is a must."...
Sit back and think about it.Independence happened 72 years ago. In 72 years, we have not been able to create the infrastructure and the policy regime that allows the Indian farmer to break out of the debt trap. If anything, we are deepening their dependence on debt through this behavioural reinforcement of "Farm loan waiver required to win elections."
Let's think about it: Farming is an industry. It should be profit positive. Why does it need subsidies? Why is it so loan dependant? Does the farmer really need the loan and the subsidy?
In 72 years, and particularly under the Green Revolution, the government has been able to successfully create a nation-wide supply chain of:
A . GM/"High-yield"/ Hybrid seeds
B. Fertilisers, and
C. Pesticides
- forcing farmers to give up their traditional "inefficient" farming practices and ensuring their inevitable dependence on expensive farm inputs - fertiliser, seed, pesticide. (Ergo - Need for Debt)
BUT, we have not been able to create a nation wide network of:
A. Irrigation channels - reduces input costs and dependence on power to use the tubewells.
B. Cold Storage
- The two things that would have helped the farmer to actually increase margins, gain staying power in the market, and reduce input costs. (Ergo - Inability to earn enough to repay that debt)
Why is that?
BECAUSE:
1. It is NOT PROFITABLE to let the Indian farmer be economically viable. The minute you do that, you take away their status as the vote bank.
2. Union Carbide benefits from pesticide production. Monsanto benefits from GM seeds. Farmers benefit from cold storage facilities. There is no party donation money in that.
3. The farmers themselves find the benefits much easier than the hard work. Instead of demanding farm loan waiver, why did they not ask for subsidy for temperature controlled warehouses and transport vehicles? They all have a fridge at home. They all know the difference it will make if they release their pulses in the market when the price is high, vs if they release it when the harvest has just come.
If the farmer is able to hold on to his produce, the entire corrupt system created by the agricultural marketing industry collapses.
So, my vote is for that cold storage chain that benefits the farmers, and for a nation-wide irrigation network based on canals and natural river flow OR allowing the farmers to go back to traditional water harvesting methods which are not energy intensive. They were not subsidy dependant. We made them subsidy dependant to become food secure as a country.
"Give them cheap credit."
"Farm loan waiver is a must."...
Sit back and think about it.Independence happened 72 years ago. In 72 years, we have not been able to create the infrastructure and the policy regime that allows the Indian farmer to break out of the debt trap. If anything, we are deepening their dependence on debt through this behavioural reinforcement of "Farm loan waiver required to win elections."
Let's think about it: Farming is an industry. It should be profit positive. Why does it need subsidies? Why is it so loan dependant? Does the farmer really need the loan and the subsidy?
In 72 years, and particularly under the Green Revolution, the government has been able to successfully create a nation-wide supply chain of:
A . GM/"High-yield"/ Hybrid seeds
B. Fertilisers, and
C. Pesticides
- forcing farmers to give up their traditional "inefficient" farming practices and ensuring their inevitable dependence on expensive farm inputs - fertiliser, seed, pesticide. (Ergo - Need for Debt)
BUT, we have not been able to create a nation wide network of:
A. Irrigation channels - reduces input costs and dependence on power to use the tubewells.
B. Cold Storage
- The two things that would have helped the farmer to actually increase margins, gain staying power in the market, and reduce input costs. (Ergo - Inability to earn enough to repay that debt)
Why is that?
BECAUSE:
1. It is NOT PROFITABLE to let the Indian farmer be economically viable. The minute you do that, you take away their status as the vote bank.
2. Union Carbide benefits from pesticide production. Monsanto benefits from GM seeds. Farmers benefit from cold storage facilities. There is no party donation money in that.
3. The farmers themselves find the benefits much easier than the hard work. Instead of demanding farm loan waiver, why did they not ask for subsidy for temperature controlled warehouses and transport vehicles? They all have a fridge at home. They all know the difference it will make if they release their pulses in the market when the price is high, vs if they release it when the harvest has just come.
If the farmer is able to hold on to his produce, the entire corrupt system created by the agricultural marketing industry collapses.
So, my vote is for that cold storage chain that benefits the farmers, and for a nation-wide irrigation network based on canals and natural river flow OR allowing the farmers to go back to traditional water harvesting methods which are not energy intensive. They were not subsidy dependant. We made them subsidy dependant to become food secure as a country.
No comments:
Post a Comment