news details |
|
|
| Quitting paddy | | MSP a major tool available | |
The minimum support
price (MSP) announced
for paddy this year is barely a 5 per cent increase over last year's. This obviously cannot compensate for the increase in input costs for the crop. Keeping this in view farmers in Punjab have condemned the new price. The state government has backed the view, as farmers are a major electoral constituent in the state. Both, however, are aware that their demand is not valid. It is now almost a closed debate that paddy in the present ecological and market conditions is not a sustainable crop in the state. In keeping with that, the state government has even presented an elaborate plan to the Centre for diversification. Any major increase in the paddy MSP would amount to encouraging the crop.
A more valid demand would be to shift the goals of the MSP-based crop regime. Punjab should demand that the shortfall in the paddy MSP should be compensated in alternative crops. The Centre has faltered in that. One, the announcement of the MSP for Kharif crops has been made very late. This gives the farmer no chance to choose his crop on the basis of the MSP. Also, the increase in the MSP for pulses and oilseeds is not anywhere near sufficient to encourage a switch from paddy in Punjab. The Centre also needs to make the MSP programme seem less arbitrary. A long-term policy on food production and an explanation of the philosophy behind the prices is a must. It is not clear in which direction the Centre wants the farmer to head.
As for the finances of the small and marginal farmers in Punjab, it is not as much a matter of income per acre as a question of the total acres a family feeds off. The holdings are just too small for a dignified living, even if the income were to increase by 50 per cent. In an industrialised world, economies of scale have to kick in. Otherwise the cost of food production cannot be sustained in the global market. The government's role thus also extends to finding alternative channels of employment for the small farmer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
