Agriculture is a state subject, i.e. it forms a part of the state list of our Constitution, which essentially means that states are supposed to address all the issues related to agriculture.
Over the years, agriculture, being a state subject, has been viewed as a road-block for implementation of reforms. In some sense it is true. For instance, the recently announced procurement policy PM-AASHA (Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Abhiyan) did not see much progress. The major reason – implementation and scheme selection was optional for states.
Now, let’s dial back a little. Why was agriculture made a part of the state list in the first place? Subjects in the state list are the ones considered to require local knowledge. With our varied agro-climatic zones and cropping patterns, every region was then assumed to have geography-specific agricultural issues. Over the years, agriculture has definitely emerged as more than a state subject! However, logically speaking – unless it is officially transferred to the Union list or more sensibly to the Concurrent list, agricultural problems should also have state developed solutions. But it has always been the central government which took the lead in designing reforms for the sector.
In metaphorical terms, states are expected to follow syllabus set by the Centre for a subject that belongs to them. Though agriculture has developed into a more national sector (or if I may say international with our high export ambitions), there remain issues that are more geography specific. Also there are solutions that are more geography-specific.
The past few years have witnessed an encouraging trend to this effect. States have taken the lead in implementation of reforms for the sector.
Madhya Pradesh implemented the Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana in 2017 as a response to low market prices. Karnataka established an electronic market for agricultural produce – Rashtriya e-Market Services (ReMS) – in 2014 to cut down on middlemen. The soil health card scheme was first launched in Gujarat in 2003. Gujarat was also home to the initial micro-irrigation schemes in early 2000s. Maharashtra is running the Jalyukta Shivar mission to make it a drought-free state.
In more recent times, in May 2018, Telangana implemented the ingenious Agricultural Income and Investment Support Scheme – Rythu bandhu – which provides Rs 4000 per acre per farmer twice a year to land-owning farmers. Odisha took it a step further and included landless farmers and labourers with its KALIA scheme (Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation).
Many of these schemes also became the guiding lines for schemes announced by the Central government on the national level. Price deficiency Payment Scheme (PDPS), a part of the umbrella scheme PM-AASHA, was inspired by MP’s Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana. Karnataka’s electronic market led to the idea of the e-NAM scheme implemented nationwide. Gujarat’s soil health card scheme was taken on the national level in 2014. And now to solve the overarching problem of agrarian distress, the Central government is studying Telangana’s income support scheme for national implementation.
The major stand-out features of state-run schemes are its penetration and acceptability. In its first year for Kharif 2017, close to 50% of area under Soyabean (major crop in MP) was covered under the Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana. As per a NITI Ayog report, Karnataka farmers realised 38% more incomes in FY16 from the sale of agri-commodities through the state’s e-trading platform.
I have personally conducted field studies for most of these schemes. In MP, majority of Soyabean farmers that I interviewed had voluntarily registered themselves for the Bhavantar Bhugtan Scheme. A stark contrast to other national level schemes I assessed, wherein the registrations were done by government officials on behalf of farmers, sometimes even without the knowledge of the farmers! In Maharashtra, I have encountered completed works under the Jalyukta Shivar mission in the remotest of tribal villages in tiger reserves of Vidarbha. Farmers I interviewed perceived value in these water works and wanted more of them.
My visit to the online market of Mysore division had very encouraging observations. Unlike the national level e-NAM, actual inter-state online transactions were being conducted successfully in these markets. During my assessment of the national soil health card scheme, many government officials in Gujarat informed me that farmers had responded with better utility for soil health cards under the state-run scheme. Most soil health card holders I interviewed responded negatively for their usage under the national scheme. (Reasons for these contrasts between the state and Centre level schemes I will leave for another detailed article).
It is evident from these anecdotal and otherwise evidence, that major beneficiaries of agricultural reforms – farmers – perceive more value from state-run schemes. It is thus essential, that agricultural reforms become a two-way street. The Central government downloading knowledge of state run-schemes for national implementation is definitely one approach. In addition, enhanced financial support to states implementing effective agri-reforms would also prove beneficial. The ministry of agriculture’s proposed ‘ease of doing agri-business’ index can be a good parameter for assessing states on agri-reforms.
The Centre and state governments’ ‘gathbandhan’(a favourite term these days) over agriculture would definitely be the best form of coalition!
