Latest news with #Ekta-Ugrahan
Hans India
a day ago
- Business
- Hans India
Agriculture can be revived in India only if farmers get right prices for the produce
In a complete reversal of its earlier stand, the Bharti Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan), which boasts of the largest support base in Punjab, now calls for a rethinking on making Minimum Support Price (MSP) a legal right for farmers. Saying that a legal mechanism for MSP will lead to 'higher inflation', the leader of the farm union, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, has stirred a hornet's nest. While another farmer leader, owing alliance to BKU (Dakounda), Jogmohan Singh, termed any move that goes against the popular demand of the farm bodies for seeking a legal protection for MSP as 'back stabbing' the farmers, other farmer's voices expressed surprise at the turnaround. 'All factions should stick to the demand for hike in MSP as per MS Swaminathan's recommendation for 50 per cent profit over the input cost,' Jagmohan Singh had asserted. Till only a few weeks back, prior to the time when the protest at the Punjab and Haryana border were not forcibly lifted, farmer leaders Jagjit Singh Dallewal and Sarwan Singh Pandher, were both calling for MSP to be converted into a legal right across the country. Even after the farmers protests at Shambhu and Khanauri borders ended, these leaders maintain that a legal MSP is the only way forward. So do others. Nevertheless, the volte-face by the dominant farmers union in Punjab is baffling. While speculation is rife about why and how did the farm union go for a flip-flop, the split in economic thinking isnow wide open. As quoted in the media, Ugrahan says that beyond a point, the increase in MSP can't be sought as it will lead to increase in prices of foodgrains, making it out of reach of poor and marginalized classes. That is why the union is seeking a reduction in input costs, which will eventually bring in a fall in the cost of production. Any fall in the cost of production will indirectly mean a higher price for farm produce, he says. Before I go any further, let's first look into a fallacious call for reducing the input costs such as that of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, diesel, seeds and other inputs that the farmers have to fend for. For several years now, I have seen academicians saying, and mainline economists have often echoed, saying while there is no need to increase farmgate prices, what is required is to reduce the cost of production. They always knew that the input prices are not in the control of farmers and we often hear farmers rue that the MSP does not cover even the cost of cultivation. I don't blame the farmers, but at least the academicians should have known that the call for reducing the input costs is not workable and so it is meaningless. But I still see many academic papers that repeat the call for reducing the cost of cultivation. The reason is simple. Academicians and policy makers have never been in favour of enhancing farm incomes and therefore the best way is to divert attention to something that is undoable. Even if the Government decides to follow cost reductions it will only be possible with subsidy support, which means more budgetary support. And then at the same time, any increase budgetary support for agriculture is decried saying it will lead to fiscal imbalance. Ugrahan says: 'Not only farmers, we have to think about all sections of the society, particularly the poor. In case, there is an increase in MSP, it will lead to inflation. So, to benefit the farmers, the cost of agriculture inputs should be kept under check.' Therefore, I am a little surprised to know how come a senior farmer leader goes for a turnaround using the bogus argument of reducing the cost of production. In reality, what the farmer leaders need to know is that a majority of country's poor are in fact farmers. It is well-known fact, they produce enough food for the country, but themselves sleep hungry. The latest report of the Situational Assessment Survey for Agricultural Households, which was based on 2019 data, clearly shows that the average monthly income of a farm household, at only Rs10,218 is at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't think any miracle has happened in the past five years that shows a remarkable jump in farm incomes thereby to change the perception about prevailing levels of farm distress. If Joginder Singh Ugrahan is satisfied and comfortable with such low-income levels knowing (or perhaps unknowing) that his suggestion would not in any way lead to enhanced income levels, there is no reason why the farmer leader himself should not be rethinking. It is never too late to make a correction. I find this switch over most intriguing knowing that an OECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) had worked out that in the 16 years period, between 2000 and 2016, Indian farmers had lost Rs 45-lakh crore. Moreover, the latest 2024 OECD report on producer support had categorically shown that Indian farmers were the only community globally that continued to incur losses year after year since the year 2000. What more evidence is required to demonstrated a broken food system that has been pushing farmers into a cycle of indebtedness, distress and suicides? Surprisingly, the policy makers who continue to call for reducing the cost of cultivation have never given any economic justification for not asking the industry to reduce the cost of production. Name one industry that continues to incur losses even for a year, and still stays in business. Tell me which section of the urban society has reduced the cost of living if it made any economic sense to them. I haven't heard of any section of employees wanting the pay commissions to be frozen. In fact, an imaginative 'fitment factor' continues to jack up employee salaries every ten years. Academicians and policy makers are fine with that (because it also raises their incomes) but then why is that such stupid arguments are floated only for farmers? The answer is again simple -- because farmers will fall for such outlandish arguments. Agriculture is in a dire crisis. Over the years, farm incomes have been deliberately squeezed. It is time to rebuild agriculture and that can only happen if farmers get an assured income (by way of a guaranteed price) along with a package of practices that actually usher in prosperity on the farm. (The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Farmers resist shift to early-maturing paddy amid procurement concerns
Farmers in Punjab are expressing reluctance to adopt early-maturing paddy varieties such as PR126, citing concerns over the government's procurement timeline that, they say, does not align with the crop's harvest period. Paddy sowing in districts such as Sangrur, Ludhiana, Malerkotla, Mansa, Moga, Barnala, Patiala, Kapurthala, Jalandhar and Nawanshahr commenced on Monday. Despite a state-imposed ban on long-duration paddy varieties, farmers have continued sowing the water-guzzling, long-duration PUSA 44 variety. The state government has advised farmers for a shift to short-duration varieties like PR126 and PR121. These varieties mature 15-20 days earlier than PUSA 44, offering benefits like reduced groundwater use and less stubble burning. However, farmers argue that the early harvest of these new varieties does not align with the government's procurement timeline, which typically begins in October. 'If we sow PR126, it will be ready by September, but there won't be any procurement in the mandis at that time,' said a farmer from Laddi village in Sangrur. 'Last year, our crops went unsold and got damaged. This will happen again,' he added. The government's policy aims to address the growing environmental crisis, including water scarcity and air pollution caused by late-harvest paddy. But farmers remain skeptical, citing last year's experience, where those who adopted PR126 faced procurement delays, leading to financial losses. Agricultural experts and farm bodies have urged the state and central governments to adjust procurement schedules or create dedicated channels for early-maturing varieties. 'Promoting a new crop variety without addressing market linkage issues will only deepen farmer distress,' said an agriculture economist. BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan) president Joginder Singh Ugrahan emphasized the growing distrust between farmers and the government. 'The government shouldn't dictate what we grow,' he said. 'Sheller owners prefer PUSA 44 due to its higher rice recovery rate, which is why they buy it readily. Without MSP guarantees for alternative varieties like basmati, there's no incentive to shift,' he added. Ugrahan also raised concerns about the government's push to replace paddy with maize. 'What if the new crop yields poorly? Will the government compensate us?' he asked. He called for a more farmer-centric approach, suggesting that the government offer an MSP for basmati rice, which could provide a viable alternative to both PUSA 44 and maize. Responding to these concerns, Sangrur chief agriculture officer Dharminderjit Singh assured that the government's procurement system would adjust to early-harvested crops. 'The crops will be procured when the mandis open. There is no issue with the government's procurement process,' he said. Singh admitted that the government does not currently have a compensation plan for farmers who face losses from sowing alternative varieties. He added that these newer paddy varieties incur lower costs due to their natural resistance to pests, reducing the need for expensive sprays.
Hindustan Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Not MSP, low input cost is Ugrahan group's focus now
Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan), a farm body based in Malwa belt of Punjab that has the largest support base in the state, has sidestepped from seeking a hike in the minimum support price (MSP) for all crops. Now, Joginder Singh Ugrahan-led BKU is seeking reduction in input cost, such as fall in prices of diesel, agro-chemical, pesticides, seeds and the other key inputs for agriculture. A former vice-chancellor of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, who didn't wish to be named, said, 'The change is cause of concern because the farm bodies which have been at the forefront are backstepping.' The BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan) had led a year-long farm protest on Tikri (Haryana-Delhi) border in 2020 against the now-repealed three farm laws because of its sheer strength and the rest of the farm bodies were at Singhu borders. During another year-long protest by BKU (Ekta-Sidhupur) led by Jagjeet Singh Dallewal and Kisan Mazdoor Sangarsh Committee led by Sarwan Singh Pandher at Shambu and Khanauri border points, the BKU (Ugrahan) though offered support from outside but stayed away from active participation. At both the protests, increase in the MSP remained the key focus. Since AAP government took over in the state in March 2022 Ugrahan-led farm body has held a series of meetings with chief minister Bhagwant Mann for acceptance of farmers' demand. The central theme of the meeting was MSP on all crops and as a legal guarantee. According to Ugrahan, beyond a point, the increase in MSP can't be sought as it will lead to increase in prices of foodgrain, making it out of the reach of poor and marginal classes. According to the farm bodies other than the BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan), the fall in prices of inputs for agriculture is next to impossible as the central government has no direct control over petrol/diesel, agro chemicals and pesticides, as corporate control these inputs. BKU (Dakounda) Jagmohan Singh general secretary has said the demand of the farm bodies has always been MSP hike on all crops and any deviation means back stabbing the farmers. 'All factions should stick to the demand for hike in MSP as per MS Swaminathan's recommendation for 50% profit over the input cost,' said Jagmohan Singh. Meanwhile, Ugrahan justified his group's stand, stating, 'Not only farmers, we have to think about all the sections of society, particularly the poor. In case there is an increase in MSP, it will lead to inflation. So to benefit the farmers, the cost of agriculture inputs should be kept under check.' On being asked about the changed stance of the BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan), he said the scenario has changed. 'We have to adjust to the changing scenario, but we will continue to fight for the farmers' welfare,' he added. The BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan) has been maintaining a low profile for about two years and is only engaged in symbolic protests. 'We will soon come out with a plan for a long drawn protest for the rights of the farmers,' the group stated.
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Farm forum halts land consolidation exercise over ownership dispute in Bathinda village
1 2 Bathinda: Farmer organisation BKU (Ekta-Ugrahan) stopped an attempt by the district administration to launch a consolidation exercise to demarcate the entire landholding of Jeond village over ownership dispute on (Ekta-Ugrahan) leaders Jhanda Singh Jethuike and Shingara Singh Mann said that the district administration came prepared with police force and drones. They started the exercise, but when opposed, the officials stopped work and returned with the assurance that a meeting would be arranged with the Bathinda deputy commissioner on conflict between original owners (landlords) and 'mujaras' (tillers) concerns nearly 2,151 acres of land. While the landlords want a one-third share under the 'Ala Malik Adna Malik' Act prevalent in the early 1950s amounting to 717 acres, the tillers argue they have been tilling the land for the last 107 years and will not relinquish any part of farmer organisation supported the cultivators and decided to proceed along the lines of the Pepsu Mujara Lehar (movement for obtaining ownership rights for tenants) of the original owners approached the Punjab and Haryana high court. A bench, in its order on April 24, 2023, directed the authorities to complete the consolidation within six weeks. When it was not done, the petitioners filed a contempt of court petition on Dec 15, 2023. The court, in its order on Jan 8, 2025, directed the authorities to prepare and complete the revenue records, followed by the initiation of consolidation proceedings by Jan 30, 2025. It also directed that the secretary, department of revenue, Punjab, join the proceedings via video-conferencing on the fixed date. If unable to provide a justifiable explanation, an amount up to Rs1 lakh would be ordered to be paid from his/her own pocket as litigation cost to the petitioner for delaying the proceedings in the contempt petition, the court said. When the administration went for consolidation demarcation on Jan 20, 2025, the farmers opposed it, leading to a administration then prepared to conduct demarcation through drones to prepare 'murabbas' (a part of land measuring 25 acres) and further demarcate up to 1 acre or even less if there are more shareholders in the specified measurement of 120995260 413 |MSID:: 120995260 413 |
