Latest news with #JoginderSinghUgrahan
Hans India
3 days 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
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
BKU protests in Bathinda, accused govt of suppressing their voice
The Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta Ugrahan) staged a protest outside the Bathinda district administrative complex (DAC) against the Punjab government on Monday. Union president Joginder Singh Ugrahan said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government is oppressing the rights of farmers as they are not being allowed to raise their voice in support of their issues. He said the Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government is working for corporate houses by acquiring land in rural areas with inadequate compensation to farmers. Ugrahan alleged the state government is trying to forcibly evict the cultivators at Jeond village in Bathinda to benefit the landowners.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Sangrur protesters' detention oppressive move, say farmer unions
Farmer unions have termed the police action as oppressive wherein around 400 members of the Zameen Prapti Sangharsh Committee (ZPSC) were detained while they were marching towards Bir Aishwan in Sangrur district to take possession of a big chunk of land, claiming it had no heir, on May 20. According to ZPSC, the 927-acre land, owned by the erstwhile princely state of Jind, had no heir following the death of its last ruler. The ZPSC has been demanding distribution of the said land among landless people under the Land Reforms Act. Manjit Singh Dhaner, president of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta-Dakaunda), said, 'The police believe this movement can be suppressed by force.' Joginder Singh Ugrahan, president of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta Ugrahan), said, 'The imprisonment is unjust and land ceiling law should be implemented, ensuring that land held by landlords exceeding 17.5 acres is distributed among the working class,' he said. SSP Sartaj Singh Chahal said around 150 members are still detained. 'It is preventive detention keeping in mind the law and order. Further action will be taken accordingly,' he said.
The Hindu
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
War a distraction, will devastate Punjabis and Kashmiris: Farmers' outfit
Bhartiya Kisan Union – Ekta-Ugrahan (BKU-EU), one of the major farmers' unions in Punjab, has condemned actions that are allegedly aimed at fuelling war hysteria and has asked the public to stand united against the 'unjust and fratricidal' war. BKU-EU leaders Joginder Singh Ugrahan and Jhanda Singh Jethuke said in a statement on Thursday that a war between the highly armed forces of India and Pakistan will sacrifice the youth and devastate the Punjabi and Kashmiri communities on both sides. They warned that Indian strikes inside Pakistan could trigger a full-scale war, the consequences of which will be borne heavily by the people. They urged all justice and peace-loving citizens to mobilise immediately to oppose war and raise their voices for peace. 'The public must recognise the true intent behind this war rhetoric. BKU (E-U) calls on the people to resist communal and ultra-nationalist propaganda, oppose any move toward war, reject all forms of divisive politics, uphold unity, and intensify the fight for their democratic rights,' their statement said, adding that war is not a solution but a distraction from real issues 'such as injustice, inequality, and corporate-driven policies -- exacerbated by communal politics disguised as nationalism.'
