Category: Agriculture

Why There is an Urgent Need to Promote Sustainable Irrigation Practices

Agriculture being the largest consuming sector of water resources, it is imperative to promote sustainable irrigation practices such as micro-irrigation.

India’s achievement of self-sufficiency in food production has primarily been driven by the significant expansion in irrigation accompanied by high yielding varieties and input use. The extent of irrigated crop area as a percentage to gross cropped area rose from about 17% in 1950-51 to about 55% in 2022-23 as per the latest land use statistics data released by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture in September 2024.

Nevertheless, nearly half of the existing cultivated area in the country is still under the mercy of erratic monsoons, which frequently result in potential yield and income uncertainties for farmers. In this regard, a research article published in August 23  RBI bulletin indicated that improving irrigation infrastructure could mitigate the adverse impact of deficit monsoons on crop output.

Limited scope for further expansion in area under cultivation

Considering the fact that the scope for further notable expansion in area under cultivation is limited and the crucial role of irrigation in increasing yields, it is imperative to expand irrigation for any further increase in food production in the country.  In this regard, it is important to note that India has only 4% of the world’s water resources and is home for over 17% of the world’s population. Hence, there is an urgent need to devise measures to promote sustainable irrigation practices for efficient and judicious use of irrigation water from both groundwater and surface irrigation sources.

An overview of trends in various sources of irrigation since 1950-51 suggests that the significant increase in irrigated area is primarily on account of rapid growth in tube wells. The area under tube wells increased from about 0.1 million hectares in 1960-61 to 39.1 million hectares in 2022-23. Consequently, the share of area irrigated by tube wells increased from 0.55% in 1960-61 to 49.34% in 2022-23. Apart from tube wells, area under other wells also increased significantly from about 6 million hectares in 150-51 to about 10.6 million hectares in 2022-23.

As a result, the total area irrigated from groundwater sources increased to about 63% in 2022-23 from around 30% in 1950s, while that irrigated by surface water sources like tanks and canals decreased to about 25% from about 57% in respective periods.

Over-exploited ground water resources

Agriculture sector is the largest consumer of groundwater resources, accounting for 87% of the total annual groundwater extraction, which amounts to 209.74 billion cubic meters (BCM) as per the data from Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). Continuous cultivation of water intensive crops like rice and sugar cane supported by free electricity and assured procurement at support prices has led to over-exploitation of groundwater in major producing states.

As a result, the extraction of groundwater surpassed its recharge substantially to the extent of about 165% in Punjab and 134% in Haryana, according to the National Compilation on Dynamic Ground Water Resources of India 2023 by the CGWB, Ministry of Jal Shakti. Further, the report also indicated that about 11.23% of total 6,553 assessment units in the country are categorised as ‘over-exploited’.

On the other hand, the area irrigated from surface water sources has witnessed mixed trends. The area irrigated through canals remained stagnant over a period, while that by tanks has declined over the period.

Total area under canal irrigation increased rather slowly from about 8.3 million hectares in 1950-51 to about 17 million hectares by the early 1990s and remained stagnant with downward fluctuations till 2018-19. Thereafter, canal irrigated area started rising to cross 19 million hectares in 2021-22. Nevertheless, the extent of area irrigated by canals declined from 39.78% in 1950-51 to 22.85% in 2022-23.

However, irrigated area under tanks, though increased from 3.6 million hectares in 1950-51 to 4.7 million hectares in 1964-65, has declined steadily in the subsequent period to reach about 1.5 million hectares in 2009-10. There was an improvement in the 2020s but, only marginally to 2.2 million hectares in 2022-23. The significant fall in area under tanks could be attributed to various reasons including increased unpredictability and deficit in rainfall, lack of maintenance, siltation, encroachment, etc.

Thus, the significant expansion in the area under irrigation during the past six decades or so has been largely from ground water resources. The progress in area under surface water sources was limited due to various reasons including increased unpredictability of monsoons and human intervention or lack of it.

In view of the rapidly depleting ground water resources and growing need for further expansion in irrigated area, there is an urgent need for requisite policy measures for ensuring adequate recharge of groundwater resources, revival and expansion of surface water resources like tanks and canals, promotion of watershed practices, etc., for sustainable use of water resources for irrigation.

Need to promote sustainable irrigation practices

Agriculture being the largest consuming sector of water resources, it is imperative to promote conservation of water with efficient and sustainable irrigation practices such as micro-irrigation. Micro-irrigation practice such as drip irrigation directly applies irrigation water directly to crop root zones thereby reducing losses through runoff, percolation and evaporation occur in tradition irrigation method.

Micro-irrigation has a potential to increase water use efficiency to an extent of about 75-95% compared to the traditional method of irrigation. To promote micro-irrigation and water use efficiency Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare implements Per Drop More Crop (PDMC) Scheme that subsequently became part of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY). The scheme provides financial assistance to an extent of about 55% of installation cost for small & marginal farmers and about 45% for other farmers.

So far the PDMC scheme has covered an area of about 89.69 lakh hectare from 2015-16 to 2023-24. In this regard, the extension of PMKSY for 2021-22 to 2025-26 with an outlay of about Rs. 93,068 crore is a step in the right direction. Such efforts need to be strengthened further and implemented effectively.

In addition, it is vital to promote crop diversification at least for shorter intervals of one to three years from water intensive crops like rice and sugarcane to pulses and oilseeds with less water requirement in their cultivation. Despite a significant increase in minimum support prices for pulses and oilseeds during past five years, there is a limited response from farmers to shift from rice to pulses and oilseeds cultivation.

In order to promote such diversification, it is essential to ensure that farmers receive remunerative prices with requisite procurement process in the short-term, while addressing supply chain in efficiencies with the necessary marketing infrastructure and logistics in the long-term. Further, implementation of crop rotation or diversification needs to be staggered across different states so that the domestic supply of staple crops like rice will be adequate.

Coordinated efforts from both Centre and states are essential for the success of such diversification. Subsidies and incentives need to be reoriented accordingly to promote production of other crops like pulses and oilseeds.

A. Amarender Reddy is joint director, policy support research, ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management (ICAR-NIBSM), Raipur. 

Tulsi Lingareddy is a a senior economist, sustainable finance and agriculture. Views personal

Farmers in Punjab Carry Out Indefinite Blockade of Highway Over Poor Lifting of Paddy

Farmers accuse the AAP government in Punjab as well as the BJP-led Union government for pushing the state into an agrarian and economic crisis.

Jalandhar: Four days after Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann assured the lifting of paddy from the state’s grain markets, farmers from various unions have alleged the poor lifting of the crop and on Monday (October 21) began an indefinite blockade of parts of an arterial highway.

Farmers primarily from Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur, Kapurthala, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and Ludhiana districts on Tuesday blocked part of the Grand Trunk Road in the state’s Phagwara town and demanded the immediate lifting of their crop, which they said had been lying in grain markets for since October 1, when paddy procurement began in Punjab.

The Bharatiya Kisan Union or BKU (Doaba), the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) – which led the farmers’ protest for legally guaranteed minimum support prices (MSPs) at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana earlier this year – the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KSMC) and the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) have supported the call to block the highway.

The protest left commuters travelling from Jalandhar and Ludhiana toward Delhi stranded on the highway for hours.

“We have called a meeting of all farmers’ unions tomorrow (October 23) at the Shambhu border to decide the next course of action,” Sarwan Pandher, who leads the KSMC and the KMM, told The Wire.

Farmers accuse the Mann-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab as well as the BJP-led Union government of pushing the state into an agrarian and economic crisis.

A lack of storage space in godowns of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) has meant that rice millers have been unable to dispose of milled rice from last year, which has in turn made them unwilling to take on paddy from the state’s grain markets.

The state’s farmers are also concerned that delays in selling their paddy will in turn create delays in their sowing the wheat crop in the first week of November.

Trolleys have been parked along the highway in protest. Photo: Kusum Arora.

‘Punjab, Union governments left farmers with no choice’

Speaking to The Wire, BKU (Doaba) president Manjit Singh Rai said that as of Tuesday it had been 22 days since paddy procurement began but that tonnes of produce still lay dumped at farmers’ homes and in grain markets.

“We want to warn the AAP and BJP governments that if our crop is not lifted, we will block all of Punjab in two days,” Rai said.

He added: “Mann had promised to the SKM’s delegation that the paddy would be lifted within two days. We waited for two days and after noticing no action on the ground, have blocked the highway indefinitely. Farmers are shocked by the AAP government’s poor response. On the other hand, the BJP-led Union government has been giving stepmotherly treatment to Punjab. We will continue our protest until the paddy is lifted and farmers get their due.”

On October 19, a delegation led by SKM leader Balbir Singh Rajewal announced that they would stop their dharna outside Mann’s residence, which they began a day earlier, after Mann assured them that the lifting of paddy would begin within two days.

Rai also said he was aware of commuters facing problems because of the blockade, but reasoned that the AAP and Modi governments had left farmers with no choice.

“October is coming to an end. By now, paddy should have been lifted in the Doaba and Majha regions of Punjab. The Malwa region is next in line, where the lifting of paddy has just begun. Even as the basmati harvest is set to begin once the paddy is harvested, there is no solution in sight.”

Pandher targets Arvind Kejriwal over silence

Pandher while speaking to The Wire targeted AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal for his silence over Punjab’s paddy crisis. He said that many farmers had always said that Kejriwal was hand in glove with the BJP-led Union government and with the saffron party’s ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

“We stand vindicated now. Kejriwal has proved that he is wearing khaki shorts [a reference to the Sangh’s dress code] and putting Punjab’s farmers in distress. Since Kejriwal is [the AAP leader] and has been running Punjab from Delhi, why is he silent now? He should speak up. In such a fiasco, either Mann should have rushed to Delhi and staged a protest for farmers’ sake, or Kejriwal should have come to Punjab. But both are missing in action,” he said.

Pandher also lashed out at the Modi government, accusing it of indirectly imposing the three repealed farm laws – which were taken back after months of protests in 2020 and 2021 – on farmers.

“We have been warning the Punjab and the Union governments that the root of law and order problems in Punjab has been agrarian crises. All farmer unions are together in this hour of crisis, and we will not let the Union government damage Punjab’s agrarian economy,” Pandher asserted.

BKU Doaba president Rai during the protest on Monday. Photo: Kusum Arora.

AAP MLAs, MPs criticised; farmers say they are suffering losses

Harjinder Singh, a farmer and arhtiya (commission agent) based in Jalandhar’s Phillaur, accused government officials of not lifting a variety of rice that the chief minister himself promoted.

“Punjab government officials told us that they would not lift rice of the PR 126 variety. The paddy procurement season is coming to an end, but only 20% of the crop has been lifted from grain markets. Mann should now tell us why the PR 126 variety, which he aggressively promoted, is not being lifted now,” he said.

Harjinder also said that while arhtiyas and millers rallied for the smooth procurement of paddy two months before harvesting season began, no local AAP MLAs or MPs met them. “The stakeholders could see the imminent crisis, but the AAP government failed to do anything,” he charged.

Navdeep Singh, another farmer, said that farmers were forced to sell their crop at distress prices as it was starting to weigh less from losing its moisture due to having lied in grain markets for many days.

He said farmers were being forced to bear losses worth five to ten kilograms. “Paddy’s MSP has been fixed at Rs 2,320 per quintal, but farmers are facing a loss of around Rs 100 per quintal at the hands of arhtiyas. Who will compensate for our loss?” he asked.

The farmer argued that the main problem was not PR 126 but of hybrid varieties that were sold by private companies at exorbitant prices.

“Was it not the Punjab government’s responsibility to check what kind of seed was being sold in the market? Had the AAP government kept a check over this malpractice, farmers would not have faced such a setback. Leave everything aside – the AAP government did not even inquire about the wellbeing of the farmers,” he said.

Notably, the Punjab Agricultural University-certified paddy seeds are sold at Rs 58 per kilogram, while hybrid seeds were sold at between Rs 300 and Rs 400 per kilogram by private companies.

Arhtiyas support protest

Speaking to The Wire, Arhtiya Association Punjab president Ravinder Singh Cheema said they had given four days to the Punjab government to start lifting paddy in the state but that this time had passed as of Tuesday. Rice millers were scheduled to meet the Union government on Tuesday, he also said.

Cheema said that farmers, arhtiyas and rice millers were holding protests at around 25 or 30 locations in Punjab. “Other than the [blockade] call given by farmers’ unions, it is a purely organic protest. Farmers are joining the protests on their own,” he said.

He said that even though Union minister of state for food processing Ravneet Singh Bittu assured that 212 freight trains would move paddy out of Punjab, there was no action on the ground.

“It is such a mess and none of the local AAP MLAs or ministers have visited grain markets to take stock of the crisis. Even deputy commissioners avoided any direct meeting with the farmers,” he alleged.

“Farmers, arhtiyas and rice shellers all are feeling left out in the cold. It is we, the stakeholders, who are running from pillar to post to ensure the smooth lifting of paddy,” he said.

Mann orders lifting of paddy on war footing

Mann on Monday chaired a meeting to review the procurement of paddy and directed officials to lift paddy on a war footing. Farmers should not be allowed to face any inconvenience at grain markets, he said.

Claiming that the Punjab government was committed to protecting farmers’ interests, the chief minister said that the distress sale of paddy in grain markets would not be allowed and that severe action will be taken against officers found responsible for it.

He also said that 2,651 grain markets had been set up across the state for the smooth procurement of paddy. Cash credit limits to the tune of Rs 41,378 crore for the 2024-25 kharif milling season had already been released by the RBI, and farmers were being issued payments on time, Mann added.

Mann then said that grain markets in the state recorded the arrival of 24.88 lakh metric tonnes of paddy so far, of which 22.22 tonnes had been procured. The food and civil supplies department had cleared Rs 4,027 crores for payments to the farmers, he said.

SKM questions budgetary cuts in food, fertiliser subsidies

Expressing concern over Punjab’s paddy crisis, the SKM alleged that it stemmed from the pro-corporate Union budgets aimed at dismantling the agricultural produce market committee (APMC) system, the public distribution system, MSPs and the FCI in one stroke.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the SKM’s leadership accused both the Mann government and the Union government for derailing paddy procurement in Punjab.

It highlighted that in the actual expenditure in 2022-23, the food subsidy was Rs 2,72,802 crore. In the revised estimates for 2023-24, the expenditure made was only Rs 2,12,332 crore, which was less than the 2022-23 actuals by Rs 60,470 crore.

In the 2024-25 budget, the subsidy is estimated at Rs 2,05,250 crore, which means a further reduction by Rs 7,082 crore.

Similarly, the fertilizer subsidy also has been slashed substantially, the SKM said. In the actual expenditure in 2022-23, the fertiliser subsidy was Rs 2,51,339 crore and in the revised estimates for 2023-24, the expenditure made was only Rs 1 88,894 crore – short by Rs 62,445 crore.

As per the 2024-25 budget estimate, the fertiliser subsidy is Rs 1,64,000 crore, which means a further reduction by Rs 24,894 crore.

On the lack of storage capacity in the FCI, SKM leaders said that the Union government dismantled the Central Warehousing Corporation, resulting in a large-scale reduction in storage facilities in the public sector.

“The FCI has also rented out its storage facilities to the corporate sector and to companies including the Adanis and the Ambanis,” they alleged.

The SKM warned both the Punjab and the Union governments that derailed paddy procurement will create unrest among farmers and frustrate all sections of society that had anything to do with the APMC system of procurement.

“We want to appeal to the farmers and workers across the country to stand in solidarity with the farmers of Punjab and Haryana in the path of struggle and protect the APMC system and the food security of the country,” its statement read.

An Increase in MSP Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Fair Price for Farmers

The increases in MSPs for various crops only cushion the inflationary blow and is far from getting farmers a “fair price”.

While announcing new minimum support prices (MSP) for the farmers, Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan recently said, “Giving fair prices to farmers is the top priority of the government and today new MSP rates have been announced accordingly.”

So, let us examine whether the revised MSP rates actually translate into more money in the farmers’ hands.

But the basics first. The revised MSP for wheat is Rs. 2,425 per quintal compared Rs 2,275 from last year, that translates into a 6.59% increase.

The updated MSP for barley this year is Rs. 1,980, which was Rs 1,850 last year. The MSP for gram is Rs. 5,650, lentil (masur) is Rs. 6,700. Rapeseed and mustard were set at Rs. 5,990, and safflower at Rs. 5,940 Overall the increase range was from 2.41% to 7.03%.

The MSP for Barley saw the maximum increase of around 7.03%.

Increase in MSP doesn’t translate to fair price for farmers

Now lets us look at inflation. India’s consumer price index inflation rose to 5.49 per cent in September 2024. If we analyse the year on year inflation calculated on All India Consumer Food Price Index (CFPI), it falls to 9.24% (Provisional) for September.  Judging by this metric, the rural and urban areas have 9.08% and 9.56% inflation rate in September. In simple terms, inflation is more than the increase in MSP our government has proposed.

The increases only cushions the inflationary blow and is far from getting farmers a “fair price”.

So, has have a policy makers made a mistake? Not quite, as the government’s Commission of Agricultural Costs and Produce (CACP), which recommends MSP to the government, has already done an analysis and recommended to the government for all Rabi crops (which include all the crops mentioned above) a 5.3% increase from 2024-25 to 2023-24 in the composite input price index. This index collates costs from human labour to irrigation incurred in growing the crops.

Even if we look at the issue from Swaminathan formula (C2+50%) the prices of wheat should be Rs. 2,580, Barley Rs. 2,606.50, gram Rs. 6,993, masur. Rs 7,591.50 and mustard Rs. 6,441. As per its promise, if the government did implement the Swaminathan Committee report, wheat farmers would get an additional Rs. 155, barley farmers Rs. 625.50, gram farmers Rs. 1,343, masur farmers Rs. 1,166.50 and mustard farmers Rs. 791 per quintal.

As demonstrated, if we evaluate the revised MSPs with respect to general inflation trends, input cost price index and through the eyes of the Swaminathan formula its fails on the promise of the “fair price”.

At the best, the government is only trying to keep up with inflation trends, and encouraging the farmers for higher production especially in wheat and oilseeds. If we cancel out the inflation, the increase is barely 1.1% – 1.6% for two crops – wheat – 6.6% and barley – 7%, whereas for all the other four crops, the increase in MSP is much lesser than the increase in inflation.

Procurement is less than previous years

From the technical perspective, lets move to implementation. One must ask the question how many farmers get the MSP and for which all crops? During the current Rabi (2024-25) season, the government procured 26.6 million tonnes of wheat, benefiting 2.2 million farmers. This marks a decline in wheat procurement compared to the peak of 43.34 million tonnes in Rabi Marketing Season (RMS) 2021-22.

Further, as per the report by the Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP), 2.2 million wheat farmers, 1,13,000 lentil farmers, 5,00,000 mustard farmers, and 15,409 gram farmers have benefited from the MSP in the ongoing RMS 2024-25.

In RMS 2022-23 and RMS 2023-24, 1.168 million and 1.029 million gram farmers benefited from the MSP, respectively. Currently in the 2024-25 RMS 28,28,409 farmers have benefited from the program. And even if we look at the previous rates, what percentage of  our farming population actually gets the Rabi MSP?

While official statistics give contradictory answers, we must rely on the last Agriculture Census for 2015-16, that placed the total “operational holdings” in India at 146.45 million. Given ten years have passed and the COVID lockdown has pushed people back into farming, this number could be much higher. So it would be fair to say that “fair price”  never reaches the majority of Indian farmers.

Corruption, commission are major challenges

Till now, we have only analysed facts presented to us by the government. Taking a closer look on the on ground procurement, it becomes clear that corruption eats heavily into procurement process too.  The government procurement ( via FCI, co-operative societies, etc) is marred by commissions and corruption allegations.

Even states like Haryana, Telanagana, Karnataka, etc have reported procurement scams and corruption. As a result, the procurement system is not tight enough and leakage or manipulation directly change the money reaching the farmers’ pocket.

Farmers often report of backlogs at the centres or the fact that a hefty commission needs to be paid to just walk in the door of the godown. The majority of farmers who on paper receive the full MSP, are actually only getting it after paying commissions or undergoing “ extra some expenses”.

It is clear that despite proposed increases in the MSP each year, the full amount never reaches the farmers. For crops which are not procured by the government, the situation is more dire because the MSP price recommendation  is overpowered by market trends. The only way out for the government to ensure “fair price” reaches its farmers is to clean up the procurement systems and also having a larger procurement program covering more crops including fodder crops using a non-recursive loan to procurement agencies like FCI, NAFED, state bodies, etc.

This way the expense to the treasury would also be nil and the probability of fair price reaching farmers would be much higher.

Indra Shekhar Singh is an independent agri-policy analyst and writer. He was the former director for policy and outreach at NSAI. He also hosts The Wire’s agriculture talk show, Krishi ki Baat/Farm Talks. He posts on X @indrassingh.

As Paddy Glut Pushes Punjab Towards Major Agrarian Crisis, Questions Over Mann and Modi Govts’ Delayed Response

Farmers, commission agents, millers and labourers have accused the Modi government of pushing its pro-corporate model in agriculture and destroying the robust APMC system.

Jalandhar: A major agrarian crisis following a paddy glut and poor lifting of the crop has left farmers, commission agents, rice millers and labourers frustrated with the Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab and the Union government under Narendra Modi.

A paddy glut is when excess paddy is produced.

The lifting of paddy began on October 1, but even after a fortnight, only 3.73 lakh metric tonnes of paddy have been procured by state agencies of a total of 4.57 lakh metric tonnes that reached mandis, as per records of the Punjab Mandi Board. Mandis are grain markets where paddy is procured. Out of the 3.73 lakh metric tonnes too, so far, only 20,000 tonnes of paddy have been lifted from the mandis.

Punjab is expecting a total of about 185 lakh metric tonnes of paddy this season. After this paddy is processed in the mills, it is expected to come to 125 lakh metric tonnes. However, a major chunk of last year’s roughly 130 lakh metric tonnes of paddy is yet to be lifted from warehouses and rice mills in Punjab. 

On October 14, Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann met Union Minister for Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distribution Pralhad Joshi. Assurances of paddy procurement in this year’s kharif marketing season followed. However, farmers, arhtiyas (middlemen) and millers have gone on strike over the tardy lifting of paddy. Grain markets have been closed.

However, arhtiyas (middlemen) and millers have ceased work, and many grain markets have been closed.

Farmers have alleged that this was another attempt by the Modi government to push its pro-corporate model in agriculture, and to destroy the bond between farmers, arhtiyas and labourers as well as the robust Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) system in Punjab. All villages in Punjab are connected with APMC mandis.

The Mann government – itself facing farmers’ blame – has in turn blamed the Modi government too.

The opposition Congress and Shiromani Akali Dal parties have accused the AAP and the BJP for deliberately targeting Punjab as its farmers were at the forefront of the 2020-2021 farmers’ protest. Nearly all stakeholders are of the view that behind this crisis lies the pro-corporate policies of the BJP government, which they have been pushing in Punjab’s agrarian economy for the last four years.

Paddy lying in the open at a grain market on Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur road. Tractors loaded with paddy are also lined up at the grain markets across Punjab due to poor lifting of the crop. Photo: Kusum Arora.

Millers in a fix

The foremost issue is the lack of storage space in Food Corporation of India (FCI) godowns, where rice is kept after it is processed by Punjab’s rice millers. Every year, the Punjab government stocks paddy at rice mills following procurement. There it is milled and later, picked up by the FCI.

Rice millers in Punjab are already facing losses as last year’s milled rice is still in their godowns. Around 5,500 rice millers in Punjab are unwilling to take on more paddy for milling as a result.

Tarsem Lal Saini, president of the Punjab Rice Millers Association and of the All India Rice Millers Association, shared how godowns were choked with last year’s paddy that is yet to be procured by FCI.

“Had the AAP government taken up the matter of a paddy glut with the Union government on time, the situation would not have gone out of hand,” he said.

Saini also said that the Union government is yet to release around Rs 7,000 crore as part of the Rural Development Fund (RDF), which is generated from the state government charging a 3% cess on the procurement of food grains for the central pool.

“The entire system has been left to crumble. The RDF is used for the development of rural infrastructure like roads, buildings and the maintenance of grain markets. Both the Punjab and the Union governments are to be blamed for this crisis,” he added.

Around 36,000 kilometres of roads in Punjab’s villages lay broken, the Mann government has claimed in its petition to the Supreme Court in 2023 over the Union government’s release of RDF.

‘Farmers biggest losers’

Farmers said that the issue of lifting last year’s paddy crop should have been resolved by March 31 – or at the latest by May 31 – this year. 

“Farmers are the biggest losers in this case. This is the first time in our lives that we are witnessing such poor lifting of our yield. The AAP government is squarely responsible for this mess. We have harvested around 70% of our paddy, but no procurement is taking place. Our trolleys are lying parked at our homes. We do not know when procurement will begin and when we will get paid,” said Jalandhar-based progressive farmer Jaskaran Johal.

The Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), which led the 2020-2021 farmers’ protest at the Haryana-Delhi border, is supporting the current agitation and has held meetings with various stakeholders. SKM leader and Kirti Kisan Union press secretary Raminder Singh Patiala termed this crisis as a corporate attack on the farming sector.

“The agriculture sector is constantly under attack from pro-corporate policies. The corporate sector has been keeping an eye on the grain trade and farmers’ land. Therefore, the current structure of APMC and the agricultural industry associated with this structure is their target,” he alleged.

As part of the protests, the SKM, along with farmers, arhtiyas, rice millers and labourers also held a chakka jam (roadblock) and a rail roko (a stopping of trains) on October 13, from 12 to 3 pm, across Punjab.

Farmers during chakka jam against poor lifting of paddy on October 13, 2024 at Lehragagga in Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann’s home turf Sangrur district, Punjab. Photo: By arrangement.

Protesters have announced a gherao of Mann’s and AAP MLAs’ residences on October 18 if their demands are not met.

Among their demands are the early lifting of paddy, 2.5% of MSP as commission for arhtiyas per quintal of paddy, increase in the payment to grain market labourers for lifting sacks of paddy from Rs 1.80 per quintal to Rs. 3.03, and compensation for the loss of Rs 300 per quintal for a particular variety of rice.

A commission, a small hike

In addition to their commission demand, arhtiyas are also against the FCI for not handing them their outstanding dues in the labourers’ Employees Provident Fund.

Speaking to The Wire, Ravinder Singh Cheema, president of the Arhtiya Association Punjab, called the current crisis an ‘undeclared strike’ in grain markets.

“We fear that the paddy glut will escalate in the coming days. Arhtiyas are suffering because of the Union government’s decision to provide a fixed price of Rs 46 per quintal in commission, as compared to the previous policy of offering a 2.5% per quintal commission under the APMC Act. With a 2.5% commission, we used to get a commission of around Rs 55 per quintal,” Cheema said.

“If the Union government does not accede to our demands, we will completely boycott the procurement process,” he threatened, adding to allege that the Union government has a different yardstick for Punjab.

On the other hand, the labourers employed at grain markets are also demanding a hike in their daily wage of Rs 1.80 per quintal for loading paddy onto trucks. They pointed out that the daily wage for this work has been Rs 3.03 in Haryana for many years and demanded that their daily wage be increased by Rs 2 per quintal.

Tractors loaded with paddy are either lying parked in the grain markets or in the houses of farmers due to poor lifting of the crop. Photo: Kusum Arora.

Mann says all is well

Mann has repeatedly come under attack from the farming community and the opposition for allegedly failing to act on time in handling this crisis.

However, after meeting Union minister Joshi, Mann claimed that the latter agreed to arrange for 120 lakh metric tonnes of paddy to be lifted and taken outside the state by March 2025. Mann also urged Joshi to ensure the procurement of at least 20 lakh metric tonnes of foodgrains per month from the state till March 31, 2025.

In a statement, Mann highlighted the problems faced by millers and farmers. He also noted that the commission being paid to arhtiyas had not been increased in the last five years.

He said that while the MSP of crops is increased every year, arhtiyas are being paid between Rs 45.38 and 46 per quintal in commission since 2019-20, even though the APMC Act provides for a commission of 2.5% on MSP per quintal, which means a benefit of Rs 58 per quintal.

On the demand of commission for arhtiyas, Joshi told Mann that the Union government would consider this issue in its next meeting.

“Mann was just given 15 minutes to raise our issues with the Union minister. This shows the lack of seriousness of the Union government in addressing our woes,” said Cheema.

A combine machine during paddy harvesting at Salempur Masandan village in Jalandhar. Photo: Kusum Arora

Bajwa slams Mann’s policies

Leader of opposition in Punjab, Partap Singh Bajwa, addressed a press conference in Delhi and lashed out at Mann for allegedly pushing the state’s farming and economy into a mess.

Bajwa pointed out that while paddy procurement began on October 1, Mann went to Delhi to raise the paddy glut issue with Joshi only on October 14.

“Last year too, Punjab had faced this problem,” he said.

The senior Congress leader said that since all godowns were full to the brim, Mann should have met Modi and Joshi to sort out the matter at least six months ago. “Had the Punjab chief minister ensured the movement of at least 10-15 lakh metric tonnes of paddy per month, the problem of paddy glut would not have arisen,” he added.

Further pointing out that the stock of paddy will increase in grain markets in the coming days, Bajwa said this would pose further problems. “Rice needs to be stored in godowns because it gets discoloured, broken and loses moisture leading to losses. But the paddy yield was lying in the grain markets,” he said.

Farmers at a toll plaza on Jalandhar-Amritsar national highway during a chakka jam on October 13, 2024. Photo: By arrangement.

A controversial rice variety

Bajwa also targeted Mann for aggressively promoting the ‘PR 126’ variety of rice as it grows faster and would save water and electricity.

“Earlier, farmers used to sow other hybrid varieties, which used to grow in 110 to 120 days. Mann ensured that farmers sow PR 126, saying that it grows in 92 to 95 days, saving one month’s water and electricity. But when no scientific study was done, how could he claim this?” he asked.

On the issue of rice millers facing losses, Bajwa said that earlier, they used to get 67 kg of milled rice from one quintal of paddy, but that they now got only 60 to 62 kg of rice per quintal of PR 126 rice.

“The rice shellers are facing a loss of around five kg of rice per quintal, which means a loss of Rs 300 per quintal and a total loss of Rs 6,000 crore. Who will compensate for the loss of rice millers – Mann or the Modi government?” he asked.

Bajwa also lashed out at Mann for his statement that Joshi assured full procurement of rice by March 31, 2025. He said, “Even if the entire Indian railways and its carriages are pressed into service, milled rice cannot be picked by this date. It is simply impossible.”

Of arhtiyas’ protests demanding 2.5% commission per quintal, Bajwa said: “This seems to be a conspiracy of the Modi government to derail Punjab’s economy. The BJP has a huge grudge against Punjab’s farmers for their role in farmers’ protest. Their agenda is to ultimately sell paddy at depressed rates to private players like Adani, who already has three silos at Moga, Kathunangal in Amritsar and Raikot in Ludhiana,” he said.

How Much More Are Indians Going to Pay for Tomatoes This Diwali?

Each year, Indian markets have been trained to cushion inflationary shocks, but market volatility during the past couple of years has broken through the market resilience. 

As the festival season approaches, Indians are headed towards a food inflation hurricane. As per the all India Consumer Price Index (CPI), annual retail inflation increased to 5.49% in September, much higher than the August figure of 3.65%. This is the highest retail inflation rate since December 2023, when it was 5.69%. Fuelling this rise is the unchecked problem of food inflation.

Food inflation rose 9.24% annually compared to a 5.66% rise in August. But these are the September figures. With the pending kharif harvests and rabi vegetables sowing in North India, tomato prices have started to rise exponentially again. In Delhi-NCR, tomato prices are now touching Rs 80-Rs 100 a kilo Whereas online retailers Country Delight are selling 900 grams of tomatoes for Rs 110 on a marked discount. The original listed price was Rs 220/900 grams.

Taking a look at the wholesale price, the Gurgaon agricultural produce market committee (APMC) saw tomatoes reach Rs 6,655/ quintal, whereas further north in Narwal, J&K tomatoes reached Rs 6,800 quintal. At Odisha’s Gunnupur APMC, tomatoes touched Rs 6,500 on October 14. Overall, tomato prices are seeing an upward trend through the country.

In Allahabad, the retail prices of the vegetable – a staple of Indian cooking – was around Rs 100/kg. Even the rural Allahabad trans-Yamuna region saw tomatoes reach Rs 80.

When we look at other staples in the Allahabad region, potato prices reached Rs 40 compared to an average of 20-25/kg while onions are selling at Rs 60 compared to an average of Rs 25-30/kg.

Going westwards, the Jaipur and Muhana APMC traded onions for a maximum price of Rs 4500/quintal, while the Gurgaon APMC had them at Rs 4,522 and Odisha’s Rahama saw prices reach Rs 4,000/quintal.

This supply lull is also part of the seasonal pattern, but nevertheless the spike is sharp and quite unusual. Each year, Indian markets have been trained to cushion inflationary shocks, but market volatility during the past couple of years has broken through the market resilience.

Why is this so? Hasn’t the government been watching the inflationary spikes? The answer is yes. But unfortunately the government has been ineffective in curbing food inflation. Reportedly, between June 2020 to June 2024, RBI figures indicate food inflation stood at an average of 6.3%.

Everyday food items like vegetables experienced about 10% inflation for over 22 months, pulses for 24 months, eggs for 15 months and meat and fish for 10 months. Even in Modi’s first term in 2015, dal prices touched Rs 200, yet the Modi government remained silent and let the country take the inflationary blow. Further, it moved to dismantle the laws that protected citizens against hoarding and market manipulation.

When we speak of staples like cereals, in the period between June 2020 to June 2024, cereals on an average experienced a near 10% inflation for nearly 15 months. Wheat prices until early this year were also very high. Consumers were paying up to 25% more for their roti. Of course, wheat prices were first rocked by the Ukraine-Russia conflict and then a series of bad harvests in the wheat belts. Complimenting our disaster tray was government mismanagement of food grain reserves and random export-import bans. All these factors led to wheat price volatility.

Also read: What Make in India Has Brought to India

The other major cereal, rice, had a similar story, with bad harvests in kharif due to adverse weather events and drought like conditions in August and October last year, adding up with flip-flop on rice export policies. These export bans caused a global shortage, harming medium traders and exporters throughout the country. Meanwhile consumers had to pay more for every morsel of rice.

Are farmers reaping the benefits of this prices rise and inflation? The straight answer is no. Let us take the case of tomatoes again. Farmers were getting as low a prise as Rs 3-5/kg for their tomatoes. Meanwhile tomato prices had touched Rs 200 in 2023. Other tomato growing belts experienced similar distress. One tomato farmer in Karnataka reportedly committed suicide due to low rates for tomatoes in 2023.

Meanwhile a paper by the RBI points to the great disparity in agriculture, where vegetable and fruit farmers get only 1/3 of the retail price, while dairy farmers get about 70% and meat and poultry farmers get 56% of retail prices. It was also said that tomato farmers get about 33%, potatoes farmers get 37%, whereas onion farmers get 33.5%. But this paper has been criticised for not being reflective of the true plight of the farmers. Questions have also been raised about the samples used to make the conclusions. Indeed, when we cross reference this data with rural consumption and farm incomes even in the potato, onion and tomato belts, we find an inconsistency. If this paper was 100% accurate, we would observably see better economic conditions, more rural consumption and higher mean farm incomes in these regions.

To conclude, flagship programmes to curb TOPs (Tomato, Onion, Potato etc) inflation, along with other agrarian and food policy have again been tested to reduce inflation, and perhaps failed. The direct impact of failed policies and food inflation is suffered most by the underprivileged. Malnutrition is rising each year, and its not only the Hunger Index that tells this tale. Urban and rural malnutrition has increased in the past four years, and the signs are clear on the faces of malnourished children. One only has to look beyond the veneer to see them.

Indra Shekhar Singh is an independent agri-policy analyst and writer. He was the former director for policy and outreach at NSAI. He also hosts The Wire’s agriculture talk show, Krishi ki Baat/Farm Talks. He posts on X @indrassingh.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

How a US-Based PR Firm Is Profiling Activists, Scientists Opposing Pesticides and GMO

A private social network created by the firm hosts personal details of over 500 individuals globally, including activists Vandana Shiva and ecologist Debal Deb.

Mumbai/ London/Athens: A US-based reputation management firm, which received funding from the United States government, is working to combat opposition to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops by secretly profiling critics, both across the world and in India. This is revealed in documents obtained by the investigative newsroom Lighthouse Reports and shared with The Wire and other international media partners.

The firm spearheading this work is Missouri-based v-Fluence Interactive, founded and run by a former Monsanto executive, Jay Byrne, who previously worked as a communications executive at the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Since its creation in 2001, v-Fluence has provided a range of services including “in depth research, ongoing intelligence gathering, proprietary data-mining and analytics” to the global agrochemical and biotechnology industry.

The current investigation by Lighthouse Reports, in partnership with The Wire, uncovered that v-Fluence created a private social network that hosts profiles of over 500 individuals globally, including prominent Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, ecologist Debal Deb and other individuals including scientists and academics. 

Access to the network is invite-only. Its members include agrochemical and biotechnology industry employees and allies from around the world, including India. This has raised concerns among some Indians profiled by v-Fluence about how their data might be used, highlighting potential risks to privacy. 

Scientists also remarked how “critically profiling” activists and scientists is detrimental to scientific temper in a democracy like India, especially at a time when there is ‘general hostility’ towards civil service organisations. 

In an email statement to Lighthouse Reports, v-Fluence founder Byrne said that the allegations of his network secretly profiling individuals who have spoken out against pesticides and their unregulated use are “grossly misleading representations” and “manufactured falsehoods”. v-Fluence also denied having held government contracts now or in the past, but said that the US government was a “funder of other organisations with whom we work.” 

Corporate links

Documents obtained during this investigation reveal that the Missouri firm is profiling activists and scientists who have been vocal against pesticides and their unregulated use. Termed “Bonus Eventus”, the private, invite-only social network has a “wiki” with profiles of “stakeholders” that contains information of over 3,000 organisations and individuals including environmental advocates, scientists, politicians, civil servants, UN human rights experts and others who have criticised or opposed pesticides and/or GM crops. 

The profiles even contain details of peoples’ private lives which are extraneous to their work, such as their home addresses and the value of their home. Many of the profiles also contain a “criticisms” section and are often derogatory in nature, citing articles often authored by people connected to the chemical industry. 

v-Fluence also has links to corporate pesticide giants such as Syngenta which is currently facing a lawsuit in the US, with Byrne and v-Fluence as co-defendants. The lawsuit was filed by farmers with Parkinson’s disease who have alleged that their illness was caused by the company’s paraquat herbicide. They accuse Syngenta and v-Fluence of suppressing negative information on the dangers of paraquat, working to “neutralise” those who criticise it, and investigating the social media pages of people who reported injuries to Syngenta’s crisis hotline. 

Also read: Of Magic Beans and Modified Mustard: How GMOs Will Destroy Indian Agriculture and Impact Health

Syngenta has denied the allegations. Syngenta said that they “do not support the claim of a causal link between exposure to paraquat and the development of Parkinson’s disease” when the authors approached it about the issue as part of the current investigation. The company declined to answer further questions as the issue is still under “active litigation”. 

In a written statement to Lighthouse Reports and its partners, Byrne denied the allegations of the lawsuit, saying they were based on claims which were “manufactured and false”. 

Paraquat, which is cheap and widely available, remains legal in India despite demands from campaigners and doctors to ban it because of its impacts on human health. In fact, a 2017 study from South India even recommended that the availability of this “highly toxic substance [paraquat] be restricted so as to prevent its misuse as a method of suicide”. 

Every year pesticides kill thousands in India. In 2022 alone, the country reported 7,410 accidental deaths by pesticide poisoning according to the National Crime Records Bureau. 

Syngenta came under fire after the Yavatmal pesticide poisonings in Maharashtra in 2017. More than 20 farmers lost their lives after being exposed to pesticide poisoning. Farmers alleged that Syngenta had failed to provide sufficient information regarding the risks of its pesticide ‘Polo’. Syngenta, however, has maintained that there’s no evidence that its products caused this tragedy. 

Privacy rights at risk

Shiva, who visited Yavatmal after the deaths in 2017, blamed the GM-crop Bt Cotton for the deaths. She said that the use of Bt Cotton led to more pesticides being sprayed on the crops. Shiva is one of the seven Indians profiled by v-Fluence. 

The over 8000-word profile on Shiva, who actively advocates for seed sovereignty, describes her as an “ardent opponent of plant biotechnology”. It adds that Shiva opposes “even research field trials and supporting act of economic sabotage to destroy GMOs in the laboratories or in the fields”. 

When informed about this, she wrote that she wasn’t surprised, adding that she has been challenging the “Poison Cartel’s war” for four decades.

Shiva’s profile lays out her biographical details, as well as personal information such as her email address, family members, registration details of her personal website, funders, speculative content about her sources of income and an extensive criticisms section including critiques by proponents of GM crops and biotechnology.

The profile claims that Shiva “reportedly commands high fees for her numerous annual speaking engagements” and that her “resources are likely significantly higher given reported activities (travel, sponsorships of major protests, running the Navdanya organic farm and education centre, etc.)”. It adds that such financial support “likely comes from a variety of sources that go to her various ‘non-profits’ or as direct payments to Shiva”.

Although the profiles include citations for most excerpts, indicating that the information is publicly available online, there are concerns about potential infringement of the individuals’ data protection rights under India’s yet to be implemented privacy law.

Also read: It’s Not Just Food Price, India Is Facing a Food Security Challenge

Technology lawyer and policy adviser Pranesh Prakash told us that India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (DPDPA) does not apply to personal data that is “made or caused to be made” publicly available by the individuals whose data is processed.

On reviewing excerpts from a couple of profiles, he found that personal data was indeed being processed, as data collection itself qualifies as processing, and that much of the collected personal data was not made available by the person who was profiled, and thus the DPDPA applied to it. 

He added that there was a “research purposes” exception, but that it does not apply if the data is being used to make any decision specific to any of the activists whose personal data has been collected.

“If the ‘research’ exception does not apply, then the processing of such personal data would not be lawful,” Prakash explains, except if “the personal data is processed with her consent.” 

Another profile, of ecologist and seed conservator Debal Deb, states that he “has never worked for a corporate or at a ‘steady’ job”. It mentions that Deb is an “advocacy colleague” of Shiva. It also includes his residential address, personal email address, phone number and details of association with farming organisations in India.

“I don’t know what is up their sleeves,” says Deb, who also was not surprised. He said he has faced much more frightening actions against his work that threatened the safety of his mother and colleagues.

In a written statement, Byrne wrote that the private, community-edited wiki platform that provides information on topics and stakeholders referenced in our monitoring reports includes only “publicly available and referenced information”, asserting that, “Any contact or other information which may appear on the wiki is from public records and is used publicly by the source as part of their business or advocacy.” 

‘Unacceptable and shocking’

While Shiva and Deb are accustomed this kind of pressure by opposition actors, there are other scientists who appear on v-Fluence’s repository, apparently solely because they signed a letter in 2013, to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, highlighting risks of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on food and farming systems in India. 

A profile of Aninhalli Vasavi, a social anthropologist and independent researcher, briefly mentions her areas of advocacy and highlights that she was one of the 251 scientists who signed the 2013 letter. Following the recommendations of a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee, the signatories urged the government to halt GMO trials until regulatory gaps are addressed. 

“That there is an organisational effort, to challenge criticisms against the pesticide industry, or the promotion of GMOs is both unacceptable and shocking,” says Vasavi.

Vasavi isn’t intimidated by it, but she finds the sharing of such information between companies to be concerning. She believes it could pose a threat to the participation of researchers like her in public discourse and raised apprehensions about how her personal data could be used.

Ecologist Sultan Ahmed Ismail is another scientist who signed the 2013 letter and is on the list of the Indians profiled by the firm. Ismail, who has worked with the Union government’s Department of Science and Technology, believes that while the company is entitled to its views, “critically profiling” scientists is wrong and “not a healthy trend”, and is detrimental to the development of scientific temper in a democracy.

“It’s business. So, they would try to silence people who are not in favour of them by causing a lot of disturbances, and creating problems for their work,” he adds.

The website also shows profiles of two Indian environmental organisations – PAN India, and Thanal, a Kerala-based non-profit association that promotes organic farming and biodiversity conservation.

Notably, PAN India – along with an association of Yavatmal victims, and other organisations – filed a complaint with the OECD against Syngenta in 2017, seeking compensation for affected farmers.

For Narasimha Reddy Donthi, an independent policy analyst and consultant with PAN India, monitoring of this kind by pesticide companies is not surprising. However, amidst a scarcity of funds and the general hostility towards civil society organisations in India, he notes that profiling can further restrict the scope of their work. 

“We try to be more careful and not allow any room where they can use the long arm of the government to suppress our work or their voices. Even if they are profiling, it can be threatening. We try to be more objective, within the ethical and legal framework, so that our strength is not eroded by this profiling,” Donthi adds. 

These concerns are not unfounded given that these profiles are made accessible to individuals who influence policy making and have access to public representatives in India. 

Indian connections to v-Fluence and Byrne

v-Fluence’s private social network Bonus Eventus is accessible to over 1,000 members, based on invite, and includes executives associated with global agrochemical companies, lobbyists and government members. v-Fluence received funding support from the USAID for Bonus Eventus via the International Food Policy Research Institute. The sub-contracts are aimed at countering criticism of “modern agriculture approaches” in Asia and Africa, according to public records obtained by Lighthouse Reports.

In 2019, v-Fluence also arranged a stakeholder engagement training programme for members of CropLife India, an international association of agrochemical companies including Bayer and Syngenta among others. In the same year, CropLife India organised multiple events that were attended by several government officials and industry stakeholders.

Three years later, at the ‘India Chem 2021’ event, organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in partnership with two government ministries, Byrne spoke as the President of v-Fluence, calling for “science-based regulatory policies” to tackle “spread of misinformation about banning a category of agrochemicals”. Byrne’s presentation highlighted how organisations like European Green Advocacy, Greenpeace and Pesticide Action Network posed challenges for India’s agrochemical industry, calling stakeholders to access “intelligence, stakeholder research”, and other resources on its Bonus Eventus network.

Among the eight Indians who have access to the Bonus Eventus portal is Raghavan Sampathkumar, the Executive Director of the Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII). Sampathkumar, an agribusiness professional, has been working in the fields of GM crops, animal protein and agricultural trade while also engaging in policy advocacy and public relations outreach for agriculture enterprises. The FSII has ties to agro-industry companies and is involved in a project with the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare for deploying technologies to agro-ecological zones allotted for cotton production. We have reached out to Sampathkumar for his comments and will update the story as soon as we receive a response.

Another member is Anand Ranganathan, the consulting editor of the Indian right-wing magazine Swarajya. Ranganathan, who is a regular political commentator, has also worked with the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) as staff research scientist. The ICGEB partners with the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science and Technology, under the Union Ministry of Science and Technology, for supporting biotech research and development.

Ranganathan told Lighthouse Reports and The Wire that this was the first he was hearing of this network and that he has never been associated with it, or Byrne, who runs the network.

“Nor have I ever used their services, whatever they may be,” Ranganathan said in an email statement. He said that his name may have been included in the network without his “consent or knowledge” when he worked at the ICGEB 10 years ago. He also added that he had never knowingly received or opened any newsletters or emails from Bonus Eventus or v-Fluence.

“A pro-GMO PR firm tracked my pro-GMO views through my articles that I had written 10 years ago and included me in their network. I have never knowingly been part of any such organisation or effort, coordinated or otherwise. As someone who has always taken a firm stand against pesticide overuse and poisoning in Punjab that has led to plying of cancer trains, or against Union Carbide on the Bhopal genocide, I can never be part of unethical practices to undermine efforts, by activists or scientists or organisations that work towards human betterment and public good,” he added.

Ranganathan says that although he is pro-GMO, along with 107 Nobel laureates who are also pro-GMO, it doesn’t mean that he supports or endorses “any unethical and malicious practices or espionage against those who are anti-GMO”, he wrote.

“…absolutely not and quite the opposite. I wholeheartedly condemn any such malpractice. I have always wished for a healthy debate on GMO,” he wrote.

Other members include researchers and policy advisors from research institutes in India and agrochemical companies.

‘No liability’

The Yavatmal tragedy reignited conversation around regulating the sale of pesticides. The Maharashtra government constituted a special investigative team (SIT) to look into the case. They recommended immediate prohibition on the use of “highly hazardous” Monocrotophos, which was available at a cheap price and frequently sold to the affected farmers. 

The state government then temporarily prohibited the sale, distribution or use of insecticides using formulations including Monocrotophos, and Diafenthiuron, a key ingredient in Syngenta’s ‘Polo’, alleged to have caused poisonings in several cases.

An examination of official police records by PAN India and others who filed the Swiss OECD complaint noted that at least 51 agricultural workers who used Polo, experienced adverse health impacts exhibiting breathing issues, gastrointestinal effects, blurred vision, temporary loss or reduction of eyesight and neurological symptoms among several other problems. However, the SIT report only mentions Monocrotophos and not Polo.

“We want to fix liability for pesticide poisoning on the company. In India, we don’t have a liability principle in-built into our pesticide regulation,” says Donthi of the Pesticide Action Network. He calls for periodic biosafety reviews – assessing the safe use of crop protection chemicals even after their registration.

Meanwhile, Syngenta Group CEO Jeff Rowe has called for faster regulatory approvals in India and plans to deploy 40 new crop protection products in the next two or three years. The group is also partnering with various government departments in several ways.

For instance, both Syngenta Foundation India and Syngenta India Pvt Ltd signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India’s top scientific organisation for agricultural research, in July this year, to promote climate-resilient agriculture and training programmes. The move, along with ICAR’s MoUs with other corporates including Bayer, has resulted in experts raising concerns regarding the privatisation of Indian agriculture given the obvious conflicts of interest at work. 

On September 2, visiting India for the first time, Rowe launched a new CSR initiative “I RISE” (Inculcating Rural India Skill Enhancement), that aims to train one lakh youth in rural India for jobs in agriculture. According to a media company that covers news pertaining to chemicals and petrochemicals, Rowe also “thanked” Syngenta’s “partners”, including state agricultural universities and Krishi Vigyan Kendras – which are local agricultural science centres – for their “invaluable support”.

‘Misleading and manufactured falsehoods’: v-Fluence

In response to questions from Lighthouse Reports regarding the profiling of scientists and activists, v-Fluence founder Byrne said that the “claims and questions you have posed are based on grossly misleading representations, factual errors regarding our work and clients, and manufactured falsehoods”. In an emailed statement, Byrne also denied the allegations in the lawsuit, which he referred to as “manufactured and false”. 

“Our scope of work that you are questioning is limited to monitoring, research, and trends reporting on global activities and trends for plant breeding and crop protection issues,” he wrote. 

Public contracting documents obtained by Lighthouse Reports and shared with The Wire, show that v-Fluence received just over $400,000 as part of a contract with agricultural research organisation IFPRI, which manages USAID’s program to introduce GM crops in some African and Asian countries. The contracts, which operated between 2013 and 2019, were funded by USAID and included “enhanced monitoring” of  stakeholders who were critical of “modern agriculture approaches”. Byrne denies having held government contracts now or in the past, but said that the US government was a “funder of other organisations with whom we work”.

Donthi characterised the USAID-backed efforts of a private firm like v-Fluence to profile individuals from a foreign country as an “overreach”. Vasavi said, “It’s troubling to see that companies would go to this extent to deflect and to avoid criticisms”.

She added, “I think it is here that the state needs to play a role to protect people like us. And if the state does not protect us, then it’s all the more alarming for us.”

Sarasvati Thuppadolla is a Reporting Fellow at Lighthouse Reports.

Margot Gibbs and Elena DeBre are investigative reporters at Lighthouse Reports.

This story, published by The Wire, is an investigation led by and in partnership with investigative newsroom Lighthouse Reports, and other international partners: The Guardian, Le Monde, The New Lede, Africa Uncensored, The New Humanitarian, ABC News.

At Haryana Kisan Mahapanchayat, Farmer Outfits Urge Public to Not Vote for BJP in Assembly Elections

The Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) announced a nationwide rail roko protest on October 3 and urged voters not to vote for the BJP in the Haryana Assembly Elections.

Jalandhar: Raising the pitch for a minimum support price (MSP) law and justice for farmers, the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM) and Samyukt Kisan Morcha (non-political) on Sunday (September 22, 2024) announced a nationwide rail roko protest on October 3 and urged voters not to vote for the BJP in the Haryana Assembly Elections.

The announcement was made at a kisan mahapanchayat in the grain market in Haryana’s Pipli, part of the Kurukshetra district. The mahapanchayat saw participation of thousands of farmers from Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh and was held at a time when the Haryana assembly election is just two weeks away.

Haryana goes to polls on October 5 while the counting of votes will be done on October 8.

This is the second kisan mahapanchayat organised by KMM in poll-bound Haryana. Earlier, a similar mahapanchayat was held at Uchana Kalan town of Jind district on September 15, 2024. However, apart from farmers’ demands, the kisan mahapanchayat at Jind remained in news for the alleged high handedness of the Haryana police.

Reports of the Haryana police blocking the highways leading to Uchana Kalan town, stopping the local gurdwaras from providing langar and drinking water facility for the farmers went viral on social media.

“The Haryana Police even threatened the local tent and sound system providers from giving the equipment to farmers and snapped power supply too to stop the mahapanchayat but we still reached there. We had a tough time reaching the venue in the humid weather”, recalled a group of farmers from Ambala district who were heading for Pipli mahapanchayat.

Sitting on protest at Punjab-Haryana’s Shambu, Khanauri borders and Rajasthan’s Rattanpura border since February 13, 2024, the KMM’s ‘Delhi Chalo’ morcha marked day number 223 of the protest on Sunday.

Notably, the farmers’ protest hit the national headlines when Haryana police blocked the Shambhu border with barricades, boulders and dug up spikes to stop farmers from entering national capital Delhi.

Later, the Haryana police resorted to the use of tear gas shells, pellet guns and drones against protesting farmers, which led to the death of a young Shubhkaran Singh and injured dozen others.

Till date, 33 farmers have lost their lives in the ongoing farmers protest while over 700 farmers had died during the previous farmers’ protest against the farm laws.

In the history of farmers’ protest, Pipli holds great significance, as it was here that the first kisan mahapanchayat was held on September 10th, 2020 before farmers marched towards Delhi to protest against the three farm laws.

Farmers at the Kisan Mahapanchayat at Pipli, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The mahapanchayat was planned two weeks before the Haryana Assembly polls. Photo: By special arrangement.

Notably, during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, both BJP and Congress had won five seats each out of total the 10 parliamentary constituencies in Haryana. Terming it to be a tough battle for the BJP this time, the farmers said that the kisan mahapanchayat would affect the poll outcome in Kurukshetra, Ambala, Panchkula, Kaithal, Yamunanagar and the entire Grand Trunk (GT) Road belt starting from Chandigarh to Sonipat.

KKM leaders seek justice, urge people to oust BJP:

The KMM leaders termed the BJP’s policies as anti-farmer and pro-corporate and urged the voters in Haryana to think about what the BJP government did with the farmers in the past 10 years.

“For us, a real tribute to martyr Shubhkaran Singh would be if the BJP loses the Haryana assembly elections with a big difference”, said the KMM.

On the line of Lok Sabha polls, the KMM leaders also asked farmers and labourers to peacefully question and record the BJP leaders’ conversation over its anti-farmer policies and make it viral on social media.

“At the same time, we want to remind the farmers to avoid any violation of law during their interaction with the BJP leaders”, the KMM leaders said.

They also asked farmers to ask the congress that after coming to power, if they will open the Shambhu and Khanauri borders.

“It has been over seven months since both the borders were closed by the Haryana government. However, they blame us for the inconvenience caused to the public”, they added.

Talking to the media, Sarwan Singh Pandher, the president of Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee and leader of KMM said that they will play a key role in the defeat of BJP in Haryana and ensure justice for farmers.

“It is in this context that we have decided to hold a nationwide Rail Roko protest from 12.30 pm to 2.30 pm on October 3, 2024. The Rail Roko would be held to demand justice for the Lakhimpur Kheri victims, who were mowed down by BJP’s union minister Ajay Mishra Teni’s son Ashish Mishra on October 3, 2021. We will continue to protest till the Lakhimpur Kheri victims get justice. Farmers should also question the BJP leaders and share their videos on social media so that people get to know their real face.”, said Pandher.

Addressing the farmers, BKU Shaheed Bhagat Singh president Amarjit Singh Mohri targeted the BJP for befooling the farmers on Pradhan Mantri Crop Insurance Scheme even as stray animals continued to destroy their crops and demanded handing over of shamlat deh or panchayat land to farmers.

“Our fight is for farmers’ rights. We are not fighting an intentional war with any party. Farmers will stand by those (parties) who will support them”, he added.

On the other hand, BKU Shaheed Bhagat Singh spokesperson Tejveer Singh Panjokhra Sahib questioned the congress for not implementing MSP with C2+50 formula, also asking about the opposition party’s plan on farm loan waiver on the lines of Telangana and demanded action against Haryana cops for the killing of Shubhkaran Singh during the previous march to Delhi.

Scenes from the kisan mahapanchayat in Pipli, Haryana. Photo: By special arrangement.

Notably, the congress has promised legal MSP guarantee while the BJP announced MSP on 24 crops in Haryana.

“We want to know if the congress will initiate action against guilty police officials and open the blocked Shambhu border. Will the hapless farmers get any justice?” said Tejveer.

Apart from others, Pritpal Singh, who was allegedly picked up by Haryana police during the farmers’ Delhi Chalo call on February 21, 2024, put in a sack and beaten up mercilessly also attended the kisan mahapanchayat along with his family.

The families of Lakhimpur Kheri victims from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand also participated in the mahapanchayat.

‘Farmers’ stir likely to impact assembly election outcome’

Sociologist Dr Jitender Prasad, formerly of the Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) Rohtak said that there was no denying the fact people were fed up with BJP’s attitude towards farmers and pro-people forces.

“The kisan mahapanchayat is a platform for farmers to express and demonstrate their sentiments against BJP’s high handedness. Apart from the demand for legal guarantee on MSP, farmers have been raising voices against injustice to farmers, unemployment, and inflation. Surely farmers’ issues will dominate the Haryana Assembly Elections”, he said.

“It is because of the farmers’ protest that people in the villages have also started questioning the BJP leaders. The farmers’ unions were expected to take a tough decision in this regard in the mahapanchayat and they have done so. This is likely to impact the assembly election outcome”, he added.

Prasad also underlined the role of Khap panchayats in the kisan mahapanchayat and said that they played a significant role in previous farmers’ protest too and even now they will be a deciding factor.

“The role of khap panchayats carries more weight on people’s mind, as sarpanches and panchayat members directly work under its influence. Moreover, the changed stance of khap panchayats with regard to women’s participation in farmers’ protest has also led to greater mobilisation of people at grass roots levels. This will certainly affect the poll outcome”, he added.

The Land Reform Conundrum: Will Reinstating Sections 79A and 79B Help or Harm Karnataka’s Farmers?

Karnataka’s agricultural sector is in crisis, as evidenced by rising debt and farmer suicides, which reflect deeper systemic issues.

On the 109th birth anniversary of former Karnataka chief minister D. Devaraj Urs, chief minister Siddaramaiah announced his government’s intention to restore Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. These provisions, which barred non-agriculturists from purchasing farmland, were removed by the previous Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2020 to liberalise landholdings.

Siddaramaiah criticised these changes saying that they were benefiting vested interests and undermining the protection given to farmers. As the Congress government prepares to reintroduce these provisions, the question arises: Will this move truly protect Karnataka’s farmers, or could it reintroduce the challenges of the past?

Historical context and the case for repeal

Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, were inserted in 1974 to prevent individuals with substantial non-agricultural income from acquiring agricultural land. Although intended to protect genuine farmers, these sections inadvertently became tools for corruption, with local revenue officials exploiting them. As former revenue minister R. Ashoka acknowledged, the law “did not benefit anyone except officials who used it as a tool for harassing people.”

Moreover, despite 83,171 cases involving more than two lakh acres being filed, the government was unable to recover even 1% of the lands, leaving vast tracts in legal limbo. Therefore, the removal was intended to simplify land transactions and encourage investment in agriculture, which was seen as crucial for revitalising the sector. 

Siddaramaiah’s critique

In 2020, the then Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Siddaramaiah, vehemently criticised these amendments, accusing the government of being “hand in glove with corporate bodies and housing societies.” He expressed concerns that the amendments would lead to the loss of farmland worth Rs 50,000 crore, as vast tracts of agricultural land would be transferred from small farmers to wealthy non-agriculturists and corporations.

Siddaramaiah argued that this would displace small and marginal farmers, exacerbate the agrarian crisis, and prioritise corporate interests over the welfare of Karnataka’s rural population​. He added that the move would only further widen the socio-economic gap in rural Karnataka.

Supporters see a gateway to innovation

Supporters of the ordinance, such as advocates Anandita Srinivasan and Anirudh Shenoy, argue that it could enable investments in agriculture by those who are capable of bringing innovative technologies into farming. They assert that fears of agricultural lands being diverted for non-agricultural purposes are unfounded, given the stringent procedures still in place for conversion of agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and change of land use under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. 

A complex landscape

The debate over these land reforms is complicated by the historical actions of both the major political parties. While Siddaramaiah condemned the 2020 amendments, it’s noteworthy that during his tenure as chief minister in 2015, the Congress government amended Section 79A to raise the income limit for non-agriculturists acquiring land — a move which was opposed by the BJP, arguing that it would “only help real estate businesses acquire more land around cities in the state.” This highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of land reform debates in Karnataka.

Furthermore, the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) has expressed concerns over the 2020 amendment. They underlined that it could negatively impact agriculture and food security by enabling corporate land acquisition. Meanwhile, activists Basawa Prasad Kunale and Soundarya Iyer have warned that these reforms might disproportionately affect marginalised communities, including Dalits and Adivasis, who already face significant landlessness and socio-economic challenges. 

Economic impacts

The proposed reinstatement of these sections also raises broader economic concerns. While the government may argue that these provisions are necessary to protect farmers, there is a risk they could exacerbate existing inequalities in the agricultural sector. By restricting land ownership, these laws might limit farmers’ ability to leverage their land for financial gain or attract investment in modern farming practices. It is all the more concerning in a drought-hit state like Karnataka, where the agricultural sector is already under significant strain. 

A call for comprehensive reform

Karnataka’s agricultural sector is in crisis, as evidenced by rising debt and farmer suicides, which reflect deeper systemic issues. Rather than simply reinstating Sections 79A and 79B, the Karnataka government should focus on comprehensive reforms that address the underlying issues facing the agricultural sector.

These reforms should include measures to improve access to credit, provide better infrastructure, and support the adoption of modern farming techniques. Additionally, any new regulation should be designed to enhance transparency and reduce the opportunities for corruption that plagued the previous implementation of these sections.

Furthermore, before taking any step to reintroduce these provisions, the government must conduct a scientific study to assess the actual impacts of the 2020 amendment. Establishing a committee of experts in agriculture, economics, and law could help ensure that any decisions are grounded in evidence. Engaging in a broad-based dialogue with stakeholders — including farmers, economists, and legal experts — would further ensure that the resulting policies are both effective and equitable. By adopting a holistic and evidence-based approach, the government can create a more sustainable and prosperous agricultural sector that benefits Karnataka’s farmers. As Shakespeare wisely noted, ‘What’s past is prologue,’ reminding us that today’s decisions are not made in a vacuum but are shaped by the legacies of the past.

Jehosh Paul is a lawyer and research consultant. He holds an LLM in Law and Development from the Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. 

India Must Increase Investment in Agricultural Research to Strengthen Climate Resilience

Such measures need to cover various crucial aspects, starting from accurate weather forecasting systems to development of climate change-resilient high-yielding crop varieties and cultivation practices.

Indian agriculture, being heavily dependent on monsoons with about 60% of cultivated land under rain-fed conditions, is extremely vulnerable to climate change and the risks arising from it. According to the Union agricultural ministry, a total of 310 districts are identified as the most vulnerable in the country. Within these 310 districts, 109 districts are categorised as ‘very highly’ vulnerable and 201 districts as ‘highly’ vulnerable as per the National Innovations on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA).

Additionally, about 80% of Indian farmers are small landholders, whose livelihoods are inherently susceptible to the risks resulting from climate change and weather fluctuations. About 95% of these smallholder farmers in India are affected by at least one of the climate change hazards, as per a report of McKinsey & Company in 2023.

On the demand side, the country’s population is growing steadily, having surpassed China, and raising the domestic food production requirements towards self-sufficiency. Consequently, Indian agriculture is now faced with a challenge of ensuring food security of over 17% of the world’s population with dwindling natural resources like groundwater, soil fertility etc, while withstanding climate change.

Under such a scenario, it is essential to prioritise and scale-up measures to ensure climate change adaptation of Indian agriculture. Such measures need to cover various crucial aspects, starting from accurate weather forecasting systems to development of climate change-resilient high-yielding crop varieties and cultivation practices, and strengthening the agricultural extension system for effective outreach to farmers. In order to achieve this, there is a substantial requirement of funds that need to be mobilised on an urgent basis.

However, there are no precise estimates of the requirement and actual flow of finances for climate change adaptation in agriculture. A preliminary estimate indicated that India would need around$206 billion (at 2014-15 prices), between 2015 and 2030, for implementing adaptation actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems according to India’s long-term low-carbon development strategy. 

As a step in this direction, the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change (NAFCC) was set up in 2015 to support adaptation activities in the country with Rs 350 crore earmarked for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17. So far, about Rs 847 crore has been released for various projects according to the fund’s implementing agency, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). The funding is largely project-based. However, the budgetary allocation for NAFCC, under the Union environment ministry, has declined drastically in the subsequent years to Rs 34 crore in 2022-23 and nil in 2023-24. 

Prior to this, a project framework named NICRA was launched in 2011 and funded under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE). The project was aimed at strategic research on adaptation and mitigation of climatic change impacts on agriculture and to help farmers and other stakeholders through transfer of technologies and creating awareness. However, budgetary allocation of funds for this project also declined to Rs 40 crore in 2022-23 and became nil thereafter.  

Although there seems to be an increased involvement of the private sector in Indian agriculture in recent years, it has been largely confined to agri-tech start-ups providing mainly e-commerce platforms for inputs and out marketing and for advisory services. Nearly 80% of private sector investments in agriculture were allocated to start-ups with platforms providing input and output linkages, whereas less than 20% of investments were allocated to research and development and novel farming solutions, as per a report of McKinsey & Company in 2023. The significantly low flow of private sector investments in agricultural research and development clearly indicates a lack of interest from the private sector, likely due to the limited potential for revenue generation from the predominant smallholder farmers.

In such a scenario, it is essential to scale-up public sector investments in agriculture, particularly for promoting research and development, in order to equip Indian agriculture for climate change adaptation for enhancing crop production and input use efficiency. In this regard, the latest Budget 2024-25 acknowledges and emphasises ‘the productivity and resilience of agriculture’ as the first of the nine priorities areas of the government. While it appears to be the first step in the right direction, there is a need to scale-up funding and efforts substantially.

The allocation of funds for agricultural research and development through DARE has witnessed only a fractional increase of 0.65% to Rs 9,941 crore for 2024-25 from Rs 9,876 crore in the previous year. This amounts to only about 0.2% of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) at about Rs.47 lakh crore at current prices in 2023-24. This is substantially low compared to other major emerging economies like China and Brazil at 0.6% and 1.6% respectively. 

The development and field testing of new crop varieties and cultivation practices aimed at enhancing productivity and climate resilience require extended periods of time. Hence, in order to be successful, such agricultural research and development measures must be strategically planned and supported by adequate funding consistently for the required duration. There is an urgent need to raise agricultural research funding to an extent of about 0.5% – 1% of agricultural GDP in order to enhance productivity and climate change resilience in Indian agriculture, thereby ensuring food security for the growing population. 

Dr. A. Amarender Reddy has a PhD (economics), FISPRD and is Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad.

Dr. Tulsi Lingareddy is an economist studying financial markets, sustainable finance and climate change. Views are personal.

India’s Path to Food Security Has No Quick Fixes

Achieving it necessitates a comprehensive strategy that integrates both immediate and long-term solutions.

Last month, we presented in a rather descriptive manner the challenge India was facing on the food security front and showed that it was bound to be more acute in the coming decades because of the growth of its population as well as the legacy of the Green Revolution (including monoculture and water stress), the impact of selective minimum support prices and climate change.

We will now address the quest for solutions, by summarising, once again, the ideas featured in detail in our Institut Montaigne note on the subject. When we look for solutions, various categories of thought emerge immediately. Some of them can be seen as reforms (aiming at improving agricultural production, availability of products and access to these products), whereas one of them amounts to a more revolutionary move: the development of agroecological farming.

Improving agricultural production, availability and access to food

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

Agricultural production can be optimised in several ways to address not only undernutrition but also malnutrition, which is inter alia is crucial given the strong links between poor diet quality, undernutrition, and the early onset of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), which is a looming public health crisis, especially among the structurally excluded majority (lower socioeconomic groups)  of the Indian population. 

First, an effort towards diversification could be undertaken to escape the trap of monocultures inherited from the Green Revolution and, in particular, to revive the cultivation of millets (with recognised nutritional virtues) and especially pulses which are produced and consumed in quantities too small to effectively combat under- or malnutrition. Concerning the latter, the plan proposed by the committee led by Arvind Subramanian in 2015 could be revisited. One of the recommendations was for the state to provide producers with a guaranteed price – referred to as the Minimum Support Price (MSP) – that is sufficiently remunerative to incentivise investment in this crop, similar to the system in place for rice and wheat, where the state purchases half of the production. Some years later, such as in 2018-19, this policy was followed and bore fruit, but this financial effort is marginal today. The committee also recommended the ban on exports of pulses, which was, however, lifted in 2017.

Irrigation, which still only concerns a minority of cultivated land (where farmers can therefore only make one to two harvests per year) can be developed, no longer solely (nor even primarily) by creating canals subject to high evaporation or by digging wells (as groundwater is being depleted), but by reviving traditional forms of rainwater collection through reservoirs and wells with wide margins to maximise collection.

In parallel, water-intensive crops like maize, rice, and sugarcane must be replaced by others, such as millets, which would make the development of irrigation less necessary. Reducing the area dedicated to export crops like rice would also make it possible to produce the fodder needed by livestock – which might otherwise be fed with food that could be intended for human consumption.

The growth of livestock farming must in any case be limited, not only for this reason but also because of its effects on climate change. Dissuasive prices could be applied in the state-managed wholesale markets.

To help the peasants to cope with climate change, the Manual of Drought Management needs to be revised again: in 2016, the Ministry of Agriculture changed the Union government policy, making it much more difficult for the state governments to declare a drought.   

The supply of foodstuffs can be improved both quantitatively and qualitatively by modernising the conditions of product conservation in two ways: the cold chain, which is very deficient – or even almost nonexistent – could be developed through both the installation of cold rooms and the use of refrigerated trucks, and food stocks can easily be kept dry, preventing the spoilage of tons of grains, something that has occurred in the recent past. Exports of certain products should be suspended as long as the Indian population is not fully fed. This is particularly the case with pulses. Limiting meat exports would also be a way to discourage farmers from investing in livestock, which is a large consumer of fodder. By design, reducing meat exports from India could increase the availability of meat for domestic consumption, particularly for poorer populations subject to socio-cultural constraints.

Also read: It’s Not Just Food Price, India Is Facing a Food Security Challenge

Addressing mass poverty, which leaves the poorest unable to meet their basic nutritional needs, is a top priority here. India had embarked on this path at the beginning of the century, thanks in particular to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, which had lifted millions of people out of poverty and/or given them access to more substantial food. The policy of the Modi government has reversed this trend. The budget for MGNREGA should be tripled to return to its level in 2007-08.

The Public Distribution System (PDS), renovated as a part of the National Food Security Act (2013), must regain the means to offer cheap food to the poor. While the Narendra Modi government, during the COVID-19 crisis had doubled the food ration of 800 million Indians, in 2022, the decline in production mentioned above compromised this program when the government announced that it would more than halve the quantities of wheat available in the PDS, the main instrument of food aid in India. Modi suspended this decision in late 2023 because of the extreme vulnerability of the poor. Yet, the government failed to apply the NFSA because it did not adjust the number of the PDS beneficiaries according to the population data: first the government said it was waiting for the census, but no census was organised in 2021, the year when it should have taken place. The Supreme Court asked the government to take steps to re-determine the number of people covered by the NFSA in June 2021, to no avail: the government said it will wait for the next census. 

The PDS can be made more efficient by adding more millet, pulses, fruits, and vegetables to rice and wheat which currently make up the bulk of the food rations today.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Enhancing children’s nutrition can be achieved by systematizing the mid-day meal programs. Initially implemented in southern states, this policy was officially extended nationwide following a directive from the Supreme Court. However, the number of beneficiaries has been declining in many states due to the growing enrollment of children in private schools, where mid-day meal programs are not offered. To address this issue, the program should be expanded to include private schools as well.

To restore purchasing power to the countryside while the terms of trade deteriorate in favour of cities, increasing the “minimum support prices” set by the government is a convenient solution, even if it means subsidising the commodities put on the market to spare poor urban consumers.

The market(s)’ question needs to be addressed. The committees managing agricultural markets, known as agricultural produce market committees (APMC), were created to protect farmers against middlemen who might not buy their products at a fair price. They have recently been accused by the government of harming the efficiency of the sector. However, the three farm acts promoted by the government in 2020-21 did not provide an acceptable solution to the farmers since they intended to deregulate the sector in favour of large agro-food firms. Farmers protested for a year near Delhi and forced the Modi government to back down. These reforms would have made them more vulnerable vis-à-vis big business players like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani who are investing in retail, without much regulation. Nevertheless, the state should help small farmers gain market access and a reform is certainly needed. 

The issue of trade in agricultural products also arises at the international level. If India limits its exports of pulses, rice, and meat as recommended above, and if it lowers tariffs on imports of commodities it needs most, such as pulses, it will have to compensate for this loss of revenue. This compensation could come from international aid that India refuses today – particularly from the World Food Programme.

India is faced with the famous food dilemma of finding it difficult to choose between “cheap imports” to feed consumers, but at the expense of national agriculture, or protectionism that helps producers but penalises consumers. Frédéric Landy points out that the country has not decided between these two options and acts on a case-by-case basis. Today, the government of Modi tends to increase imports to lower the prices of certain foodstuffs to preserve the purchasing power of urban residents, the core of its electorate. This policy would need to be corrected to offer farmers more remunerative prices.

On the export side, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the Westerners (starting with the European Union) have pressured the World Trade Organisation for India to continue supplying the global market with agricultural products to contain the price rise and in the name of market logic. India has resisted these pressures. In 2020, the EU and India began trade negotiations aiming to conclude a free trade agreement, and the context arising from the war in Ukraine will undoubtedly weigh on the discussions. Already, the Minister of Commerce, Piyush Goyal, has assured farmers that he will be able to defend their interests and protect, in particular, dairy producers.     

Agroecology: The long-term solution

Besides the very important reform mentioned above, a structural change may well be the only long term response to the food security challenge India is facing – and will have to cope with even more acutely in the future: the development of agroecology. One state, Andhra Pradesh has already initiated substantial reforms to promote this alternative type of agriculture. Other regional examples (like the state of Sikkim) or even local experiences could also be mentioned.

The agroecology alternative is a response to the environmental and social consequences of the Green Revolution which include (1) the depletion of soil nutrients leading to reduced soil productivity because of monoculture and the overuse of pesticides, and (2) the rise of farming costs and debts forcing farmers to sell their land and to abandon agriculture – or even to commit suicide.

As a response to this unsustainable conventional model of agriculture, many initiatives emerged from all over India, including in Maharashtra where Subhash Palekar pioneered the Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in the 1990s. His farming technique, based on a combination of natural elements, aimed to enhance microbial activity in soil, boost soil carbon, add nitrogen via green mulching, and improve nitrogen availability in the surface soil. They also emphasise the use of natural inputs and, when possible, indigenous seed varieties.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

In 2015, the Andhra Pradesh government took significant steps to institutionalise, further innovate and scale up Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) across the state. This policy was entrusted to the Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS, the ‘farmers empowerment corporation’), a government-backed entity tasked with implementing the Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural Farming programme. RySS’s mandate included educating farmers and facilitating peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. The programme began as an experiment involving more than 700 villages and 40,650 farmers in 2016. By March 2020, the programme had seen substantial growth, with 623,300 farmers participating, accounting for 10% of all the state’s farmers. It covered nearly 3% of Andhra Pradesh’s total net sown area, amounting to 181,600 hectares. Looking forward, the state’s ambition is to extend what became in 2020 the Andhra-Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) to all 6 million farmer families, covering 8 million hectares of land by 2027. While this model has garnered coverage and interest globally, it also sparked debates regarding the sustainability of natural farming in providing long-term food security for a populous nation such as India.

The RYSS-CIRAD-FAO AgroEco2050 participative foresight project (2019-2023) studied two contrasting scenarios for Andhra Pradesh by 2050: the intensification of conventional industrial agriculture and food (scenario IA), and the 100% generalisation of agroecology with natural farming (scenario NF). The agro-industrial model refers to conventional farming with intensive use of chemicals, larger specialised farm sizes with economies of scale, stronger oligopolies of input suppliers and buyers, and increased degradation of human and environmental health. On the other hand, the agroecological model is based on women self-help groups, natural farming principles, reliance on organic fertilizers and pesticides, low water and energy requirements, small farm sizes, and indigenous knowledge with both community and scientific support. 

The AgroEco2050 foresight platform worked with: (1) these two contrasting narratives or “sociotechnical regimes”; (2) an Indian expert group of about 30 people including scientists from different disciplines, policymakers, NGOs and farmers’ representatives; (3) a macro-bioeconomic model, Agribiom-India. It investigated and interlinked four dimensions of the agri-food system: 

  1.  Land use
  2.  Population and employment
  3.  Economic growth, income and inequality 
  4.  Yield and production of plant food calories.

By 2050, under the industrial agriculture scenario, there would be a reduction in the area of land cultivated, from 6.2 million hectares to 5.5 million hectares, with few monocultures and an emphasis on the most efficiently irrigated regions. By contrast, in the agroecological scenario, the area of cultivated land is projected to expand to 8.3 million hectares by the year-round regeneration and cultivation of 2.8 million hectares of land left fallow by industrial agriculture, especially in semi-arid zones.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

By 2050, Andhra Pradesh’s population is expected to reach 59.5 million, with those aged between 20 and 63-years old numbering 35.4 million. If the industrial agriculture model persists, the 2019 unemployment rate of 30% for the 20-64 age group would not change, and the farming population would halve, dropping from 9.3 million to 5.0 million. On the other hand, in the natural farming (NF) scenario, 10 million small-scale farmers would enhance their livelihoods through natural farming, which would reduce the unemployment rate in the 20-64 age demographic to 7%.

Under the natural farming scenario, the Gross Value Added (GVA) of agriculture and allied activities is expected to increase by 6% annually, surpassing the 4% annual growth recorded between 1980 and 2019. This anticipated growth is primarily due to the extensive involvement of both land and farmers in natural farming techniques, alongside significant savings in agricultural input costs such as seeds, irrigation systems, chemical fertilizers, fossil energy, financial credit, and machinery. Additionally, the market is likely to assign higher values to food products that are safe and nutritious, stemming from natural farming practices. On-farm value-added activities, which include small-scale processing and packaging, as well as the development of agrotourism, are also expected to contribute to this growth. Consequently, these improvements in the agricultural sector are projected to spur general economic growth, potentially increasing it by 6.5% per annum. This growth is anticipated to lead to broader economic benefits, including reductions in unemployment and inequality, and contribute to the overall well-being of the population, resulting in a healthier and happier society compared to the scenario with industrial agriculture.

In the industrial agriculture scenario, the yield of a limited number of monocrops is projected to continue on its historical trajectory, despite potential adverse effects on farmers’ livelihoods, environmental resources, and the health of consumers. In contrast, the natural farming (NF) approach might result in a somewhat lower increase in food yield, but it promises a production that is more nutritionally diverse — richer in both macronutrients and micronutrients, as well as fibres — and produced without the use of any chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. The per capita plant food production, when considering both yield and the extent of cultivated area, is expected to be substantially higher in an agroecological scenario, amounting to 5008 kilocalories per day per inhabitant. This is in contrast to an industrial agriculture system, where the figure stands at 4054 kilocalories per day per inhabitant.

In summary, achieving food security in India necessitates a comprehensive strategy that integrates both immediate and long-term solutions. The adoption of agroecological farming, alongside reforms in crop diversification, irrigation, and market policies, offers a sustainable pathway to enhancing agricultural productivity while preserving environmental resources. Additionally, strengthening the Public Distribution System, revisiting social welfare programmes like MGNREGA, and expanding nutritional initiatives for children are critical steps to ensure that all citizens, especially the most vulnerable, have consistent access to adequate and nutritious food. This holistic approach not only addresses the current challenges but also lays a resilient foundation for India’s future food security. It relies on existing, promising initiatives which have been tested at the local or state level by innovative and entrepreneurial experts and agriculturalists.

Christophe Jaffrelot is research director at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Professor of Politics and Sociology at King’s College London and Non Resident Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His publications include Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2021, and Gujarat under Modi: Laboratory of today’s India, Hurst, 2024, both of which are published in India by Westland.

Hemal Thakker is an environment policy expert specialising in Agriculture Policy and Energy Transition, currently serving as an Adjunct Professor at Sciences Po, and formerly worked with the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).

Vignesh Rajahmani is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Indian and Indonesian Politics at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden, and a Research Affiliate, at the King’s India Institute, King’s College London.