2.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
remind
that
the
momentum
gained
by
Indian
economy
over
last
15-16
years
following
progress
in
industrialisation,
urbanisation
and
service
sector
has
been
lop-sided.
The
benefits
of
this
progress
have
not
reached
out
to
a
sizeable
part
of
our
population,
particularly
the
rural
populace
and
the
poor.
About
65
percent
of
country's
population
is
still
dependent
on
agriculture
for
their
subsistence.
A
total
of
56.7
percent
of
our
total
work
force
gets
employment
in
farm
sector.
Agriculture
contributes
20
percent
to
the
GDP
and
about
11
percent
to
the
export.
Entire
food
requirement
and
raw
material
for
important
industries
are
met
by
agriculture
sector.
Over
40
percent
demand
of
the
products
of
industrial
sector
depend
on
the
purchasing
power
of
rural
population.
The
fluctuations
in
farm
production,
especially
the
foodgrain
and
the
prices
thereof
directly
impact
the
general
price
level
i.e.
inflation.
Any
event
in
farm
sector,
thus,
affects
country's
entire
economy.
3.
The
country
has
been
grappling
with
many
difficulties
and
obstacles
despite
the
success
of
the
Green
Revolution.
I
would
like
to
briefly
discuss
them.
At
first,
I
would
invite
your
attention
to
the
misleading
presentation
of
certain
statistics.
The
percent
of
population
dependent
on
agriculture,
which
was
75
percent
at
the
time
of
country's
independence,
has
now
come
down
to
65
percent.
The
contribution
of
agriculture
to
the
GDP
has
been
reduced
from
61
percent
to
around
20
percent.
Both
these
are
considered
the
natural
outcome
and
indicators
of
modernisation
of
economy
and
progress.
But,
the
fact
is
that
the
population
of
the
country
at
the
time
of
independence
was
only
36
crore
and
three-forth
of
it
i.e.,
27
crore
was
dependent
on
agriculture.
Now,
the
population
has
crossed
the
1100
millions
mark,
of
which
65
percent
i.e.
close
to
71
crore
is
dependent
on
agriculture.
Another
equally
important
factor
is
that
earlier
75
percent
population
shared
61
percent
of
national
income,
whereas
65
percent
of
our
populations
have
now
to
content
with
less
than
20
percent.
The
pressure
on
agriculture
land
has
constantly
increased.
The
size
of
average
holding
has
shrunk.
About
75
percent
holdings
are
of
less
than
two
hectare,
which
are
totally
unviable
as
an
economic
unit.
The
per
capita
availability
of
agricultural
land
has
reduced
from
0.36
hectare
to
0.12
hectare.
The
gap
between
per
capita
average
incomes
of
those
engaged
in
agriculture
and
those
in
other
occupations,
which
was
about
1:2
till
the
60s
has
now
increased
to
1:11.
4.
The
most
horrible
picture
is
that
of
rainfed
areas
which
comprise
60
percent
of
arable
land.
The
production
per
hectare
in
these
areas
is
stagnant
at
near
one
tonne.
Eighty
percent
of
the
rural
poor
like
in
these
areas.
The
sheering
Green
Revolution
has
also
started
fading.
The
cost
of
agriculture
has
also
escalated
fast
in
proportion
to
the
productivity
and
farming
is
growingly
becoming
a
loss
making
proposition.
Excessive
exploitation
of
land
is
felling
upon
its
fertility.
The
wanton
use
of
water
and
chemicals
is
harming
the
environment
and
health
of
all
the
living
beings
including
humans.
The
excessive
use
of
fertilizers
and
lack
of
bio-products
have
led
to
heavy
deficiency
of
vital
nutrients
like
zinc,
iron,
sulfur,
manganese.
boron
etc.
All
the
edible
ranges
are
now
found
to
contain
residue
of
poisonous
elements
to
alarming
levels.
All
the
fauna
and
flora
are
losing
their
natural
resistance
power.
The
number
of
various
dreaded
and
incorrigible
diseases
is
on
the
increase
and
medical
bills
now
bun
a
big
hole
in
the
pocket
of
the
common
man.
5.
The
anti-farmer
price
policy
has
further
compounded
the
difficulties
of
farmers.
The
deciding
factors
of
farm
price
policy
from
colonial
time
remained
almost
unchanged
even
after
the
independence.
The
Government
continued
to
keep
the
prices
of
edibles
as
low
as
possible
to
keep
in
good
humane
the
articulate
urban
people,
organised
industrial
workers
and
the
industrialists.
The
Minimum
Support
Price
System
did
give
some
relief
to
the
farmers,
but
subsequently
it
also
became
ineffective.
A
look
at
the
historical
pace
of
relative
price
rates
would
make
it
clear
that
since
the
base
year
1960-61
till
now
the
relative
prices
ranged
between
82
and
95
percent.
As
a
result
of
this,
the
farmers
had
to
incur
an
economic
loss
of
12
to
15
percent
annually.
In
other
words,
this
major
portion
of
farmers'
income
made
its
way
to
the
pockets
of
others.
Despite
this,
some
well-known
policy
makers
and
economists
have
been
advocating
imposition
of
income
tax
on
agriculture.
6.
The
rate
of
capital
creation
in
agriculture
sector
has
also
been
on
the
decrease.
In
the
1970s,
21
percent
of
gross
capital
creation
of
the
country
was
done
in
the
farms,
which
has
now
come
down
to
8
percent.
The
capital
creation
reduced
from
18
percent
to
a
mere
4.2
percent
during
the
period.
In
last
three
decades,
less
than
5
percent
of
the
plan
allocation
has
been
provided
to
agriculture
and
allied
activities,
which
include
forests
as
well.
The
rate
of
investment
in
agriculture
has
been
equal
to
that
of
GDP
at
1.3
percent
and
that
in
public
sector
it
has
been
only
0.3
percent
during
the
period.
In
view
of
the
population
dependent
on
agriculture
(65
percent),
percent
of
employment
(57
percent)
and
contribution
of
agriculture
to
GDP
(average
25
percent)
and
total
investment
of
the
economy
(average
26
percent),
agriculture
sector
should
have
received
18
percent,
15
percent
and
minimum
6.5
percent
investment,
respectively.
In
reality,
it
received
any
1.3
percent.
7.
Considering
agriculture
as
a
priority
sector
the
Reserve
Bank
of
India
has
issued
directives
about
two
decades
back
to
all
the
banks
that
they
should
advance
a
minimum
18
percent
of
their
loans
as
farm
loans.
But
this
percent
has
been
12
to
14
over
the
period.
The
C:D
Ratio
of
all
rural
branches
of
banks
is
about
30
percent.
It
is
clear
from
this
fct
that
the
banking
system
is
providing
only
30
percent
of
the
deposits
made
by
rural
people
to
them
as
loan
and
70
percent
amount
is
making
its
way
out
of
rural
areas
to
other
sectors
for
development.
It
means
that
the
banks
instead
of
investing
capital
in
rural
areas
are
taking
out
rural
people's
major
capital
(70
percent)
to
other
areas.
These
official
statistics
clearly
show
the
horrible
lack
of
capital
investment
in
rural
economy.
8.
The
requisite
basic
facilities
and
infrastructure
for
development
of
agriculture
has
also
not
been
developed
at
desired
level.
A
large
number
of
villages
are
still
crying
for
basic
facilities
and
services
like
roads,
electricity,
potable
water,
education,
health,
veterinary
services,
storage
and
marketing.
The
most
alarming
fact
is
the
even
growing
unemployment
in
rural
areas,
especially
among
the
educated
youth
leading
to
desperation,
violence
and
crimes
there.
These
facts
have
come
to
light
in
a
recent
report
of
the
National
Sample
Surveys.
9.
After
first
four
Five
Year
Plans,
irrigation
sector
has
been
grossly
neglected.
The
Central
Government
has
almost
ceased
to
invest
in
agriculture
sector.
The
AIBP
has,
though,
provided
some
relief,
but
the
irony
is
that
entire
amount
under
it
is
provides
as
loan
to
the
State
Governments
that
too
at
an
interest
rate
i.e.
1½
to
2
percent
higher
than
that
of
commercial
banks.
The
NDA
Government
decided
to
convert
25
percent
of
the
amount
to
grant
and
to
reduce
the
interest
rate.
In
the
budget
speech
of
this
financial
year
the
Finance
Minister
spoke
of
making
a
provision
of
Rs.
11,000
crore
under
the
head
and
the
media
widely
publicised
it.
But,
in
fact,
the
central
share
in
this
is
only
Rs.
3,580
crore.
After
enactment
of
the
Fiscal
Responsibility
and
Budget
Management
Act
(FRBM
Act)
the
capacity
of
State
Government
to
secure
loan
has
been
limited
statutorily.
The
State
Governments
fail
to
benefit
from
AIBP
due
to
the
rules
and
procedures
set
by
the
Central
Government
with
regard
to
qualification
of
irrigation
projects.
Take
the
example
of
Madhya
Pradesh,
where
the
number
of
ongoing
irrigation
projects
is
negligible.
These
funds
are
not
available
for
new
projects.
Thus,
states
like
Madhya
Pradesh
are
not
in
a
position
to
derive
benefit
from
this
programme.
It
is
due
to
these
reasons
that
last
year
only
Rs.
1600
crore
could
be
utilised
out
of
the
amount
of
Rs.
2,350
crore
allocated
for
the
AIBP.
10.
Similar
misleading
publicity
is
being
done
as
regard
to
Rural
Infrascture
Develoment
Fund
(RIDF).
The
Finance
Minister
spoke
of
this,
too
in
his
budget
speech.
The
fact
is
that
the
RIDF
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
Central
Government
and
their
budget.
In
this
fund,
the
banks
provide
those
funds
to
the
NABARD,
which
fall
short
of
18
percent
as
specified
on
the
basis
of
priority
for
agriculture
sector.
The
NABARD
provides
this
amount
as
loan
to
the
State
Governments
on
the
basis
of
Government
Guarantee
at
higher
rates
of
interest.
It
is
quite
surprising
that
no
attempt
has
so
far
been
made
from
any
forum
to
clarify
the
fact
in
this
regard.
11.
How
correct
are
the
investment
priorities
of
the
Central
Government
is
indicated
from
the
fact
that
in
last
one
and
half
decade
they
have
invested
about
Rs.
two
lakh
crore
for
development
of
communication
system
under
central
scheme.
Almost
equal
amount
was
spent
on
providing
subsidy
for
fertilizers
under
a
faulty
system
the
question
naturally
arises
if
communication
system
should
not
be
developed?
I
do
not
mean
it
at
all.
However,
too
paints
certainly
merit
consideration.
First
the
private
sector
companies
have
always
been
willing
for
development
of
communication
system.
If
not
entire,
these
companies
could
have
invested
half
of
this
amount.
The
service
quality
of
these
companies
is
also
considered
superior.
Second,
in
rural
areas
the
priority
should
be
given
to
drinking
water
and
irrigation
facility
to
telephone
and
computer.
There
are
thousands
of
such
villages
in
the
country
which
could
have
made
do
with
one
or
two
telephones.
But
dozens
of
telephones
have
been
made
available
there.
On
the
other
hand
people
have
to
trek
for
miles
to
fetch
drinking
water.
About
60
percent
of
the
ferilizers
subsidy
is
governed
by
companies
and
only
40
percent
reach
the
farmers.
The
wastage
of
nitrogen
fertilizers
like
urea
etc.,
is
to
the
extent
of
40
percent.
If
farmers
are
educated
and
trained
to
apply
urea
in
diluted
form,
only
10
to
15
percent
quality
of
the
same
would
suffice.
Unfortunately,
it
has
slipped
the
notice
of
a
policy
maker.
Vested
interests
have
also
played
their
role
in
it.
12.
The
stocks
made
in
central
warehouses
following
good
production
of
wheat,
rice
and
sugarcane
for
some
years
gave
us
a
false
sense
of
happiness.
We
mistook
the
situation
to
be
the
result
of
higher
support
price
of
these
commodities.
The
obvious
result
is
before
us.
In
last
two
years
we
had
to
import
wheat.
The
irony
is
that
we
were
not
ready
to
pay
our
own
farmers
Rs.
750
a
quintal
and
are
now
importing
from
other
countries
at
the
rate
of
Rs.1100
per
quintal.
Even
worse,
the
quality
of
imported
wheat
is
inferior
adulterated
with
various
types
of
weeds.
However,
this
year
some
relief
has
been
provided
by
paying
Rs.
850
per
quintal.
We
have
been
constantly
importing
edible
oils
and
pulses.
Sirs,
food
security
has
a
direct
bearing
on
national
security.
You
are
unaware
of
the
use
of
foodgrains
as
a
tool
in
international
politics.
That
is
why,
capable
nation
like
Japan
is
not
willing
to
be
dependent
on
any
other
country
for
food
security.
Therefore,
to
depend
on
import
is
not
devoid
of
risk.
13.
At
the
time
of
signing
the
W.T.O.
agreement
the
OECD
Club
comprising
rich
nations
used
to
give
about
44percent
of
that
agriculture
GDP
as
subsidy.
At
one
time
this
amount
was
361
billion
U.S.
dollars.
In
that
year,
India''s
net
national
income
was
447
billion
U.S.
dollar.
It
means,
these
nations
were
giving
over
80
percent
of
our
total
national
income
as
farm
subsidy.
All
the
promise
and
efforts
to
reduce
it
are
yet
to
bear
fruit.
In
such
a
situation,
how
can
Indian
farmers
compete
in
international
trade?
The
same
is
the
case
in
respect
to
sanitary
and
phytosanitory
standards.
You
have
related
the
norms
for
the
wheat
imported
from
other
countries.
But,
can
we
expect
the
same
treatment
from
any
rich
country?
Not
at
all,
there
are
instances
galore
wherein
they
rejected
an
export
consignments
on
flimsiest
of
grounds.
14.
Only
adequate
production
is
not
sufficient
for
food
security.
Each
and
every
citizen
of
the
nation
must
get
foodgrain.
We
are
all
aware
of
the
shortcomings
of
our
Public
Distribution
System.
It
needs
revamping.
But,
it
is
also
not
a
permanent
solution.
Ultimately,
every
individual
has
to
have
so
much
means
of
livelihood
and
income
as
to
purchase
foodgrain
with
their
purchasing
power
and
to
live
a
dignified
life.
15.
Your
reports
express
concern
on
single
cropping
system,
wasteful
use
of
irrigation
water
and
degeneration
of
biodiversity
on
the
one
hand
and
lay
stress
on
developing
plants
and
seeds
of
crossbreed
species
through
biodiversity
and
genetic
engineering
on
the
other.
Those
are
contradictory.
It
maybe
a
topic
of
debate.
I
am
not
going
into
detail
of
it.
But
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
it
would
not
be
free
from
danger
to
go
ahead
in
this
direction
without
proper
study
of
the
long
term
ill-effects
of
this
on
nature,
environment
and
all
the
living
being
including
man.
Information
is
that
it
is
under
consideration
to
grant
permission
for
plantation
of
a
poisonous
gene
like
B.T.
in
vegetables
such
as
pea,
tomato,
brinjal,
ladyfingers
etc.
This
play
with
human
life
must
be
stopped.
Any
unilateral
decision
without
eliciting
the
views
of
State
Governments
and
the
common
people
is
also
against
the
democratic
spirit.
16.
Whenever
the
issue
pertaining
to
development
of
important
sectors
like
agriculture
and
irrigation,
investment
in
them,
prices
and
management
etc.,
the
Central
Government
seek
to
wash
their
hands
off
saying
that
these
are
state
subjects.
But,
State
Governments
are
not
taken
into
confidence
while
taking
decisions
about
priority
of
sharing
of
huge
funds
collected
from
States
as
tax,
cost
and
pricing
of
farm
products,
licence
system
in
important
industries
like
sugar
industry
and
export
-
import.
1.
The
minimum
investment
in
agriculture
should
be
equal
to
7
percent
of
the
national
income.
2.
The
pricing
policy
for
farm
products
should
be
reviewed
afresh.
The
cost
assessment
system
adopted
by
the
Agriculture
Cost
and
Price
Commission
is
quite
faulty
and
discriminating.
The
cost
of
agriculture
should
be
assessed
on
the
basis
of
the
formula
adopted
by
the
Tariff
Commission
of
India
and
the
B.I.C.P.
The
historical
discrepancies
of
trade
rates
should
be
abolished.
3.
To
check
further
shrinkage
of
agricultural
holdings
it
is
imperative
to
lessen
dependence
of
people
on
agriculture.
There
is
urgent
need
to
formulate
a
time
bound
integrated
scheme
for
augmenting
non-agriculture
job
opportunities
through
spread
of
technical
and
vocational
education
in
rural
areas.
This
alone
will
make
it
possible.
4.
A
10
-
year
policy
should
be
drawn
up
for
utilisation
of
full
irrigation
potential
of
the
country.
Its
cost
of
about
Rs.
4
lakh
crore
should
be
equally
shared
by
the
Central
and
State
Governments.
This
amount
can
be
mobilised
by
halving
the
Government
investment
in
communication
system
and
rationalizing
the
subsidy
on
fertilizers.
It
should
be
decided
to
implement
as
an
integrated
scheme.
All
the
modes
and
projects
including
watershed
management
programme
by
placing
them
under
direct
control
of
the
Ministry
of
Water
Resources.
As
I
have
said
earlier,
the
11th
and
12th
plans
should
be
declared
the
water
plans
of
India.
The
Central
and
State
share
of
AIBP
should
be
50-50
percent.
5.
The
existing
subsidy
arrangement
and
funds
to
encourage
sprinkler
and
drip
irrigation
systems
are
half-hearted
efforts.
It
would
be
better
to
abolish
all
types
of
taxes
on
al
the
articles
and
equipments
used
in
these
systems
and
the
subsidy
may
also
be
scrapped.
The
army
of
administration
work
overtime
to
collect
the
taxes
on
one
hand
and
to
provide
subsidy
on
the
other.
This
is
an
exercise
in
futility.
It
is
also
inevitable
to
ensure
supply
of
requisition
energy
for
this
system.
6.
In
order
to
reduce
the
cost
of
agriculture,
the
practice
of
compost
of
garbage
and
wastes
of
urban
and
rural
areas
should
be
encouraged.
Greater
emphasis
be
laid
on
bio
control
for
prevention
of
crop
diseases
so
as
to
lessen
the
use
of
chemical
products.
7.
It
is
necessary
to
lower
the
interest
rate
on
the
loans
advanced
by
banks.
A
nationwide
settlement
scheme
should
be
formulated
to
provide
relief
to
the
indebted
farmers.
8.
In
order
to
protect
Indian
farmer
from
unhealthy
international
competition,
the
amounts
of
customs
duty
on
farm
products
should
be
in
accordance
with
all
the
subsidy
amount
given
by
the
rich
nations
on
farm
products.
A
legal
resolution
to
this
effect
should
be
passed
in
the
Parliament
stipulating
that
until
the
rich
nations
reduce
their
subsidy
amounts
to
the
desired
level,
India
would
make
full
use
of
the
custom
duties
for
protection
of
its
agriculture.
It
should
also
be
provided
that
amendment
agreements
to
this
effect
may
be
executed
with
other
countries
only
by
majority
in
Indian
Parliament
and
Legislative
Assemblies.
9.
In
order
to
protect
the
farmers
from
natural
calamities
and
fluctuation
of
prices
the
Agriculture
Insurance
Scheme
should
be
formulated
considering
the
farmer
as
unit.
10.
The
number
of
centrally
sponsored
schemes
in
agriculture
sector
is
unnecessarily
too
much.
It
would
be
better
to
take
from
each
state
an
integrated
scheme
based
on
its
specific
circumstances
and
a
lump
sum
amount
should
be
allocated
by
the
Centre
for
its
implementation.
11.
A
lumpsum
grant
of
Rs.
100
crore
should
be
given
to
each
of
the
agricultural
universities
in
the
states
to
improve
research
work
in
them
and
to
modify
them
to
suit
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
state.
12.
The
agriculture
extension
facilities
continued
smoothly
till
they
received
the
support
of
Central
Government.
It
should
be
revived.
The
states
are
not
able
to
conduct
the
service
on
a
large
scale
from
their
own
resources.
13.
For
diversification
and
unification
of
agriculture
it
is
necessary
that
the
Central
Government
should
extend
maximum
possible
grant
for
horticulture,
floriculture
and
medicinal
cultivation.
14.
Farm
forestry
is
an
important
dimension
of
the
diversification
of
agriculture.
But,
there
is
a
ban
on
felling
of
trees
and
old
orchards
grown
by
farmers,
which
is
unjustified.
It
should
be
lifted
immediately
to
encourage
farm
forestry
15.
The
country
is
yet
to
witness
adequate
effort
for
conservation
of
its
livestock.
It
needs
higher
investment,
which
State
Governments
cannot
no
make
on
their
own.
Mere
maintenance
of
indigenous
breeds
would
not
be
sufficient.
There
is
a
need
for
centrally
sponsored
scheme
for
their
selective
conservation.