PROJECT REPORT

IMPACT OF POLITICAL DOMINANCE ON AGRICULTURE

Submitted by: Payal Niharika (09104040) B.E. 4th Year, Electrical. Jaspreet Kaur (09105011) B.E. 4th year, ECE.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
We are grateful to Mr Rajesh Jha for providing us with an opportunity to do a project upon Impact of Political Dominance on Agriculture. This project has greatly enhanced our learning and deepened our understanding of Economic Reforms in India by giving us an insight into the practical aspects of this field. We are deeply indebted to our seniors and colleagues, whom we approached during the course of our project, without whose valuable guidance and constant encouragement the project could not have been accomplished. We would also like to acknowledge all the farmers we surveyed, who readily provided their whole-hearted support and gave us the information required. Last, but not the least, we would like to thank PEC University of Technology, for including such an interesting yet essential course in our syllabus and for providing us the basic infrastructure required to do the project.

Table of Contents:

Acknowledgement 1. Abstract 2. Introduction 3. Research Methodology 4. Historical Background 5. Literature Review 6. Analysis and Survey Findings 7. Limitations and Challenges Faced 8. References

ABSTRACT:
India is an agrarian economy. Although, the heavy industries are now contributing more to the national gross domestic product, agriculture still holds importance as it employs more than half of the country. Also, food security is a major issue in the country as India has a population of about 1.2 billion. The current decrease in the agricultural growth has put agriculture as the top agenda in the XIth five year plan. Indian agriculture has progressed a lot since India achieved independence. India is now one of the leading agrarian economies, producing a large portion of worlds total consumption. The success is an outcome of the Green Revolution, which tremendously changed the way Indian agriculture worked. The introduction of high technology machineries and HYVs increased production, even though the population and area engaged in agriculture decreased. Along with this, government introduced various agriculture policy and programmes like National Food Security Mission (NFSM) and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna to benefit the agricultural growth. Government policies and incentives played a major role in improving the agricultural scenario in India. Today, although India is self-sufficient in terms of agricultural produce and the production is on an all-time high, farmers are still on the lowest rung of the development ladder. Increased production has done little to help the farmers. The food prices in the market are rising incessantly, yet farmers get no benefit from that. Government barriers and its inability to help instead have laden the India farmers with debt. It is the farmer who suffers during the clash of the ruling and the oppositions. Land acquisition by the government is another issue that has emerged. In this project we analyse both the sides of the coin. A comprehensive analysis on the impact of the green revolution and subsequent government policies and programmes has been done to study their impact on the agricultural production. Then, cases from the recent times have been examined to understand the negative effects of government on the livelihood of the farmers. Apart from that, a study of how food prices are determined has also been carried out.

INTRODUCTION:
India lives in villages and agriculture is the soul of the Indian Economy -M.K. Gandhi Since time immemorial, agriculture has been the backbone of Indian Economy. Even today, when industrialization has transformed India to a great extent and urbanisation is picking up speed, more than 58% of the Indian population depends on agriculture for livelihood, although its contribution to the national GDP has reduced to 14.2% [1]. Agriculture holds a prime position in India, not only due to employment, but also due to the fact that food security in a country like India which has a gigantic population of 1.24 billion [2], is a huge challenge. Thus, agriculture has been a sector of priority in the Five Year Plans. It is not surprising that agriculture is so widespread in India. India lies in the temperate zone, with a favourable climate to grow a diversity of crops. The cultivable land in India today is 182.39 million hectares [3]. Despite the fact that the cultivable land is continually decreasing and the climatic fluctuations are more prevalent, the agricultural productivity (of Kharif food grains) as of 2012 were estimated to be around 118.86 million tonnes [4]. Today, India stands second worldwide in farm output. The increase in agricultural productivity can be attributed to the advent of Green Revolution and the various government policies and programmes introduced. The Green Revolution started in India in late 1960s. Within a decade, it changed Indias status from a food deficit country to one of the leading agricultural nation. Green revolution took place in two waves: First wave, which aimed at making India a self-sufficient nation and the Second Wave, which started in the 1980s, focused on increasing the rural income and alleviating poverty. The first wave was largely confined to the production of wheat and was limited to the northern region because of which it did not contribute much to the increase of nation GDP. Second Wave, on the other hand, involved almost all the crops and covered the entire nation. Green Revolution successfully introduced the HYV (high yield variety) seeds and fertilisers into the Indian Agriculture. Also, it brought a major portion of the cultivable land under irrigation. Green Revolution thus proved to be a major breakthrough in the history of Indias economic development.

Though there was a major turnaround in 1980s, in 1990s the agricultural growth slowed due to which government introduced policies that sought to sustain progress by increasing producer support and improving the targeting of food subsidies on low income consumers. From then on, a lot of policies and national programmes have been introduced by government to favour both agriculture and the farmers. However, there have been a lot of cases recently where partisan politics hampered their growth. Farmers have been troubled by the erratic regulations of the ruling government and the barriers imposed by them on different things. Ruthless land acquisitions by the government have emerged as a major concern. Sometimes, it was the clashes between the ruling and the opposition parties that harmed the farmers and their livelihood. In this project we aim to study both- the favourable impact of government policies, beginning from the green revolution to the policies introduced till date, on the agricultural production and plight of farmers and the declining growth of agriculture sector in the selected area if study due to partisan politics. We have narrowed down our area of study to two states- Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. Punjab, the state which emerged as heartland of Indias green revolution, has been a leader in agriculture. Not only it has achieved irrigation coverage of 95 per cent of the net sown area, it also has a cropping intensity of 185 per cent and 98 per cent HYV coverage. The state's agricultural production sector is highly capital-intensive and mechanised. It has 7.44 lakh energised tube wells, 3.87 lakh tractors and 66,000 combine harvesters. It also has the highest consumption of electricity, fertilisers and the highest number of tractors (28) per unit of land (1,000 acres) in the country [5]. However, farmers are not much benefitted from this. Even though the food prices are rising in the market, farmers hardly see any increase in income. In fact, in cases of delayed monsoons, government does little to help the farmers. Elections fill them with hope, but the hope is short-lived because the words remain words and little action is seen. The debts keep on rising and consequently, farmers suicide. The production is not planned. In absence of good warehousing and cold-storage facilities, much of the produce rots. Madhya Pradesh, is another leader when it comes to agricultural production. It has 5 crop zones, 11 agro climatic zones to suit production of almost any crop. The favourable combination of soil type, rainfall, sun, light and temperature suits the production any new

crops. The cropping intensity is 135% and 28.5 % of the net sown area is under irrigation. It is also progressing in sections like animal husbandry and agri-food processing [6]. But here as well, farmers are the sufferers, the problem of land acquisition is very prevalent and the government has done little to address that. Further in the report we will take up the policies and programmes by government in detail, after throwing some light on the Green Revolution. The negative impact of politics has been brought up through a series of case studies. Also, we will present a brief on how the crop prices are determined.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The research for this project was carried out in two segments: 1. Primary Research 2. Secondary Research

The research was carried out to fulfil the objectives of the project, which are listed below. The project aims to: 1. Analyse the impact of political factors on agricultural productivity. 2. Study the effect of various government policies on Indian agriculture through case studies. 3. Study how crop prices are determined. Primary research of the project was carried out to interact with the farmers and verify our findings of our secondary research. Also, with the help of primary research we sought to delve deeper into the topic and look for the real scenario engulfing the farmers. To carry out the primary research, a survey questionnaire was created so as to define the scope of our research. The questions were not too specific, so as to obtain the farmers viewpoints clearly. The final survey questionnaire is attached below. For survey, the cotton belt region of Punjab i.e. Malwa was selected. There were two reasons of selecting this specific region: 1. the political crisis in agriculture is prevalent in this region and 2. Feasibility of carrying out research. About ten farmers were surveyed.

To understand the scenario completely, a secondary research was done. This helped us to gain knowledge about the agricultural scenario in India through different aspects. For this various reports by the state government and the Ministry of Agriculture was referred to study the statistics. This gave us an insight into emerging problems and the possible causes. Next, a detailed study of various policies and programmes regarding agriculture was done. The policy drafts as well as related reports were studied. For this we referred the government sites and complete policy reports. This helped to scrutinize the aims of the policies and the drawbacks they posed. Since Green Revolution formed an integral part of Indian agriculture, a study on how it shaped todays agriculture scenario was also carried out via various reports and articles on the topic. Further, since our area of domain was limited to Punjab, Green Revolution in context of Punjab was also thoroughly examined. It was important that we gain a good backdrop of Punjab Crisis; hence the history of Punjab agriculture was extensively referred. Books and journals related to this topic were studied to get a grasp of the issues that were already prevalent and were possibly emerging due to the existing politics.

Once the government policies were thoroughly examined and historical background understood, attention was turned to the conditions of the farmers and how government policies were affecting them. To study this, news items in the recent times were examined related to states where agriculture is dominant. Articles referring to various farmer related issues such as Ban of Exports on Basmati, The Potato Glut, Micro-Financing problems, Maize trials and power crisis were studied. Not only that, the expert comments and related articles were also studied to get a clear picture of it.

Survey Sheet
Name: ____________________________________ Place: _____________________________________

Q1. How long have you been engaged in farming? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q2. What is the area of land you own? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q3. Do you receive any subsidy on crop seeds or fertilizers? If yes, then elaborate. Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q4. Do you get free electricity and tube well facilities? If yes, then elaborate. Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q5. Do you think introducing FDI is in favour of farmers? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q6. Do you think subsidies are any benefit to farmers? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q7. What is the current market price of wheat, cotton and rice? Do you think the prices are apt from a farmers perspective? If no, why and what do you think shall be the prices?

Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ __ Q8. Are all of your family members engaged in agriculture? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q9. What is the annual agricultural profit after all your expenses? Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___

Q10. Any other incidents/Comments you can relate to?

Ans._______________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Punjab was only one of the two provinces that were partitioned when the formation of independent nation-states of India and Pakistan was announced by the colonial rulers in 1947. Punjab thus became a border-state, located on the periphery on India. The state was peripheral to India not only geographically but also socially and culturally. Notwithstanding its peripheral location, Punjab has always been an important region in the political and cultural imagination of the nation. As mentioned above, until recently Punjab was viewed as the most dynamic and progressive state of the country, particularly for its successes in the agrarian sector. The Green Revolution was successful in other parts of India as well, but it was Punjab that it primarily came to be identified with. The available statistics on various indicators of agricultural growth speak for themselves. Of all the states of India, Punjabs growth rate was the highest during 1960s to the middle of 1980s in agriculture. Annual rate of increase in production of food grains during the period 1961-62 to 1985-86 for the state was more than double of the figure for the country as a whole. The per centage of high yielding varieties (HYV) of seed in the total area under food grains in Punjab was as high as 73 per cent in 1974-75 (all India 31 per cent) and 95 per cent in 1983-85 (all India 54 per cent). While Punjab had 17,459 tractors per hundred thousand holdings, the all India figure was only 714. The same holds true for most other such indicators (x). These achievements have also been very widely recognized. The opening lines of the recent World Bank report on the state, for example, summarize Punjabs achievements quite well: Punjab is Indias most prosperous and developed state with the lowest poverty rate. At the end of the 1990s, more than 94 per cent of Punjabs citizens were above the poverty line, 70 per cent were literate, 94 per cent of the six year olds were enrolled in primary schools, 72 per cent of children under twelve months were immunized, 99 per cent of households had access to safe drinking water, and the average life expectancy of its citizen was 68 years. The remarkable development record of Punjab can also be inferred from the fact that it has already achieved, or is well on track to achieve, most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). According to Indias National Human Development Report (2001), Punjab was ranked second only to Kerala in terms of the overall level of human development

among the major Indian states. Most citizens of Punjab have thus already achieved a level of socio-economic status that the majority of Indian citizens are unlikely to experience in their lifetime (World Bank 2004: 3). Apart from the prosperity that the success of Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s brought to the people of Punjab, it also played a very important role in solving the gargantuan problem of food scarcity of the country. The state rightly came to be known as the food basket of India. The official website of the state government proudly claims that Punjab produces 22 per cent of the countrys wheat (12.7 million tons), 9 per cent of rice (6.8 million tons) and 24 per cent of cotton (0.3 million tons). It contributes 60 to 70 per cent of wheat and 40 to 50 per cent of rice to the central pool.

The decade of 1980s was a critical period in contemporary Indian history. Punjab witnessed a powerful ethnic movement during the 1980s. The movement for Khalistan, a separate Sikh nation, generated a sense of crisis, which was felt much beyond Punjab. Though Sikh militancy declined during the early 1990s, it had far reaching consequences for the society and economy of Punjab. While the 1980s was, in a sense, a creative period for Indian society when many fundamental assumptions around which the post-colonial Indian nation was being built were questioned, for Punjab and for the Sikhs it was a traumatic phase. Fifteen long years of militancy and the manner in which the Indian State handled the Punjab crisis not only caused bloodshed and sufferings, it also quite fundamentally altered the popular image of the region. From a region known for its economic vibrancy and progress, Punjab began to be seen as a crisis ridden state, a region with serious problems of law and order and political unrest and therefore not suitable for safe investments. Interestingly despite all problems, even during the 1980s the agrarian economy of Punjab continued to progress. The income of the primary sector of the state economy grew at an average of 5 per cent per annum while the corresponding figure for India as a whole was around 3 per cent. The real implications of the crisis were to be felt in the following decade, during the 1990s, when the economic priorities at the national level witnessed a major shift. GLOBALISATION AND INDIAN AGRICULTURE:

It was perhaps for the first time in the post-independence period that there had been criticisms of the policies and programmes that the first democratic government of independent India had initiated under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru earlier also, but they emanated mostly from conflicting ideological positions of different leaders or political formations. The strikingly new feature of the 1980s was that unlike before, the challenge this time came from below, from those who were supposed to benefit from development, or whom the independent Indian State had promised a better life. The most obvious issue in this category is the marginalization of the rural people in general and of those dependent on agriculture in particular. It is not only ideologically that agriculture experienced marginalization in the popular imaginations of the Indian people over the last two decades; its share in the national income has also declined considerably. Though a large majority of Indians continue to live in the countryside, the share of agriculture to the national income has come down to less than a quarter. The growth rates in agricultural sector have also been much slower than other sectors of the economy. Declining significance of agriculture, one would think, is quite natural, and perhaps a desirable process. With development of industry and modern servicing sectors, it has happened everywhere in the world. However, there is something quite unique about the Indian experience. Unlike other regions of the world, marginalization of agriculture in the Indian economy is not being accompanied by a similar degree of shift of population to nonagricultural employment. Given that India is a democratic country such a reality becomes even more challenging. Though liberalization and globalization were important turning points in the recent economic history of India, the crisis of Punjab agriculture, as mentioned above, was already evident by early 1980s, and had become a political issue in the state. Acknowledging that all was not well with the state of affairs in Punjab agriculture, the state government in 1985 appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Professor S.S. Johl, an agronomist, to look into the problems of the agrarian sector. In the report submitted in 1986, the Johl committee expressed concern about stagnating productivity levels and deteriorating environment due to the cropping pattern dominated by paddy-wheat rotation. The committee recommended that if agriculture in Punjab was to be made sustainable, the farmers will have to be encouraged to diversify cropping pattern, switching over from high-volume and low-value crops to low-volume and high-value crops.

However, given the overall political atmosphere in the state at that time, no concrete steps could be taken to implement the report. The available official data on employment patterns in Punjab has begun to reflect the process of shift from agriculture very clearly. As shown in figure below the proportion of cultivators in the total number of main workers in Punjab declined from 46.56 in 1971 to 31.44 in 1991, and further to 22.60 by 2001. While the share of cultivators has been consistently falling, that of the agricultural labourers had been rising until the 1991 Census. However, over the last decade, viz. from 1991 to 2001, even their proportion declined significantly, from 23.82 to 16.30. In other words, though nearly 70 per cent of Punjabs population still lives in rural areas, only around 39 per cent of the main workers in the state were directly employed in agriculture.

Proportion of main workers engaged in agriculture in Punjab

Cultivators 42.56 35.86 31.44 22.16 23.82 22.6 16.3 Agri. Labourers

20.11

1971

1981

1991

2001

Introduction of liberalization and globalization during the early 1990s further increased pressure of the agrarian economy. The new economic policy advocated withdrawal of the state from economic sphere, leaving it to the logic of market forces. While it might be a good thing for the industry to be allowed to freely import the latest technology from abroad or have a competitive atmosphere, leaving the agricultural sector to vagaries of free market could prove disastrous. Small landholders cultivate most of the land in India and they often have to borrow from various sources for investments in the cultivation of cash crops. The cycle of agricultural production is such that virtually the entire farm yield comes to the market

simultaneously. In a completely free and open market, the indebted small cultivator would obviously find it hard to bargain with the mighty trader. The support price regime for food grain crops had been a great help to the farmers. Notwithstanding the shift in economic policies, the agrarian lobby was able to prevail and the support price regime was not withdrawn. However, procurement agencies became lack luster and began to show lethargy in procuring crops from farmers. With the extension of Green Revolution to other parts of India, the demand for food grains from Punjab also declined. Thus, even when the support price regime continued, the central government no longer raised the support prices much in the subsequent years. This was most visible during the paddy procurement season of the year 2000. There had been a bumper crop of paddy in the state with no natural calamities like untimely rains or floods. But when the crop was brought to the mandis (marketing centres) the farmers were surprised to find that procurement agencies were not willing to buy their grains at the minimum support price declared by the central government. The officials claimed that they could not buy the paddy because it was of inferior quality. The FCI (Food Corporation of India) chief went to the extent of saying that as much as 80 per cent of the Punjab paddy was spoilt a claim that had no scientific basis. Indeed the FCI officials rarely conducted any tests while rejecting a particular lot of paddy even when they were provided with the kits to carry out such tests. Interestingly, private traders and rice millers were quite willing to buy the same paddy but at a price much lower than the official support price, which would have hardly met the farmers costs for production of the crop. In the given situation many farmers eventually sold their paddy to traders. The traders paid them Rs. 400 to Rs. 450 per quintal for the super fine variety of paddy against the official support price of Rs. 550. For the common variety of paddy, traders were paid them Rs. 350 to Rs 400 per quintal against the official support price of Rs. 510. Some traders reportedly sold the same paddy to official agencies at the minimum support price a few weeks later. Many farmers, however, choose to wait with their grains in the mandis for the official agencies, in some cases for over two weeks. Local newspapers during the month of October 2000 were splashed with pictures of paddy piled up in the mandis and farmers sleeping over them. The grain was everywhere and mandis were overflowing with heaps of paddy. Paddy was being downloaded wherever the farmers could find room on roads, in school grounds,

in public parks. The farmers were obviously depressed and angry, perhaps more depressed than angry! As a newspaper report states: Though the farmers anger is coming to a boil, his attitude towards the gover nment officials is, surprisingly, the very reverse. With folded hands, he pleads with them to lift his produce, at times virtually falling at their feet to grant him a remunerative rate. A telling symbol of the vice-like grip that the market binds him in. Farmers were at the mercy of officials! It is blood and toil for six months and we cannot afford to annoy the officials. The money we earn during these days will provide for our family during the next six months as well as help us purchase fertilisers for the forthcoming wheat crop, a farmer in the Khanna Mandi, Asias biggest grain market, told Bajinder Pal Singh, a newspaper reporter. However, not all of them could wait or bear the humiliation. There were several reports on the front pages of local newspapers during the month of October 2000 of the small and marginal farmers taking the extreme step of committing suicide out of frustration and humiliation. Marginalization of agriculture has had many far reaching implications for the farming population of the region and elsewhere. There has been a general stagnation of agricultural sector over the last decade or so. The available analyses show that by early 1990s, paddy and wheat had already reached peak level of productivity in Punjab. According to the Economic Survey of Punjab 2003-04, the primary sector of Punjab economy registered a negative growth at the rate of minus 2.38 per cent over the preceding year (2002-03). The share of agriculture sector to the gross state domestic product has also declined significantly from 33.06 per cent in 1993-94 to 22.43 per cent in 2002-03.

Share of Agriculture in GDP

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 %age share

Some recent studies carried-out by economists in different parts of the state provide us with abundant evidence of growing economic hardships of the cultivators of Punjab. A study carried out by H.S. Shergill during the middle of 1990s found that as many as 86 per cent of the respondent farmers had to routinely borrow from various credit agencies for short-term investment on crops. Nearly 27 per cent of all farmers borrowed for capital investments in farm machinery. In terms of dependence on borrowed money, the smaller landholders were clearly in a much weaker position than bigger landholders. Though the bigger farmers also frequently borrowed for short and long-term investments on land, many of them also had savings. The average per acre outstanding debt of the small farmers worked out to be Rs. 3,396 as against Rs. 1,398 and Rs. 1,599 for the medium and big farmers, respectively. It is rather interesting to note that despite official efforts at making institutional credit available to the cultivators, a significant proportion of short term borrowings (61.31 per cent) by all categories of farmers were from the commission agents in grain markets, the arhtias. As many as 63.85 per cent farmers regularly borrowed from them. The Primary Co-operative Credit Societies came next from where 51.31 per cent of the farmers borrowed for their shortterm credit needs. Only 8.85 per cent of the farmers borrowed from commercial banks for short-term investments in land.

Another study by a team led by Sucha Singh Gill found that the indebtedness of the surveyed farmers who had committed suicide in the Malwa sub-region of Punjab was in the range of Rs 10,000 and Rs 6.5 lakh and the average outstanding debt was Rs 1.25 lakh per farmer household. More recently, Singh (2005) in their study of six villages selected from different sub regions of the state found that as many as 78.40 per cent of all the farm households in Punjab were under debt. Only those with large holdings were relatively free from debts. Average outstanding debt of their sample population worked out to be as high as Rs. 92, 394 of which nearly 58 per cent had been borrowed from non-institutional sources. The extent and the nature of debt of course varied across different categories of farmers. While the absolute amount of outstanding debt with the marginal and small farmers was lesser (Rs 17,465 and Rs. 43,598 respectively), the share of non-institutional debt in their outstanding debt was much higher (74 and 70 per cent, respectively). This study also confirmed the overall domination of arhtias in the local credit market. Arhtias accounted for as much as 50.51 per cent of all the outstanding debt with their respondent farmers. As has happened in some other parts of India, Punjab too experienced an increase in cases of suicides by farmers and landless labourers during the decade of 1990s. The available literature tends to point to a clear link between the increasing economic hardships of the rural people, particularly the smaller farmers and landless labourers, and the growing numbers of suicides. According to the IDC (Institute of Development and Communication) study, the contemporary crisis of the Punjab agriculture emanated from a) limitations of the Green Revolution and lack of inner dynamism to build up forward and backward inter-sectoral linkages; b) decline in the size of operational holdings and fragmentation of land as well as pauperization of small and marginal farmers; c) decline in the growth rate of productivity; and d) increase in input costs and a corresponding fall in income of the small and marginal farmers. And most importantly, there was a loophole in the government policy that was introduced.

LITERATURE REVIEW Green Revolution:

Let us first look at briefly the overall economic development process of the country since independence in 1947 until the present day. India suffered a relatively low economic growth rates around 3.5 per cent per annum until the late 1970s, with a large fluctuations due to the influence of the agricultural sector growth which largely depended on the monsoon situation. Indian economy then experienced some improvement in the 1980s because of the governments liberalization policies (but not in a full-scale) under the Rajiv Gandhi regime and a relatively high growth rate attained by the agricultural sector in the decade. And finally, after the full-scale economic liberalization in 1991 the economic growth rates in India accelerated to a very high level (usually more than 6 percent, and 3even more than 8 percent after the mid-2000s) until recently. It is notable at the same time that the agricultural sector growth started to clearly lag behind the GDP growth since the 1990s, which indicates that the Indian economy was plunged into a new developmental stage after the 1990s where widening disparity between agricultural and non-agricultural (or between rural and urban) sectors is one of the major problems for the economy. Now let us look into the agricultural sector development in India by dividing the whole period from the independence to the present time into several periods. 1. Until the mid-1960s It is well known that the agricultural sector of British colonial India, especially the crop sector, was totally stagnant or even a negative growth was recorded in the entire first half of the 20th century. This pattern, however, was reversed at the independence in 1947. The food grains (which is defined in India as cereals plus pulses) production registered a high growth in India at 4.13 per cent during 1951-52 to 1960-61 on average. Both the sown area expansion and the crop yield increase were contributed to the growth. However, the growth rate of the agricultural sector was decelerated during the period. The priority of the governments agricultural policy was primarily given to institutional reforms such as the land reform and the promotion of farmers cooperatives. As a socialist nation India strongly promoted a heavy industrialization, especially after the second Five Year Plan (1956-57 to 1960-61), leaving the agricultural sector relatively neglected.

Severe two years consecutive droughts attacked India in the mid-1960s. Agriculture recorded a large negative growth and India faced a serious food problem. Since the share of the agricultural sector in GDP was still very high at about 50 per cent, the slump of agriculture hit the economy as a whole and even the political regime itself. India was obliged to import as much as 10 million tons of food (mainly wheat) for the two years. 2. From the mid-1960s to the end of the 1970s The serious economic and political crisis which India faced in the mid-1960s triggered the big conversion of agricultural policy of the government; i.e. it emphasized technological innovation and started to introduce new agricultural technologies from abroad. And it was a fortunate coincidence for India that the mid-1960s was the time when new seed-fertilizer technologies started to diffuse in the tropical developing world. In particular, it was luckily found that the wheat HYVs (Mexican semi-dwarf wheat varieties) developed in CIMMYT in Mexico were quite suitable for the climate conditions in the northern India such as Punjab. And the most important factor which promoted the dissemination of the new technologies was the diffusion of private tube-wells which exploit groundwater. Thus the new seed-fertilizer technologies, especially for the wheat crop, started to disseminate very rapidly in northern India and within a decade or so India attained food selfsufficiency except for some drought years. It can be called the first wave of the Green Revolution in India. However, Indian economy as a whole had to experience a bitter lost decade during the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s mainly due to the shortage of foreign exchange for the import-substituting industrial sectors (Ohno, 1999). It was because India had to continue to import a large amount of food for several years and it also had to import chemical fertilizers (and agricultural machineries) for the development of agriculture. In sum, India had to pay a huge cost for the sake of the negligence of agriculture at the time until the mid-1960s, which is considered to be a typical case of the Ricardian Trap in economic development. The first wave of the Green Revolution in India had another limitation from the viewpoint of overall economic development in the country. Because the diffusion of the Green Revolution was confined to wheat crop and in northern India such as Punjab, Haryana and the western part of Uttar Pradesh, it could not raise rural income and alleviate rural poverty in a wider area. Rural India continued to be poor except some particular spots.

As a result of the rapid production growth of wheat, which was a minor crop in India at the time of independence, however, the production of wheat exceeded that of the coarse cereals (such as jowar, bajra, ragi and maize) by the end of the 1970s in India (Figure 3, Figure 4). 3. During the 1980s The decade of the 1980s witnessed a very favorable growth rates in the agricultural sector, including almost all the regions of the country and almost all the important crop sectors. The rapid increase of rice production during the 1980s, which is an important staple food in eastern and southern India, was especially essential poverty-struck rural areas in India. The most important factor behind the overall rapid growth of the agricultural sector in India was a widespread diffusion of private tube-wells (especially small-scale shallow tubewells). The diffusion of tube-wells in formerly rain-fed areas (or unreliably irrigated areas by government canals) enabled to grow HYV wheat instead of rabi crops such as pulses in the dry season (rabi season), and in the monsoon season (kharif season) the yield of rice was increased substantially by switching the varieties from traditional to modern types (HYVs). Thus the highly productive rice-wheat cropping pattern was established in a wide area of rural India, especially in the Gangetic Basin. Furthermore, in some places with a plenty of rainfall such as West Bengal, double cropping of HYV rice was widely disseminated. There had been a controversy in India among economists regarding the reason why new agricultural technologies were not accepted for long in eastern India, in sharp contrast with northern and some other parts of India. It was argued by some Marxist economists that the semi-feudal mode of production system in eastern India (represented by agrarian structure with small numbers of big landlord and large numbers of indebted poor sharecroppers) was ultimately attributed to it. However, if we investigate the factors which critically determine the diffusion of the new seed-fertilizer technologies, it is evident that one of the key factors was the diffusion of private tube-wells. Therefore the key question is why especially in the eastern India the introduction of private tube-wells was delayed until the 1980s. One of the answers may be the shortage of capital in the hand of farmers to purchase private tube-wells, because in eastern India there were in general only small-scale poor farmers. In other words, it can be for the development of hitherto

hypothesized that after the 1980s the real price of tube-wells declined so that even the relatively poor farmers in eastern India could purchase tube-wells. Another factor may be the delay of rural electrification in eastern India, because irrigation cost is much cheaper by electric tube-wells than diesel-driven tube-wells On the other hand, extreme land fragmentation in eastern India with a lack of successful land consolidation program was often attributed to the delay of the diffusion of tube-wells. However, the experiences in eastern India in the 1980s suggested that this hypothesis was totally wrong; i.e. tube-wells did rapidly diffuse even under the extreme land fragmentation. And under the land fragmentation the water sales market (groundwater market) for irrigation was widely emerged and developed. In sum, rural India witnessed a widespread agricultural development in the 1980s due mainly to the diffusion of private tube-wells. Especially the most important thing was that rice production, which was the main staple food in eastern and southern India, increased rapidly and contributed to raising rural income and alleviating poverty. The real wages of agricultural labourers in India had started to rise and also rural poverty started to decline for the first time in the long history of the country. Lastly, it should be noted that in India not only rice and wheat increased their yield levels dramatically during the period of the Green Revolution, but also coarse cereals accomplished a continuous and substantial increase of their yield (Figure 8). According to Figure 8, the average yield of coarse cereals increased from less than 500 kg/ha in the 1950s to more than 1000 kg/ha in recent years, although sown area experienced a rapid decrease from the beginning of the 1970s due to the continuous decline of demand for human consumption. At present, as indicated in Figure 9, although demand for coarse cereals for human consumption became minimal except some spots (rural and urban Karnataka, rural Maharashtra, rural Gujarat and rural Rajasthan), demand for animal feed is increasing, especially in the case of maize and jowar (sorghum). 4. After the 1990s Indian economy was plunged into a new developmental stage after the 1990s. First, the critical period for the preparation of full-scale non-agricultural sector development was over until the end of the 1980s, when broad-based agricultural development based on the second Green Revolution was happened. Second, however, since India turned to the stage when per

capita human consumption of food grains (especially for staple food such as rice and wheat) started to decline, agricultural growth rate will not be very high because food grains sector is large within the agricultural sector, even if high-valued agricultural commodities (such as livestock, vegetable, fruits) will increase relatively rapidly. Third, it means that widening disparity between agricultural and non-agricultural (or between rural and urban) sectors will be a serious problem for the economy. Because of the limited space, let us point out only some key facts and issues which Indian agriculture faced after the 1990s in the following. 1) The agricultural sector growth rate declined to 2.5 percent per annum on average after the 1990s. The fatigue of agricultural sector and rural economy is becoming a serious social problem, especially compared to the rapid growth of non-agricultural sectors mainly in urban areas. Although the government is setting the growth rate target of agricultural sector at 4 per cent, it may be quite difficult to realize it. 2) Because of the declined per capita consumption for cereals (especially for rice) and also because of the failure of food management policies of the government, India became a major exporter of rice (very recently wheat also) since the mid-1990s to the world market, particularly to Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa. The export of rice (and wheat) was strongly associated with an excess buffer stock of rice (and wheat) accumulated in the government sector (Food Corporation of India), and India experienced two peak periods of extremely excess stock; i.e. the first one was in the mid-1990s and the second one was at the beginning of the 2000s. 3) Subsidies for agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizer, irrigation (canal) and electricity (for electric pump sets such as tube-wells) has been rapidly increased since the 1980s until the present day. Agricultural subsidies are now very big fiscal burden for the government, especially for the state government. The subsidies are given mainly to the advanced agricultural areas and also to the wealthy farmers in particular. Therefore, the necessary public investment for agriculture and for rural areas is neglected, which causes the disparity between advanced rural areas and backward rural areas fixed.

Government Policies:
The Ninth and Tenth year plans saw an agricultural growth rate of 2.44 per cent and 2.30 per cent compared to 4.72 per cent in Eighth Five Year Plans. So that the agricultural growth were back on the track, as agriculture was an important sector in India, with the respect to both food security and livelihood, new policies catering to this sector were introduced by the government. Some of them are explained below:

National Agriculture Policy:

National agricultural policy was introduced on July 28th, 2000. The National Policy on Agriculture seeks to actualise the vast untapped growth potential of Indian agriculture, strengthen rural infrastructure to support faster agricultural development, promote value addition, accelerate the growth of agro business, create employment in rural areas, secure a fair standard of living for the farmers and agricultural workers and their families, discourage migration to urban areas and face the challenges arising out of economic liberalization and globalisation. Over the next two decades, it aims to attain:

1. 2.

A growth rate in excess of 4 per cent per annum in the agriculture sector; Growth that is based on efficient use of resources and conserves our soil, water and bio-diversity;

3.

Growth with equity, i.e., growth which is widespread across regions and farmers;

4.

Growth that is demand driven and caters to domestic markets and maximises benefits from exports of agricultural products in the face of the challenges arising from economic liberalization and globalisation;

5.

Growth that is sustainable technologically, environmentally and economically.

Features of NAP 2000:

National agricultural policy encouraged private participation- which included contract farming. This encouraged the capital and technology inflow into the sector. Further, through liberalisation, the competitiveness increased and that led to quality production. It also led to tax reforms. Instead of subsidies, tax concessions were given. Due to capital inflow, there was a subsequent improvement in the infrastructure and transportation facilities. National agricultural policy also aimed to protect the multinational patents rights and plans to evolve the National Livestock Breeding Agency.

National Policy for Farmers:

National policy for farmers was introduced to help in rejuvenating the farm sector and bringing lasting improvement in the economic condition of the farmers. The need for policy orientation was seen because more than 60 % of the population was dependent on agriculture for livelihood, resulting in low per capita income in the farm sector. Consequently, there is a large disparity between the per capita income in the farm sector and the non-farm sector. Therefore, it was essential to deal with those issues which impact the income levels of farmers. Background: The Government had constituted National Commission on Farmers in 2004 under the chairmanship of Dr. M.S. Swaminathan. The terms of reference of the Commission included, inter alia, methods of enhancing productivity, profitability and sustainability of the major farming systems in different agro-climatic regions of the country and suggesting measures to attract and retain educated youth in farming and working out a comprehensive medium term strategy for food and nutrition security.

Main provisions: Important provisions and features incorporated in the National Policy for Farmers, 2007include the following:

(a) Human Dimension: Focus to be on the economic well-being of the farmers than just on production and productivity and this is to be the principal determinant of Farmers policy.

(b) Definition of Farmers: Expanded to include all categories of persons engaged in

the sector so that they can be extended the benefits of the Policy.

(c) Asset Reforms: To ensure that every man and woman, particularly the poor, in villages either possesses or have access to a productive asset.

(d) Income Per Unit of Water: The concept of maximizing yield and income per unit of water would be adopted in all crop production programmes, stress on awareness and efficiency of water use.

(e) Drought Code, Flood Code and Good Weather Code: To be introduced in drought prone areas, flood prone areas and in arid areas respectively so as to maximize the benefits of monsoon and to be prepared for likely contingencies.

(f) Use of Technology: New technologies which can help enhance productivity per unit of land and water are needed. Biotechnology, information and communication technology (ICT), renewable energy technology, space applications and nanotechnology to provide opportunities for launching an "Evergreen Revolution" capable of improving productivity in perpetuity without harming the ecology.

(g) National Agricultural Bio-security System: To be set up to organize a coordinated agricultural bio-security programme.

(h) Inputs and services-Soil Health: Good quality seeds, disease free planting material, including in-vitro cultured propagules and Soil health enhancement hold the key to raising small farm productivity. Every farm family to be issued with a Soil Health Passbook.

(i) Support Services for women: When women work in fields and forests the whole day, they need appropriate support services like crches, child care centers and adequate nutrition.

(j) Credit & Insurance: Credit counseling centers to be established where severely indebted farmers can be provided a debt rescue package to help them out of debt trap. Need for both credit and insurance literacy in villages, Gyan Chaupals to help in the

task.

(k) Setting up of Farm Schools in the fields of outstanding farmers to promote farmer to farmer learning and to strengthen extension services.

(l) Gyan Chaupals to be established in as many villages as possible to harness the help of Information and Communication Technology.

(m) A comprehensive National Social Security Scheme for the farmers for ensuring livelihood security by taking care of insurance needs on account of illness, old age, etc.

(n) Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanisms to be implemented effectively across the country so as to ensure remunerative prices for agricultural produce.

(o) Market Intervention Scheme to be strengthened to respond speedily to exigencies, specific crops to be identified.

(p) Community Foodgrain Banks: To be promoted to help in the marketing of unutilized crops.

(q) Single National Market: To develop a Single National Market by relaxing internal restrictions and controls.

(r) Expanding Food Security Basket to include nutritious crops like bajra, jowar, ragi and millets mostly grown in dryland farming areas.

(s) Farmers of the future: Farmers may adopt cooperative farming, create service cooperatives, undertake group farming through self-help groups, establish small holders' estates, adopt contract farming and create farmers' companies. This is expected to increase productivity, efficiency of small farmers and would create multiple livelihood opportunities through crop livestock integrated farming systems as well as agro processing.

(t) A Cabinet Committee on Food Security is to be constituted.

Government Programs:
Some programs were also introduced by the government with regard to agriculture, which are explained below: 1. National Food Security Mission: National Food Security Mission was launched in August 2007 to meet the food requirements of the country. The main objective of this scheme is to increase production and productivity of wheat, rice and pulses on a sustainable basis. The approach is to bridge the yield gap in respect of these crops through dissemination of improved technologies and farm management practices. 142 districts of 15 States (AP, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, U.P. and West Bengal) are covered under NFSM-Rice. 142 districts of 9 States (Punjab, Haryana, UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, MP, Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal) are covered under NFSM-Wheat. 468 districts of 16 States (AP, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, UP and West Bengal) will be covered under NFSM-Pulses. 20 million hectares of rice, 13 million hectares of wheat and 4.5 million hectares of pulses are included in these districts that roughly constitute 50% of cropped area for wheat and rice. For pulses, an additional 20% cropped area would be created. Recently, the Centre has allocated over Rs 1,800 crore to states under the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) this year to raise food grains output by 25 million tonnes in the 12th Five Year Plan period. Uttar Pradesh got the maximum amount at Rs 276.9 crore, followed by Madhya Pradesh Rs 226.87 crore and Maharashtra Rs 196 crore. Other major beneficiaries included Andhra Pradesh (Rs 142.64 crore), Rajasthan (Rs 135.95 cr), Karnataka (Rs 104.83 cr) and Bihar (Rs 97.87 cr).

2. Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna: Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana is a State Plan Scheme of Additional Central Assistance launched in August 2007 as a part of the 11th Five Year Plan by the Government of India. Launched under the aegis of the National Development Council, it seeks to achieve

4% annual growth in agriculture through development of Agriculture and its allied sectors (as defined by the Planning Commission (India)) during the period under the 11th Five Year Plan (200711). The scheme is essentially a State Plan Scheme that seeks to provide the States and Territories of India with the autonomy to draw up plans for increased public investment in Agriculture by incorporating information on local requirements,geographical/climatic conditions, available natural resources/ technology and cropping patterns in their districts so as to significantly increase the productivity of Agriculture and its allied sectors and eventually maximize the returns of farmers in agriculture and its allied sectors.

A State is eligible for funding under the RKVY if it maintains or increases the percentage of its expenditure on Agriculture and its Allied Sectors with respect to the total State Plan Expenditure, where the Base Line (which will move every year) for this expenditure is the average of the percentage of expenditure incurred by a State Government for the previous three years on Agriculture and its Allied Sectors minus any funds related to Agriculture and its allied sectors that it may already have received in that time under its State Plan.

Newspaper Clippings In lieu of Farmers Plight:

Although, as can be seen above, the government has done much to achieve accelerated growth in agriculture, little has been done to improve the conditions of the farmers, in spite of a national policy for farmers. The Clippings have been explained in the subsequent pages:

1. BAN ON EXPORTS OF NON BASMATI

The decision of government to exercise a ban on exports of wheat and non basmati

remained for a long time of 4 years when it was recently lifted in September, 2011. This ban added to the plight of farmers and they remained at the mercy of markets. Price of rice fell; farmers started selling their lands and fled to foreign countries hoping for a better life there. Such decisions of government hit farmers very badly whose only source of income is their crop [7].

2. POTATO GLUT : LOOKING BEYOND THE MARKETS

In December 2011, newspapers were full of reports of the massive potato glut that forced the farmers to dump the harvested crop on roads. Saddled with 2.5 lakh tones of unsold harvest from the previous season, and in anticipation of a bumper crop next

fortnight, the market slumped. Against Rs 800 per quintal last year, farmers were able to realize merely Rs 100-150 this year

[Reference].Such steep fall in prices brought gloom in the potato belt.

Times Of India dated Dec 16, 2011 by I.P Singh

There

have in

been the

suggestions

newspaper editorials to solve this glut like provide additional cold storage space; encourage public/private investment for processing potatoes into chips and French fries; and finally some setting up plants for manufacturing vodka. Analyzing these suggestions will help one understand that none of them is efficient. For example, large retail giants prefer importing frozen potato fries than manufacture them here. A vodka manufacturing plant would not require any big quantity that can make a significant difference to the production [8].

There is an urgent need for government to understand market and take decisions intelligently. A map shall be made to understand the nations requirements for a particular crop. Production area shall be regularly monitored and an alarm shall be sounded as soon as the production exceeds the requirement. To achieve all this, there is an urgent need to educate farmers. Multiple cropping shall be encouraged to reduce dependence on one crop and reduce risk. Moreover, government should have facilitated export of potatoes in such a state of crisis.

3. WHY WOULD MONSANTO UPROOT ITS OWN BT MAIZE TRIAL IN BIHAR?

This brings us to the a major scandal in the name of science, and involving the multinational seed giant Monsanto, India's apex regulatory authority -- Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the umbrella farm educational and research organization -Indian Council for

Agricultural Research (ICAR). Indian science is riddled with massive corruption.

In a letter addressed to the Environment &

Forest Minister Jairam

Ramesh, Nitish Kumar has accused the seed

multinational

corporation Monsanto, the GEAC and ICAR of conniving to begin

trials of GM maize in

his State even before it had got clearance from the environment ministry and without informing the state government either, reports Times of India (Mar 15. 2011).

Interestingly, this is not the only scandal that has come up. For a long time, thousands of farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Jharkhand have been left in the lurch. They had planted urd and til crops in a large acreage, and to their dismay no grain formation took place in the standing crop. Unable to bear the economic loss, at least four farmers have reportedly committed suicide. Thousands of farmers have been pushed deeper into economic distress. They had also expressed their indignation by holding demonstration and protests at a number of small towns but havent got anything more than an official promise to provide them adequate compensation. What India needs right now is a Seed bill replacing the non-efficient existing one, which must provide for a minimum economic liability that the seed companies must undertake in event of a crop failure [9].

4. MICRO FINANCE CRISIS

There is no denying that micro-finance proved as a killer to the farmers in Andhra Pradesh. It looks very attractive to give small credit at a cheaper rate to build the capacity of the poor and thereby alleviate poverty. In reality, it does the opposite. How can this be of any benefit to farmers when they are being given small loans up to Rs 10,000 on an exorbitant annual interest rate of 24%?

In the cities, we can buy a car on a loan at an interest averaging 6-7%. House loans up to Rs 20 lakh are available at 8 % interest. Why should then the poorest of the poor be charged 24 % for a small amount? This is nothing but crime.

It is very difficult to pay back with such a high interest rate for a normal person. So, one can imagine the plight of a poor farmer [10].

5. POWER CRISIS, HIKE IN DIESEL PRICES, BUT MORE OR LESS SAME CROP PRICE WOES FARMERS
In the midst of power crisis in Punjab,

Farming is the most affected because of sector load

shedding, as paddy growers are

complaining of not getting promised eight hours of power supply for crop sowing in kharif season. Due to lack of electricity,

farmers use generators and with the hike in

diesel prices, it would add to the production cost of the farmer.

Over 70 per cent farmland in Punjab depends on artificial irrigation. Most of the farmers in the state use tractors to plough their field and generators run on diesel for irrigation. Farmers say the hike will increase the input costs up to 2000 rupees per acre on an average. For an average farmer with few acres of land who finds it difficult to feed his family, it becomes so difficult to cope up with these situations.

Due to problems like water and power crisis, farmers suffer from increase in production costs while the market prices of the crop remain more or less the same. This keeps them at loss when already they are in very poor condition[11].

Analysis
After going through the secondary as well as the primary research we have reached the following conclusions: 1. India has become self-sufficient but after the globalisation the growth of agriculture has been declining. The policies look after the productivity but has merely managed to stabilise the growth rate 2. Even though schemes and policies have introduced for the farmers, their conditions are not good. They dont get good prices for their crops, due to which most of the families are not able to meet the basic necessities of life. 3. Government keeps introducing erratic policies based on poor market speculation like ban on exports which hinder the growth of the farmer. In fact, government should properly analyse the agricultural land and draw out a crop map to specifically know the nationwide requirement of a articular crop.

Survey Findings
Q1. How long have you been engaged in farming? Ans. All the farmers have been engaged in farming whole their life.

Q2. What is the area of land you own?

Area of Land owned by Farmer

Farmers having 4 - 5 acres of land Farmers having more than 25 acres of land 5% 15% Farmers having 10-15 acres of land

80%

Q3. Do you receive any subsidy on crop seeds or fertilizers? If yes, then elaborate. Ans. Currently there is no subsidy on crops seeds or fertilizers. There used to be a subsidy on fertilizers but now that no longer exists. In fact, a 50 kg bag of fertilizer named D.A.P which earlier prized at Rs. 430 now costs Rs. 1250.

Q4. Do you get free electricity and tube well facilities? If yes, then elaborate. Ans. Yes, we get free electricity and tube well facilities from government but we are supposed to get 8 hours of free electricity. However, that is never fulfilled. So we employ generators for running tractors and tube wells. With increase in diesel prices, it has increased the cost of production.

Q5. Do you think introducing FDI is in favour of farmers? Ans. 80 % of the farmers thought that FDI will benefit them a lot. When they were asked the reason, few of them mentioned it will be direct purchase so it will be the farmers who will decide the price. Few others mentioned there will be no middlemen. Many believed that there will be better facilities like better seeds, good quality fertilizers and good storage houses with FDI coming in.

Q6. Do you think subsidies are any benefit to farmers? Ans. 70 % of the farmers said that subsidies do not matter a lot to us. What matters is the right price of crop to us which we never get as we want.

Q7. What is the current market price of wheat, cotton and rice? Do you think the prices are apt from a farmers perspective? If no, why and what do you think shall be the prices? Ans. The current market prices of three crops are: Wheat 1200 per quintal Cotton 4100 per quintal Rice 1100 per quintal

No farmer was satisfied with the current prices of the crops. When asked the reason, farmers gave a very apt comparison. Wheat price has increased from Rs. 600 to Rs. 1200 in 3 4 years. The price of cotton in 1993 - 94 was 800 1000 per quintal and in 10 years, it has just increased to 4000 per quintal. If one compare this increase in cost of crop to that of increase in products like cloth, bread it is huge. Whatever may be the international price of crop, not much difference is seen in the price that we get. The apt prices of three crops according to farmers were: Wheat 2000 per quintal Cotton 7000 - 8000 per quintal Rice 1700 - 1800 per quintal

Q8. Are all of your family members engaged in agriculture? Ans. 80-85% of the families has agriculture as their sole source of income. The rest of them have sent their wards for higher studies. Some of them are also looking to sell their lands and shift to other modes of income.

Q9. What is the annual agricultural profit after all your expenses? Ans. Farmer with 4 -5 acres of land make an annual profit of around 2 lakhs sadly on a property worth Rs. 1 crore. This is a very poor condition and most of the farmers of Punjab are in this condition. They cant afford the basic necessities of life. A farmer with 10 12 acres of land can fulfill the basic necessities of life and the families with more than 25 acres of land are in good condition. However, there number is very less.

Q10. Any other incidents/Comments you can relate to? Ans. One incident which the farmers of village Khedi near Muktsar mentioned was when government reached out to farmers 5 years back for buying their lands to build a thermal plant there. Company quoted the price of land at 25 lakhs which was quite good price for land at that point. It turned out that company delayed the buying of land and no contractor was ready to take up those farms for cultivation under the fear of company confiscating the land at

any point leading to loss of crop. This bothered the farmers for a long time since they had no source of income.

LIMITATIONS:
Although the project has covered major issues in regard to the political crisis and has also analysed the government policies and programmes, the project poses the following limitations: 1. Limited Area of Domain: The Area of Domain in our case was limited to one state i.e., Punjab. Although the secondary research was carried out for other states like Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, but primary research (getting the survey sheets filled) was possible only in the nearby location. As a result, we could not interact directly with the farmers of other states. This could have provided us with a clear picture of political impact on agriculture and farmers on a nation-wise basis. 2. Information about politicians difficult to obtain: Politicians responsible for the plight of farmers were difficult to identify as the people were not ready to tell the names of the politicians. Thus, we were able to give only a big-picture analysis of the situation but minute details were missing in few places. 3. Limited crops considered: For the project, the research was limited to the major crops like wheat, rice and cotton. This was mainly due to the fact that the farmers who were surveyed were the ones in the cotton belt of Punjab i.e. the Malwa region

CHALLENGES FACED:
Like every other project, while completing this project we faced many hurdles. Although the challenges were finally overcome, but some of them have been listed below: 1. Surveys were difficult to fill as most of the farmers were uneducated. 2. Farmers were reluctant to give information about their income. 3. The secondary research material, specifically the relevant news articles and their critical analysis was time consuming. 4. The government policies were long and complex. 5. While carrying out secondary research, we found some conflicting statistics, which had to then be verified by referring to trusted sources. 6. There was less information available about the decline in agricultural growth in relation to politics.

References:
1. Annual Report 2010-2011, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. http://agricoop.nic.in/Annual%20report2010-11/AR.pdf 2. Source: World Bank 3. Cultivable Land in India Shrinking, March 2012, The Hindu Business Line http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/economy/article1576256.ece 4. India 2012 Kharif food production estimate at 5-year high: Agriculture Ministry, Sep 2012, Commodity Online http://www.commodityonline.com/news/india-2012-kharif-food-production-estimate-at-5year-high-agriculture-ministry-50493-3-50494.html 5. Crisis in Punjab Agriculture, Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly. 6. Sector Profile: Agriculture and Food Processing, TRIFAC, Madhya Pradesh http://www.mptrifac.org/PotSector/Agriculture&FoodProcessing.pdf 7. SME Business Services Limited 8. Farmers Carpet Jalandher roads with potatoes, Times of India [2011] 9. Withdraw Nods for Field Trials for BT Maize By GARGI PARSAI from The Hindu dated March 9, 2011 10. Small loans add upto Lethal Debts, Erika Keintz, Hindu (2012) 11. Why Diesel Prices Hike has Punjab Farmers Worried, Sabyasachi Dasgupta dated September 14, 2012 from NDTV