Eminent agriculture scientist MS Swaminathan, Chairman of the much discussed Farmers’ Commission whose report mooted an MSP at 50 per cent above cost, feels that income support can be given in the form of free inputs or higher procurement as well. While welcoming ‘PM-Kisan’, he says cash transfer should not become a form of patronage and that the focus should shift from loan write-offs to long-term policies. Excerpts from an interview with Vishwanath Kulkarni :

How do you assess the current scenario in agriculture?

The current agriculture situation is a mixed bag. There are bright spots as well as dark spots. Bright spots come from the enthusiasm on the part of farmers, who know today that they can produce much more. Similarly, agriculture universities have developed quite good programmes. Bright spots are in terms of our ability to produce more foodgrains, horticulture produce, milk and poultry.

Agriculture involves crop husbandry, animal husbandry, forestry and fisheries. Your income will go up only if you look at the system, and not from one crop alone. We have mentioned in the report on Farmers Commission on giving income orientation to farmers and not just production or productivity.

They are important for income. But what did the farmers get? You talk about improving government servants’ income every time, but what about farmers? It has to come from a larger marketable surplus. If there is a marketable surplus, the total income will go up. The marketable surplus should increase but prices should not go down. That’s where the government/public policy will come into play. It is an interaction between technology and public policy and that’s what agriculture needs.

In agriculture, the technology has made progress but public policy has lagged behind in the last several years, not the present government alone. In fact, my report was submitted to the Manmohan Singh government. If they had adopted most of the recommendations, this agrarian crisis would not have been there. We start from minimum support price, procurement policy and the public distribution policy. For MSP, we had recommended C2+50 per cent, which farmers are demanding.

My idea was, instead of fixing the price every year, have a formula that is satisfactory to the farmers, which will give him some incentive and also be reasonable for the consumer. To sum up, agriculture has made important progress and our farmers have now shown that they are second to none in terms of improving production and productivity. There were genuine concerns in the 1960s on whether Indian farmers will accept the dwarf varieties of wheat. When we introduced the dwarf varieties, I said the best way was to ask them. We put up the seeds for demonstration. Next year, there was such a clamour we had to import 18,000 tonnes of wheat from Mexico. We require much more work. It has come to a stage wherein we have enormous possibilities ahead but farmers are facing enormous problems, particularly in the economics of agriculture. See, technology can advance yield and productivity, but only public policy can advance the income of farmers. There has to be a synergy between technology and public policy.

In the current context of rising input costs, is C2+50 per cent still relevant?

C2+50 per cent is still very relevant. C2 takes all the costs and not only just for a particular crop. It also covers the loss of fertility to the soil and the loss to biodiversity, among other things. Fifty per cent profit, I thought, was minimum for agriculture. I had discussions with other people in other industries as well, before arriving at this formula.

The pharmaceutical man said, ‘we need at least 200 per cent profits, otherwise we will not survive.’ So what about the farmer? C2+50 gave a basis for farmers to take up their costs. It provided a platform. I told many people that it is not a magic formula or the only one available. But it symbolises an approach to agriculture — that we must ensure that farmers have a living wage.

The cry for loan waver has becomelouder in recent days as both politicians and farmers think it as a solution for the current crisis. How do you see that?

I have always said loan waiver shows backward agriculture. It shows non-viable agriculture. When politicians talk of loan waiver, they are accepting that agriculture is not economically viable. They are giving a wrong signal that farming is not economically viable. It’s true. That’s where the loan waiver comes in.

But how to make it economically viable is your challenge. You have to accept that loan waiver is a way in which we help farmers in the wrong way. It should be a part of the insurance policy. Supposing there is no rainfall or there’s excess or deficit rain due to climate change, you may have to pardon the loan or rewrite the loan over the next few years. But loan waiver, every party now seems to believe, is the way to go. But it is not a long-term viable policy. It is also one which accepts that they can’t improve the economics of agriculture. It is a straightforward admission by the government that it is not able to improve the economics of farming.

So what needs to be done?

Monsoon and markets are both important for agriculture. If the market fails or monsoon fails, then you may have to write off loans for some time. Writing off loans means the government pays. Otherwise, we have to tell them ‘we will reschedule your loans but meanwhile keep farming.’ The main message from the need for loan waiver is that we are slack in making farming economically attractive and viable.

Now the talk of income support has gained momentum. What are your views on this?

Income support is C2+50 per cent. That's exactly what we have done. You increase prices to the extent…giving income for production. Income support should be not on patronage basis. Writing off loans may be a short-term necessity occasionally, when farmers are not able to get a second loan, but should not become a long-term policy. A long-term policy should be to make agriculture economically viable.

Income support could be given in different forms, such as free inputs, for instance, good seeds or fertiliser. Incomes could also be enhanced through higher purchases of the produce by the government to meet commitments under the Food Security Act. You can have free inputs and subsidised inputs or provide low-interest loans. I won’t say there’s one policy that’s relevant for the whole country.

For horticulture crops, you need cold storage. We need to have a Horticulture Board, providing cold-storage facilities, something on the lines of NDDB. Bengal farmers lose so much money on potato because they harvest when the market is low. Depending on the cropping season you give something to farmers that is economically attractive.

Income support does not mean just cash transfer. Cash transfer may also be necessary some times. However, loan waiver is a clear acceptance of the non-viability or economic status of farmers. You can give different forms of inputs and a number of incentives for agriculture. If I were doing it, I would convey a meeting of all farmers of each ecological zone, such as the rain-fed regions, the wet areas, the hilly areas, coastal areas and have discussions with representatives of farmers and ask them what they need to make agriculture viable. Instead of branding it as a generic term of subsidy we ensure that what is needed for farmers is made available to them.