AS the agrarian crisis deepens, it is imperative to get a `sense of the Planning Commission'. In this context, the `Approach Paper to the 11th Plan' is revealing. The paper, along with the 10th Plan mid-term appraisal, is nothing but a series of blas confessions made to the people of this country. The 10th Plan mid-term appraisal, for instance, accepts that "GDP growth in agriculture and allied sectors during the first three years of the Tenth Plan averages only 1 per cent per annum. The Tenth Plan target of 4 per cent growth is, therefore, far from being realised. In fact, per capita agricultural GDP shows no significant upward trend after 1996-97, only fluctuations."
This is confirmed by the 11th Plan Approach Paper, which states in unequivocal terms that the "actual growth of agricultural GDP, including forestry and fishing, was only 1 per cent per annum in the first three years of the 10th Plan and even the most rosy projections for 2005-06 and 2006-07 would limit this below 2 per cent for the full five-year period. The challenge posed is to more than double the growth rate achieved in the 10th Plan."
In fact, the actual position is far worse than the dream of having a 2 per cent growth in the agriculture sector. What is surprising is that despite being aware of the situation, a mid-term course correction was not initiated. Thus, the confession from the mid-term appraisal continues: "Although the Tenth Plan had aimed to reverse deceleration in agricultural growth, its allocation for agriculture and allied sectors was relatively modest. The share of agriculture and allied sectors was only 3.9 per cent of the total Tenth Plan outlay as against 4.9 per cent in the Ninth. And, despite increase in the share of irrigation, the total share of agriculture, irrigation and rural development stood reduced from 20.1 per cent in the Ninth Plan to 18.7 per cent in the Tenth Plan."
The mid-term appraisal is clear on the reason for a crisis of this magnitude to emerge. "The deceleration in the growth of agriculture in the 1990s is generally attributed to inadequate investment. This is supported by the fact that the share of agriculture in total gross capital formation (GCF) had progressively come down from 15.4 per cent in 1980-81 to about 8 per cent by the end of the Ninth Plan (2001-02), and that as a percentage of GDP it has declined from 3.5 in 1980-81 to 1.6 in 2001- 02."
So, while the planners are aware of the nature of the problems, one would expect that some sensible solutions are offered, namely, an increase in investment in the agriculture sector, remunerative prices that meet the real costs of production, and restrictions on import. Instead, what is proposed is quite different.
The Approach Paper, for instance, suggests: "Accelerated agricultural growth will require diversification into horticulture and floriculture, which, in turn, implies structural changes in the relation between agriculture and non-agriculture. Diversification requires effective marketing linkages, supported by modern marketing practices, including introduction of grading, post-harvest management, cold chains, etc. There is a need to encourage the development of modern agricultural markets and for this purpose it is necessary to amend the APMC [Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee] Acts. Although this has begun, the process needs to be accelerated."
How long and how many more deaths it is going to take before the state realises its responsibilities to the peasantry?
Ajay DandekarThe writer is a researcher and a member of Lokaparishad, an organisation which works with farmers in Vidarbha and Marathwada.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE