With substantial investment in sustainable farming practices, enhanced access to modern technology, and upgraded infrastructure for storage, distribution and marketing to minimize post-harvest losses.
I think we should also bring back rhe discussion on farm laws. Those were good laws but pushed very badly in a political sense. What do you think? I mainly support the laws due to the following reasons:
1. Provide the opportunity to sell to anyone they want. Apmc will still be there and msp will be there if required by the farmers.
a. Common criticism - adani, ambani will squeeze the farmers.
i. Retort - farmers can still sell at apmcs
ii. If adani is paying farmer 4inr for tomato instead of apmc paying them 2inr, I see that as a win
2. The MSP and the socialistic outlook on food seems very elitist to me. Think about you, you have the liberty to buy your products from amazon, swiggy, any offline seller and you look for the best price. Why is it not fair to provide the same for farmers? Saying farmers can't engage in mutual agreements with buyers and sellers because the other party will rip them off just seems very elitist to me and that you think of farmers as lesser humans, that they can't take care of themselves.
You have a very good set of points and some of the major economists, including the grand old agricultural economist of Punjab, Dr Johal, the former vice chancellor of Punjab agriculture University, also expressed these views.
As you rightly pointed out, the political handling and the packaging was totally in conceived and people did not expect the type of resistance that it would elicit.
I don’t think they can be resurrected very easily. One can start incrementally with some minor crops being allowed to be covered under similar laws.
As regards the Sales agreement of crops, I would like to say that even for the sale of their own agricultural land with colonisers, farmers are executing such agreements, so I don’t think there is any weight in the argument that they would be duped by the purchasing entities.
That's what I think as well. While trying to make this argument, I just point towards the variety of biscuits and foot items that we see in the market. There's something for everyone.
Secondly, this is just my naive opinion probably, I have been thinking about this for a while. I think punjab and a lot of Indian agri states should focus on horticulture and orchards now. First point being it's Labour intensive so you will be utilizing a lot of our surplus Labour. Wheat and rice generation should be left to richer countries/people since machinery can be more productively utilized there. It's difficult to use machinery in vegetables and fruits production. As for orchards, I see a booming trend in the market, maharashtra has already started to caitalize on it. A lot of demand factors - huge weddings, exports: particularly to Japan and US.
Fruit trees take 3 to 5 years to mature; the farmer cannot wait.
On the other hand I am very bullish about vegetables-- the only major constraint I see is hefty (relatively speaking) per acre investment at sowing and during growing.
Processing industries will mushroom, the moment there's a basic threshold quantum of supply..... too ambitious plans like cold chains and cold storages etc. can follow.
Dr Sharma's analysis is more of a comrade's reading. As you rightly said in your critique, he is more focused on creating rational for higher budgetary resources. Why we need 60 crore people to grow food for 140 crore people is something he has not even thought of. Look at how it works in our homes, one person (usually the woman of the house) makes food for 4-5 members. Going by this, our population engaged in agriculture should not be more than 28 crores. Now, Dr Sharma and economists like him should suggest way to release 32 crore people from agriculture. Similar analysis should be done of land and other resources too.
He should have broken agriculture into Buy, Make, Sell and should have suggested ways to improve these three. It is complicated, a think tank is needed, but it should work to improve the agriculture, not to improve the employment in agriculture.
But, as we read in our first lecture of economics in college, "An economist is an expert who will tell you tomorrow, why what he predicted yesterday about today, did not come true"
Tend to agree.... the key is Marketing" and value addition...... the farmer, at the lowest level of the value chain, will always be short-changed, irrespective of the crop or the produce.... like fruit or vegetables.
Farmer Cooperatives are utopian ideals....which wherever attempted have either failed or been hijacked by oligarchs....
Alternative avenues of gainful employment is a must-- especially given that Indian services/ software sector is on the verge of being by the AI-avalanche, rendering millions of our so-called techies redundant. That, of course, is an entirely different discussion, about which I have written a few times before.
I think we should also bring back rhe discussion on farm laws. Those were good laws but pushed very badly in a political sense. What do you think? I mainly support the laws due to the following reasons:
1. Provide the opportunity to sell to anyone they want. Apmc will still be there and msp will be there if required by the farmers.
a. Common criticism - adani, ambani will squeeze the farmers.
i. Retort - farmers can still sell at apmcs
ii. If adani is paying farmer 4inr for tomato instead of apmc paying them 2inr, I see that as a win
2. The MSP and the socialistic outlook on food seems very elitist to me. Think about you, you have the liberty to buy your products from amazon, swiggy, any offline seller and you look for the best price. Why is it not fair to provide the same for farmers? Saying farmers can't engage in mutual agreements with buyers and sellers because the other party will rip them off just seems very elitist to me and that you think of farmers as lesser humans, that they can't take care of themselves.
You have a very good set of points and some of the major economists, including the grand old agricultural economist of Punjab, Dr Johal, the former vice chancellor of Punjab agriculture University, also expressed these views.
As you rightly pointed out, the political handling and the packaging was totally in conceived and people did not expect the type of resistance that it would elicit.
I don’t think they can be resurrected very easily. One can start incrementally with some minor crops being allowed to be covered under similar laws.
As regards the Sales agreement of crops, I would like to say that even for the sale of their own agricultural land with colonisers, farmers are executing such agreements, so I don’t think there is any weight in the argument that they would be duped by the purchasing entities.
That's what I think as well. While trying to make this argument, I just point towards the variety of biscuits and foot items that we see in the market. There's something for everyone.
Secondly, this is just my naive opinion probably, I have been thinking about this for a while. I think punjab and a lot of Indian agri states should focus on horticulture and orchards now. First point being it's Labour intensive so you will be utilizing a lot of our surplus Labour. Wheat and rice generation should be left to richer countries/people since machinery can be more productively utilized there. It's difficult to use machinery in vegetables and fruits production. As for orchards, I see a booming trend in the market, maharashtra has already started to caitalize on it. A lot of demand factors - huge weddings, exports: particularly to Japan and US.
What do you think about it?
Fruit trees take 3 to 5 years to mature; the farmer cannot wait.
On the other hand I am very bullish about vegetables-- the only major constraint I see is hefty (relatively speaking) per acre investment at sowing and during growing.
Processing industries will mushroom, the moment there's a basic threshold quantum of supply..... too ambitious plans like cold chains and cold storages etc. can follow.
https://x.com/ruchitgarg may connect.
He is a journalist turned confused "economist". He is inconsistent and contradicts his own view points many times.
That is why we need a public debate on these issues, rather than unilateral decantations.
Dr Sharma's analysis is more of a comrade's reading. As you rightly said in your critique, he is more focused on creating rational for higher budgetary resources. Why we need 60 crore people to grow food for 140 crore people is something he has not even thought of. Look at how it works in our homes, one person (usually the woman of the house) makes food for 4-5 members. Going by this, our population engaged in agriculture should not be more than 28 crores. Now, Dr Sharma and economists like him should suggest way to release 32 crore people from agriculture. Similar analysis should be done of land and other resources too.
He should have broken agriculture into Buy, Make, Sell and should have suggested ways to improve these three. It is complicated, a think tank is needed, but it should work to improve the agriculture, not to improve the employment in agriculture.
But, as we read in our first lecture of economics in college, "An economist is an expert who will tell you tomorrow, why what he predicted yesterday about today, did not come true"
Tend to agree.... the key is Marketing" and value addition...... the farmer, at the lowest level of the value chain, will always be short-changed, irrespective of the crop or the produce.... like fruit or vegetables.
Farmer Cooperatives are utopian ideals....which wherever attempted have either failed or been hijacked by oligarchs....
Alternative avenues of gainful employment is a must-- especially given that Indian services/ software sector is on the verge of being by the AI-avalanche, rendering millions of our so-called techies redundant. That, of course, is an entirely different discussion, about which I have written a few times before.
Rightly said. Cooperative is a failed model. Actually this a another form of socialistic model which has failed globally.