Agrarian crisis in its plurality is writ large on the body politic of rural India. Landlessness, scarcity of land, falling incomes and rising costs of farming, mounting farm debts, suicides, ecological crisis manifesting in the degradation of environment, health, and water, lack of employment in farm sector, especially for women, and increasing hold of the corporate giants on the lives of farmers is part of everyday experience of the rural farming communities.
Successive state government have been promising agricultural policies to pull the peasantry out of this crisis. In the last 10 years two comprehensive proposals came out on Punjab’s agricultural policy: G. S. Kalkat-led policy draft was presented to the SAD government in 2013 and Ajayvir Jakhar led policy draft submitted to the Congress government in 2018. None of these drafts were discussed or recommendations acted upon.
AAP came to power in Punjab in 2022 on the promise of a sound agriculture policy. Acting on its promise, the government revamped the Punjab Farmers and Farm Worker Commission and an 11-member Agricultural Policy Formulation Committee was constituted. The Committee submitted the Punjab State Agricultural Policy to the Bhagwant Mann government in the fall of 2023. The draft was neither tabled nor made public. In the meantime, several farmers’ unions submitted comprehensive policy drafts to the Punjab government but received no response. Following the protests by SKM and other farmers when the Punjab assembly was in session in September, the AAP government released the Punjab State Agricultural Policy on September 18, 2024.
Punjab State Agricultural Policy
The proposed agricultural policy is spread over 19 chapters running into 200 pages. The preface says that the “main emphasis of the policy is to increase the profitability of the farms by promoting healthier agriculture production, value addition and marketing systems in a cooperative mode with efficient utilisation of natural resources while embracing biodiversity thus providing quality food for the society and raising the happiness index of the masses.”
Taken together, the stated objectives of the policy claim that it will achieve a healthier agricultural production, value addition and marketing system which is globally competitive while at the same time accomplish the twin goals of higher profits and better earnings. It also says that it will generate productive employment in the farm sector and rural areas while conserving natural resource, promoting biodiversity and securing and developing the productive potential of agri-ecology, which will lead to raising the happiness index of the stakeholders.
There are key premises which undergird these objectives. It assumes that enhanced profitability and improved earnings or the restoration of agriculture ecology of Punjab are consistent with a larger macroeconomic policy and agrarian strategy. It assumes that the employment opportunities in the farm sector and rural areas are not stymied by links with the non-agriculture sector. It assumes that the subordinate role of agriculture in the larger macro-economic growth strategy can be wished away and that a globally competitive agriculture is possible without playing by the global rules of trade. Finally, it assumes that an autonomous policy space exists which can be grabbed for holistic development of agriculture (whatever that means) and redistribution of rewards on the basis of value generated, the centralising nature of the centre-state relations notwithstanding.
The key spatial unit and the foundation of policy intervention is the Natural Growing Areas (NGAs). Decentralised planning at the level of NGAs and building strong backward-forward linkages for various crops grown in these NGAs is suggested as the way forward. One of the modalities of achieving this is by operating in a “cooperative mode” assisted by multiple Centres of Excellence (CoE), 18 to be precise. There is no discussion as to what Centres of Excellence mean or the operational modalities they will follow. That it is a self-designation of excellence without approval by an independent, external process of evaluation, poses no problem for the report. While details are lacking on every aspect of the policy, the structure of CoE with 15 posts for each centre (p. 27) with details down to office clerks, chowkidars, and drivers appear prominently.
The report claims that most of the NGA for existing crops have already been mapped and are in the records of agriculture and horticulture departments. Then what or who stopped it from implementing the NGA-mapped crop combination? Does the NGA-enabled diversification model ensure better or at least equal returns which the current paddy-wheat combination is offering? If not, is the state government going to compensate the farmers for the shift? The draft policy is silent on it. The report does not explicitly answer why NGA-mapped diversification did not happen earlier, nor does it say why “certain crops are enforced” (p. 15) on farmers of Punjab. The implicit answer for this failure is “the anti-agriculture and anti-rural bias of vested interests” (p. 13). But then again the report is silent on how the state policy will overcome this bias or blunt the power of the vested interests. In the absence of this concrete discussion, the foundational policy unit is reduced to mere expression of intention with no possibility of being adopted by the state government.
Leap of faith: Fuzzy cooperation overriding the anarchy of the market
The key instrument in the proposed policy to overcome the failures of the current strategy is through organising farming in a ‘cooperative mode’, a kind of synergy between various sections of the rural population in Punjab. The key foundation of cooperation is clusters of three or four villages which come together to form multi-purpose cooperative societies throughout the state. As proposed, these societies will decide and grow the crop best suited to their Natural Growing Area using the most appropriate technology; they are expected to sell their products by developing their own departmental store outlets in major townships; promote and integrate with the commodity value chains; and, it is expected that the government will provide the support to sustain and strengthen these multi-purpose cooperative societies.
In other words, this is a proposal of some kind of decentralised development approach as a way forward. However, when the national government is spearheading the oligopolistic take-over of the Indian economy, how will this decentralised economic development growth strategy be adopted by the state of Punjab? What is the basis to expect that big state institutions will be created by the state government when it is already outsourcing economic advisory roles to private consultancies that represent the interests of global capital?
The recently created Punjab Development Commission is an independent think-tank to support the development needs of the state and convert the state’s vision of rangla Punjab (vibrant Punjab) into a reality. It is also an example of the state government’s vision on policy advisory for Punjab’s development.
‘Cooperatives’ come up in different sections of the draft policy sometimes as a recommendation of adopting a “cooperative mode” in farming, and at other times as cooperative social relations or as a mode of organising village life. Assuming that the cooperatives in the policy document allude to promoting production and marketing through the cooperative mode, are cooperatives a new idea? They have been around in Punjab. In the early five-year plans, state policy attached a great deal of importance to cooperatives to enable small farmers to acquire greater bargaining strength in the economy vis-a-vis the big players, through access to credit, input and produce markets. But the said purpose was not quite realised. These are lessons to be drawn from but there is not even a cursory reflection in the policy document before asserting a renewed faith in cooperatives.
Any endorsement for a cooperative mode will do well to acknowledge that the Union government formed a new Ministry of Cooperation in 2021 with an objective to provide a separate administrative, legal and policy framework for strengthening the cooperative movement. ‘Sahkar se Samriddhi’ was declared a “historic move” in the direction of cooperative federalism. This move by the Union government is overriding the powers of state legislatures as cooperatives are strictly within the domain of the state government and legislatures. The very idea behind cooperative federalism, it was said, is to “bring states together as ‘Team India’ to work towards national development agenda”. It involves ‘structured policy initiatives and close engagement’ of the Centre with the states that seeks to homogenise the development approaches of the Union government and the states.
How is Punjab supposed to introduce its own version of ‘cooperation’ as a key component to its intervention in agriculture when the Union government is increasingly inclined to depend on global markets for agricultural growth? The attempt by the Union government to impose the farm laws on states and the very essence of these laws were a strong testimony to its approach towards agriculture. How is it even a relevant recommendation if the challenges of implementation are not brought under discussion?
How will these cooperatives ensure that they meet the requirements of small and marginal farmers who are at the centre of the agrarian crisis in Punjab? How will they create machines and technology which can be shared by small-scale farmers? As far as the policy is concerned, all these issues are the mandate of the Centres of Excellence that are yet to be created. That means that a clear agriculture policy will emerge only after these institutes are put in place and ready to give recommendations. In that case, what is this policy draft doing?
The outcome of this lack of clarity is reflected in every recommendation of the policy. In each chapter the recommendations are a wish list without detailing how the government will act to achieve these goals or even their feasibility in the context of overall development strategy. There is a clear danger that the space left vacant by the policy will be seized by the anarchy of the market to the benefit of those whom the policy did not set out to benefit.
‘Happiness index’ is certainly not going to increase with deepening ties with imperialist development and building links with global commodity chains monopolised by giant corporations. It is linked with ability to alter development priorities. However, the proposed policy draft seems to suggest its own pathway about altering development priorities without presenting a coherent framework rooted in any of the existing critical approaches to development theory.
Prioritising social and ecological wellbeing requires radical redistribution, reduction in the material size of the global economy, and transforming societies to ensure environmental justice.
Punjab is reeling under ecological crisis, but the proposed policy devotes two brief paragraphs to ecology and says nothing on providing support to farmers for transition to sustainable agriculture. “Ensuring happiness” and a good life for all require all policies and corporate strategies to be rethought from the perspective of climate change, ecological limits to growth and resource distribution. Transition to sustainable modes of farming requires state support. It requires reconsidering the inherent inequalities of current levels of consumption and concrete steps to enable the marginalised majority to improve their wellbeing.
The document seems to be in a hurry to usher in Punjab’s very own golden age, where the state is bound by the “holy task” of raising the “happiness index” and famers are committed to a “sacred profession”. It wants us to believe that the economic and social interests of different sections or classes in the rural society will come in perfect harmony by making “cooperation” as the mode of decision making.
Also read: Farmers in Punjab Carry Out Indefinite Blockade of Highway Over Poor Lifting of Paddy
Specific policies on land, tenancy, labour and women farmers
Land is at the heart of agrarian crisis. High inequality in land distribution stemming from colonial policies of land settlement and failed land reforms, have created a precarious life situation for a majority of small and marginal farmers and the landless. The farmers’ protest and ongoing movements of landless, agriculture labourers and Dalit people have brought unequal distribution and land scarcity issues to the forefront. Dalit farm holdings as percentage of all operational holdings in Punjab is 5.76%. All-India it is 11.9% and the area of Dalit farm holdings as a percentage of total area is 3.59% as compared to 8.6% all India according to the Agriculture Census 2015-16.
The policy claims:
“Punjab had accomplished the land reforms, especially consolidation of land holding in the years following national independence. The rural economy with diverse agriculture, based on on-farm produced inputs had been generating quality food with high dietary value to fulfil nutritional and other needs of rural families”.
Following this assumption, recommendation on land focus on two specific issues.
The first is the digitisation of land records “for ensuring transparent and efficient land transactions”. It is well known that the union government has been trying to create vibrant land sale markets to attract foreign investment and showcase the country as a credible alternative for capital in search of new avenues. Right after coming to power in 2014, the NDA government tried to dilute the provisions in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act 2013, reducing the powers of farmers and making land acquisition easier for private corporate projects. The amendments had to be rolled back due to the pressure from farmers but removing protections for smallholders and enabling greater liquidity of land by creating one homogeneous land market in the country so that land could be easily transacted, remains a priority. To achieve this goal, Niti Aayog has been pushing better land records, digitisation and integration of all records relating to titles, formalising cadastral maps of all plots of land, defining a structured timeline for timely resolution of property disputes and making public land disputes data etc.
The Punjab Agriculture policy draft is an almost verbatim repeat the argument with a seemingly innocent concern that “out-dated land records, unclear titles and existing land laws have driven many individuals towards court cases. As a result, it breaks fraternity, kinship, and social harmony and weakens the economic position of the people”.
Facilitating the creation of homogenous land market without acknowledging complex ownership patterns and looming interests is not going to pave the way for digitisation to strengthen fraternity.
The second policy recommendation is tenancy law reform.
The report mentions that 24% of the cultivated area in Punjab is under tenancy and tenancy is riddled with complex issues – contracts are verbal, tenants do not get compensation for failed crops, unregistered tenants cannot become effective members of any cooperative credit society, there is reverse tenancy, and there are NRIs leasing out lands, etc. The section concludes by recommending, “…Therefore, the tenancy laws need to be reformed to protect the interests of both the tenant and landowner. The rental income from leased land should be exempted from income tax, as income derived from agriculture is currently exempted”.
How is income tax exemption going to ensure, for example, that unregistered tenants become members of cooperative credit society or get compensation for failed crops? The policy fails to suggest any concrete step to protect the rights of the tenants. Liberalising the lease market could potentially open doors for corporate investors into agriculture. In land-strapped Punjab this will hurt and work to the disadvantage of small and marginal farmers by restricting their access to land.
Employment under MGNREGS: Branding symptom of economic distress as potential
The proposed policy states:
“Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 is a significant instrument for the provision of employment for rural labour, both skilled and unskilled. In Punjab, over 27 lakh workers are registered under the MGNREGA scheme…Only 13,534 households were provided with 100 days of wage labour. There is a huge potential to employ rural labour under the MGNREGA scheme…the economic conditions of farm workers can be improved through the MGNREGA scheme.” (Emphasis added).
Rising demand for low-paying labour work under MGNREGA points to an ultimate failure of economic policy to generate gainful employment. It’s a symptom of economic distress and not a potential. MGNREGA provides low-paying work on minimum wage for unskilled manual work and the real wage rate has remained stagnant essentially. The current MNREGA wage rate of Rs 322 in Punjab is grossly inadequate to meet even basic needs. There is need for policy to create employment which provides a living wage to all farm workers, which would cover food, clothing and shelter along with the educational, health and social needs of the families. Moreover, what sense does a policy recommendation like 200 days of MNREGA make when it’s not even a Punjab government scheme?
The recommendation for women farm workers is “special attention should be given to promoting women-centric skills like stitching, embroidery, child/women healthcare services etc”. Stitching, embroidery are dead-end skills which hardly provide an opportunity for improving livelihood situations.
The policy recommendation on access to land repeats the already existing legal provision of one-third of the Panchayati land and other common lands to be leased out to farm workers. But in the document, it comes with an added conditionality: “This land should be meant for the Integrated Farming System (IFS) under cooperative farming”. Does this mean that the lessee cannot farm the land by any other way anymore? Is this within the rules of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules? What is the framework for the Integrated Farming System (IFS) which will govern the lease of land to Dalits?
In another section, the policy draft mentions the need to establish a ‘Centre of Excellence for Integrated Farming and Integrative Income Support’ at PAU to ensure higher profitability for the 3.5 lakh small and marginal farms. Is the leased land to Dalits to be governed by this ‘Centre of Excellence’?
A longstanding demand of the landless labourers and the unions representing the landless has been the long term lease of the panchayati land which is reserved for Dalits. However, while the proposed policy agrees that long-term lease is a better and efficient utilisation of land in a separate section of the report, when it comes to leasing land to the landless, no such recommendation is made. The lack of empathy and indifference to the demands of farm workers is extremely disappointing and a continuation of the brutal policy bias of the past.
Why is the acquisition and redistribution of excess to ceiling land not part of the recommendation, one wonders? The recommendations such as pension plan and compensation for landless, which are being trumpeted as most progressive, are radical only if they are a part of an overall redistributive framework which recognises the value of labour.
Writing women farmers and workers out of policy
Women farmers and workers have been displaced from productive roles in agriculture in Punjab and long written out of policy. While there are women cultivators and agricultural labourers, women are not counted as ‘farmers’ by government data collection sources since most women do not have land titles in their name. As per the Agriculture Census 2015-16, in Punjab, out of a total 10.93 lakh landholdings, there are just 17,000 (about 0.08%) in the name of women and the area operated by women landholders in Punjab is 43,000 hectares (0.23%) out of total 39.54 lakh hectares (all India figure is 11.72%).
It is deeply disappointing that the section on ‘Women in Agriculture’ in the draft policy ends up being a story of surrender and despair. There is complete policy erasure of women’s claims to productive involvement in farming. Rather than suggesting means to bring women back to the productive sphere, the draft recommends training women and developing skills for undertaking “subsidiary occupations” and skills related to “household activities such as stitching, embroidery etc to upscale their knowledge as well as family income”.
Women farmers have experienced dispossession and the processes of dispossession have disempowered them in profound ways. Women have also been bearing the ultimate burden of farmer suicides which plunge households into deep crisis. They are left without assets but with the burden of indebtedness. In the absence of formal recognition as farmers, women cultivators are excluded from government schemes and loans, and are thrown to microfinance sharks.
As far women’s land rights are concerned, the policy recommends: “To encourage women empowerment and reduce gender bias in society, the land property rights of women should be looked upon”
It is disappointing that the agriculture policy draft fails to acknowledge the invisibilisation of women farmers and the policy makers conveniently recuse themselves from the responsibility of specific recommendations to remedy the situation. The document pays lip service and repeats the cliché, “social and other barriers” which “limit the participation of women in the workforce”. Not a single example of what these barriers are and how they are being resisted by women farmers and workers is made. The policy draft has let women down.
Where is the budgetary commitment from Punjab government?
The Mann government circulated the Agricultural Policy without a budgetary or temporal commitment. Why invite policy proposals if no resources were to be set aside?
From the reports in the media, Punjab Development Commission (PDC), the independent think tank of the Punjab government with a big budget attached to it, is also drawing up policy proposals for agriculture. If so, then what is the purpose of the draft in hand?
Clearly, conflicting, contradictory or deliberately ambiguous messages are being conveyed to further aggravate farmers’ doubts on agrarian policy in Punjab. The policy draft is trapped in a spiral of untenable propositions, some made untenable because of the shrinking space for policy autonomy which the draft fails miserably to identify, but also because it chooses to stay silent on crucial matters where it could have taken the lead to bring sections of farmers out of distress.
Navsharan Singh is an author and activist. Atul Sood is a JNU professor.
