India beats China in environmental destruction. India ranked 155th in the 2014 Global Environmental Performance Index.

New Delhi wrapped in a thick blanket of smog. 

"China has long insisted other countries refrain from meddling in its domestic affairs. Now it appears even its smog is sacrosanct. Foreign embassies that issue air pollution readings are actually illegal and interfering in its internal business, a senior official warned on Tuesday." This is what The Guardian had reported sometimes back (China warns foreign embassies smog readings is illegal, June 5, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/05/china-embassies-smog-readings-illegal).Well, six-month later China began telecasting sunrise and sunset on big screens in the capital city of Beijing. No, this had nothing to do with advertisement for any brand, but the Chinese Govt was trying to show o the smog hit residents of Beijing what the sun looked like on that particular day. (China starts televising the sunrise on giant TV screens because Beijing is so clouded in smog, The Daily Mail, Jan 17, 2014. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540955/Beijing-clouded-smog-way-sunrise-watch-giant-commercial-screens-Tiananmen-Square.html).  

What is happening in China will soon begin to happen in India. After all, a country that is desperately trying to ape China in industrial growth will also face similar problems sooner than later.

To tell you the truth. It is already happening. Despite Beijing's widespread reputation of having some of the most polluted air of any major city in the world, an examination of daily pollution figures collected from both cities (New Delhi included) suggests that New Delhi's air is more laden with dangerous small particles of pollution, more often, than Beijing's. Lately, a very bad day in Beijing is about an average one in New Delhi. (Delhi's air quality is worse than one of the world's most polluted cities Beijing, Data shows. The Times of India. Jan 26, 2014. http://bit.ly/1d3Mgrd).

In other words, India has already surpassed China in the track record to save environment. According to the 2014 Environmental Performance Index prepared jointly be researchers at the Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, India is ranked 155th in a list of 178 countries. It ranks much below China (118th rank), Brazil (77th rank) and South Africa (72nd rank). In fact, India's performance doesn't even match that of its neighbours Nepal (139 rank) and Pakistan (148th).

It's time to celebrate. Isn't it? After all, India has surpassed China in environmental destruction !

This dismal performance has however not caused any national outrage. To the Corporate-funded mainline media the only ranking that makes any sense is India's ranking in the global growth chart. Nor are the policy makers interested. Strangely even those TV channels and print media reporters covering the WEF at Davos are quiet on the Environmental Performance Index report.

Forgetting the Himalayan Tsunami that struck the hill State of Uttarakhand last year, the Prime Minister's office has already directed opening up 25 per cent of forests that were previously listed as 'no go' areas. This will allow fast-track 'development' of some of the industrial projects languishing for some time. In fact, still worse is the way industrial corridors are being allowed with complete disregard for environmental safeguards. Take the Kolkata-Amritsar industrial corridor as well as the Delhi-Mumbai corridor, India will soon witness a massive destruction of its environment and that too in the name of economic growth.

With almost all its major river highly polluted, forests being cut at an alarming rate, hills being chopped off for mining, and the cultivable soils poisoned with excessive use and abuse of  chemical fertilisers and pesticides, I don't know whether economists and planners have ever given a thought to the birds, the butterflies and the earthworms. No, I am not being a romantic, but unless you considered the survival of these inmates of ours you cannot save the environment from an imminent collapse. In our quest for a higher economic growth we have lost the vision for a sustainable living.

But why only blame the planners and the economists? What about us, the common people. Do we care?

FDI in retail: The myths around what it can achieve

There is a popular advertisement on TV. A child is running and falls down in the mud. His mother comes running, picks up the child, dusts his clothes and says: "Beta, get up. Don't worry, Surf Excel hai naa!"

In a country where nearly three lakh farmers have committed suicide, farm incomes are plummeting, where rural infrastructure is in shambles, middlemen rule the roost, and there is jobless growth, FDI in retail is being promoted as yet another Surf Excel. An impression is being created that once FDI in retail is in place, it will not only address all the ills plaguing the food and agriculture sector, but also take care of employment.

In the mid-1980s, when Pepsico came up with a proposal to bring in a second horticultural revolution in Punjab, it too was hailed as a path-breaking initiative that would put an end to the continuing distress on the farm. It was expected to usher in the latest technology, improve farm research and extension, create supply-chain infrastructure, and provide marketing linkages from farm to the fork. I remember the kind of excitement that prevailed all around. Politicians, bureaucrats, economists, agricultural scientists and even the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) joined the chorus.

Some 15 years after the project was approved, Pepsico's horticultural revolution is all but forgotten today. Agriculture has gone from bad to worse. The food bowl of the country has also become a major hot spot for farmer suicides.

Arvind Kejriwal's scrapping of FDI in retail in Delhi has renewed the debate over one of the most contentious of policy issues. Commerce Minister Anand Sharma has expressed displeasure saying that the Delhi government's decision will send a wrong signal to foreign investors. On the other hand, FDI in retail will lay out back end infrastructure, bring in a chain of cold storages and improved transportation thereby reducing crop losses, remove middlemen who rob the farmers of profits, and thereby provide him higher prices and bring in improved technology to help in crop diversification. Of course, it will also create millions of jobs.

Let us now examine how true these claims are, or at least how likely. Wal-Mart, Tesco, Sainsbury, Carrefour and a host of other big retail players are expected to increase farm incomes. But in the US, where Wal-Mart has completed 50 years, if farmers had indeed been getting better income, what reason would there have been for the farming population to plummet to less than one per cent of the total population?

In the US too, 40 per cent of food is wasted and much of it after processing, where Wal-Marts should in fact have played a more important role. If big retail failed to reduce food wastage in the US, why do we expect them to do a miracle in India?  •  FDI: Just the facts, please  •  A stimulus package for farmers?

Farmers in US survive on the farm not because of Wal-Mart but the massive subsidy support they get, which includes direct farm income. Between 1997 and 2008, Rs 12.60 lakh crore was provided as income support to farmers. An UNCTAD-India study shows that if these subsidies, classified as Green Box in WTO parlance, are removed, American agriculture will collapse.

In Europe, despite the dominance of big retail, one farmer quits agriculture every minute. Europe provides the highest amount of subsidies, including direct income support. But because 74 per cent of these subsidies are cornered by Corporations and big farmers, small farmers are quitting the sector. In France, farm income has come down by 39 per cent in 2009. In OECD, the richest trading block comprising 30 countries, Rs 14 lakh crore was the farm subsidy support in 2009 alone. It is not big retail, but direct income support that keeps farmers in agriculture.

Studies show that in America, some 50 years back when farmers sold their produce for one dollar, their income was 70 cents. In 2005, this had fallen to 4 per cent. With middlemen wiped out, one would have expected the farmer's income to go up. But now it is a new battery of middlemen . quality controller, standardiser, certification agency, processor etc - who walk away with the farmer's profits. The number of middlemen, operating under the same hub, actually increases.

Take the example of an earlier Walmart-Bharti tie-up for wholesale marketing in Punjab. Baby corn is bought by Bharti-Walmart at Rs 8 per kg, sold at Rs 100/kg in wholesale by big retail, and ultimately the consumer price hovers around Rs 200/kg. It's a clear example of how the middlemen squeezes farm incomes and fleeces the consumers. This is not an isolated case. Much of the farm produce is bought at very low prices across the globe. Primarily for this reason, dairy farmers in UK are quitting on a large scale. They are urging the British government to set up a fair price mechanism that big retail should be directed to adopt.

There is no evidence that big retail creates back end infrastructure either. In US and Europe, rural infrastructure has been created through government support which came in the form of agricultural subsidies again. To say that 40 per cent of agricultural food that goes to waste in India will be drastically reduced by the influx of FDI in retail is also an illusion. In US too, 40 per cent of food is wasted and much of it after processing, where Wal-Marts should in fact have played a much more important role. More than 50 per cent of vegetables/fruits rot in supermarket stores. If big retail failed to reduce food wastage in the US, I wonder why do we expect them to do a miracle in India?

Regarding employment generation and poverty alleviation, lessons need to be drawn from a 2004 study by Stephen Goetz and Hema Swaminathan of Pennsylvania State University, which showed how higher poverty prevailed in areas where Wal-Mart stores had come up, compared to those states where big retail was absent. In any case, in a market with a turnover of $450 billion, Wal-Mart employs only 2.1 million people. In contrast, for an estimated $460-billion market, Indian retail employs 44 million people. If Wal-Mart is allowed to come in, what has to be understood is that for every job it creates, it is most likely to displace at least 20 workers.

Yes, there is a need to improve rural infrastructure, provide a sophisticated supply chain, and provide better income to farmers. The milkman of India, late Dr Verghese Kurien, had shown us the way. The cooperative dairy structure, which led to the evolution of the Amul brand, is the right approach. If he could do it for milk, which is a highly perishable commodity, there is no reason why it cannot be replicated for fruits, vegetables and other agricultural commodities. A solution to the plethora of problems on Indian farms does not lie in the west, but in our own backyard. There is no need to look for a Surf Excel. #

Source: FDI: Neither necessary, nor sufficient
India Together. http://www.indiatogether.org/2014/jan/dsh-fdiretail.htm

All those who stand up for the people are very conveniently called anarchists.

At the Seattle WTO Ministerial in 1999

When I protested along with hundreds of people on the streets of Seattle at the WTO Ministerial in 1999, I was called an anarchist; when I question the economics of G-20 or G-8 and defy the police cordon, I am again called an anarchist; when I raise pointers to the flawed economic policies of Govt of India, I am labelled as being anti-development; when I oppose GM crops I am called luddite; and when I lead the people's protest against an unwanted land grab through a Petro SEZ at Mangalore, I am called a naxalite. In others words, if you stand and talk for the rights of the people, you are a threat to the nation, you are an anarchist. I don't mind whatever tag is bestowed as long as I am convinced that justice is not being done. If at the end of all these we are now told that the economic wealth of 85 people is more than that of 3.5 billion, please tell me where was I wrong? If the rich are becoming richer and the poor are being driven to the wall, please tell me how was I wrong? If the soils are poisoned, oceans polluted, rivers run dry, human health compromised, and the planet is warming up at an unmanageable pace, please tell me why shouldn't I be asking the right questions? If economic growth only means ruthlessly exploiting the natural resources to fill the pockets of the wealthy, please tell me how am I an anarchist? 

Regardless of what you call me, my fight for justice will go on.

Anti-austerity protests in Rome 2012

People protest against land grab in Cambodia, 2012

How to kill farmers

At the AICC meeting in New Delhi, Rahul Gandhi made a mention of how he had asked his Congress chief ministers to exempt fruits and vegetables from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act.  As per his directive, most Cong chief ministers had already removed fruits and vegetables, which have contributed much to raging food inflation, from the APMC Act by January 15. But has it helped reduce food inflation?

The prices had already come down in December much before Rahul Gandhi’s directive could make a difference. But what is more important is to understand whether the APMC Act is the villain of the story or whether the fault lies somewhere else. Let’s take a deeper look.

A day after Parliament approved FDI in multi-brand retail in Dec 2012, a newspaper report highlighted how the big retail was exploiting both the farmers as well as the consumers. The wholesale cash-n-carry Bharti-Walmart enterprise was buying baby corn from contract growers in Punjab at Rs 8 per kg, selling it in wholesale at Rs 100/kg and finally the consumers were paying Rs 200/kg. In other words, a farmer got only 4 per cent of the end price the consumer paid.

Take the case of paddy in Bihar, which is the only State to have repealed the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act way back in 2006. It had freed farmers from what many pro-reform economists call as an ‘archaic provisions of a socialist era’ thereby allowing farmers the freedom to sell their produce to whomsoever they like. Against the procurement price of Rs 1,310 per quintal that Punjab farmers got this year, Bihar farmers have somehow managed to sell paddy at something around Rs 800-900 per quintal. This is nothing but a distress price, a classic example of ruthless exploitation by the private trade.

Ironically, the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) which is supposed to ensure remunerative prices to farmers lists Bihar as the top ‘market-friendly’ State as far as agriculture is concerned. Punjab, which has a network of mandis and provides an assured price to farmers year after year, is at the bottom of the chart. At a time when being market-friendly is the new mantra, CACP is asking the Punjab government to disband the APMC Act and allow markets to operate freely. In other words, it wants Punjab farmers to go the Bihar way.

What probably Rahul Gandhi has never been told is that only about 30 per cent of India’s farmers get the benefit of procurement prices. Rest 70 per cent farmers are in any case dependent upon the markets. If the markets were so helpful for these 70 per cent farmers, encouraging entrepreneurship and thereby improving livelihoods, I am sure by now the farmers in the food bowl of the country – Punjab and Haryana – would have demanded repeal of the APMC Act.

But it didn’t happen. The reason is obvious. APMC Act, despite all its flaws, provides an assured price and market to farmers. It is primarily for this reason that Punjab farmers are refusing to diversify from wheat and rice cultivation in the absence of an assured price mechanism for other crops. Madhya Pradesh this year is expected to take over Punjab in wheat production, not because of leaving farmers to the tyranny of the markets but providing them with a bonus above the procurement price.

I am amused when some economists blame APMC for the monopolistic market structure that restricts the entry of free trade and competition thereby denying farmers an economic price for his produce. This is completely wrong an assumption. Under the APMC Act, farmers bring produce to the designated mandis where the private trade is first allowed to make purchases. It’s only when there are no private buyers left that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) or the State procurement agencies step in to lift whatever is available at the minimum support price.

This is what irks the private trade. It doesn’t want to pay the minimum support price to farmers. If it can get paddy at Rs 800-900 per quintal in Bihar for instance why should it shell out Rs 1,310 per quintal to Punjab farmers? While I say this, the Gurgaon Chambers of Commerce and Industry have already asked the Haryana government to remove the APMC Act completely which will allow them to procure cheaper raw materials for the industry.

To say that market structures do not permit the entry of new players who want to set up cold chains and invest in other infrastructures is all bunkum. In seven years after repealing the APMC Act Bihar has seen any revolution in agricultural marketing. Farmers have been left in the lurch. Nor is the private trade interested to make investments. In fact, the industry wants to exploit the already existing supply networks in the frontline agricultural states like Punjab and Haryana.

Prior to the Green Revolution, and before the Agricultural Prices Commission was set up, farmers were free to sell their produce to anyone who offered them good prices. It was known to be an exploitative system wherein the trade squeezed the profit margin of farmers at the time of harvest. It was only when procurement prices were introduced that farmers got an assured price for their produce, and that is what encouraged them to produce more. An assured price and an assured market formed the very foundations of the Green Revolution. Procurement prices help farmers realise a fair and better price for their produce. This system needs to be improved and strengthened, not dismantled. 

There is no denying that over time some aberrations have cropped up in the way the mandis (as the public grain markets in India are known) operate. The APMC laws have the provisions to effectively regulate these mandis. But rarely has the government ever stepped in, and in fact it is because of the political cover to the powerful middlemen coterie that the entire mess has generated. For instance, why do the State Governments make a political appointee as the chairman of the APMC committee? 

But to take away horticultural produce from the purview of the mandis, and that too after the 2005 amendment in the APMC Act had allowed the private buyers to bypass the mandis and purchase wheat and rice directly from the farmers, is primarily aimed at killing the procurement system. This is the first step. More will soon follow. In other words, knowingly or unknowingly Rahul Gandhi is very cleverly suggesting destruction of the very foundations of food self-sufficiency built so assiduously over the past four decades. #

An abridged version appeared in The Hindustan Times, Jan 20, 2014.

Leaving farmers to reap the bitter harvest bit.ly/1bcyvWW 

Read also: Cartels cause runaway inflation. DNA Mumbai, Dec 30, 2013.

dnai.in/bXsg 

The assault on dairy in India

The Indian dairy sector, comprising millions of small farmers who keep a few cattle herds along with tending crops, is under threat. It has been under threat for quite some time, but somehow the country had managed not to give in. But lately I find that the major dairy exporters -- European Union/United States/Australia/New Zealand -- are all eyeing the huge dairy market that India offers. China is another player waiting on the wings.

Here is my next video blog on the dairy assault on India: 

 
If this video doesn't start, click on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnPqRtUze0 or visit my YouTube channel -- Devinder Sharma's Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/DrDevinderSharma 

Indian farmers are living in hunger

At a time when change is the buzzword on the political landscape, when cities are changing, and the villages are no longer what they used to be; when incomes are rising for an educated few, and when the bottom of the pyramid – those below the poverty line -- are showered with a series of freebies; perhaps the only segment of the Indian society which hasn’t seen a change all these years is the 60-crore strong farming community.

With nearly 3 lakh farmers taking their own lives in the past 17 years, and with more than 65 per cent farmers’ heavily indebted, agriculture has the dubious distinction of supporting the largest percentage of population with the lowest incomes. The fact that the share of agriculture in country’s GDP is relentlessly sliding, presently hovering at a little over 13 per cent, means that such a large population is living on a thin edge. No wonder, with agriculture becoming highly uneconomical, more than 60 per cent farmers are dependent upon MNREGA wages to make the two ends meet. In other words, the people who grow food for the country are themselves going to bed hungry.

Such is the plight of Indian agriculture that in the past seven years – between 2007 and 2012 – 3.2 crore farmers have abandoned farming and moved into the cities looking for menial jobs. According to census 2011, every day 2,500 farmer quit agriculture. Some other studies have shown that roughly 50,000 people migrate from a village (and that includes farmers) into a town/city every day. As per a NSSO study, 42 per cent farmers want to quit if given an alternative.

Those who leave agriculture, sell off their meager land holdings and trudge to the cities looking for a better livelihood, end up plying rickshaw or working as a daily wage earner in the booming construction activity. Economists and policy makers call this as a sign of economic growth. Moving people out of agriculture is the ultimate growth, claims Raghuram Rajan, the Reserve Bank of India chief. Pushing them out of agriculture and forcing them to join the ranks of landless workers is the new economic mantra.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says that 70 per cent farmers are not required, and should be moved out of agriculture. World Bank wants India to move 40-crore people from the villages into the cities by the year 2015. I have never understood the economic logic behind such a massive translocation of the population from the rural into the urban areas. These are people who are somehow driving their livelihood from farming or other related activities in the villages. They may be under-employed but to force them out of the villages so as to provide temporary cheap labour for the growing construction and real estate industry is no solution to the continuing agrarian crisis.

Agriculture is the biggest employer in the country. By creating conditions that makes agriculture economically unviable we are only adding to the jobless growth. Take another Planning Commission study. It showed that at a time when the country’s GDP was hovering between 8-9 per cent between 2005 and 2009, more than 1.40 crore farmers had left agriculture. Normally it is believed that these farmers would be employed in the manufacturing sector. But manufacturing sector too showed a negative growth, cutting down on 57 lakh jobs. So where did these millions go?  

In such a depressing scenario, moving people out of agriculture does not make any economic and political sense. In fact, it serves a double whammy for the poor farmers. They sell-off their meager land holdings and move into the cities. But when the economic growth slows down even the daily wage jobs in cities dry up. They are therefore forced back into the villages and in the absence of any land to fall back upon they are left with no choice but to become completely dependent upon MNREGA jobs or serve as a farm worker. According to a CRISIL study, 1.5 crore farmers are expected to be returning back to the villages between 2012 and 2014 because there is no work available even in the cities.

The push to move a significant proportion of the population from the rural to the urban areas is reflected in the economic policies. To me there is nothing more worrying than the inability of the mainline economists to understand the social, economic and political implications of such a massive demographic change. By the year 2030, may studies estimate that roughly 50 per cent of the population would be staying in the cities. This certainly will bring in tremendous pressure on the government to create more employment opportunities in the cities, which unfortunately will not happen because the economic growth paradigm is based upon jobless growth.

If any meaningful change has to happen, it has to happen in agriculture. But if you are looking at a change in the form of encouragement for contract farming and corporate agriculture coupled with land acquisitions, it’s not going to address the terrible agrarian crisis. It needs a different prescription which is beyond the scope of the economic textbooks. It has to come in the form of providing gainful employment in the rural areas with focus on revitalizing sustainable farming. Hibre Bazar village in Maharashtra has shown that it is possible. From a perennially drought-prone village, Hibre Bazar now boasts of 60 millionaires in the same village.

It all begins by restoring the community control over the natural resources. Gram Sabhas have to be accorded supremacy in decision-making, and the emphasis has to shift to making agriculture sustainable in the long run and also making it economically viable. Providing farmers with a guaranteed monthly income will ensure economic stability. Once agriculture becomes profitable, farmers will resist the pressure as well as allurements to sell-off their farm lands. This can only be possible if the Reserve Bank of India formulates macro-economic policies that shift the focus to rebuilding the village economy. Unfortunately, it is presently following the IMF/World Bank prescription that calls for a massive rural-urban population shift.

Agriculture has to be ploughed back as the mainstay of Indian economy. It has the ability to provide gainful employment to two-third of the population, maintain environmental balance, and ensure food security for the nation. And as Dr M S Swaminathan has often said the future belongs to not those countries which have weapons, but those which have food. Let’s not fritter away the nation’s future by killing agriculture. That’s the change that India needs

Indian farmers: Living on a thin edge

Will their fate ever change? 

In the coming months, about 1.5 crore farmers who quit agriculture in the past seven years, are likely to trudge back into the villages. In normal circumstances such a massive reverse migration – from the cities back to the villages – would have been a sign of inclusive growth. But economists are taking this U-turn as a sign of economic slowdown. A report by CRISIL put this as an indicator of the slowing economy as a result of which people are being forced to return to their villages.

I have never understood the economic rationale behind this. In the 7-year period between 2005 and 2012, an estimated 3.7 crore farmers quit agriculture. Economists view this trend as a sign of economic growth. In other words, while 50 lakh farmers are forced out of agriculture every year, growing farm unemployment is being considered as assign of economic growth. How can creating unemployment in the agriculture sector and then find an alternative employment to the millions displaced from agriculture constitute economic growth?

Nevertheless, we are told that an estimated 70 lakh jobs are created in the non-farm sector. Considering that most of the non-farm jobs are in construction, what is not being told is that these are menial jobs are temporary and do not carry any social security. Construction sector employs daily wage earner, and for the farmers who find employment in the construction industry, this is no stable employment.

All this is happening at a time when a bountiful monsoon has resulted in a record foodgrain production this year. In fact, agriculture is going to be the savior of the Indian economy in 2013-14. At a time when there is an all around doom and gloom -- industrial output failing to keep pace, manufacturing sector declining, joblessness growing, fiscal deficit mounted and the current account deficit grew to a worrisome level -- it is only agriculture that provides a glimmer of hope. And yet, all out efforts are being made to shift the population out of agriculture.

During the year, foodgrain stocks of wheat and rice soared to an all time high of 823 lakh tonnes. Grain exports increased to 200 lakh tonnes. India emerged as the world’s biggest exporter of rice, and the farm exports zoomed exponentially. And yet the fact remains that agriculture is the most neglected sector. Even Prime Minister acknowledges that India is faced with a terrible agrarian distress.

For the 60-crore farmers 2013 has been like any other year. Every time when the dawn of the New Year strikes, there is an expectation of a better year for the annadata but I have seen their plight worsening with each passing year. The year that has gone into history was no exception. In fact, at a time when the government employees have been promised a further pay rise from the 7^th Pay Commission, farmers remain at the bottom of the pile, neglected and forgotten. On an average, 2,500 farmers quit farming every day to join the army of landless workers.

As I said earlier, I have never understood the economic logic behind this deliberate move to drive out farmers from their meager land holdings, which is their only economic and social security. Since agriculture sector happens to be the biggest employer why don’t the policy makers try to make agriculture a more productive and economically viable profession? Why can’t farmers be provided with a higher income so that they stay on the farm? Translocating a massive population from the rural to the urban areas is only leading to the collapse of the cities and at a time of jobless growth, these farmers are only providing cheap and readily available labour force for the real estate and construction industry.

With joblessness growing and the policy thrust on reducing subsidies for the poor and needy, the number of poor in absolute terms has been increasing. By reducing the poverty line to Rs 28 in urban areas, and Rs 24 in rural areas, the government can play around with figures but the fact remains poverty is on an upswing. Uprooting more people from agriculture will only add to more and more people to poverty, and lead to underemployment.

The enactment of the Food Security Act ensuring a monthly entitlement of 5 kg of rice/wheat/millets to 67 per cent of the population or 830 million people is not only aimed at offsetting the additional burden of the unprecedented price rise. But more importantly, it is aimed at minimizing the possibility of food riots that can erupt when a large section of the population is being deliberately displaced from an assured livelihood. Food security requirements can be met by food imports, and given the emphasis on land acquisition for the industry, real estate and highways, the task of producing food for the population will become more and more difficult. Already there are indications that India will turn into an importer of rice in the next three years.

From a high of 9.3 per cent two years ago, the GDP has fallen to less than 5 per cent in 2013. With agriculture growth expected to provide a push to GDP in 2013-14 financial year, the deceleration in growth is because of the poor performance of the industry and manufacturing sectors. With no jobs being created in the manufacturing sector, why should we deprive people from their only means of livelihood – farming.

A Planning Commission report released early this year underlines the contradictions in India’s growth story. At a time when GDP was galloping at 8-9 per cent between 2005 and 2010, the report shows 140 lakh people were displaced from agriculture. Generally it is believed that those who quit agriculture would be joining the workforce in the manufacturing sector. But the report showed that even in the manufacturing sector 57 lakh jobs were lost. A clear pointer to the jobless growth the country is witnessing.

Nothing has changed in 2013 to bring back the focus on creating employment. Let’s be very clear. More investments do not necessarily lead to more jobs. With the new land acquisition law coming into force, more people would be driven out of their meager land holdings and left to migrate to the cities looking for menial jobs. Agriculture too will not be able to sustain its role as the biggest employer in the country given the push to bring in corporate agriculture linked to foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail. There can be nothing more disastrous, both politically and socially, and I wonder when will growth economics be replaced by some sensible economics?  #

Part of this article appeared in Deccan Herald, Jan 16, 2014

Living on a thin edge http://www.deccanherald.com/content/380743/living-thin-edge.html