Six months into the governments third momentous term; there has been a no big bang
announcement (thankfully so) nor a whimper of policy reform (sadly so) around agriculture. This is
not due lack of good intention or courage; both are present in ample measure in this government. It
is presumably because it is simply grappling for ideas on what to do. Take for example its decade
long dilemma on allowing new biotech crops or under-funded rhetoric on natural farming. The
contradictions and the confusion have the scientific community and the farmers on wits-end.
The key to good leadership is not just choosing what to solve but choosing the problems to have.
The government has been politically correct in identifying keeping food inflation low. In doing so, it
has chosen electoral prudence over the interests of 40 per cent of India’s population; those
dependent on agriculture. This misplaced priority exists because of two factors. One, economics
remains obstinate, refusing to change even as it has not delivered an alternative concept of
reconceiving “progress”. Two, myopic short-termism of political parties that face national or state
elections every few months. If history has a lesson, it is that we don’t learn from it.
Today, fewer people are asking uncomfortable questions or advocating contrary narratives, without
which, the government is staring in the mirror and loving the reflection. But, wanting to believe
something does not make it true. When individual views are shaped by the biased media, it is
natural for the government to get distanced from the lived-in experiences of the common people
and economic realities. Humans have a rapacious appetite for narratives and the BJP, which used to
set the agenda and decide the news coverage, has of late been facing a writer’s block. It should be
worried on all counts.
Inaccessibility of union ministers makes them lose out on opportunities to be dissuaded from
committing the mistakes of their predecessors, getting out of the box ideas on improving
governance and delivery. Leading one to further presume that the feeling exists in the ministers’
offices that it is the minister’s prerogative to ignore requests of farmer organizations. It is not. It may
be the karma of farmer organizations but it is not their dharma to do so. Despite many good
initiatives the government has not been able to win the hearts of the farming community and it is
not difficult to fathom why.
Even curious listening can help avert policy failures. Take, for example the much-hyped and
advertised Nano-Urea. Farmers rejected it outright. In an abject acknowledgement of failure, the
manufacturers have slyly increased the nitrogen content in the Nano-urea by an astonishing 400 per
cent. Government-funded agricultural universities still refuse to endorse it. It seems to be a fit case
for a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers for false claims that productivity increases by
using Nano-urea. Similarly, post the elections; The advertisements splashed ICAR released 109
climate-resilient seed varieties to boost farm yield and nutrition. Scientists tell me they would be
surprised if even five were commercially adopted. Like PUSA-Decomposer and Drone Didi’s, these
stories sound nice, akin to the 2002 India Shining campaign. Let alone impress, none of these will
even leave an impression. What does leave an impression is the shortage of DAP fertilizer, late lifting
of paddy or farmers being forced to buy Nano-Urea to obtain bags of subsidized fertilizers. The
political masters cannot not be cognizant of this sacrilegious breach of trust.
Politicians should realize that solutions are not the monopoly of those close to the power centre,
international consultancy firms or NGO’s fronting for businesses. Experience teaches one that most
ideas are with those who do not work in or with the government. The key challenge is how to get
their opinion on the table. Not receiving feedback or new ideas from the ground leads to flawed
policies and lack of delivery and consequently ‘lack of trust’. “Trust” is the most critical prerequisite;
whether it be for crop diversification, stopping crop residue burning, implementing farm reforms,
winning elections or for any other successful transformation or policy adoption. Trust takes a long
time building and there is a tendency to either underestimate the value of generating trust or the
time required. It is equally unambiguous that as scarcities in agricultural commodities are short-
lived, so is “trust”. Just as glut in commodities are long lasting so is “distrust”. If the government
wants to be trusted by the farmers, it must start to trust the farmers and remember that it can only
harvest what it has sown. END
