The present Indian agriculture scenario is alarming.  As reported in India Today issue of 11^th June 2007, the Planning Commission itself has stated in their presentation before the Prime Minister that “Food grain situation is quite alarming.” 

Some prima facie indicators suggest how bad we are placed in agriculture and related areas ; 

►         Agriculture growth during last five years has been restricted to 1.87 % in a year against minimum expected growth of 4 %. 

►         Contribution of agriculture in our GDP was 38 % in 1975 which has now come down to only 19 %. 

►         69 % of India’s work force is engaged in agriculture, but, it contributes only 19% of GDP. 

►         Our food grain production at 200 million metric ton is at the lowest in recent decades. 

►         From surplus food grain situation, we are now in deficit requiring imports to the extent of about ten million tons and if situation does not improve, the imports may increase. 

►         Irrigation development is either stagnant or declining as per some reports. 

►         Public investment in agriculture as a percentage of GDP has dropped from 3 % to 1.7 %.

►         Ground water table have dropped rapidly almost everywhere. 

►         Our irrigation efficiency is around 35 % at national level which is a dismal performance as below 50 %
            efficiencyis unacceptable. 

►         There is no break through in the areas of improved seeds technology and farm practices.  Worse, most of
            our farmers do not get quality seeds at reasonable or affordable price. 

►         With the fragmentation of land among family members of successive generation, agriculture is
            becoming unviable proposition. 

 ----------------------------------------------

Author is a senior leader in NGO sector, leading a reputed NGO, Sadguru Water and Development Foundation for more than 33 years.  The NGO has done pioneering and widespread work in rural poverty reduction through Natural Resources Management (NRM) in general and integrated watershed development in particular and transformed more than 1,000 tribal villages in western Indian states; Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. 

Virtually, our planners and thinkers know it well that things have not gone well with agriculture, irrigation and related areas in recent decades.  It is indeed praise worthy on the part of some of the members of present Planning Commission that they are forth right and frank in revealing the facts.  It is open fact that there has been something wrong with the overall governance of our development programmes related with agriculture, irrigation, etc. and gross failure in proper implementation of the same.   On one side, we have not been able to increase cultivated areas and irrigation expansion at the expected level and on other side we have performed very poorly in the area of dryland farming.  Watershed development programme was expected to transform our drylands.  However, this programme has not fulfilled nation’s expectations.  From 1995 to about 2000 the programme went fairly well.  From 2000 to 2003 the programme implementation deteriorated with poor implementation through the agencies which lacked the competency and from 2003 onwards, the Hariyali scheme, a new version of watershed development programme of Ministry of Rural Development, has virtually flopped, for one of the major reasons being that the PRIs were not at all equipped to implement this extremely important programme which require lot of technical and social competency on the part of implementing agency.  Newly set up National Rainfed Area Authority has created some hopes for rainfed areas development, watershed development, etc.  However, one has legitimate reservation on its success as the powers for the selection of right kind of PIAs are not vested with this authority.  It is a known fact that we have failed at the implementation level in our various otherwise important and well planned programmes.  Unless the implementation strategy is improved, we cannot expect desired results of any programme related with rural development or agriculture development or such other programmes.  Political motives and other consideration will never allow our important programmes to succeed.  Our real problem is not the financial allocation, but, it lies in the utilization of huge allocations properly.  If this implementation aspect and proper utilization of available finance are not taken care of, we just cannot expect any improvement.  Rather, if the present trends continue, we have to expect deterioration in the situation. 

THERE ARE HOPES

Against almost dismal scenario in agriculture, rural development, irrigation, etc. we can still hope if we can amend our implementation strategy of various important programmes, few of them are vary briefly touched in this paper.  

BACKWARD AREA PROGRAMME VIS-À-VIS NREGA

Planning Commission has identified 200 backward districts for special inputs for their development.  Ofcourse, we do hear that this number of backward districts has gone up to 300.  There is a race in our country to become backward. Every district wants to be categorized as backward and every community makes a claim to be backward.  Relatively progressive communities want to be backward and relatively better off districts also want to be backward district.  It is only our politicians across the party lines who can stop this undesirable race for backwardness. 

Coming to the backward districts programme where in most cases National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) Programme is also introduced with huge allocation of the funds aimed to provide immediate employment.  While this is a good programme for providing immediate employment to rural poors, it has to be understood that simply providing immediate employment will not provide long term remedy for our rural employment.  Some productive assets have to be created to enable rural people to become self employed around such productive assets.  It is necessary to modify the provision of NREGA to give scope to set aside about 25-30 % of the total allocation for the productive assets creation mostly on common property resources such as community irrigation through minor irrigation systems, ground water development including recharging of ground water, wasteland development, plantation, etc.  Such allocation will help greatly in rehabiliting many poors around such assets and take them away from necessity to work as mere labourers.  Many districts identified as backwards have poverty rate above 50 % and much more.  For example, district Dahod where our organization is working, the below poverty households as per official census are around 70 %.  More or less same may be the poverty ratio in most of the tribal districts.  The NREGA programme should be designed in such a manner by earmarking specific amount suggested above for productive assets creation aiming to reduce about 10 % poverty from the district annually or minimum 25 % during the period of 3-5 years.  If this approach is adopted, it will have impact on expansion of irrigation resulting in the increased agriculture production.  Also, the overall approach of implementation of NREGA should be strictly based on watershed development concept.  Ironically, the guideline suggests for this approach, but, the actual implementation is not in this direction in many districts that we have observed. Most people have different understanding or misconception on the concept of watershed development.  Very few know what exactly is watershed concept and how to translate this concept in action.  I believe that if about 30 % of NREGA funds in each district are earmarked for productive assets creation, the economy of backward district could be transformed significantly over the period of five years provided the funds are utilized properly and implementation is done properly for such programme. 

Clearly, NREGA should have short term and long term objectives.  The immediate employment could be provided under short term objectives while under long term objective productive assets need to be created.  The programmes aimed at long term objective will reduce the rural unemployment on sustainable basis and at the same time substantially reduce rural poverty. 

It is not that difficult to modify NREGA to accommodate above suggestion.  As such, minimum 50 % amount under this programme is to be placed and spent by gram panchayats.  This may be continued in suggested modifications.  In the remaining 50%, half of that amount could be utilized for productive assets creation for community groups or individuals, without considering immediate employment aspect, though programme of assets creation will also provide some immediate employment. 

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

As mentioned earlier, our watershed development programme has not delivered desired results.  Before Hariyali scheme, the rate of successful watershed projects was about 20 % or little less as per observations of many knowledgeable people who are connected with this programme.  In Hariyali scheme, successful projects are not even 5 %.  On Hariyali scheme, few of us including the writer had predicted that by its design itself it was destined to fail.  This has actually happened.  Observing many projects and discussing with scores of people, both government and non-government, I don’t think, more than 5 % projects under Hariyali have delivered desired results.  As already mentioned earlier, proper implementation is a key for the success for watershed development programme and thereby improving the rainfed areas.  In turn, key to proper implementation is the selection of competent project implementing agencies (PIAs).  If watershed development programme is entrusted to competent agencies, well equipped technically and socially, it would make a big positive difference in our rainfed areas including improvement in ground water and providing some cushion against drought.  Watershed development programme may not provide 100 % drought proofing unless water resources are developed significantly, but, it can definitely provide reasonable cushion against the drought.  We have seen in few villages in western India when dry spell was observed for continuous 42 days between two rains, yet, the crops did not witness very serious stress.  This is because excellent work was done under the watershed development programme which sustained some moisture for as many as 42 days not allowing crops to dry.  Thus, well designed and meticulously implemented watershed development programme can help greatly in dryland farming. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Water resources and irrigation scenario reflects almost stagnancy.  Infact, in some national forums it is shared that net irrigation coverage is declining rather than increasing.  This needs to be probed into and remedial measures to be taken after identification of causes. 

However, most of the identified backward districts offer very good scope for water resources development and irrigation development, both in surface and ground water.  Overwhelming majority of backward districts are the tribal districts.  Almost all have reasonably good rainfall and large network of drainage system.  On adopting appropriate technology of small scale water harvesting structures on all the rivers, big, medium, small, and utilizing water through proper technology, flow as well as lift irrigation, all such districts can have reasonably good coverage under irrigation.  Outside the hot desert districts in Rajasthan and cold desert districts in Ladakh, almost everywhere there is a great scope of water resources development.  If their water resources are optimally developed and properly utilized, each district can add about one lakh acre of irrigation.  If we multiply it by 150 districts, it would be enormous development which in turn would transform agriculture scenario of these districts in unbelievable extent.  In the opinion of international Scientists, any region with 500 mm average annual rainfall need not be poor or backward.  Thus, most of our presently backward districts need not remain poor and backward. 

I have a feeling that next green revolution if at all comes, it would be from the presently backward and mostly tribal districts as their agriculture production at present is at minimum level and at the same time these districts have a great potential for rainfed as well as irrigated agriculture.  Presently agriculturally progressive districts are not likely to help in our additional agriculture production.  They have reached a saturation point and large numbers of farmers of the progressive districts are not having faith in agriculture and many of them have been infact disinterested in agriculture.  In some survey, it is revealed that almost 40 % of farmers are not interested to continue in agriculture field.  Similarly, about 40 % sons and daughters of the farmers of progressive areas are not interested in opting for their traditional livelihood system i.e. agriculture.  In view of this situation, we should turn our hope to the backward districts as the farmers of these districts are still interested in improving their agriculture and they still love to be farmers. 

POWER SITUATION

I am not stating anything new when I say that shortage of power blocks our overall progress.  However, shortage of power hits most to agriculture and industries.  If we want to fill the gap of food grain deficit and increasing need for food grain production we have got to ensure adequate power for agriculture sector.  Ground water is our major source of irrigation which requires adequate power.  In the backward regions, particularly tribal regions, there is much more scope for lift irrigation method for irrigation than flow irrigation, and therefore such regions need power for pumping the water up.  Because of the burden of subsidy, agriculture power supply is not given due priority in our country.  No one realizes that this is resulting in our ending up in our food shortage that we are now facing.  We have got to assure minimum 10-12 hours a day power supply to our farmers, atleast in prime irrigation season of winter (mid November to mid March).  The farmers also have to be ready to pay little higher tariff for agriculture power.  If adequate supply for about 12 hours a day is guaranteed in uninterrupted manner, the farmers could be educated to give little higher tariff than what is prevailing in most of the states at present.  I remember some time back, we had argued in Rajasthan that if farmers of our community lift irrigation cooperatives were given 50 % more power, they would be prepared to pay 50 % higher tariff.  There is a strong case in favour of farmers for subsidizing the power at the same time power cannot be given free of cost.  When free power is given, often there is no guarantee for power.  Among three states that we have been working; Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, few years back, the Government of Madhya Pradesh made agriculture power free.  It created such an alround mess that even today Madhya Pradesh is reeling under the impact of that free power.  The government of the state changed on account of “road, water and power”, but new government also has not been able to do concrete in case of power supply.  The reports collected from several villages suggest that during outgoing Rabi season, farmers hardly got power for about three hours a day.  Basically most of the districts of Madhya Pradesh are very fertile, but if power is not available, that land fertility and progressiveness of farmers are of no use.  We know well that when power is supplied adequately, there is definite likelihood of over exploitation of ground water.  This has to be adequately countered by educating farmers and recharging technology through various methods and measures.  With proper measures, it is very much possible to recharge ground water as well as aquifers.  In Jhalawar where we have constructed small check dams on relatively bigger rivers like Kshipra, Choti Kalisindh, Ahu, etc. the ground water in the adjacent region has increased significantly.  In some cases, the storage of check dam has helped increasing ground water in the radius of 10-15 kilometers from such storage.  I have already argued earlier in this paper that technically sound watershed development programme can definitely help improving the ground water situation. 

In conclusion of this topic of power for agriculture, it is necessary to mention that we have failed both in generating adequate power for our increasing need and also failed in the governance aspect of managing the available power.  Times of India recently published an Editorial on our power situation (30.05.2007).  This Editorial compared the situation of China and our country.  China generates more than four times power than our country.  It also generated additional power in last one year equal to our country’s total generation capacity.  We often talk of competing with China, but, if we lack behind so much in power sector, we will have to stop comparing after few years unless we improve our power generation remarkably.  It is also reported that our shortage of power generation and demand is about 40 % of what we produce.  Incidentally, our transmission losses accounts for about 40 % and our power theft also accounts for another about 40 %.  This means if we reduce only 50 % of transmission losses and power theft, the present gap between demand and supply could be taken care of.  On power theft, I would like to share my recent experience.  I was in one village of Rajasthan.  When power situation was discussed with the people and when I told them that about 40 % power was pilferaged, the knowledgeable farmers questioned me on this figure of 40 % power theft and then they themselves added that in their village and surrounding villages power theft was about 75 % and not 40 %.  In my experience, I have observed that it is mostly progressive farmers who resort to power theft rather than small, marginal and tribal farmers.  These progressive farmers are so powerful that no government or for that matter Electricity Boards and now Companies can do something drastic against them.  It is also a matter of typical character when people get a special pleasure in stealing power, rather than paying for the same.  It is the responsibility of the government to take educative as well as punitive measures against such elements who are playing with our development.  For this so called progressive farmers, non-availability of power or non-availability of water after few years are of no consequences as they have already decided that after making maximum use of water and power, they would switch over to other system of livelihood such as trades, business, manufacturing line, etc. 

FREQUENT CHANGING IN PROGRAMMES NOT DESIRABLE

We have often found that the programmes with the same objectives and almost similar contents are changed very frequently.  If we look at the history of all major rural development programmes during last 30 years, we find several programmes changed and replaced by other programmes frequently.  Not going far back, I would give examples of very recent programmes.  Watershed development programme in its original version commencing from 1995, though a good programme, was replaced by the same Ministry in 2003 with the changed name of Hariyali scheme.  In changing such a major programme in such a short period, caused lot of disruption in the original programme and the implementers found it very difficult to adjust with Hariyali scheme and its badly framed guidelines.  As a result of this change and replacement of the same programme, the original programme of watershed development got derailed and new programme did not come on track.  Very recently RSVY (Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana) Programme was launched in selected districts.  In about five year’s period, this programme has been scrapped and it has been replaced by new programme Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF).  Both programmes have the same main objective of removing the regional imbalances and filling the gap between the need and achievement.  It is also stated in BRGF that it is virtually an extension of RSVY.  If this is so, what was needed was to modify the guidelines of RSVY to meet the changing requirements or lessons learnt in first five years of RSVY implementation.  This would have been a better approach for the implementers as they had understood the RSVY programme and some changes in it would not have made much difference in achieving the same objective.  Those of us who are associated with Rural Development programmes intensively for several decades, failed to understand the logic behind such frequent changes in the programmes.  Ideally, our prime Rural Development programmes should last for few decades with necessary changes to be brought in periodically to improve the programmes, its implementation and impact rather than scrapping altogether and replacing by another programme of almost similar nature and similar objective.  Sometimes we feel either good deal of thoughts were not given when original programme was formulated or is it that in order to avoid review and evaluation of particular programme, it is more suitable to replace it with another programme.  Otherwise, what could be the reasons for frequent changes of the programmes with the same objectives and more or less same conponents ? 

PROFESSIONALISM IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMES

We have heard stories after stories on the failures of our Rural Development programmes.  Even if I believe that these programmes have not totally failed, the impact of the same do not commensurate with the funds and efforts put in to them.  To repeat, what I have stated earlier in this paper that it is at the implementation level that our programmes have not delivered.  The only way for proper implementation is to assign the implementation in the hands of professionally qualified people at different level.  Even if the programmes are to be implemented in democratic and decentralized manner, the governance and implementation should be addressed separately.  The elected bodies should be masters and they should be involved in decision making and planning, but the implementation part should be handed over to the professionals well equipped to implement specific programmes.  An excellent example is offered by our dairy movement spearheaded by Amul and strengthened by NDDB.  This model is replicable in all our programmes separating the governance aspect and implementation aspect to be managed by separate set of people.  In professionalizing our Rural Development programme from grass root to above, we may think of outsourcing the professionals from different sectors wherever they are available, in the government departments, prominent NGOs, cooperative sector, corporate sector, academic, etc. 

DIGNITY OF FARMERS

I started this paper by describing our agriculture scenario and the situation that we are presently facing.  While I have expressed my views on various topics related with Rural Development, agriculture, etc. I would like to express my views as to how we see and treat our farmers.  I believe, among all professions, farming has to be given the highest place.  Our farmers should be treated as VVIPs and rest of the segments like industrialists, businessmen, politicians, bureaucrats, etc. should be treated as VIPs, if at all it is necessary.  The farmers feed the nation and that is enough to treat them as VVIPs.  Not long ago in Indian history, farming profession was considered as the best profession.  We all remember that Hindi saying describing the status of farmers about 70 years ago.  It was stated “Uttam kheti, madhyam vyapar and kanisht naukri” (best is farming, business is medium and serving is worst).  This status has gone upside down.  Salaried people, particularly, the government servants are treated as the best placed people.  Next to them are those involved in trades, business and commerce and at the bottom of the status are the farmers.  This phenomenon has costed us dearly.  It has demoralized our farmers and de-motivated to give their best.  The nation and we all have played havoc with the dignity of farmers in recent years.  He is not respected anywhere.  When he visits government offices, he is treated as most unwanted creature.  Not even peon of any government office respects our farmers.  To laud a contribution of farmers in their rhetoric during electioneering and then treat the farmers shabbily without any dignity in all walks of life are two extreme aspects reflecting hypocrisy on the part of our political elites and others.  Why should not our poor farmers be given the same treatment in our offices as we give to politicians, businessmen, traders, government officers, etc. ?  Why in our government offices and everywhere when a farmer enters he is not offered a glass of water followed by a cup of tea ?  When will we ensure that half clad villager or farmer is given due respect from peon to the head of that office ?  Our farmers are the hardest working people of our country.  They toil hard in the open fields with a small piece of cloth around their waist during torrential rains, chilling winter and scorching heat of summer.  No one toils in these conditions, not even factory workers who work in much better environment within four walls with reasonably good salaries, perks, etc. 

Many farmers repeatedly tell me that farmers’ sons are not preferred for marriages, while lowest placed government servant is preferred.  We are displaying such a ridiculous attitude towards our hardest working, honest and simple people. 

I strongly believe that unless we give back the dignity to our farmers, we cannot expect them to give their best.  The government and all sections of our society have to respect the dignity of farmers and help them producing more and more for the country.  When we support our farmers in different ways and means, we are not obliging them.  We are duty bound to support them in all their causes because they sustain and feed the nation with their efforts and give the nation a sense of security in food front. 

Perhaps, we need another Lal Bahadur Shastriji to revive “Jai Jawan Jai Kissan” slogan and translate it in our honest attitude and actions.

15.06.2007