<p>Selective reasoning and strategic silence among a vocal section of India’s intelligentsia reinforce the government’s apathy towards the agrarian crisis. Grand promises—such as the pledge to double <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/farmers">farmers</a>’ incomes—are passively accepted by these intellectuals, while the fundamental demand for a legally guaranteed, remunerative minimum support price (MSP) is routinely dismissed as ‘irrational’.</p>.<p>Lakhs of crores are waived for industrialists, and government employees receive substantial pay hikes through regular pay commissions. Yet, when a fraction of that amount is spent on farm debt relief or food procurement to support both farmers and the poor, it is branded ‘regressive’.</p>.<p>Pressure tactics by other organised and articulate sections of society are often met with tacit approval. But farmers’ protests—despite ensuring an uninterrupted food supply—are ridiculed and maligned with accusations of ‘subversion’.</p>.<p>Equally unsettling is the way this intellectual class tacitly justifies the State’s suppression of farmers’ protests. Echoing official narratives, they downplay deep-rooted agrarian crises and amplify misleading claims. Instead of acknowledging the agitation as a legitimate democratic expression, they dismiss it as ‘unwarranted.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court’s recent intervention delivered a sharp rebuke to those peddling such allegations, affirming Jagjit Singh Dallewal—who is spearheading the ongoing agitation and observing an indefinite fast—as a “genuine farmer leader without any political agenda”. </p>.<p>It is clear that, instead of addressing the deeper agricultural crisis, India’s intellectual elite have often promoted narratives that serve corporate profit—backing policies favouring large agribusinesses while sidelining the core concerns of farmers.</p>.<p>Understanding this intellectual drift—where policy debates increasingly prioritise corporate interests over public welfare—is crucial for any meaningful dialogue on agricultural reform today.</p>.<p>During the harshest phase of the Covid-19 lockdown—while the economy was paralysed and people were confined indoors—farmers were out in the fields, toiling to sustain food supplies. Their efforts helped avert unrest and public outrage that could have been triggered by scarcity and soaring prices of essential commodities. Yet, despite these efforts, inadequate market support led to large-scale wastage of produce.</p>.<p>Instead of acknowledging their contribution, the government used the lockdown-induced crisis to push through sweeping, unilateral changes to farm commodity marketing across the country. The three farm laws were enacted via the ordinance route, bypassing consultations and weakening the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) system to facilitate corporate entry. While agricultural markets do need reform—given inefficiencies and corruption—State oversight and participatory governance, which are fundamental to the APMC setup, remain essential in a country where hunger and malnutrition are pressing concerns.</p>.US Tariffs: Andhra shrimp farmers stare at uncertainty, CM Naidu appeals to Centre .<p>Crucially, the farm laws sidelined the essential role of ‘State intervention’ in stabilising farmers’ incomes, a globally accepted norm long upheld in India through the MSP mechanism. This provoked deep distrust and mass protests, eventually compelling the Centre to repeal the laws.</p>.<p>At the heart of this policy shift lies a deliberate push to reduce the State’s role in farm commodity marketing—from procurement to distribution—in favour of corporate-driven mechanisms. This move is evident in the National Policy Framework on Agricultural Marketing (June 2024), which closely mirrors key elements of the repealed farm laws. Though repackaged as a fresh initiative, it has drawn criticism from farmer organisations who view it as an attempt to reintroduce reforms they had opposed.</p>.<p>Among the most misleading claims is that these reforms empower farmers to sell directly at the farm gate—free from the risks of unfair dealings—assuming that price discovery will be remunerative. This narrative vilifies APMC mandis as the primary obstacle, a notion not fully endorsed by the farmers themselves.</p>.<p>What is needed is a pragmatic approach that bridges the government-market divide, with farmers’ interests at the centre. Such a balanced solution is urgently needed to address the agrarian crisis.</p>.<p>A remunerative MSP, as recommended by M S Swaminathan, is central to this effort. However, the recent national policy framework remains silent on this front, making immediate rectification imperative. Effectively addressing India’s agrarian crisis requires a policy approach that enhances income predictability for farmers through all viable avenues—including a legally guaranteed MSP, as demanded by farm organisations —while carefully navigating market reforms without allowing them to be driven by neoliberal priorities. </p>.<p>A notable recent initiative is the draft Andhra Pradesh Farmers’ Produce Support Price Act, 2023, which facilitates barrier-free trade of farm commodities—including livestock—both within and outside APMCs, through a digital platform that brings together private, corporate, and cooperative players. Crucially, it mandates MSP compliance. Although sidelined due to short-sighted political considerations, this initiative deserves to be revisited, particularly by bringing the trading community on board.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an agri-economist and former chairman of the Karnataka Agricultural Prices Commission)</em></p>
<p>Selective reasoning and strategic silence among a vocal section of India’s intelligentsia reinforce the government’s apathy towards the agrarian crisis. Grand promises—such as the pledge to double <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/farmers">farmers</a>’ incomes—are passively accepted by these intellectuals, while the fundamental demand for a legally guaranteed, remunerative minimum support price (MSP) is routinely dismissed as ‘irrational’.</p>.<p>Lakhs of crores are waived for industrialists, and government employees receive substantial pay hikes through regular pay commissions. Yet, when a fraction of that amount is spent on farm debt relief or food procurement to support both farmers and the poor, it is branded ‘regressive’.</p>.<p>Pressure tactics by other organised and articulate sections of society are often met with tacit approval. But farmers’ protests—despite ensuring an uninterrupted food supply—are ridiculed and maligned with accusations of ‘subversion’.</p>.<p>Equally unsettling is the way this intellectual class tacitly justifies the State’s suppression of farmers’ protests. Echoing official narratives, they downplay deep-rooted agrarian crises and amplify misleading claims. Instead of acknowledging the agitation as a legitimate democratic expression, they dismiss it as ‘unwarranted.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court’s recent intervention delivered a sharp rebuke to those peddling such allegations, affirming Jagjit Singh Dallewal—who is spearheading the ongoing agitation and observing an indefinite fast—as a “genuine farmer leader without any political agenda”. </p>.<p>It is clear that, instead of addressing the deeper agricultural crisis, India’s intellectual elite have often promoted narratives that serve corporate profit—backing policies favouring large agribusinesses while sidelining the core concerns of farmers.</p>.<p>Understanding this intellectual drift—where policy debates increasingly prioritise corporate interests over public welfare—is crucial for any meaningful dialogue on agricultural reform today.</p>.<p>During the harshest phase of the Covid-19 lockdown—while the economy was paralysed and people were confined indoors—farmers were out in the fields, toiling to sustain food supplies. Their efforts helped avert unrest and public outrage that could have been triggered by scarcity and soaring prices of essential commodities. Yet, despite these efforts, inadequate market support led to large-scale wastage of produce.</p>.<p>Instead of acknowledging their contribution, the government used the lockdown-induced crisis to push through sweeping, unilateral changes to farm commodity marketing across the country. The three farm laws were enacted via the ordinance route, bypassing consultations and weakening the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) system to facilitate corporate entry. While agricultural markets do need reform—given inefficiencies and corruption—State oversight and participatory governance, which are fundamental to the APMC setup, remain essential in a country where hunger and malnutrition are pressing concerns.</p>.US Tariffs: Andhra shrimp farmers stare at uncertainty, CM Naidu appeals to Centre .<p>Crucially, the farm laws sidelined the essential role of ‘State intervention’ in stabilising farmers’ incomes, a globally accepted norm long upheld in India through the MSP mechanism. This provoked deep distrust and mass protests, eventually compelling the Centre to repeal the laws.</p>.<p>At the heart of this policy shift lies a deliberate push to reduce the State’s role in farm commodity marketing—from procurement to distribution—in favour of corporate-driven mechanisms. This move is evident in the National Policy Framework on Agricultural Marketing (June 2024), which closely mirrors key elements of the repealed farm laws. Though repackaged as a fresh initiative, it has drawn criticism from farmer organisations who view it as an attempt to reintroduce reforms they had opposed.</p>.<p>Among the most misleading claims is that these reforms empower farmers to sell directly at the farm gate—free from the risks of unfair dealings—assuming that price discovery will be remunerative. This narrative vilifies APMC mandis as the primary obstacle, a notion not fully endorsed by the farmers themselves.</p>.<p>What is needed is a pragmatic approach that bridges the government-market divide, with farmers’ interests at the centre. Such a balanced solution is urgently needed to address the agrarian crisis.</p>.<p>A remunerative MSP, as recommended by M S Swaminathan, is central to this effort. However, the recent national policy framework remains silent on this front, making immediate rectification imperative. Effectively addressing India’s agrarian crisis requires a policy approach that enhances income predictability for farmers through all viable avenues—including a legally guaranteed MSP, as demanded by farm organisations —while carefully navigating market reforms without allowing them to be driven by neoliberal priorities. </p>.<p>A notable recent initiative is the draft Andhra Pradesh Farmers’ Produce Support Price Act, 2023, which facilitates barrier-free trade of farm commodities—including livestock—both within and outside APMCs, through a digital platform that brings together private, corporate, and cooperative players. Crucially, it mandates MSP compliance. Although sidelined due to short-sighted political considerations, this initiative deserves to be revisited, particularly by bringing the trading community on board.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an agri-economist and former chairman of the Karnataka Agricultural Prices Commission)</em></p>