In an interview, one of India’s top agriculture experts, professor Ashok Gulati, discusses the limitations of the minimum support price (MSP) regime.He clearly spoke out against making MSP legally binding as well as calculating it in terms of the Swaminathan Commission’s C2+50% formula.Gulati said only 10% of agricultural households sell crops under the MSP regime. He said the 23 crops, for whom farmers are demanding MSP be made legally binding, only constitute 27.8% of India’s total agricultural produce. He added that the MSP regime for wheat and rice applies to some six or seven states, of which Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are new entries, and largely excludes most of east India.In a 40-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, professor Gulati, who is the Infosys Professor for Agriculture at ICRIER and former Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, pointed out that high-flying sectors of Indian agriculture, such as poultry, which is growing at 8-9%, fisheries at 7-8%, and milk at 5-6%, do not depend upon any MSP regime at all.He also spoke about how to improve the income of farmers.He believes making MSP legally binding would be anti-farmer. He also spoke about the ramifications and consequences of calculating MSP in terms of the Swaminathan formula of C2 + 50%. It will increase food prices by 25-30%, he said.He discussed how farmers should be supported, either through some form of a price stabilisation fund, so that when market prices fall below the MSP levels, the government makes up the difference, or preferably, through an income support scheme, which is the practice in China.Most importantly, he explained how the real incomes of farmers can be improved. At present, the incomes are only modestly increasing.He also spoke about incentivising farmers to shift from wheat and rice to high-value agricultural produce, such as fruits, vegetables, livestock and fisheries. He also spoke about not imposing arbitrary export controls.He explained the need for the government to move away from its pro-consumer bias, where they protect non-agricultural households against inflation, and create a level playing field which is more equal in handling farmer interests as well as consumer interests.He further addressed the trust deficit that has emerged in the last few years between the government and farmers.
