When farmers end up being anti-farmer

economictimes.indiatimes.com:

MSP, as demanded by protesting farmers at Delhi's borders, is a bad idea — especially for farmers. GoI's goal is to improve the farm sector, resulting in higher income for farmers. It is right in ruling out this particular demand, which will not benefit the bulk of farmers who have small holdings, often working as farm and non-farm labour.

A voluble few holding up benefits for many makes neither good economics nor canny politics.

A guaranteed MSP will undermine sustainability of agriculture, impacting small farmers disproportionately. It encourages cultivation of highest-yield crops rather than those best suited to a region. This has a ruinous impact on water levels and soil health, and adversely affects farmer incomes, public health and food security.

The environmental fallout of an MSP regime that continues to incentivise paddy cultivation in Punjab is an example of what not to do across agri products. What is required is stepping up public investment in agri. Guaranteed MSP would make that impossible.

It would have inflationary impacts, make our farm products globally uncompetitive, and raise barriers for agri commodity exports.

Farmers need remunerative prices, and letting the market determine prices makes ample sense. In this context, GoI must direct resources on building mechanisms to safeguard farmers against fluctuations, intervening when required. It must also create conditions for efficient markets, facilitating market access, addressing challenges of natural resource management and growing safe food for better incomes.

Rather than guaranteed MSP for every crop, GoI should offer support for efficient, sustainable, tech-driven production. The protesting farmers are, rather ironically, being anti-farmer.