PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE

2n/4.00/skc-hms

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR (CONTD.): The MSP must exceed the cost of production sufficiently and substantially. I understand that a lot of research has been done in this line.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude, Mr Sarkar.

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR: Till date, the cost of production is not calculated in the right way and that is why the Minimum Support Price has so far remained below the cost of production. That is another reason that the farmers are subjected to distress sale.

Sir, I would like to make a point about financial assistance to farmers. The banks and other financial institutions do not come forward every time -- sometimes they may -- to offer credit to the farmers. What mechanism does the Government have for them? Is there any intermediary agency or any coordinating body that would work for the farmers to get them bank loans? There is so much paraphernalia and so much procedure that the farmers cannot even go to the doors of the banks, not to speak of getting a loan. I am speaking of the ordinary farmer. There may be some rich farmers, zamindars, etc. who get it, no doubt. But ordinary farmers don't get it. And that is why they rush to the doors of moneylenders. For the poor farmers, moneylenders are the 'World Bank'. (Time Bell)

So, Sir, these concerns must be taken care of. Finally, I would like to touch upon just one point. The hon. Member is not here; in his Bill, he has mentioned that there should be five members to be appointed by the Central Government, but it has not been specified as to who would be those five members. And, it has been mentioned that there would be three members from among the farmers from four zones. How could it be that for four regions there would be only three members? There should be, at least, four members from four regions.

Finally, he has mentioned that the headquarters must be at Pondicherry. I do not know how he has selected the place.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He is not there to answer.

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR: Sir, I think he is listening to me from wherever he is. I think only one thing is required; the Chairman should be Shri Narayanasamy! This is what I want to say. He has gone up to Pondicherry. But there was something else missing. I have tried to fill it up saying that the Chairman should be Shri Narayanasamy!

With these words, I conclude my speech. Thank you, Sir.

(Ends)

֮ ֻ ӛ (ײָ) : , 0 ִֵָ ֳ ֬և , ֤ (ֳָ 滵) ׾֬, 2006 ֤ ß ׻֋ ֬և

, ײֻ ֺ ß , ׾ןֵ ו֮ ֓ ָָ , ײֻ 3(1) ָ ֮ ֟ ™ߵ ֤ ֳָ 滵 ׮֬Ը ֚ , ׾ֿ ׻֋ ֋,

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Narayanasamy, there was a question -- why should Pondicherry be the headquarters?

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I shall reply to that, Sir. I know where my colleague wants it to be placed!

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR: I have made you the Chairman because it is Pondicherry!

֮ ֻ ӛ : , ֯ע , ֯ע ָָ , ֮ ֟ ܵ ֵԻֵ כ ? ױ ß־ , ׾ָ

(2/ߋ־ ָ ֿ:)

HK-PSV/2O/4.05

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : , ֕ ֪- ָ ֲ֤ß ã֟ ֵ ֕ ֱ ֮ ד֟ 滵 ״ֻ , ו ֻ֟ ֟ , ׻ ֤ ָ־֙ ƴָ ֪- ֣ ָ ™ , ֪- ָ ֲ֤ß ָ֟ ֮ ֵ

þִ֣֮߮ ֵ ֛ ֓ ׯ֔ ֲָ ֓ þִ֣֮߮ ֵ , , ֮ ֚ þָ פ -- ֛ ׮ օ þִ֣֮߮ ֵ ׸ , ִ ֯ ֟ ֮ ד֟ 滵 ״ֻ, ׻֋ ™ , ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֓ , ָ ֈ, "׾ ָ֯ ֚ ( ָ) ֟ԋ", ָ ָָ ß־ , օ ֪- ָ ֲ֤ß ָ֟ ֮ ֵ ָ ׸ ן ָ ׸ ן Ϭ֮ ӡ 0 ִ֮ ֬և Ϭ֮ ӡ ׾֤ Ѿ օ ֯ ֟ -ן þ֤֮߯ ֋ -ן ™֤ ָ֬ ߮ ֟ ֮ ֵ ֬ ָ ֻ ׾֪֣ ߾֮ ־ָ ִ֮ ß־ ֜ 0 ־ ֻ ָי ֮־ , ֳ ־ָ ֜ ֲ ־ָ ֜, ֲ ֮ ד֟ 滵 ״ֻօ ֕ ׮ֵ ܵ 15-20 , ו֮ ֮ ֤ ֟ ִ ߮ , ߮ ָ ֟ , 2004-2005 ߮ 92 ״׻ֵ֮ י ֮ 72 ״׻ֵ֮ י , ֲ ָ ־ָ ֤ ߮ - ߕ ֟ ָ ߮ ֟ ָ ߟ ָ ָ ֮ ָ և ׌׾֙ߕ , ָ ִֻ , ֲ ߮ ߮ ָ-ָ ֤ ߮ ߮ ֲֻ ָ-ָ ֤ 0 ־ ֻ ™ ָי ֮־ ִ֬ , ִֻ ֓ , ֤ ֜օ ָ-ָ ֤ ָ™ߵ ßָ ָ ֤ , ֮ ֳָ 滵 ״ֻօ ֮ ֳָ 滵 ״ֻ , ָ-ָ ֤ , ֤ ָ , ָ ֈօ ָ ָָ ו ß־ ֓ , օ ִ ֵ "ָ -־ã -֬׸ - ֳ 67 ֤ ֲ֤ ָ ָ ֤ 25 ןֿ֟ ֤֮ , ׾ -ָ֯ ָ ״ ִ֟ " ָ ָָ þָ׌ ִ ױ ֵ "ױֻ ׾ ָ֯ ָ 1 ןֿ֟ 2004-05 ָ ׮ֵԟ , ֵ ןõ ֮ ױָ -֤ ָ ֳ 11.20 ןֿ֟ օ"

(2P/000 ָ ֿ:)

2P/klg/4.10

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : ֙ օ ָ ãן , - " ֵ֟ ׬ ׸֟Ԯ " ? ֮ ן ן , ֮ ֵ ָ ֤ ֜օ 1993-94 滵 ָ֬ ָ ָ ֤ 3,14,180 ֤֮ , ֙ 2003-2004 3,10,611 ֵ ָ־֙ , ֤ ָ־֙ ֵ֟ ָ ָָ ß־ ױ, , ָ ָָ ß־ . - " ֵ֟ ׬ ׸֟Ԯ ֪ׯ ֵ֟ 2003-02 21,97,26,800 ָ ֋ ֜ 2004-05 22,05,74,900 ָ ֋ ֵ , ֣ׯ ֵ֟ ֵ֟ ָ ֳ 4.59% ָ ãָ " , ֪ ָ ãן ?

, ִ߮ ãן , ӟ ػ - ָ ֓ և, ֻٕ֮ ִ ֓ և, ߴӟ ֮ ֑ ֮ ֓ և, ֮ ֻ , ֕ ״߮ , ו֮ ִ߮ ָ ָ , ָ֯ , ӟ , ִ߮ ּ ָ , ֙և ָ ו֮ ִ߮ ּ ָ , ֙և ָ , ֟ ֺ ߅ ֟ ֮ ד֟ ִ ״ֻ , ֮ ֮ ״ , ָ ֵ ֲ ָ ֵ , ֳָ ߅ ׻֋ ־ ֻ ָ֯י օ

, ֟ Ӭ ֤ ֲָ֟ ִ ױָ ֟ , ֤֕ ֤ ֯ ִ߮ ? Ӭ ָ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ָ ָ ָ ֟ , ָ Ӭ ֮֟ ֮֕ן ֲ ֛ ֤֕ ָ֤ , ו֮ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ֳ ״ֻ օ ׻֋ ֲ ִָ ֣ ״ֻ ֵ ֤, ֮ ֤ , ִ֟ , ֲ ֟ Ӭ ֱֻ օ ֲ ִָ ֵ ֤, ֮ ֤ ֲ֟ ֙ פ ֟ Ӭ 韾 þָ ׻ֵ, ֟ Ӭ ִ߮ ָ ֟ ߅ ֲ ױָ ֯, ֟ֆ, ֤֕ ֤ ָ ִ߮ ? ֟ Ӭ , , ֟ , , ִ߮ ߅ ֕ ֋ ֟ Ӭ ׾ָ֓?

2/ ָ

SCH/4.15/2q

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟): ߮ ֟ , ߮ ֛-֛ ָ ̴߮ , 200 ߑ, 100 ߑ 50 ߑ ָ ̴߮ 렠 ָ ֬׮ ָ֬ ָ, ֬׮ Ӭ֮ ָ, ß ָ ߕ , ׻֋ ָ Ӭ֮ ֟ ױ ֟ ָ ָ ֮ ֻ֟ , ױ פ , ָ ׾֟ ߮ ׾ ֵ֟ 300% ֜ ֟ ֡ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ӲӬ , ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֛ ִ֮ , ӕ ֵ פ ϵ þֵ ֮֮ߵ Ϭ֮ ӡ ӲӬ ؓן֟ , Ϭ֮ ӡ , Ӿ ֋, ֵ֟ ָ ָ ׮ֳԸ , ָ

, ו ִָ , ָָ , ֻ ߛ , ֕ ֪ ִֻ ֬ ֤ ׾֤ ָ ׮ֳԸ ֪ ׮ֳԸ ִֻ ָָ ݵָ ӓ־ ֮ פֵ , þִ֣֮߮ ֵ ָ ֯ ֟ ָָ 2004-05 ׸ ֮ , ֲ 26.10 ״׻ֵ֮ ֻ ߛ ֤ և̸ ׸ ָ ֵ 23.20 ״׻ֵ֮ 170 ִ ԓ ֣ ׸ ֮ 170 ִ 23.20 ״׻ֵ֮ Ӛ , ׸ ֮ , ֻ ֮ ֲ ֤ ֟֋ ֮ Ϥ ָָ þֵ ֟ þָ ֻ ֮ Ϥ 4261 ֮ ֟֋ , ԙ 124 ֟֋ , ִ 2006 ״ֻ Ӆ 2005 ָ™ 142 ֮ , 21 ֮ ֟֋ ׯ֔ ָ ֕ ֣-֣ ָ ֪-, ָ ߕ , ֳ ֕ ״ֻ , ָ ߲ 25,000 ֮ ֟ ו ֻ ִָ , , ֪ , ֕ , ֻ ֮ ֟ , ָ ? š״ ֟ ? ֱ ״׮ִִ ֯ և ֵ ֮ ִõֆ ӟ օ ֯ ֮ ״׮ִִ ֯ և , ֲ ֕ ֮ ָ ׮֟ , ֤ ָ֕ ãָ , ֯ ֻ ֯ ן ӛ ß ן ֲ ָ ָ ״׮ִִ ֯ և ִ֬ ָߤ ӛ ß ߴ ꅠ ֲ ֕ ֮ ָ ׮ ֟ , ֮֯ ׻֋ 750 ֵ ן ،֙ 滵 ֵ , ׮֕ ׮ֵ 850 ֵ ן ،֙ ָ þָ , ׻֋ ֮ ֯ օ ֮ ׬ ִ ״ֻ, ֕ օ ֕ ִ ָ ״ֻ ? ֲ פ ֙ ֋, ָ ָ ֕ ־ֿ , ׻֋ ָ ֮ ִ , ֮ ֻ 2018 ֵ ן ،֙ ״ֻ֟ ָ ֮֯ ֮ 750 ֵ פ, ׮ֵ 850 ֵ פ, ֯ ן , פ ֮֯ ֱ ֣ ָ ֮ , ֮ ד֟ ִ ״ֻ? ָ ֳָ ?

, ֲ ֮ , ֲ ָ ֛ ֲ ֳ Ϥ ׸ , ֲ ֮ ד֟ ִ ״ֻօ ָ-ָ ... MCM/2r ָ ָ

MCM-YSR/2R/4-20

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : ו ִ߮ ֕ ֮ , ו ִ߮ , ו ִ߮ ָ֯ ֣ ֮ ֮ ָ פ ּ ָ פ ֙և ָ פօ ׻֋ ׸ ־ֿ , ֯ ָ , -߮ ֟ օ , ן þ֤ ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮ ׮־ ָ ָ ָ ׮ֳԸ ׯ֔ ײָ ֛ ֵօ ׯ֔ ֻ ֲ ָ߱ ִֵ ֋ ֮ ߻ ֤ , ֮ ߻ , ߕ ֵօ ָ֕ ߕ ֟ , כֻ֮ ߕ ֮ ָ ֟ ߻ օ ו ִֵ ֓ ִֵ ֤ , ֮ օ ߕ ו֮ ߕ և000ָ0 -ָߵ Ӭ֮ ׸֤ - ֮ ׯ֔ ֟ ָ ׬ ֕ ֻ ֮ ָ ߕ ױ ־ֿ ֻ ߙ ? ߮, ֕߻ 000 ֲֻ ? ֪ ֵ֟ ִֻ ִ ? ָߵ Ӭ֮ ׸֤ , ֕ , ִ ֵ ׻֋ ִ ן ߅

, ־ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ꅠ ֮ ִֻ ֓ ֮ ״ֻ֟ ִֻ 1980 ֮ ֮օ ׾֢ ӡ 7 ָ әÙ ꅠ ִ ֟ ־ã ֟ ֮ ׻֋, ָ ֮ ֟- 1980 ׬׮ִֵ ֮ ִ ֈӛ әÙ ־ã ֮֯ פ 11 ָ ֙ ֮ 7 ָ ָ ״ֻ, ָ ר ֕ ׮׿֟ ֕ ֮ ׻ֵ ֋օ ֟ߕ ֮ ӛ - , , ٙևָ ָ ָ-ӓ ָ ֮ ״ֻ֟ , ߮ ָ, ָ ָ, ӓ ָ , ֟ߕ ו ֮ ּ ָ ִ߮ ו ִ ִ߮ ֕ , ָ߲ ֤ ֙և ָ ִ߮ ִ ָֻ ߤ օ ־׸ פ ָ ߴӟ ֮ ׻ֵ ֈӛ әÙ ӓ ָ ֻ ֮ ָ ֟ ׻֋ ָָ ֮ ™ ָ ָָ ֮ ꅠ , -߮ ־ ׸֛ ֮ օ , ׾֤ ß ™ߵ ׮ֵ ָ ß , ׮־ ß֮ ޵ , ־ã ־ָֿ֮ ߮, ֵԾָ ן ָ ֻ ֮ ־ֿ ׸֟Ԯ ָ֤ ֮ ׿֟ ֮ ֮ (2S ָ ֿ:)

VKK-GS/4.25/2s

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : ָ, ־ Ӭ֮ ָ և ô ֕։ ߕ ׾ָ ֮

ӓ, Ӭ֮ ֱ ֮ ֮ ִ ׾׬ ӓ֟ ָ֬ Ϥ֮ ָ

, ֓և ֻ ϲӬ֮ ֮ ϟ ߤָ ׮׿֟ ׸֮ ָ ֮ ֵ օ ׫ߵ ׸ ן ָ ׸ָ ә׻ ߴ ֛ߋ ־֮Դ ֻ ߅ ߴ , ә׻ ׸ָ ߴ ɯ ִֻ ֟ ֲ ֯ ֤ 2000 ߙ ֮ ֟ , ִ ɯ ֮ ֮ , ֲ ֜ ֟ , ֲ ֓֟ , ִ ֮ ϲӬ ֜ ׌ ״ֻ֮ ׻֋ ә׻ ׸ָ ߴ ֱ ֻ֮ ֻ ָ , ו Ϥ 20 פ , Ù Ӥ ә׻ ׸ָ ֛ פ ֓և ׻֋ ֮ ־ã , ָ ֙ ִ

, ֟־ ־ ֤ ָ ֬׸ ָ֕ ӛ ׮ֵӡ ӓֻ֮ ֮ ״ ߤָ ׮׿֟ ֮ ִֵָ ײֻ , ӓ 괲ָ , ֮ ֻꌿ֮ , ָ օ כ ֮ ֛օ ..(־֮֬)..

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: It will come in the rules to be framed. (Interruptions)

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֚ ־ , ו ָ ״ ָ, Ӥ ֛ ִ߮

 

" ָ֯,

׌, ָ "

 

ֻև, ֳ ֕։ ֮ ד֟ ִ ״ֻօ

־ ״ ָ ֮ ֻ þ״֟ ־ ־ ֤ ָ ã֮֯ ݵָ ־ ֱ ֵ֜ ֮ ֣ Ӥ ֮ ־ ֻ ָ֯י ֮־ ә օ ֟ ֣, ֮ ֟ ִ֯ - ֮־֤

(ִ֯)

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (ANDHRA PRADESH): Thank you, Sir. I stand to support this Agricultural Produce (Remunerative Prices) Bill, 2006 introduced by my colleague, Mr. Narayanasamy. Sir, honestly speaking, it has become a ritual to discuss about issues of farmers in this august House in almost every session. Sir, the agrarian crisis that is being faced in this country can be easily seen by the number of suicides that has taken place in this country. I am quoting only the official status; 8900 suicides were committed by farmers between 2001 and 2006 in four States of the country alone -- Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra. Sir, over a period of time, we are having civilised Governments and sometimes.....

0 ϳ : ָ, ײֻ ׾ֵ ָ ָ ֕ ֋ ֋օ

ֳ֯ן : ?

0 ϳ : ֯ ֵ ֣ ו֋, ֣ ׸և ֋օ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , Ӳ׬֟

ֳ֯ן : ֋, ï , ֕ ֟ ױ ִֵָ ָ ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : , ӡֵֻ ߮ 3-4 ׾ֵ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֓ - ֪ ֓ , ٟ֯ ֓ , ״׮ִִ ֯ և ֓ , - Ù ״׮Ù ָ ӡ ׻֮

ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ןֻֻ ׸) : ׻

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: He is the Minister of State for Agriculture. We don't know the portfolios of the Minister. That is the problem.

(Contd. by RSS/2t)

RSS/2t/4.30

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): This Ministry is such a large Ministry that we are unable to memorise who is holding which portfolio. That is the problem. Sir, while formulating the policies and the priorities in respect of the First Five Year Plan, the first Prime Minister said: "Everything can wait but not agriculture." I feel it is very relevant even today. Sir, the growth rate that we are trying to achieve is 10 per cent, and our policy framers, I should congratulate them, have coined a very beautiful phrase, "inclusive growth". This 'inclusive growth' is a very wide concept. And to what extent, are we going to achieve this growth? The Eleventh Five-Year Plan Approach Paper, which was presented to this august House, does not have any pragmatic approach towards achieving the 'inclusive growth' as far as the priorities and the policies that have been enunciated in this document are concerned.

Sir, the Bill deals with the paying of the Minimum Support Price. Sir, how long can we keep the farming community in shackles of misery and deprivation? Should they always knock at the doors of the power corridors that 'we have produced this and pay this price to us'? When are we going to liberate these people from these shackles? This is the issue which the Government has to take care of. There are some structural deficiencies, which we have not been able to work out, and in fact, we have been continuously and conveniently ignoring them. The first thing is, capital formation. If you go through the data that is available, since 1999-2000, the capital formation in agriculture, that is, including elite sectors like, poultry, fisheries, forestry and everything, in 1999-2000, it was Rs. 50,151 crores; in 2000-01, it was Rs. 44,548 crores, in 2001-02, it was Rs. 55,470 crores, in 2002-03, it was Rs. 55,574 crores, in 2003-04, it was Rs. 56, 254 crores; during 2004-05, it has gone down to Rs. 52,813 crores. How can we arrogate to ourselves the credit that we are attentive to the problems of the farming community in this country? To what extent, our arrogation is justified? There has been a continuous decline in the capital formation in providing infrastructure in agriculture. This is about the prices for these years. As per the Mid-term Appraisal of the Tenth Five-Year Plan that has been presented to this august House, huge amounts have been spent on food subsidy, power subsidy, fertilizer subsidy, and these have effected the decline in the capital formation in agriculture. So, the need of the hour is to rationalise these subsidies. I do not recommend eradication of the subsidies in a particular sector. It has to be rationalised. And increase the investment in the irrigation sector, specially, public investment. So, it is a widely accepted phenomenon that the public investment has got a strong complement. I will take the private investment also. So, the Government has to come forward, and it should not absolve itself of its responsibility by saying that 'the market forces will play their role and we have globalized and privatised the economy, so, our role has come to an end.' That is not the answer. The Government has to come forward and it has to step up the investment in these sectors so that there will be private investment also. So, the investment has to be stepped up in irrigation, including micro irrigation, in power sector, water-shed development, including rural electrification and other rural infrastructure. So, the need of the hour is to increase the capital formation. Till date, Mr. Minister, we have not addressed this problem. Conveniently, we have been ignoring this problem. Sir, we had planned to achieve 4 per cent growth rate in the Tenth Five-Year Plan. This was solemnly affirmed in this august House that we are going to achieve 4 per cent growth rate in agriculture in the 10th Five-Year Plan. (contd. by 2u)

MKS/ASC/4.35/2U

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): Sir, I am sorry to say that the average growth rate for the past four years--because we are in the year-end of 2006, 2006-07 is the last year of the Tenth Plan--has not exceeded 1.2 per cent. It has not exceeded 1.2 per cent in agriculture, the growth rate. So, definitely, this has got a concomitant effect on other sectors of the economy. Not only it could not be able to provide employment, because more than 70 per cent of the people are dependent on this profession, i.e. agriculture, but, whatever be the growth, we have achieved, till today, only an eight per cent rate, which you have been advocating, which is a jobless growth. It is an undeniable fact; everybody is accepting. So, economic inequalities are growing up, and in spite of the huge buffer stocks, that are available in our godowns, the people are unable to purchase foodstuffs. Sir, that is one of the reasons why there are so many suicides. It is not only the debt burden on the farmers, but there are also many other reasons which have got the cumulative effect of forcing them to commit suicide. The food availability, per capita, is going down; the food consumption, per capita, is also going down. So, we cannot boast that we are self-sufficient. One State may be self-sufficient, but the other States are deficient in foodgrains production. And we are transporting from parts of Punjab to Kerala to cater to the needs of the people there, by incurring huge transport costs. Sir, we need a comprehensive and holistic approach towards our agriculture. The cosmetic changes of giving some package to Vidarbha, some package to part of Andhra will not serve the purpose. It can only assuage temporarily the feelings of the people. It can never solve the problem permanently. And there is absolutely deceleration in agricultural growth. It is an undeniable fact; the Minister also has admitted. Sir, I make a suggestion to you. There may be constraints of funds. Sir, I will tell you that the banks are flooded with funds; they are approaching the borrowers; they are approaching us and saying, "You kindly make a good proposal for a good borrower." And we are continuously getting phone calls from various banks like the Standard Chartered Bank inquiring whether we need loans from them. The banks are flooded with funds, but the only thing is, the Government does not have any innovative thinking. You formulate some policy; you construct a project where you can bring some one lakh acre of land under cultivation and charge the cost of the project from the farmers. Make a legislation to that effect. And if at all any States are objecting to it, bring 'agriculture' under the Concurrent List, and 'water' also. And you have been talking of the linkage of rivers! Sir, the reply was given in the Rajya Sabha that the Government of India has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court. When they asked for the linkage of rivers, the Union of India filed an affidavit before the hon. Supreme Court, giving details of milestones, dates, time-table for completion and various activities relating to the interlinking of rivers. Sir, has this august House got no right to know why the Government is not placing that affidavit on the Table of the House? What is the Government thinking? What exactly is the Government thinking? What constraints is the Government facing? Why doesn't the Government take this entire august House into confidence so that we can know what the Government is planning to do in this regard? Sir, I will tell you, unless water is brought under the Central List, the linkage of rivers will be impossible. I am a product of regional parties. The regional chauvinism has gone to the level that they prefer to suffer with floods than allowing the surplus water to go to the deficient States downstream. That is the state of affairs prevailing. Let us be very practical and very pragmatic. And why do you spend so much money on the linkage of rivers when you are not going to do it? I want to have the linkage of rivers. It involves lakhs and crores of rupees of expenditure. It can provide employment. Millions of man-hours can be created. It can provide irrigation to lakhs of hectares of land. It is needed. It will generate wealth. It will provide employment. It will improve the economic growth, a growth rate of ten per cent, which you want to achieve. We can achieve more than 10 per cent. But the Government should have a correct perspective, what are the constraints that we are facing and how to overcome them. And take the House into confidence, and also all the political parties. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to achieve it, Sir. (Contd. by TMV/2W)

TMV-NB/2W/4.40

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): Sir, I have made some calculations about the credit that required by the agriculture sector. We have got around 30 crore acres of rainfed land and 20 crore acres of irrigated land. The total is 50 crores. The rainfed area requires minimum Rs.10,000 per acre for raising a single crop. They raise two crops. The irrigated area requires Rs.20,000 per acre. If you calculate it, you require an amount of Rs.7 lakh crores. The amount required is Rs.7 lakh crores. Even if you consider that the big farmers can finance themselves to the tune of Rs.1 lakh crores, you require a minimum of Rs.6 lakh crores. Minimum 10 per cent of this unirrigated land has to be brought under irrigation every year. It requires an amount of Rs.30,000 crores. Both these amounts put together, it comes to Rs.6.3 lakh crores. That is the credit that has to be provided to the farmers of this country, and you have made a provision of Rs.7.38 lakh crores for the entire Tenth Five Year Plan. What is your achievement for four years ending 2006? It is Rs.4.28 lakh crores and that too when the FM announced that the farming credit will be doubled in the next three years. In fact, he has achieved it in the last year. Your figures are totally under-budgeted. It is not commensurate with the requirements. You have stipulated a condition for the banks that minimum 18 per cent of the bankable credit has to be paid to the farming community. Do you know how many banks have achieved it? Not even six banks have achieved it. We have been asking the banks in every meeting of the Finance Committee. Note even six banks have achieved it.

Sir, I want to bring to your notice--you are an eminent Chartered Accountant; you can appreciate it--that the NPA in the agriculture sector is very low compared to the other sectors. The farmers of this country are more honest than the industrialists and traders. Their NPA rate is very low. If that is the case, when the agriculture sector of the country requires to the tune of Rs.6.3 lakh crores, what is the constraint that banks have got? The banks don't have any passion. You may remember that there are no agriculturists on the bank boards. They have stopped nominating agriculture scientists and agriculturists on the bank boards. They have also stopped recruiting agriculture graduates. Is it the effect of the globalisation that we are planning? I don't think that is the intention of the Government, whatever be the Government. Today, you are in power. Tomorrow some other party will come to power. But the problem will remain the same. It will remain unresolved and unsolved. Why don't you take the bankers also into confidence and tell them to achieve 18 per cent credit? If any bank could not achieve 18 per cent credit, the difference has to be deposited with the NABARD and invest in rural infrastructure account from which they would get interest. That is not a punishment and a punitive action. The banks are very happy to invest in that account. Ultimately, the sufferers are the farmers. So, these are all structural defects with the resource mobilisation. Resource mobilisation is very good. If you look at the graphic chart of the targets, you will find that the direct taxes, the indirect taxes, etc., are going up like anything. In fact, the FM is more worried about the SEZs. If the SEZs are introduced, the inflows will go down. I want to make a request to the Finance Minister. He has made us to pass the FRBM Act and he has pressed the pause button. It is an expanding economy. We want to achieve more than 10 per cent growth rate. If that is the case, we want more funds to flow into the economy. Don't restrict yourself. We will support the Government. You continue to press the pause button of the FRBM. We will support you. But you allow liquidity to flow into the market. You allow the investors to come into the infrastructure sector. Only then will it solve the problem; otherwise the cosmetic changes will never serve the purpose.

Regarding disinvestments, why don't you invest the proceeds from disinvestments in the agriculture sector? You want to reduce the deficit. We will never recommend it. Any growing economy will have deficit. There doesn't seem to have any deficit. All developing economies are having deficit. (Contd. by VK/2X)

VK/2X/4.45

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD): So, don't be very particular about deficit or the FRBM Act. These are the guidelines that have been issued by the affluent, controlled economies like the United States and Europe where they are dominating the World Bank. That is the stipulation which they have initiated. Let us not have tailor-made rules for our economy. We will formulate the rules according to our own needs of the country. Why don't you consider investing the proceeds of disinvestments in the rural infrastructure?

The next thing is productivity. In spite of our best efforts, we have not been able to increase productivity. Assuming that you are paying Rs. 500/- per kg. on a particular product and they are producing 2 kgs. You are paying Rs. 1000/-. If they produce 4 kgs., they will be getting Rs. 2,000/-. So they need not knock your door to pay more MSP. You initiate steps and create conducive atmosphere so that they can improve the productivity of their crop. That is where you have failed. I think, the Swaminathan Commission has also made recommendation in the recent report that productivity has to be increased. That is the need of the hour. Not more than three-fourth of the world's average, we are able to produce today. As compared to Japan and the USA, our productivity is less than a half. As long as the productivity does not increase, we cannot improve the economic condition of our farmers.

So far as the level of foodgrains stock is concerned, the Government should have a very, very corrective and pragmatic perspective. You should know what is the consumption of a particular article, whether pulses or cereals or any other product. You can easily assess as to how much will be the production. Our space technology has gone up to such a level that with five per cent error, we can estimate how much acreage has gone for paddy; how much acreage has gone for wheat and what will be the output. We got this answer from the scientists. You can easily ascertain, you can have a comprehensive approach as to what is the requirement of the country; how much is the production and how much will be the surplus. If at all there is surplus, how to dispose it of. If at all there is deficit, how to procure it. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction, you plan it properly. Then the farmers will be benefited. They will never approach you for MSP.

In this connection, I would like to make some suggestions. The Government should take steps to prepare a national agriculture index. Till today, data is not made available properly. I would like to inform the House that so far as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme is concerned, from August onwards, no data is available with the Government. The Government has not made any proper study as to how this scheme is functioning. The so-called job cards, which are being issued in our area, they are like ATM cards, to get Rs. 20/- per day. I am saying this honestly. I am not criticising it. If I can spare my job card, I will be paid Rs. 20/- and I need not work. That is how the works are being managed. You have merged all the rural development programmes into that particular programme. That programme is not functioning properly. We don't have data to analyse whether that programme is functioning properly or not. You should have a national data bank. You should have one commodity board for every crop. It should be headed by agriculture scientists or agriculturists or very senior IAS officers. They will have passion to develop it. I am not blaming the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy's taste is different. Its passion is different. We should have the people who have got passion over these activities. Then accord the status of agriculture to aquaculture and poultry. You have provided one-time settlement to all the agriculture farmers who are unable to pay back bank loans because of crop failure or some other reasons. But this scheme has not been extended to the poultry industry. (Contd. by 2Y)

RG/4.50/2Y

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (contd.): Sir, especially in the State of Andhra Pradesh, recently, a peculiar disease has hit and destroyed the poultry industry. So, you kindly make a proposal to see whether this poultry industry also should be brought under the purview of this one-time settlement.

Sir, I just have one or two points more to make. Mr. Swaminathan has made excellent recommendations, but certain recommendations seem to be within the framework of this resource constraint; it is rather difficult and I do admit it. But the Government has to think over how best they can raise resources, how they can mobilise resources to implement all these things. But I again say, unless you try to remove these structural deficiencies, you cannot achieve the four per cent growth which you have been trying to proclaim. Sir, China could achieve more than 10 per cent growth rate for the past one-and-a-half decade because of the increase in agricultural growth rate. We should not forget it. And we have been quoting and emulating the example of China every time, but they have invested trillion of dollars in rural infrastructure, and they have never had this deficit problem. They know that deficit will not deter them. So, let us be very frank; let us not be guided by what these so-called World Bank or IMF or other banks say. Let us have policies of our own which suits all our farmers, so that we can achieve the desired results.

With these observations, I support this Bill. Thank you. (Ends)

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, this particular Bill, the Agricultural Produce (Remunerative Prices) Bill, 2006, which has been initiated by hon. V. Narayanasamy, is very much relevant at this juncture. We have debated on this particular point, namely, fixing the Minimum Support Price many a time, and that is also a subject of debate in the media as well. But the situation now is something different. We may not have the data, as Shri Ramachandraiah has said, in different areas of agriculture, but we are getting the FDI in different modes. Various companies are coming into the agricultural field, and they are investing money, providing seeds, fertilisers and all the technology required to develop their own crops, and the produce from these crops are taken away as exports to other countries. Therefore, gradually, we are coming into the hands of the Foreign Direct Investment. I feel it is high time to think about allowing the Foreign Direct Investment in the agricultural field by the Government itself so that we can find out in which way they can take our agricultural sector, in which way they can turn around the day-to-day affairs of the agriculturists. This format of getting support price, sitting in Delhi, constituting a committee, and considering the various fluctuating parts of prices, may not be feasible in future. I read one of the recommendations of the FII, and I am quoting it here. It says, "The CII has estimated a conservative growth rate of three per cent in agriculture as this sector is dependent on weather conditions. They have low and tardy elasticity to policy measures. Industry has the potential to expand by 12 per cent while services can grow at an average rate of 11 per cent during the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The share of agriculture-GDP dwindles; off-farm employment and income opportunities must be created." This is the view of the Confederation of Indian Industry. Our Government is also thinking that we have to help the agriculturists so that they can come up from the debt trap, and interest is reduced from 14 per cent to 7 per cent. (Continued by 2Z)

2z/4.55/ks

DR. E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): As Mandalji mentioned, it may be seven per cent, in name only; actually the rate at which they pay, as compound interest, is more than 18 to 24 per cent. Agriculturalists are dependent upon the vagaries of the monsoon and the other seasons. Therefore, these aspects have to be taken into consideration. Every year, even from a small State of Tamil Nadu, about 10 to 15 lakhs of people migrate as labourers to different States. They are educated; they have got the skills and they come from agricultural families. But, still, they are not able to depend on agriculture because the price of their agricultural produce is not fixed by them; it is fixed by traders who buy the produce when there is good harvest, at low prices, and when there is scarcity of water or else, they buy it at different prices. But the Government is not in a position to fix a uniform price for agricultural produce all over the country. It differs from place to place; even different districts have different fluctuations of price. Now, many of our farmers, with a very simple value addition, can multiply their earning and multiply the price of their product. If you have wheat, it can be made into flour and if it is packaged under different name, under some good trademark, it can fetch very high price. Take, for example, Horlicks. They mix cereals and the cost goes up by 200 per cent. But what does an ordinary agriculturist get? Nobody is interested to get that money back to the agriculturist. Take the sugarcane. The sugarcane by-product, methyl alcohol, is used greatly for many purposes. For fuel, it is now mixed with diesel and petrol. That price is not added when the price of sugarcane is fixed. Molasses give us electricity. The sugar mill owners are earning huge money there. But the benefit of that value addition is not given back to agriculturists so that they can get some reward for their labour. That is what is happening. Sir, take the example of my own State of Tamil Nadu. A very popular Government there is now giving one kilo of rice for two rupees. In one way, it is very appreciable that an ordinary labourer...

SHRI N. JOTHI: But it is not going to the poor people. It is going to *

DR. E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Mr. Jothi is upset. (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (SHRI S.S. PALANIMANICKAM): What is this, Sir? ... (Interruptions)...

DR. E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Sir, he is not in touch with the agriculturists. Therefore, he does not think about agriculture labourers. (interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That word should not go. (Interruptions)

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, I am on a point of order. The expression used against the hon. Member is not proper.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have removed it.

SHRI N. JOTHI: I am very sorry, Sir. What is the word I used?

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

* Not recorded.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: No, no, it was used against you.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, I am walking out in protest.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We have removed it.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Whatever it is, they must feel sorry for this. Whosoever said it, must regret for this. I am very sorry. I am registering my protest.

(At this stage, the hon. Member left the Chamber.)

DR. E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Sir, I was talking about a very serious matter pertaining to agricultural labourers who are enjoying, in a way, that benefit being given to them by the present Government. At the same time, they can earn Rs. 80 per day under the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Ladies are going out for jobs. Men are getting Rs. 120 per day. If they get three or four days' work, they get very cheap rice from the Government under the PDS. (Contd. by 3a/tdb)

PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE