PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE

2d/3.00/ks

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR (CONTD.): Prof. Kurien had suggested that the SC converts of Christianity and Islam should also be included in the SC List of the Constitution. I wish to say that presently this issue is being examined by the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Probably Prof. Kurien is not here, but I am bringing it on record.

Shri Sabharwal had said that there should be sub-categorisation in Scheduled Castes. A commission has recently been set up to examine this with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Praveen Rashtrapal had pointed out that there are 12,000 entries waiting to be included in the SC List which are pending in my Ministry. I want to clarify that there are 513 such proposals out of which 426 proposals have been sent by my Ministry to the State and UT Governments for furnishing further ethnographic information. Twenty-four proposals, which have ethnographic details, have been referred to the Registrar General of India. Twenty-nine proposals have been referred to the National Commission of Scheduled Castes, for 17 proposals I have introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill in Lok Sabha on 31st July 2006. One proposal has matured in my Ministry after obtaining clearance from the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

(PROF. P.J. KURIEN in the Chair)

Mr. Jothi had said that if a non-Scheduled Caste person marries a Scheduled Caste person, he should be suitably rewarded. So, I just want to point out that under the PCR Act and the PO Act, we have a scheme of giving incentive to those who have inter-caste marriages and early this year, in February, I have written to all the Chief Ministers to enhance this incentive amount to Rs. 50,000.

Shrimati Prabha Thakur, Shri M.S. Gill, Shri Natchiappan, Shri Surendra Lath, Shri Matilal Sarkar, Shri Ramdeo Bhandary, Anusuyaji and Shri Santosh Bagrodia have also expressed their concerns about the education, employment and welfare of SCs and STs. I want to tell them that the UPA Government is doing a great deal for SCs and STs in the field of education and other spheres. Welfare of SCs and STs is uppermost in our mind and we have a number of schemes, which my Ministry, or Mr. Kyndiah's Ministry of Tribal Affairs, are implementing directly or with the help of the States and U.T. Governments.

Now, I come to the main issue of the Private Member Bill, which Mr. Condpan has introduced, the issue of amending articles 341 and 342. Presently, the SCs and STs status is State-centric, UT-centric or area-centric. It is specific to a particular area, a particular region in a State or a Union Territory. He wants this to be made uniform. He wants that if there is an SC or ST community in a particular State or in a particular Union Territory, then that particular community should be declared SC or ST for the whole of the country. (Contd. by 2e/tdb)

TDB/2E/3.05

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR (CONTD.): The first thing I want to point out is that as per the provisions of these two articles, the President has to specify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a State, and he consults the Governor of the concerned State and the Administrator of the Union Territory to ascertain if a particular community is suffering from untouchability, in case of Scheduled Castes, or, a particular tribal community is living in isolation, is going shy, and is suffering from geographical discrimination and aloofness. So, he consults the Governor. Now, if we have to make this uniform for the whole country -- the recommendation of the Governor of that State cannot be applied to another State by the President of India -- there will be this difficulty. Apart from that, we must keep in mind that ours is a very vast country. We have so many different States and Union Territories, and we have a great deal of difference in the living standard, in the social conditions and in economic conditions in these States. Not only do the States differ in these respects, but within a State also, there are certain districts which are economically, socially more advanced than the other districts within the same State. Because of this vastness of the area of our country, because of the geographical complexities and the sociological complexities of our country, the fathers of our Constitution thought it best that applying uniform standards will not really be practical for the whole of the country. There might be some States which are backward, and, therefore, the SCs and STs living in those States might be more backward than the SCs and STs living in more advanced States. Therefore, although we should pay attention to the needs and difficulties of all the SCs and STs, but those living in more backward areas, more backward States need more attention. Therefore, they made the declaration of SCs and STs area-specific, region-specific and State-specific. This is the reason why it is so. And, if we make it uniform, it may happen that those SCs and STs who are living in States more advanced, who are educationally far ahead of their counterparts in other backward States or backward regions, who are economically far advanced than their counterparts in other States and other regions, they may go to those States, and it might be detrimental to the progress of the SCs and STs of those backward regions and backward States. That is why this demand for applying a uniform standard for the whole of the country will not be in the best interest of the SCs and STs.

(Contd. by 2f/kls)

KLS/2F-3.10

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR (CONTD): Mr. Condpan has rightly pointed out the difficulties faced by the tea tribes of Assam who migrated there during the British rule from various other States and who deserve more attention economically, socially and educationally. I will request my colleague, Mr. Kyndiah also. Actually, this concerns more the Ministry of Tribal Affairs than it really concerns my Ministry because it is for declaring these tea labourers as Scheduled Tribe. So, I would also request my colleague Mr. Kyndiah to look into the difficulties faced by the tea labourers of these particular communities, which Mr. Condpan has mentioned in this Bill, and solve all their difficulties. But it will not be possible to apply the same uniform standard to all the SC/STs of the country. I would, therefore, request hon. Member to kindly withdraw this Bill. Thank you.

SHRI SILVIUS CONDPAN (ASSAM): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I have very minutely heard the reply of the hon. Minister. The point is that my Bill was not intended for uniformity of giving SC/ST status to the people. My concern was particularly for the tea tribes communities who are Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in their State of origin and also in the migrated State of Tripura and West Bengal for the same purpose but some sort of discrimination has been made against those who went to work in Assam. It is a very, very clear case. I think I have not been able to make understand the hon. Minister what was my case. The case is very simple that because they went to Assam, not to West Bengal and Tripura, they are deprived. So, this is a discrimination, a Constitutional discrimination. No uniformity I am demanding; nothing new I am demanding through this Bill. Therefore, I request the Minister not to have this conception that I am demanding something very big. Today they are already Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in their State of origin, and again in the migrated States of West Bengal and Tripura. There is a discrimination against those who went to Assam. That discrimination has to be removed. They are suffering from area restrictions not afresh scheduling of castes and tribes. This is what I am intending to have by this Bill. The hon. Minister may kindly assure me that this matter will be examined from this point of view. It is not that I am demanding any uniformity. Uniformity is something big. This is a very simple thing -- why not in Assam when it is everywhere else. Only for Assam, they are discriminated against. I would like to hear something more from the hon. Minister before I abide by the request of the hon. Minister.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Hon. Minister, do you want to react or say something?

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR: Sir, I have said what I had to say.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Condpan, are you withdrawing your Bill? ...(Interruptions)... Are you withdrawing your Bill?

SHRI SILVIUS CONDPAN: Sir, I just wanted a little assurance from the hon. Minister with regard to the point that I have raised. I have put a clarification. The question of withdrawing is not difficult. I want a little more clarification than what the hon. Minister has given. I am not adamant not to withdraw this Bill.

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR: Sir, actually I have said all that he wanted in my reply on 11th August. I had specifically mentioned all these tribes that he has mentioned.

(Contd by 2G)

-KLS-SSS/2G/3.15

SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR (CONTD.): I come to the particular question of granting ST status to Koch Rajbangshi, Tai, Ahom, Chutia, Moran, Matak communities of tea gardens and ex-tea garden tribes. Now I had also clarified in my reply on that day. That is why I was just ending since all these were referred. You see there is a certain system. When the State sends the proposal to my Ministry, actually, it is not my Ministry also because you have asked for granting them tribal status, ST status. So, it goes to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. However, the procedure is, after we have received all the ethnographic details, then we send it to the Registrar General of India. The Registrar General of India has to give his consent, and, then, if it is for Scheduled Castes, then, we send it to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for their view. If it is regarding tribals, then it is sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. In this case, it was sent to the RGI. The RGI rejected the proposal. It was sent to them in each case. In case of each community, the proposal was sent to them 4-5 times. I had explained all this last time and every time it was rejected. Then, there was nothing we could do, not my Ministry, but the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. I had explained all this last time but this time I have said that we are aware of the difficulties faced by the tea labourers of Assam. I have said it just now that I would request my colleague, Mr. Kyndiah, who is the Minister for Tribal Affairs, because it is for granting tribal status to these people, what we can do for their education, for their other welfare, in other spheres. But, however, this Bill does say that if there are Scheduled Castes in one State or Scheduled Tribes in one State they should also become Scheduled Castes in other States, which means applying the principle of uniformity. That is why I said this. But as far as the difficulties of tea labourers of Assam are concerned, we will certainly look into it.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIAN): Mr. Condpan, she has assured that she will look into this.

SHRI SILVIUS CONDPAN: If the assurance is given to me that the matter will be referred to the Tribal Affairs Ministry for proper examination by the Government then I beg to withdraw my Bill and I thank all the Members who have participated in this Bill.

The Bill was, by leave, withdrawn.

(Ends)

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (REMUNERATIVE PRICES) BILL, 2006

 

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PONDICHERRY): Sir, I beg to move:

That the Bill to provide for ensuring remunerative prices for the agricultural produce of the farmers by way of fixation of minimum support price, compulsory market intervention by such Governmental agencies in cases of bumper crops and for the establishment of an autonomous Board for the purposes and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, be taken into consideration.

 

Mr. Vice-Chairman, I thank you for giving me this opportunity not only to introduce but also to discuss The Agricultural Produce (Remunerative Prices) Bill, 2006. Sir, in this country we know more than 80 per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture.

(Contd. by NBR/2H)

-SSS/NBR-PSV/2H/3.20.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): We have been telling -- whether it is the Central Government or the State Governments -- that we would like to improve the living conditions of the farming community. We will provide all facilities to farmers, whether it is quality seeds, fertilizer, irrigation facilities, uninterrupted power supply for irrigation or remunerative prices. We also say, when there is necessity, the Government will go in for market intervention to save the farming community. On the one hand, the Government is announcing the schemes and on the other we find that the farmers are committing suicides! Whatever be the measures that we are taking, I would say that they are not reaching to the farmers. In fact, either the middlemen or the traders have become the beneficiaries at the cost of farmers who are toiling to get the produce. We say that he is the backbone of the economy. But, everybody forgets the farmer. Therefore, it has become necessary for me to bring the Agricultural Produce (Remunerative Prices) Bill, 2006, before the House for its consideration.

Sir, there are lot of lacunae while fixing the remunerative prices. The remunerative prices are fixed by the Government at the time of harvest. The Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices fixes the MSP for various produce of farmers. It has been doing it every year. What happens after that? After the Government fixes the rate, funds have to be passed on to the States. But, it takes a minimum of one year to reach the States, whether it is the case of sugarcane or edible oil or wheat or paddy. I have information that the MSP fixed by the Central Government is not paid to the farmers in some States even after two years, especially to sugarcane growers. Under these circumstances, now, the farmers are either stopping cultivation since it is not remunerative for them or reducing their holdings or migrating to towns and cities for their livelihood. Now, we find, this year 2006-07, the Government was forced to import wheat. When we import wheat, we are paying Rs. 1,250 per metric tonne and if you look at our remunerative price, it is not more than between Rs. 800 and Rs. 1,100!

Secondly, we are also importing pulses. We have been importing edible oil. What is the reason for short-fall? Rightly, the hon. Agriculture Minister and also the hon. Prime Minister fixed a target that by 2010 the Government will have a bumper crop of 420 MMT. Now, we are having only 210 MMT. On the one hand, there is a growth in population and urbanisation and, on the other, there is shrinking of agriculture land. Sir, since farmers are not getting profit, they are forced to commit suicide. Even the cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra -- we have figures with us -- are indebted either to public sector banks or moneylenders who are squeezing them. (Contd. BY 2J)

NBR-USY/2j/3.25

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): They are not getting the required yield because the Green Revolution took place about 15 years back, and, thereafter, a lot of technological innovations have occurred. But, the farmers are not able to use those innovations. Therefore, they are not getting a better yield. So, there are very cumulative aspects. You also come from the rural area. You know Kerela is very sensitive as far as agricultural is concerned, and not only agriculture but horticulture, floriculture, rubber production, cardamom production, paper production, coconut production also. The farmers are suffering there. They are making distress sales. In Tamil Nadu, the same situation is with paddy. In most of the paddy-cultivating states, we find that the farmers are making distress sales. If you go through the figures, the procurement that has been made is like this: from Punjab alone, the procurement was 63 per cent; from Haryana the procurement was 62 per cent of the total production; from Rajasthan it is 11 per cent; from Jharkhand, it is 12 per cent; from Bihar, it is 19 per cent; from Assam, it is 22 per cent; from Maharashtra, it is 28 per cent. But from the paddy-producing States in the Southern India, like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Karnataka, etc., the procurement is very, very less. They have been making enquiries with the Food Corporation of India. They have got buffer stock. The Government has to make provisions for procuring their paddy. But, they are not taking care of it. Therefore, farmers are forced to make distress sales either in the open market or through the marketing societies. Farmers are selling at a very lower price. If the market price is more, then, the farmers are safe. But if the market price is less, and the minimum support price is not coming within the stipulated period, the farmers suffer losses.

Even in the last session, we had discussed the farmers' issue. Hon. Agriculture Minister, Shri Sharad Pawar, had given an elaborate reply. Today, the cost of cultivation has increased. The prices of seeds, fertilizers, etc. have gone up. Sir, the hon. Minister comes from Madhya Pradesh. In Madhya Pradesh, the farmers do not get even proper fertilizers. That is my report. We don't have perennial rivers for irrigation. In most of the States we have got only lift irrigation system. After all these things, when the farmers go to a market, the prices of their commodities, whether it is paddy or wheat or pulses or groundnut, are fixed by the market intervention, fixed by the business community, fixed by the middlemen because they have got money at their hand. And, since the farmers need money, they have to sell their produce at a lower price. Therefore, I brought this Bill. In this Bill, I have specifically mentioned that the Government has to constitute a National Agricultural Produce Remunerative Prices Fixation Board. The Commodities Price Fixation Committee, which has been constituted by the Government of India, fixes the prices only after August. So, the farmers are at the mercy of the Committee. We want that the prices should be fixed at the time of sowing itself. Even in the case of soyabean, the situation is same. The remunerative prices for soyabean have not been announced in Madhya Pradesh. I want that this Board should be constituted with a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson, with the qualifications in the field of agriculture, or, with an agricultural background. And, they should be appointed by the Government of India. (Contd. by 2k -- VP)

VP/3.30/2K

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Then, Sir, five members are to be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments. They will represent the Governments of the States. Then, Sir, one Member each, representing the Union Ministries of Agriculture and Fertilizers, is to be appointed by the Government of India. One member representing the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is to be appointed. Three members are to be appointed by the Central Government from amongst the farmers representing the four regions of the country; East, West, South and Northern regions. There should be three Members of Parliament on this Board; two from the Lok Sabha and one from the Rajya Sabha. The term of office and all other things should be prescribed as per the rules. Then, Sir, it should have zonal offices also throughout the country.

Sir, the functions have been defined in clause 4. In clause 4, it is specifically mentioned: "The Board shall discharge the following functions, namely, fix and declare remunerative prices of agricultural produce before every sowing season." I repeat, 'before every sowing season.' Sir, the Commodity Board has now been constituted for fixing the minimum support price. That meets only at the time of the harvest. Therefore, I have said that the farmers should decide which crop they sow. It is also stated: "Fix and declare remunerative price of agricultural produce before every sowing season so as to ensure that farmers do get remunerative prices for their produce."

Sir, there is another thing which I want to say. Now, the Government of India is fixing the minimum support price. For wheat, they say, "We are fixing Rs. 700/-." They fix Rs. 700/-. The cost of cultivation for farmers varies from region to region. In Punjab, for the farmers, -- perennial river irrigation is there -- the cost of production is much less. In Uttar Pradesh, it is more. In Madhya Pradesh, it is a little bit more. In the Southern parts of the country where irrigation facility is available, for paddy, the cost is much less. If lift irrigation is there, it is a little bit more. The Government of India is fixing the minimum support price in all the States. Therefore, I want that different prices may be fixed for different zones of the country on the basis of the inputs used by the farmers, that is, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation facilities, electricity, labour, constituting all these things, and depending upon the region whether it has perennial river irrigation or lift irrigation. Depending upon the region and the inputs used by the farmers, the remunerative price should be fixed for four different regions. The minimum support price should also be fixed for four different regions separately. I want that keeping all these factors in view, they should fix it. While fixing the remunerative prices of agricultural produce, I also want that Board should take into account the average investment made by the farmers in sowing and growing the crop of particular agricultural produce, average labour charges and expenditure incurred by farmers, expenditure on premium crop insurance, -- because an amount has also to be earmarked for the crop insurance -- maintenance cost of the fields, prevailing market price of the produce, climatic conditions and occurrence of natural calamity. It should also ensure that the farmers get a reasonable and remunerative price for their produce. This will, definitely, help the farming community to get a reasonable and remunerative price. Sir, the Board should coordinate with the State agencies and the Central Government agencies. Sir, as far as the other provision is concerned, the Board has to give wide publicity to the farming community before fixing the minimum support price for the farmers in that region. And, Sir, in clause 5, it is stated: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government agency shall purchase the agricultural produce from the farmers at the prices fixed by the Board;" and the appropriate Government shall invoke market intervention. The second point is regarding market intervention. The third point is that this Board has to watch the activities of the traders and middlemen in creating artificial crisis and selling at a higher price when there is a shortage of the commodities. This also I wanted. By bringing this Bill, I think the Government will be able to regulate giving the required support to the farmers. (Continued by PK/2L)

PK/2L/3.35

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Suicides by farmers are taking place because they are not getting the required yield from their agricultural land. And, after making so much of investment when they do not get it, when they are indebted, they are forced to commit suicides. That is why, Sir, several packages have been announced by the Government of India-- Maharashtra packages have been announced, Andhra Pradesh packages have been announced, etc. The hon. Prime Minister is very much concerned about the farmers' problems. The UPA Government is also very much concerned about the farmers' issues. They are taking all possible steps. Sir, unless and until farmer gets remunerative price for his produce, this perennial problem will continue. For that, Sir, this Bill is going to, definitely, help the farming community. Farmers will come to know at the time of sowing season that this is the money they are going to get for one tonne of paddy, or, for 100 kg of paddy, or even 100 kg of wheat, sugarcane, pulses, etc. Then, he will start cultivation. When there is a fluctuation in the market, I want the Government to intervene; I want the hon. Minister to intervene. I want it to be fixed at the zonal level. There should be a dual Minimum Support Price. The Minimum Support Price should not be average for all the areas. It should vary from one area to the other. Therefore, Sir, it will help the farming community, whether it is the horticulture produce, especially, the produce that is coming from pepper, cashew, and also the groundnuts. The farmers in Kerala are suffering because the price of a coconut has gone down to even one rupee. Therefore, Sir, the entire life of the farming community is spoiled. Why is the remunerative price? Why are we insisting on it? The farming community have no other avocation, except some livestock. With the money that comes from the agricultural land, they have to sustain their family. They have to educate their children. They have to perform a lot of functions in their families. Only through that meagre money, their family survives. In our country, we have small holdings, fragmented holdings. The farming community is having only a limited area of land for cultivation. If that community does not get the support price from the Government, it would be very difficult for them to sustain themselves. Therefore, Sir, the Government of India appointed the Swaminathan Committee to go into the details of the farmers' problems. They gave various suggestions. I think, four Reports have been submitted by the Swaminathan Committee. I have gone through the Third Report, Sir. It is titled as "Serving farmers and saving farming community". Now, according to the Swaminathan Committee Report, there should be remunerative prices for the farmers, and additional income should be generated for the farming community by way of giving them support through the livestock in villages. They also said that there should be a strong marketing mechanism. The middlemen and money- lendings have to be avoided. I am very happy, Sir, the UPA Government, the hon. Prime Minister announced Rs.1,75,000 crores through banking sector to give loan facility to the farming community. Sir, I have raised this issue in this august House several times. If a small farmer or a middle farmer goes to a bank to get a loan, he has to undergo a lot of hardships for the documents which are required. The moneylenders don't have to undergo that amount of hardship. Even for getting Rs. 50,000 or Rs.1,00,000 to raise their crops, when he applies for the loan, it takes three months. By that time, the cropping season goes. Therefore, I told the Finance Minister in this august House that when a farmer applies for a loan, it has to be cleared on the basis of landholdings which he has. The documents which he has to submit, and the number of queries which the Bank Manager puts to him, naturally, forces the farmer to go to the moneylenders. (Contd. by 2M/PB)

PB/2M/3.40

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Therefore, Sir, I requested the Finance Minister to have a monitoring committee at the district level and also at the State level, having important farming community people and also the persons from the public life as its representatives. The Finance Minister said that the Government will take care of it. Now, Sir, as Members of Parliament and public representatives, we are getting complaints that when the farmers go for loan, even if they produce the requisite documents, they are not getting it. They are not getting adequate loan facility from the banks. Yes; cooperative institutions are there, the village cooperative societies are there, the cooperative credit societies are there; they are providing loans. Gramin banks are there; they are providing loans. But, I am talking about the nationalised banks. The nationalised banks are not providing loans to farmers whenever they are in need of it. However, if any industrialist goes there, they are prepared to give any amount, crores of rupees, as loan to him and if the man doesn't pay, it becomes a bad debt. Nobody is bothered about it. But if a farmer wants to seek a loan of only fifty thousand rupees or one lakh rupees for creating an asset or for some agriculture facility, he is not being provided the loan. The hon. Finance Minister has to look at this area. We also said that if the kind of support that the Central Government is giving properly goes to the farmers, there will not be any farmer's suicide in this country. But, unfortunately, when the farmer applies for the loan and when the loan is given after three months or six months, it becomes infructuous. They are not going to spend the money. The money is being diverted by the farmers thereafter. So, any outcome is not there. Therefore, Sir, I want them to consider this area.

Then, there is a need of supporting the farmers. Apart from providing them the other facilities, the livestock support is also required to be provided, for example, providing them milch animals like goats, etc. For that some provision has to be made. Sir, in villages, the female members of the family are supporting the family. They take care of those milch animals, and these milch animals are supporting the farmers' families. This will all solve the problems of the major farmers issues.

Then, Sir, they have to strengthen the cooperative institutions. The hon. Agriculture Minister has made it very clear in this august House and also in the public that the Government is going to strengthen the cooperative institutions. Unless and until the cooperative institutions in several States like in Maharashtra, in Gujarat and other States, are strengthened, the farmers would not get the advantage. In agriculture, there is APMC. In various States, it is there. The marketing facilities that have been provided through cooperative institutions have all been doing very well and the farmers are getting advantage of that Therefore, Sir, that point has also to be considered by them, that is, strengthening the cooperative institutions.

Sir, another area of concern is the Government's investment in irrigation. The Government's investment in irrigation has to be increased. Sir, we have plenty of rivers. We have enough water supply. Right from Ganga, Yamuna up to Cauvery, we have perennial rivers. Narmada is a very perennial river. But more than 40-45 per cent of the water goes to seas, and we are not fully utilising the water available in the country. We are not able to provide enough water to the farming community. We have had a very ambitious plan of interlinking Ganga-Cauvery. Dr. K.L. Rao Committee's report was there. Thereafter, the NDA Government had announced very ambitious plan of interlinking of rivers. But nothing has happened so far. That also has to be seen by the hon. Minister. The concentration should be there because, I have found that when the States make their Budget every year, a very meagre amount is being allocated for irrigation. I do not blame the State Governments for this because they have the fund crunch. The Central Government should come to their support, especially, in regard to the construction of dams in North India and also for the water storage facility in Southern part of the country. If the proper irrigation facility is available, the farmers' investment in agriculture will be much less.

(Contd. by 2n)

2n/3.45/skc

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Sir, as a result of it, with whatever minimum support price the Government gives, the farmer will be able to sustain himself. Therefore, I want the hon. Minister to look into that area. If the present trend continues, then there will be a problem of food security in this country; India will have to depend upon the other countries for her food. Unless and until we start a second Green Revolution, it would be very difficult for the Government. We have seen for ourselves what has happened within a short period.

What are the reasons for the price rise? Such a hue and cry has been made by hon. Members from the other side about it. The farmers have been ignored and, therefore, there is shortage of production. The demand and supply position has not been met and, therefore, the prices have gone up. So, I want the hon. Minister to consider this; to increase the production, a second Green Revolution is a must.

Sir, another area, which I would like the hon. Minister to give his consideration to, is the application of inventions in science and technology to agriculture. A lot of inventions have been made. India is a pioneer in the field. I am not saying that no inventions have been made in the various agricultural universities. But I am saying that most of them have not reached the farming community. Some of them remain on paper, at the demonstration stage. They should quickly reach the farmers. Unless and until they reach the farmers, any kind of innovations that we make, or, scientific research we do for increasing production and productivity, are not going to help us in any way. The whole difficulty is that we lack commitment. In our country, we lack commitment in our endeavour to achieve something. Sir, are we not feeling bad that we have to import wheat from abroad? When we have such a vast stretch of land, why has the production not increased? Why are we importing wheat? India has been exporting wheat to other countries in the past. Why are we doing it? We have to find out what is the root cause for this.

Secondly, we have not taken care of the farming community's requirements. Though I do not subscribe to the theory of giving subsidies to farmers on a large scale, I do feel that earlier the subsidies that the farmers were getting as seed subsidy and fertilizer subsidy were working well. But some people in the fertilizer industry mishandled the issue. There was a lot of mishandling and the subsidy was removed; as a matter of policy also, the Government took a decision that because of economic reforms we need to review the situation. But even then, farmers were taking this advantage during Indiraji's time and also when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Therefore, Sir, when we go through the entire gamut of farmers' issues, we find that unless and until we concentrate more on farmers' problems, only for the purpose of advertising and giving publicity, saying that we are with the farmers is not going to help us. Let us be very practical. I am talking about the investment made by political parties, not this party or that party; every political party has been exploiting the farmers and we are not doing anything for the farmers. In every Budget we say that we have allocated this much money for the farming community, but hon. Minister, Sir, practically speaking, farmers are not being allotted that much money. But, if you go through the Budget, we find that to industries, trade and commerce we are allocating more money. On other areas, too such as social welfare schemes, education, health, sanitation etc. we need to spend a lot of money; we agree on that too. Even then, farmers, who are the backbone of this country, who are to be provided with the necessary infrastructure and who constitute 80 per cent of the population, have been ignored. On the one side, when industrial revolution is taking place, there should be a revolution on the agricultural side also. (Contd. by 2o/hk)

HK-ASC/2o/3.50

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Hon. Minister, let me say one thing, which I have told to our State Agriculture Department also. The contribution of our agricultural graduates in increasing the agricultural production in various States has to be properly utilised. But what is happening? They are sitting in the office and are doing table work. They are not doing the field work. Agricultural graduates and scientists have become bureaucrats. They should not become bureaucrats. They should do the field work. These are various lacunae in our country. Since farmers have got the will power, they have been sustaining themselves. The minimum support, which they need is the good income for their products. Therefore, the farmers need remunerative prices. The hon. Minister is also coming from the agricultural background. He fully knows the problems of farmers. In a vast country like ours, unless and until we take all the possible steps, we will not be able to increase the production. We have to depend upon imports only and our lot of money and foreign exchange will go out of the country. Therefore, our concentration should especially be on paddy, wheat, pulses, edible oils, sugarcane and other items. In all these, the Government support should be given to the farming community. Sir, since this august House is very much concerned about the farmers' problems, I request the hon. Members of this House to utilise this opportunity and raise the farmers' problems, especially about the remunerative prices to farmers. I have taken this opportunity to raise some of the points, which I mentioned here. I want the support of this august House in this matter. Thank you. Sir. (Ends)

The question was proposed.

. ϳ (֕ã֮) : ֳ֬ , ֮֮ߵ . ִֵָ ֤ ֯ ׾֬ ß , ִ֣Ԯ ִ֣Ԯ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ß ׻֋ ָ ã֟

, ֛ ֟ ֮ ֟ , ֮ ؓ֟ ֟և , ִֵ ָ ׾֯, ֯ ׾֬ ָ ָ ã֟ ֕ ֲ פֵ ֟ , ֮֮ߵ ӡ ָ פֵ Ͽ ָ ָ , ֯ ׾ֵ ָ ׾֯ ã֟ ֟ ֻ ָ߲ ֮ ׻֋ ָ֓ ֟ ֻ פ Ӿ , ֮ , ֤ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ֓ԋ , ָָ ָ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ׾֬ ֟ ָ ָָ ִ ׻֋ ןֵ ֮և , ו ֟ ֮ ִ֟ ד֟ ִֵ ָ ״ֻ ׻֋ ׮֬׸ ֻ ֵ ֚ ֲ ֮ ֟ ׮ָָ , ָ ׾ָ֓ ָָ ןֵ ֮֟ ׾ָ֓ ָ ֮ ֳ ֮ ֻ ֵ ֵ ֮ ֟ , ָ , Ϭ֮ ֕ 70 ןֿ֟ ָ ֬׸ , ָ ֟ ֲ ־֕ ֋ ָ ֤֟ , ֮ ãן ֕ , ֮ߵ , ֳ ֮֟ (2P/LT...ָ ֿ:)

LP/2p/3.55

. ϳ (֟) : , ֛ ֵֿ ֲ ֟ ָ ٣ ׾ , 9% և ־ֻ ٣ ׾ , ִ ٣ ׾ ? ִ , ֮ ״ֻ ? ֮ ߤָ ׾ ֮ ? ֻ ָ֮ ׾ ٣ ׾ ָָ , ٣ ׾ ٣ ׾ ֜ , ׾ ֮ ֤֕ ߤָ ٣ ׾ פ ӯ ٣ ׾ ִ֟ ֻ ׾֟ , ٣ ׾ ״ֻ ֋ ִ ֋ ß: ׾ ֳ ִ ֤, ֮, ֤֕ ֮ ״ֻ ִ ß: ߤָ, ٣ ׾ 1%, 9% 1/2% ӯ ׾ ߤָ ֮ ӯ ׾ ֮

, פ ֳ ߕ ׮׿֟ ֮ ܵ ֜, Ӿ , ֻ ߜ , ֵ֕ ֤֕, - ֮ Ӥ ? ָ ֮ ךև, ֮ פ, ֮ ָ׮ֵ ֮ ߱, ֮ ׸ִ , ߮ , , ֤ ֤֟ ֮ ָ ֮֬ ֓֟, ֮ ֓ ֜ ֵ , ֮ ִ ֟օ ֲ ߕ ׮ֳ֮ ֤, ֮ ֮ ׾־ֿ ֋ ִ֕ ãןֵ ו ֻ ߜ , ͟ ? ָ ׾֟ , ָ ֮ ֳ ״ֻ, ׻֋ ֕ ֤ ׾֬ ß ֵ , ֮ ָָ ִ ָָ ֮ וִָ ִ ... ָָ , ִ , ֮ , ֤֕ ׾ ϴ֟ և ָָ ִ - ... ָԮ, , ߴ֟ ׮ֵ Ӭ ֟ ߟ ֟ Ϥ ܵ סֵ ִ֮, ׬־֮ ִ ϴ ֵ ֮ ָָ ָ ןֵ ֮֋ ָ ֵ ך ִ ִ ֟ ... ָָ ϴ ؓ֟ ϴ ָָ ï™ ִ ֟֟ ׮ָָ ֻ ֮֮ߵ ӡ þֵ ִֵ ֕ ӡ ֮ ãׯ֟ ֮ - ֻ-ן ִ֟ ֮֮ߵ ֕ ӡ , ִֵ ֟ ֮ , ִ߮ ִõֆ ִ֟ ׸ד֟ , ׾֬ ß׾֟ ֵ ֵ ֚ ֚ ״׻֟ ֵܵ כ ׻֋ ֵָþִ ϵ ׻֋ ֬և ֵ֟ ֵ ָ ֵֵ כ , ־ , פ ִ ָ ָ

(akg/2qָ ֿ:)

PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE