TO REJECT AND EXPOSE THE VACUOUS NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY BILL AND REASSERT OUR DEMAND FOR A COMPREHENSIVE FOOD SECURITY ACT

Ladenge!! Jeetenge!!

Jab tak bhukha insaan rahega!! dharti par toofan rahega!!

 

TO REJECT AND EXPOSE THE VACUOUS NATIONAL BILL AND REASSERT OUR DEMAND FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ACT

 

PUBLIC ACTION IN THREE PHASES IN MARCH 2013

 

4 – 8 March: At Jantar Mantar with the Pension Parishad Dharna

11 – 17 March:  Public Action in States, Consultations with MPs

18 – 22 March: Vishal Dharna in Delhi

 

Dear friends,

 

From the 25th to 28th of February, many of us from the steering committee met in Delhi. We met Ministers, including the Minister for Food and Consumer Affairs, GOI, several members of parliament from the opposition parties, to understand what they were thinking and also presented our critique of the Bill. We also planned the nature and modality of public action against the present bill and recommendations of the Standing Committee.

 

This circular is in two parts. Part I gives the critique of the bill and part II relates to the campaign’s plans in the month of March

 

PART I: CRITIQUE OF STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE

 

Since it is very clear that the Government is gearing up to the enactment of a token food security bill, it was decided that we should gather in Delhi in large numbers to expose the vacuous nature of this bill and to demand a comprehensive food security law.  Presently the Government bill is more Bhukhmari Suraksha than Khadya Suraksha as it actually undermines the core issues of food security. In this backdrop it was felt that we had rather not have a law than have one which: 

-     undermines the food rights of children and pregnant and lactating women by not guaranteeing ICDS services provided through Anganwadi centres

-       leaves out a large population of people from the PDS by not universalising it

-       provisions only 5kg of foodgrain per person per month through the PDS, which is only half of what is required on an average in a month according to the ICMR norms

-       lowers the  grain allocation in the PDS from the present allocation

-       excludes the vulnerable, homeless, destitute people from accessing community kitchens by not provisioning for it under the garb that it is difficult to identify them

-       leaves out the provisions of pensions for the aged, infirm and single women

-       restricts maternity entitlements to only the first two children of a woman, thereby also denying children of higher birth order their right to exclusive breastfeeding for six months

-       does not guarantee nutrition security as part of food security by making it only a cereal distribution bill

-       does not guarantee Minimum Support Price (MSP) as a right or any other incentive and protection to farmers growing food

-       does not provide legal safeguards against Genetically Modified (GM) foods, commercial interests in providing food items in the ICDS and midday meals and the provisioning of cash    transfers in place of subsidised food

-       does not provide for criminal penalties or independent grievance redressal systems.

-       dilutes the legal guarantees given by the Supreme Court in the “right to food” case (PUCL vs. Union of India & Ors. CWP 196/2001) over the last 11 years which lay the framework for schemes providing food security in the country and convert provisions of these schemes into legal entitlements.

The Standing Committee’s recommendation of abolishing the divisive APL – BPL distinction in the PDS and proposing uniform pricing of rations is an extremely welcome step. However, the grain requirement for entitling 67 per cent of the country’s population (at 2011 figures) to only 5kg of foodgrains per person per month is only 48.8 million metric tonnes, much less than what is being allocated at present. Thus, this Standing Committee proposal exposes the Government’s intent to reduce the food subsidy and total food allocation. It was also felt that as a strategy we should bring to the fore the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act 2012 which is much more comprehensive than the National Food Security Bill.

 

PART II: PLAN FOR PUBLIC ACTION

According to the Minister for Food and Consumer Affairs, Prof KV Thomas, whom we met on 25 February, more than 252 amendments have been made to the original Bill which was placed in Parliament in December 2011. He said that the Bill would be placed in the Parliament between 19 to 21March. He added that the Bill would come up for discussion in the two houses when the Parliament reopens after 22 April for 20 days.   

 

The members of the steering committee decided that the public action against this bill would be in two stages. The first stage would be from the 4 – 22 March and the next stage from 22nd April onwards.

 

Public Action from the 4 to 22 March will be in three phases:

 

First Phase (4 to 8 March): with the Pension Parishad Dharna

 

The issue of the National Food Security Bill will be discussed at length at the dharna on 5 March. This period will also be used for meeting MPs and mobilising people for the upcoming dharna.

 

Second Phase (11 to 16 March): Public Action in States, Consultation with MPs

 

It was felt that public action must also happen at the state and district levels between 11-17 March. The forms of action can include dharnas, rallies, press conferences and meeting chief ministers, chief secretaries, MPs, district collectors etc regarding the Bill. With the help of CLRA, a consultation with MPs on the Bill is also being planned. 

 

Third Phase (18 to 22 March): Vishal Dharna at Jantar Mantar

 

This phase should begin with a press conference, followed by public meeting and rally. We could also burn copies of the Bill and the Standing Committee recommendations. We could give the food served in anganwadis to Krishna Tirath, Minister of Women and Child Development and packets with 160gm of foodgrains (daily consumption based on PDS entitlement of 5kg/person/month) to the Minister of Food, K V Thomas, Deputy Chairperson of Planning Commission Montek Singh Alhuwalia, UPA Chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, Vice President of All India Congress Committee, Rahul Gandhi, and other ministers. The monthly amount of Rs 600 under Delhi’s Annashree Yojana can be sent to the state’s Chief Minister and other ministers.

 

The message should be that the piecemeal, diluted and minimalistic National Food Security Bill of the Government is unacceptable. We want a Bill which entitles a universal PDS which guarantees not only foodgrains, but also oil and pulses; addresses the issues of increasing food production in a sustainable manner, decentralised procurement at remunerative MSPs and local storage, ensures the nutrition security of farmers, women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and those in difficult situations such as homelessness and starvation and has a mechanism of a strong, independent and sufficiently decentralised grievance redressal and public vigilance.

 

We hope that you will join the public action in large numbers.

 

In solidarity

 

Kavita Srivastava

(On behalf of the Steering Group of the Right to Food Campaign)

 

For more information, please contact Dheeraj (9871799410) or Ankita (9818603009).

 

 

Bhojan poshan shikshan, maang raha hai desh ka bachpan!!

 

APL - BPL khatam karo, sabko ration pension do!!

 

Sabko pura ration do!! dal, tel, anaaj do!!

 

 

Secretariat – Right to Food Campaign
First Floor, E-39, Lajpat Nagar -III, New Delhi 110024. India
Email: righttofoodindia@gmail.com | Phone - 91 -11 -29849563
Website: www.righttofoodindia.org | Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter

Negative Report on GM Crops Shakes Government’s Food Agenda: Science

sc committee report Science

Science

Dated: August 17, 2012

Title: Negative Report on GM Crops Shakes Government’s Food Agenda

By: Pallava Bagla

 Vol. 337 no. 6096 p. 789

DOI: 10.1126/science.337.6096.789

India : Negative Report on GM Crops Shakes Government’s Food Agenda

 Pallava Bagla

NEW DELHI—Sounding what some regard as the death knell for the development of genetically modified food crops in India, a high-profile parliamentary panel here last week recommended that GM crop “field trials under any garb should be discontinued forthwith,” and that agricultural GM research should “only be done under strict containment.” In a press conference after the report’s release, the panel’s chair, Basudeb Acharia, was unequivocal: “India should not go in for GM food crops.”

If implemented, the report’s recommendations would paralyze research and erode India’s , warns India’s chief of crop research, Swapan Dutta, a rice geneticist and deputy director general here at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. “It would be better if India should end all research on GM crops if the country can’t embrace it,” he says. The government must take a stand on “whether it seeks to embrace or shun biotechnology,” adds vaccine specialist Maharaj Kishan Bhan, secretary of the Department of Biotechnology here. If it comes down in favor of a ban, he says, hope for GM research in India is lost.

Decisiveness won’t be easy, considering that the federal government has been sending mixed signals about its commitment to agricultural GM technology. In 2002, the government gave a green light to the first commercial GM crop in India: cotton carrying the gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, which is toxic to some insects. Today more than 1100 Bt varieties account for 93% of all cotton sown in India; production has skyrocketed from 0.02 million hectares in 2002 to 9.33 million hectares in 2011. In February, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated his support of GM crops in an interview with Science (24 February, p. 907). “In due course of time,” he said, “we must make use of genetic engineering technologies to increase the productivity of our agriculture.”

But some of Singh’s own ministers haven’t been toeing that line. In 2010, former environment minister Jairam Ramesh put an indefinite moratorium on commercialization of Bt brinjal, a kind of eggplant, after the ministry’s scientific advisory panel had given the GM variety a thumbsup. Then in June, environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan told Science that “genetically modified foods have no place in ensuring India’s food security.”

The panel came down squarely on the side of GM skeptics. Chaired by Acharia, a member of parliament representing the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the 31-member panel labored for 2 years on its 492-page report. It blasted GM crops in part on economic grounds, observing that “the experience of the last decade has conclusively shown that while it has extensively benefited the industry, as far as the lot of poor farmers is concerned, even trickle down is not visible.”

GM crop researchers in India were under considerable duress well before the report came out. Since 2011, state governments have refused to issue certificates that would allow GM crop field trials to commence. As a result of this de facto ban, “virtually no new proposals come to us to fund research on GM crops,” says Bhan, whose department has funded work on 30 kinds of GM crops, from rice to rubber. “Today the pipeline has almost dried up,” he says.

The Acharia panel assailed India’s notable GM success, . It pointed out that all grown commercially in India is derived from technology sold by the multinational food giant Monsanto and incorporated in Indian seed varieties. “It is the fear of multinational control of food security that usually leads to a negative approach on recombinant DNA technology,” says agriculture scientist M. S. Swaminathan, chair of the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai.

The panel notes that 70% of India’s 1.2 billion people are farmers, who mostly have “no alternative but to buy Bt cotton seed” because the yields are higher. In the last few years, thousands of heavily indebted farmers in India’s cotton-growing regions have committed suicide. In one of its more contentious statements, the panel asserted that “there is a connection between Bt cotton and farmers’ suicides.”

In a statement to Science, Monsanto noted that India has reaped big benefits from Bt cotton: “India has seen a cotton revolution with farmers doubling cotton production using better seeds and technologies along with improved farming practices and other agri inputs.” The company did not address the issue of farmer suicide. Taking more direct aim at the panel, N. Seetharama, executive director of the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises-Agricultural Group in Bangalore, said that “the partial and one-sided arguments put forth in the public domain could harm the national interest.”

Ministries now must digest the report and later explain to the panel whether and how they plan to implement the report’s recommendations, which carry political weight but are not mandatory. If the government doesn’t make a forceful case for GM crops, Bhan says, there may be no alternative but to “stop all use of GM crop technology till it has been totally made in India.” And if Monsanto becomes “a nuisance,” he added, “it can be kicked out.”

Pallava Bagla

International Biosafety Conference in Hyderabad (India), 28-29 Sep 2012

Title : ANNOUNCEMENT: International Biosafety Conference in Hyderabad (India), 28-29 Sep 2012
Date : 24 July 2012Contents:

Scientific Conference 2012 – Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety
GMO Risk Assessment, Independent Biosafety Research and Holistic Analysis

21 July 2012 – The European Network of Scientists European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Tara Foundation and Third World Network (TWN) are pleased to announce our second International Biosafety Conference in conjunction with the 6th Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (MOP-6) in 2012 in Hyderabad, India. The conference will be held on Sept 28-29, right before MOP-6, which is scheduled for Oct 1-5, 2012.

The main aim of our conference is to advance the current understanding of biosafety in terms of the ecological, human health and socio-economic implications of on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The cooperation between ENSSER, Tara Foundation and TWN provides a unique opportunity to bring together independent scientists from industrialized and developing countries. This activity is seen as critical to maintain and demonstrate diversity in scientific approaches in the fields of risk research and research addressing socio-economic issues.

The second aim of our conference is to inform the delegates at MOP-6 about the current scientific challenges in biosafety research and assessment. The presentations during MOP-6 will be undertaken in a way to contribute effectively to the political and legal discussions at MOP-6.

To that end the conference works towards:
*          Information and experience exchange between Indian NGO-representatives/experts and international biosafety scientists
*          Capacity development of Indian NGO-representatives/experts for the national and international biosafety debates
*          Discussions on strategies for sustainable GMO-free approaches to
*          Presentation of the conference outcomes to delegates of MOP-6

The topics addressed by our conference include:
*          Developments in GMO risk assessment, including discussion of the international standards on risk assessment in the context of the Cartagena Protocol’s “Roadmap for Risk Assessment and Management”;
*          Socioeconomic considerations in GMO decision making;
*          Latest scientific findings generated from independent biosafety research.

As it is especially important to create linkages and synergy between the work of the different groups acting at national and international levels, the conference will also bring together Indian and international expertise to discuss GM crops in India. Since the moratorium on approval of Bt eggplant for food purposes in February 2009 in India and the intense discussions on socioeconomic implications of agriculture, the Indian debates have served as examples for success or failure – depending on the perspective of the different experts – of GM crop agriculture worldwide.

Please see attached agenda for the conference.

**********

Organisers
European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) http://www.ensser.org/
Tara Foundation, India           http://tarafoundation.org.in/
Third World Network (TWN), Malaysia        http://www.twnside.org.sg/

Dates & Venues
28 Sep 2012 (09:00 – 18:15)
29 Sep 2012 (09:00 – 19:00)
Language: English
Courtyard by Marriott, Hyderabad, 1-3-1024 Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

Participation
If you want to register for the conference, please inform us in advance until Sep 21 by email: office@ensser.org
The conference fee of 1500 INR / 27 USD / 21 EUR per day to cover catering costs will be collected upon registration in Hyderabad.

Funding
EMstitut, Germany;    Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme, France; Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Germany;Third World Network, Malaysia; Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft, Germany

Mahyco’s clarification on the story ‘A Decade of Bt Hype’ carried on Agrarian Crisis

 

April 18, 2012

To,

The Editor,

Indian

Secunderabad.

This is with reference to your story titled ‘A decade of Bt hype’ that published in your site http://agrariancrisis.in  on April 17, 2012.

We would like to bring to your notice that the first paragraph of your story mentions that  is an Indian subsidiary of Monsanto which is factually incorrect. Mahyco is not an Indian subsidiary of Monsanto. Monsanto only has a minority stake of 26% in Mahyco. We feel that an error of this nature are detrimental to Mahyco’s business as it is a reputed Indian company.

I am sure you will appreciate the sensitivity involved and publish the correction at the earliest.

Thanks and regards,

Suryakant Mishra

Head – PR,

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (Mahyco)

Dear Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu,

Please find below the response from Mahyco for your story on ‘A decade of Bt hype’ published in your site.

Hope you will be able to carry the same at the earliest.

Thanks and regards,

Farooque

The PRactice

+91-9323671307

——————-

 

Farooque Shaikh 

T : +91 22 30008371-99 M: +91-9323671307   www.the-practice.net

Jharkand Water Policy 2011

Jharkhand state water policy, 2011

This policy will broadly have a five-pronged strategy : First, the State will adopt a new State Water Policy framework to create the enabling environment for better and more equitable and productive water resources management in an environmentally sustainable manner for promoting growth reduction in poverty and minimizing regional imbalance. Second, the State will restructure the fundamental roles and relationships of the State and the water users. Third, the State will create a new institutional arrangement at the State level and at the river basin level to guide and regulate water resources planning, development; to decentralize the responsibility for water resources planning, development, management, operation and maintenance functions to the river basin and sub- basin level by suitably defining the responsibility and powers of proposed river valley institutions. Fourth, the State will place a high priority on promoting technology to improve efficiency and productivity, expansion of the knowledge base of the sector and the development of human resource capacity and capability. Fifth, the State will formulate appropriate legislation/administrative orders and enabling rules to give effect to the above mentioned strategies in short time.

Attachment (PDF): http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Jharkhand%20State%20Water%20Policy%28English%29.pdf

See also:
Policy: National water policy.
Report: Every drop counts – learning from good practices in eight Asian cities.
Report: Study on issues related to gap between irrigation potential created and utilized.
Report: Decentralization in Jharkhand.
Report: Drought assessment report – Jharkhand.
Feature: A million opportunities lost.
Feature: Drought hit.
Feature: Water question in Jharkhand – Present law and policy context.

ਆਓ! ਘਰੇਲੂ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਲਗਾਈਏ……..

ਘਰੇਲੂ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਕੀ ਹੈ?

ਘਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਾਂ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਦੀ ਉਹ ਜਗਾ  ਜਿੱਥੇ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ, ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਕੁੱਝ ਫਲ ਉਗਾਏ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ।

 

ਘਰੇਲੂ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਕਿਉਂ ਹੈ?

ਇਹ ਸੁਵਿਧਾਪੂਰਨ ਜਗਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਪਣੀ ਪਸੰਦ ਅਤੇ ਲੋੜ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ, ਫਲ ਅਤੇ ਕੁੱਝ ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆਂ ਉਗਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਜਦ ਲੋੜ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤਾਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਵਰਤ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਫੁੱਲ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਧੂ ਫਾਇਦਾ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਮਿੱਤਰ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੁਲਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਜਿੰਨਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਨਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਧੀਆ ਲੱਗਦੀ ਹੈ ਬਲਕਿ ਤੁਸੀ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਘਰ ਦੀ ਸਜਾਵਟ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਵਰਤ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ।

ਘਰੇਲੂ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰੀਏ?

ਕੁੱਝ ਹਿਦਾਇਤਾਂ

 ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਰੋ ਕਿ ਜਗਾ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਚੁਣੋ ਜਿੱਥੇ ਤੁਸੀ ਰੋਜ਼ਾਨਾ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਪੌਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਾਣੀ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਲੋੜੀਂਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਨਦੀਨ ਕੱਢਣਾ, ਫਲ ਤੋੜਨਾ ਆਦਿ ਸਮੇਂ ਸਿਰ ਕਰ ਸਕੋ। ਰੋਜ਼ਾਨਾ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਾਣ ਕਰਕੇ ਤੁਸੀ ਠੀਕ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੇ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਸਮੱਸਿਆ ਦਾ ਪਤਾ ਲਗਾ ਕੇ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਸਮੇਂ ਸਿਰ ਕਾਬੂ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਪਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧ ਜਗਾ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਹੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾ ਵਧੀਆ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ।

 ਬਗੀਚੀ ਲਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਥਾਂ ਤੋ ਪੱਥਰ, ਘਾਹ-ਫੂਸ ਆਦਿ ਕੱਢ ਕੇ ਪੱਧਰ ਜਗਾ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰੋ ਜਿੱਥੇ ਲਗਭਗ ਸਾਰਾ ਦਿਨ ਧੁੱਪ ਅਤੇ ਹਵਾ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਰ ਰਹੇ। ਉਸਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੂੜ੍ਹੀ ਦੀ ਖਾਦ ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰਾਂ ਮਿਲਾ ਲਉ।

 ਉਹਨਾਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਗਾਉ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਪਸੰਦ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਸਿਹਤ ਲਈ ਚੰਗੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲ ਦਿਉ ਜੋ ਤਾਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਖਾਣ ਤੇ ਵਧੀਆ ਸੁਆਦ ਦਿੰਦੀਆ ਹਨ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਮੱਕੀ, ਫਲੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਮਟਰ, ਟਮਾਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਪਾਲਕ ਆਦਿ।

 ਉਪਲਬਧ  ਜਗਾ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਹੀ ਪੌਦੇ ਲਗਾਉ। ਜਿਵੇਂ ਟਮਾਟਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ 2 ਫੁੱਟ, ਕੱਦੂਆਂ ਲਈ 4 ਫੁੱਟ ਦੀ ਜਗਾ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ।

 ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਘੱਟ ਜਗਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਇਹੋ ਜਿਹੀਆਂ ਸਬੁਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਚੋਣ ਕਰੋ ਜੋ ਘੱਟ ਥਾਂ ਘੇਰਨ।

 ਮੌਸਮ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਬਣਾਉ।

 ਕੁੱਝ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਬਿਜਾਈ ਸਿੱਧੀ ਕਰਨ ਤੇ ਵਧੀਆਂ ਉੱਗਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਫਲੀਆਂ, ਚੁਕੰਦਰ, ਗਾਜਰਾਂ, ਸਲਾਦ, ਮਟਰ, ਕੱਦੂ ਅਤੇ ਸ਼ਲਗਮ।  ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਪਨੀਰੀ ਲਗਾਉਣ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਸਿੱਧਾ ਬੀਜਣਾ ਸਸਤਾ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

 ਬੈਂਗਣ, ਬ੍ਰੋਕਲੀ, ਸ਼ਿਮਲਾ ਮਿਰਚ, ਟਮਾਟਰ, ਬੰਦ ਗੋਭੀ ਅਤੇ ਫੁੱਲ ਗੋਭੀ ਆਦਿ ਦੀ ਪਨੀਰੀ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਲਗਾਉਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਖੀਰੇ ਆਦਿ ਨੂੰ ਸਿੱਧਾ ਜਾਂ ਪਨੀਰੀ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਬੀਜਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

 ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਸੀ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੀ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਉਗਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਕੁੱਝ ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆ, ਫਲ ਅਤੇ ਫੁੱਲ ਲਗਾਉਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੋਚ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਨਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਫਾਇਦਾ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਬਲਕਿ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਪੌਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੋਗਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਬੂ ਪਾਉਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੱਦਦ ਮਿਲੇਗੀ।

ਜਗਾ  ਕਿਵੇਂ ਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਵੇ?

 ਜਿੱਥੇ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਨੀ ਹੈ, ਉਹ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਘਾਹ-ਫੂਸ ਸਾਫ ਕਰਕੇ, ਰੋੜੇ ਆਦਿ ਕੱਢ ਕੇ ਪੱਧਰ ਕਰ ਲਉ।

 ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਾਲੀ ਥਾਂ ਤੇ ਪਾਣੀ ਛੱਡ ਦਿਉ। 2 ਦਿਨ ਏਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਪਿਆ ਰਹਿਣ ਦਿਉ। 2 ਦਿਨ ਬਾਅਦ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਚੈੱਕ ਕਰੋ ਅਤੇ ਯਕੀਨੀ ਬਣਾਉ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾ ਗਿੱਲੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇੱਕ ਮੁੱਠੀ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਲਉ ਅਤੇ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਦਬਾਉ। ਜੇਕਰ ਇਹ ਭੁਰਭੁਰੀ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਬਿਜਾਈ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਹੈ, ਜੇਕਰ ਇਹ ਚਿਪਚਿਪੀ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਇੱਕ ਜਾਂ 2 ਦਿਨ ਹੋਰ ਉਡੀਕ ਕਰੋ।

 ਗੁਡਾਈ ਕਰੋ ਅਤੇ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਤਿੰਨ ਇੰਚ ਤੱਕ ਰੂੜ੍ਹੀ ਦੀ ਖਾਦ ਜਾਂ ਕੰਪੋਸਟ ਮਿਲਾਉ। ਕਹੀ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਕਸ ਕਰੋ।

 ਤਿੰਨ ਫੁੱਟ ਚੌੜੇ ਬੈੱਡ ਬਣਾਉ। ਦੋ ਬੈੱਡਾਂ ਵਿਚਕਾਰ ਥੋੜ੍ਹਾ ਰਸਤਾ ਛੱਡੋ।

 ਪਹਿਲੇ ਕੁੱਝ ਹਫ਼ਤਿਆਂ ਤੱਕ, ਜਦ ਪੌਦੇ ਵਿਕਸਿਤ ਹੋ ਰਹੇ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਰੋਜ਼ ਪਾਣੀ ਦਿਉ। ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਫ਼ਤੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਦੋ ਵਾਰ ਪਾਣੀ ਦਿਉ।

 ਜ਼ਮੀਨ ਨੂੰ ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਢਕ ਕੇ ਰੱਖੋ।

ਬਿਜਾਈ

 ਬਿਜਾਈ ਲਈ ਸ਼ਾਮ ਦਾ ਸਮਾਂ ਵਧੀਆ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

 ਕਿਉਕਿ ਸਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਜਗਾ ਸੀਮਿਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਇਸਲਈ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਉਗਾਉਣੀਆ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਲਗਭਗ ਰੋਜ ਵਰਤੋ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਉਂਦੀਆਂ ਹੋਣ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਟਮਾਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਮਿਰਚਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਜ਼ਾਰ ਤੋ ਖਰੀਦਣੀਆਂ ਮਹਿੰਗੀਆਂ ਪੈਂਦੀਆ ਹੋਣ।

 ਉੱਤਰ-ਦੱਖਣ ਲਾਈਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਿਜਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਤੇ ਪੌਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਲੋੜੀਂਦੀ ਰੌਸ਼ਨੀ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ। ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਸੂਰਜ ਦੀ ਰੌਸ਼ਨੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਚੰਗਾ ਵਧਦੀਆਂ-ਫੁੱਲਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ।

 ਲੰਬੇ ਪੌਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਵੱਲ ਲਗਾਉਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ ਤਾਂਕਿ ਉਹ ਛੋਟੇ ਪੌਦਿਟਾ ਉੱਪਰ ਛਾਂ ਨਾ ਕਰਨ।

 ਇੱਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਗੇਂਦੇ ਦੇ ਪੌਦੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਲਗਾਉ ਤਾਂਕਿ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਕੰਟਰੋਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ।

 ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਜਗਾ ਬਦਲ-ਬਦਲ ਲਾਉ ਤਾਂਕਿ ਮਿੱਟੀ ਚੋਂ ਪੈਦਾ ਹੋਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਰੋਗਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ।

 

ਬਗੀਚੀ ਲਈ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਚੋਣ

ਆਪਣੇ ਸਮੇਂ, ਪਸੰਦ ਅਤੇ ਜਗਾ ਦੀ ਉਪਲਬਧਤਾ ਦੇ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਨਾਲ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਈ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ ਉਗਾਈਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀਆ ਹਨ।

 

ਜਨਵਰੀ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਸ਼ਿਮਲਾ ਮਿਰਚ

ਫਰਵਰੀ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਕਰੇਲਾ,ਚੱਪਣ ਕੱਦੂ, ਖਰਬੂਜਾ, ਟਿੰਡੋ, ਖੀਰਾ,ਹਲਵਾ ਕੱਦੂ,ਘੀਆ ਤੋਰੀ,ਭਿੰਡੀ,ਟਮਾਟਰ,ਰਵਾਂਹ, ਗੋਲ ਬੈਂਗਣ, ਫੈਂਚ ਬੀਨ,ਤਰਬੂਜ਼,ਅਰਬੀ

ਮਾਰਚ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਮਿਰਚ,

ਜੂਨ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਲੰਮੇ ਬੈਂਗਣ, ਮੂਲੀ, ਫੁੱਲ ਗੋਭੀ, ਛੋਟੇ ਬੈਂਗਣ,

ਅਗਸਤ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਪਿਆਜ਼,ਧਨੀਆ

ਸਤੰਬਰ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ – ਸ਼ਲਗਮ, ਗਾਜਰ, ਬੰਦ ਗੋਭੀ, ਲਹੁਸਣ, ਪਾਲਕ

ਅਕਤੂਬਰ ਮਹੀਨੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸਬਜ਼ੀਆਂ- ਮਟਰ, ਆਲੂ, ਮਿੱਠੀ ਫਲੀ, ਸਰੋਂ

ਸਾਉਣੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਦਾਲਾਂ – ਮੂੰਗੀ ਅਤੇ ਮਾਂਹ

ਹਾੜ੍ਹੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਦਾਲਾਂ – ਛੋਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਮਸਰ

 

ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਕ ਪੌਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਲਗਾਉਣਾ

ਸਿਹਤਮੰਦ ਪੌਦਿਆ ਲਈ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਗਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਤੋ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਸਹਾਇਕ ਪੌਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਲਗਾਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆਂ ਲਗਾਉਣ ਨਾਲ ਨਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਕੀੜੇ ਕੰਟਰੋਲ ਹੋਣਗੇ ਬਲਕਿ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਰੋਜ਼ਾਨਾ ਜੀਵਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਆਉਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆਂ ਉਪਲਬਧ ਰਹਿਣਗੀਆਂ। ਹੇਠਾਂ ਕੁੱਝ ਜੜ੍ਹੀ -ਬੂਟੀਆਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਬਗੀਚੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਗਾਈਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀਆ ਹਨ।

ਤੁਲਸੀ – ਟਮਾਟਰ ਦਾ ਸਵਾਦ ਵਧਾਉਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਰੋਗਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੀੜਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਾਉਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਲਹੁਸਣ – ਚੇਪੇ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਬੂ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਟਮਾਟਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੁੰਡੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਕੰਟਰੋਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੱਦਦ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਅਜਵਾਇਣ – ਬੰਦ ਗੋਭੀ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਬੀਜਣ ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬੰਦ ਗੋਭੀ ਨੂੰ ਚਿੱਟੀ ਮੱਖੀ ਅਤੇ ਬੰਦ ਗੋਭੀ ਦੇ ਕੀੜੇ ਤੋ ਬਚਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਅਜਵਾਇਣ ਮਧੂ ਮੱਖੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਟਮਾਟਰ, ਆਲੂ ਅਤੇ ਬੈਂਗਣ ਵੱਲ ਆਕਰਸ਼ਿਤ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਪਰਾਗਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੱਦਦ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਗੇਂਦਾਂ – ਜੜ ਵਿੱਚੋ ਇੱਕ ਤਰਲ ਛੱਡਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਜੜ੍ਹਾਂ  ਨੂੰ ਖਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕੀੜੇ ਖਤਮ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ।

Searching for our daily bread

If the word crisis is vastly overused, to speak of a global food crisis is, if anything, an understatement.

The first signs of trouble appeared in 2000, when global grain stocks declined for the first time in several decades, but it was not until the spring of 2007 that the full gravity of what was occurring became clear. That year, the prices of the principal food staples — rice, corn, soybeans and wheat — effectively doubled. This was an |unprecedented rise, and it reversed more than 50 years of declining prices. The results were immediate and devastating: the number of hungry or chronically malnourished people rose by at least 100 million, to nearly one billion people. Food riots and other forms of unrest broke out.

While global grain prices have declined substantially since 2008, they are poised to rise again. When they do, the costs in terms of both human suffering and political and social upheaval are likely to make the 2007 price crisis pale by comparison.

It is easy to mock the various conferences, emergency meetings and seemingly endless policy documents that have tried to mitigate the threat but so far have achieved little. In fairness, though, responding effectively will be extraordinarily difficult. Despite what some conspiracy-minded critics have alleged, the crisis has a number of drivers, each one of which would be challenging enough on its own, but which taken together seem to call for a hard-to-imagine radical restructuring. These drivers include the diversion of grains in North America and western Europe to biofuel production; higher energy costs, which translate into more expensive chemical fertilisers; and since 2000, financial speculation over staple crops, which causes price fluctuations.

As if this were not bad enough, these changes have been taking place during a period of very rapid population growth. And in some regions with dramatic demographic increases, like sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, climate change is threatening to lower crop yields at precisely the time that more staple foods urgently need to be produced.

 

Although everyone agrees there is a food emergency, there is little agreement on what should be done. The dominant approach, championed and to a considerable extent financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — now the world’s principal private funder of agricultural research — holds that the global food crisis is fundamentally the result of both inefficient and insufficient food production. Therefore the solution is what Gordon Conway, the former president of another major philanthropic supporter of this effort, has called “the doubly green revolution.” Conway has defined this as harnessing “the power of science and technology not just for the better-off, or even the majority, but for those millions of poor and hungry who deserve and have a right to enough to eat.”

 

Arrayed against this view are the agroecologists, grouped around organisations and coalitions like the right to food movement in India and their intellectual supporters, like Olivier de Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food. They argue that agroecology — the application of ecological principles to agriculture — offers the possibility of increasing crop yields without resorting to expensive, patented inputs beyond the means of poor smallholder farmers. They also argue that the global food crisis is less a technical problem than a social and political crisis, whose roots and solutions lie in creating a fairer and more accountable world system.

 

For now, the technological aproach remains in the ascendant. Whether it remains so much longer will depend to a considerable extent on whether its innovations live up to their advance billing, are financially sustainable and prove to be culturally acceptable to farmers.

 

Both sides would probably agree that neither technical innovation nor agroecology can work unless governments are fully committed to reducing the number of hungry and chronically malnourished people. When governments have been committed, progress has been very rapid, as the examples of China, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, and, most brilliantly, Brazil, have demonstrated conclusively over the last three decades. When they have not been, as is the case, disgracefully, in India — where the malnutrition rate for children under five stubbornly remains at 46 per cent, double the average in sub-Saharan Africa — conditions have deteriorated.

 

But if the global food crisis is real, it is not unsolvable. One of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century was to make famine — for all of human history a scourge that seemed as inevitable as the other three horsemen of the apocalypse, war, plague, and death — a rarity. Today, famine is almost invariably the product of evil governments, North Korea being the obvious case, or of no government, as in Somalia. The hunger that maims and blights should be consigned to the past, just as the hunger that kills has been.

 

IIM students to study ‘crop holiday’ villages

The Hans India, 
 
Bhimavaram: The much discussed ‘,’ declared by the farmers in East and West Godavari districts has drawn the attention of IIM Ahmadabad agri-business management students.
As part of their rural immersion programme, the IIM has decided to depute two teams of students to study the issue in its totality. Each team consists of seven students. IIM-Ahmadabad has taken this decision at the behest of the Kisan Service Organisation, an NGO based at Hyderabad.
Akkineni Bhavani Prasad, it’s general secretary disclosed this to media here. Kisan Service Organisation, with its active support of Rythu Karyacharana Samithi is making arrangements to facilitate the study.
Korukollu under Palakoderu mandal in West Godavari district and Kodurupadu village under Allavaram mandal in East Godavari district where crop-holiday is being observed have been selected for pilot study, according to Mr Prasad. Student teams will be arriving at Korukollu and Kodurupadu in December and stay there for full 15 days.
They will conduct household survey with a special emphasis on agriculture. The study includes village profile, occupational patterns, levels of participation in village panchayat functioning, income flow of BPL families etc. This is first phase of programme and the same teams will visit the same villages in the second phase, possibly in April, 2012.
Profile of students to be deputed are IITians, doctors, engineers of different streams and students of agriculture, dairy and bio-technology. Six of them are girl students.
Taking advantage of the proposed study, the farmers’ bodies are contemplating to place the findings of the study to the Planning Commission of India.
Speaking to newsmen, Rythu Karyacharana Samithi leader M V Suryanarayana Raju said that issues relating to unrest among farmers is a national issue and need to focused nationally. He thanked the IIM Ahmadabad for undertaking this crucial study.
Former Member of Parliament Yerra Narayana Swami, who participated in the press conference termed the former Chief Secretary Mohan Kanda’s report ‘bureaucratic,’ catering to the needs of the State government.
Since, the issues relating to unrest among farmers and crisis in agriculture are of immense significance in policy planning, they needed a critical evaluation, he said.

Who will do Farming? summery of discussions on Sept 2nd. at Naren Fellowship meeting

Summary of round table discussion at G.Narendranath fellowship award meeting, held on Sep. 2 2011 at Sundarayya Vignana Kendram, Hyderabad.

The meeting started with Samyuktha welcoming the guests and giving details regarding the fellowship: the purpose of the fellowship is to give a small monetary support (of Rs. One lakh) every year to grass root activists who are not so well known and who are in need of such support; it is anchored in the Center for Equity Studies(CES); decisions regarding the fellowship will be taken by a Committee which has been formed consisting of Harsh Mander of CES, P. Chenniah, Jeevan Kumar and Samyuktha. This year’s (2011-2012) fellowship was awarded to M. Nagaraja, a journalist from Chittoor district who has been active on issues of Dalit equity, agricultural workers and farmers. The award was presented by Bojja Tharakam, a senior advocate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, respected Dalit leader and the state president of Republican Party of India. Harsh Mander spoke about the focus areas of CES and recalled how Naren in his various satyagrahas respected the opponents, expressed his views in a gentle but firm manner. Tharakam recalled Naren’s concern for Dalits, and his simple lifestyle, etc. Nagaraja spoke about his association with Naren. T. L. Sankar also spoke about Naren’s sacrifice of a comfortable life in favor of a life of service.

Round-table discussion:

A brief on the topic: The topic of discussion is “Who will do farming? Rethinking agriculture in the context of changing agrarian relations” With the sweeping changes in the rural areas during the past decade, we evidently need to think beyond the business-as-usual frameworks to understand the present and imagine the future. The incomes from agriculture have become very meager; farmers are finding it difficult to meet their basic needs and are getting indebted. Many of the rural youth are moving away from farming, both from the farmer families and agricultural worker families. The reduced availability of labour has become visible in rural areas, and at the same time, the labour wages have also increased significantly. Many farmers are perceiving that it is better to work for wages than invest in their own land because of poor returns. In this scenario, there is a clear threat of corporates taking over agriculture, and can farmers and agricultural workers find common cause in protecting agriculture-based livelihoods? Also, how do we address the issues of inter-sectoral parity, where the primary production is being valued less and less compared to all other sectors (in 1972, bag of paddy cost the same as 5 grams of gold. Now, bag of paddy is 1/15th the price of 5 grams of gold). These are some of the questions prompting the session of rethinking, with diverse people – those who have worked directly on agriculture issues as well as others who recognize these questions as having a cross-cutting relevance to how we understand development and how we imagine the future India.

The round-table discussion was moderated by Chenniah. He said that this is a question of great relevance in the current context. It is a matter of great concern and anxiety that corporate sector is making huge inroads into farming, displacing farmers and wondered what will be the future of farmers in this country.

K. R. Chowdry:

40% of farmers immediately want to leave agriculture. Even those left in farming prefer NREGS and daily wage work, because they are better paying than farming. 48% don’t have land, because land reforms were never carried out adequately. On an average, farmers are spending Rs.12,000 and getting Rs.9000 incurring a loss of Rs.3000 on every crop. It is no wonder capital formation is not happening in agriculture. The problems of Green revolution, followed by post-1991 economic policies of liberalization and structural reforms have caused the present crisis situation in agriculture.

Kodandaram: People usually work on either land reforms or farmers’ issues. Naren saw the two as integral parts of agricultural sector and worked on both in a comprehensive manner. Land ownership is not just a legal right, a question of who owns it legally; rather it is also a question of who controls the production. Land reforms should be accompanied by agricultural reforms so that the beneficiaries can profit from the land given to them. In modern agriculture, various forces are actually dictating to the farmer – borewells, fertilizers, new ‘technologies’ – and production is no longer actually under the farmer’s control. Modern agriculture has collapsed the traditional farmer in drastic ways; the farmers feel profoundly alienated from the production process. All the political parties are on the same page with regard to the above; Chandra Babu Naidu talked about corporate farming; YS Rajasekar Reddy talked about cooperative farming; but both meant the same.

There is a lot of discussion about in Godavari districts. This is an area where the government has invested a lot to provide irrigation and enable 2 or 3 crops. But what about farmers in Anantapur district, Chittoor district, Mahbubnagar district. There farmers have kept their lands fallow many seasons, unable to cultivate. In Mahbubnagar, there is a lot of distress among farmers, and we have seen a lot of migration. The issue we should look at is: how will small farmers do agriculture where there have been no major government investments? This is the question government policies should grapple with.

Malla Reddy: There is a Telugu proverb: “there are six reasons for Karna’s death” in Mahabharata, meaning we cannot pin point one particular reason; similarly there are many reasons for farmers’ distress but at the end they are being killed, though agriculture itself is flourishing. I don’t agree that agriculture is in crisis. It is the farming community that is in crisis. 95 lakhs of farmers have holdings below five acres; the farm inputs are controlled by corporates, and their agents like microfinance and self-help groups; the govt. has decreased subsidy on fertilizer from Rs.70,000 crores to Rs.50,000 crores; there is no separate agriculture minister for the state of ; the Deputy CM is made in charge of agriculture; he does not have any knowledge of agriculture. All these go to show how agriculture is being neglected in the state.

P.S.Ajay Kumar: It was said by some speakers that the post-1991 policies are the cause for agricultural crisis. There is an implication that the earlier period of 1960s to 80s was a positive period in Indian agriculture. But to me, that is the period when the government failed to implement land reforms. That was the period when the landless classes were promised their stake in agriculture by creating ownership of land and resources – but the promise was not delivered. Now, when you ask who should do farming, our question is how long should we remain in farming as landless labourers only?

Only when that question is addressed, we can get agricultural labourers involved in the question of how agriculture can be sustained. You talk about sustainable agriculture but you need to answer the question of what is the role of agricultural labourers in our vision of sustainable agriculture. It is only through land reforms that they can become farmers and can work on sustainable agriculture together with the existing small farmers.

So in the changed context, we need to think about new land reform agenda in which small, medium farmers and agricultural labourers can work together.

1. Redefine land ceiling and implement redistribution of land;

2. People whose primary income is from outside agriculture should give up their control of land. This land should be given to actual cultivators.

3. Then farmers and labourers together as allies should resist the large scale changes in land utilization, the taking away of agricultural land.

4. Revenue reforms should be pushed for by the two sections together.

5. Corporate takeover of agriculture should also be resisted together as allies.

Instead of addressing these root causes, it doesn’t work if you just show NREGS as a big evil influence on agriculture.

Ramanjaneyulu: Now agriculture is being seen in sectional way; rainfed vs. irrigated; laborers vs. farmers; small vs, large farmers, etc. Instead we should ask who should do farming, how to do and how to protect natural resources. He agreed with Ajay that sustainable agriculture should address concerns like how to get agricultural workers interested. He asked: why should there be a land ceiling only for agriculture, why not for industry as well?

While crop holiday is being talked about in coastal districts, there has been undeclared crop holiday in many other places. The cultivated fallows in Andhra Pradesh as per official figures is more than 10%. Unless the government brings policies that ensure income security for the farming community, and to encourage low-input sustainable agriculture, the agricultural crisis is not going to be addressed.

K.S. Gopal: We have to face the fact that going by economic trends, most of the farmers will also disappear like weavers, iron smiths and small factories. The thought I have is that we should not view their role only in economic terms; we have to look beyond economic considerations and emphasize the ecological functions of agriculture, its role in ensuring food sovereignty, etc. Then the valuation will be different. I have some ideas for how to go about it, but can discuss those details separately. We have to also understand the aspirations of rural youth; in our society manual labor has no dignity; it should be emphasized.

Rajiv: In the present day globalized world, is there some way of improving our efficiency in agricultural production so that we can be as good as other countries from whom we are importing?

Samineni Rama Rao: The issue of concern is that village-level contradictions are being enhanced. Tenant farmers being pitched against agricultural labourers, and so on. All this plays in favour of big landlords again. We need to think about the interests of the working class as a whole. Let’s think about addressing the agricultural crisis taking small and marginal farmers and landless labourers together.

Prasada Rao: Many of the problems are a result of the economic policies followed by various governments, especially since 1991. The AIKS has prepared a detailed document on how to address the farmers’ distress and rejuvenate the agriculture sector. But the challenge is to mobilize the farmers around these agendas and demands, and build a movement. Otherwise these will only remain ideas and discussions.

Saraswati: Land has some limited production capacity; socio-cultural factors like higher standard of living, marriages are also causing agricultural crisis; but before we ask the farmers to resort to simple lifestyles, can we, from other sectors who are well off, also practice such life styles? Why should farmers not aspire for a higher standard of living?

Harindranath: Living agriculture means living with nature; if we leave agriculture we will be distanced from nature; therefore in fact farming should be actually done by majority; everyone should have land and should do cooperative farming and aim at village self-sufficiency; so that there is no need to look for labor; so that production by masses rather than mass production will happen.

Uma Shankari: In the pricing of primary sector products and services, not only in agriculture , but also forests and minerals, food, water and air, etc., there is an inherent contradiction: they have to be priced low so that they are accessible, available and affordable to all, including the poor; they have also to be priced low so that in the process of value addition to them, the end –price does not become too high; but this results in under-valuing and under-pricing them. Especially in a growing economy this results in tremendous inequality; while other sectors are growing in leaps and bounds, agriculture sector is losing its share of the national economy all the time; this inequality has a suctioning effect ; it is like a vacuum pump pulling all the resources, material, financial and human resources, and putting them in other sectors. This inequality must be reduced and corrections have to come from sectors other than primary sector. Why should a company like Reliance be allowed to grow and amass wealth as it has been doing? They can “buy” up huge tracts of agricultural lands; they have the money power supported by political power and muscle power.

Mohan: According to RBI Governor Subbarao, service sector is not capable of absorbing 40% of people who want to move out of agriculture. He exhorted that manufacturing sector should absorb them. But experts in manufacturing sector are saying, due to advanced technologies and labor problems, we can not absorb them; so where should these people go?

All the products from cities are coming to rural areas whereas very few goods are going from rural to urban; if this continues, drain of rural economy will also continue. To address this primary sector and rural economy should be strengthened; rural enterprises should be promoted. And integrated farming with allied enterprises like poultry ,dairy, milling , etc, should be encouraged.

Economic development should be based not on growth alone but on std. of living for every citizen.

Kurmanath: As a journalist I was assigned to go to a meeting in FICCI titled food 360degrees, to promote food processing industry; out of my own interest I came here; we should reach out to the media so that public debate can happen on all these issues, and common people will start thinking about them.

Dinesh: Widespread malnutrition among farmers is a matter of concern; Farmers are not eating what they are producing; they are not producing what they are eating. Anantapur farmers economics has become so unviable, why should they do farming? Should they do farming for food or for money? If they are asked to grow only for money, then it is financially unviable in many places. Also, even in villages, the fact is that many young people are not ready to do hard work, physical work. We need to think as a society what will happen if everyone moves away from physical work.

Babji: Crop holiday in Godavari districts of Andhra Pradesh is because big farmers are absentee landlords, they are in the grip of companies, they see agriculture as a commercial profit oriented enterprise, not as a source of food; however, for small farmers like tribal farmers, agriculture is a source of livelihood and food and this should be protected. It is ridiculous that in ABN Andhrajyothy debate, NREGS was shown as a major culprit leading to the crop holiday. Noone was asked to present the point of view of NREGS workers. Agricultural workers getting higher wages cannot be considered as cause for farmers’ distress, and this is a gross manipulation and unfair conclusion.

Ramachandriah: Aspirations of middle class have changed; the perception is that life is better in cities; there is more financial security and less risk; in such a scenario small towns should be developed which are closer to the villages so that agriculture and related occupations can thrive.

Lokareddappa: Land redistribution in AP was done in five installments; it was carried out often in such a way that the well off farmers got rid of degraded lands by selling them to SC Corporation which in turn was redistributed; so the beneficiaries have to work harder to profit from them.

Sivaramakrishna: 1 tula (10gm) of Gold and a bag of rice cost the same in the sixties; now gold is 15 times more than the price of rice; this is because the surplus from the rural /agriculture sector is being enjoyed by the urban classes. Instead of addressing these underlying imbalances, instead of giving land to landless poor in rural areas, we are talking food rights, NREGS, etc. We are not addressing the causes of poverty; instead we are asking them to be poor but we will help them survive by giving them “right to food”, NREGS and so on. How come we progressives who used to believe in true economic equality and so on are settling for things like so many kg of rice at Rs.2? We seem to be stuck fighting our own specific battles while the larger war is being lost. We need to see sustainable agriculture, land rights and labour issues together as interconnected issues and not see them separately.

Kishan Rao: Delta farmers’ issue is not nation’s problem; 78% of farmers in AP delta area are absentee landlords; their lands are cultivated by tenants; with rise of cost of cultivation, and tenants facing chronic losses, tenants are reluctant to pay the same tenancy charges as before; with margins decreasing the absentee landowners together with tenants have declared crop holiday; The solution is: for every piece of land, the government should guarantee provision of water for one crop season; In return, no land should be left fallow; If any owner leaves land fallow, force them to sell the land to the landless in the village.

In response to the question raised by a young participant about increasing efficiencies in production, we should keep in mind that land has limited capacity to produce; if we squeeze it to produce more, it will have adverse effects in some other aspects like soil fertility, etc.

Saraswati asked why can’t we have a situation where we can farm without subsidies; to which, an Anatapur dt. farmer recounted his experiences as to how at every step he faced obstacles, completely out of his control; he said that is why we need subsidies; without which farming can not be done.

Ravindra: For so many decades, it seems that the land-owning class is not ready to loosen their control of agriculture. Even now, absentee landlords are not ready to let go. If it is finally happening that because of increasing labour costs and so on, farming is viable only for those who actually work on the land, and not for those who depend on getting others to do the work, then we can welcome it. But I don’t know whether they will move away so easily. So far, all the government subsidies and programs are also geared towards keeping the land under their control, not passing it on to the real cultivators. When we talk about retaining farmers in agriculture, we need to think about who should be retained.

Kiran: It is difficult to summarize such a discussion. While the topic of discussion itself was framed as a question, the discussion raised even more questions which are very pertinent. It was not expected that the discussion will result in very concrete answers, but the very process of brainstorming itself has been very useful. Some challenging questions were put forth, for example, Ajay Kumar asked how can we create a stake for agricultural workers in the future of agriculture. I hope we will continue the discussion on the issues raised.

A couple of comments: In some of the discussions on the crop holiday, NREGS is being pointed as a major cause for the farmers’ distress; this needs to be definitely opposed, as has been pointed out by many speakers. What has clearly emerged from this discussion is that we have to move towards a joint struggle by farmers and agricultural workers. Since many agri. workers and Dalits also have acquired some land and are facing the problems as small and marginal farmers too, our focus should be small/medium farmers, tenant farmers and agricultural workers – basically those who are actually living in the villages and directly involved in cultivation. We also need to think about better organizing among agricultural workers and farmers whether jointly or separately so that the agricultural operations can be done more efficiently in a planned manner. Otherwise the “corporate efficiency” will start taking over.

Chenniah (closing remarks): The discussion has been very good and many people expressed their thoughts. These issues are very crucial, and it is clear that we all need to engage with the problems of agriculture – especially the small, marginal and medium farmers, and agricultural workers. It is also important to prevent the corporate takeover of agriculture. I hope we continue these discussions and take up necessary action.

Jeevan Kumar (HRF) gave the vote of thanks and appreciated the active participation of everyone in the discussion on the very pertinent topic.