Opinion Ashok Gulati writes: The path to Viksit Bharat runs through fields

Domestic peace and prosperity come primarily from freedom from hunger and poverty. When India gained Independence in 1947, more than 75 per cent of the country’s population was shackled by extreme poverty. Four years before Independence, in 1943, an estimated 1.5 to 3 million people died of starvation. The biggest debacle on the food security front, however, took place in China, where an estimated 30 million people died of starvation during the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1963. Both nations had exploding populations in 1960s and had major challenges in feeding their people. Both were saved by the introduction of new technologies in agriculture — India witnessed the Green Revolution in the late 1960s, and China too experienced a similar breakthrough.

China learnt its lessons much earlier than India, and ushered in economic reforms in 1978, starting with agriculture. It dismantled the commune system, moved on to the household responsibility system and freed the prices of most of its crops from government control. As a result, the income of China’s farmers increased by more than 14 per cent per annum between 1978 and 1984. It is this rise in real incomes in rural areas that provided the demand base for items, produced by China’s Town and Village Enterprises (TVEs). Today, China is the hub for global manufacturing, and its per capita income is almost five times that of India in dollar terms.

China’s farm sector produces almost double the value of produce than that of India even though it has less area under cultivation. China has not only opened land lease markets for 30 years but also supports its farmers immensely, primarily through income support on a per acre basis. The Chinese government also gives the country’s farmers market price support (producer support estimate or PSE), which is even higher than in the OECD countries. In contrast, India’s PSE is negative. In other words, the government actually taxes farmers through restrictive trade and marketing policies, even though it gives input subsidies — in fertilisers or power, for example.

At the same time, we must also remember that China imposed the one-child norm from 1981 to 2016, which contributed to a faster rise in the country’s per capita income. There is a lot to learn from this experiment. Although India cannot and should not impose the one-child norm, investing in the girl child’s education is critical to contain population growth, especially at lower levels of income.

India’s agri-growth has been moderate in relative terms. In the 20 years from 2004-05 to 2023-24, which covers both the Manmohan Singh and the Narendra Modi governments, agri-GDP increased by 3.6 per cent on average. This is reasonably good to feed the nation, especially because population growth has been coming down over the years — it’s below 1 per cent per annum today. India is also a net exporter of agri-produce. Its exports in the last three years are around $51 billion, while the country’s imports amount to $34 billion. While the exports are diversified — rice, marine products, spices and buffalo meat — India’s imports are primarily that of edible oils and pulses.

The government has been harping on achieving self-sufficiency in pulses. However, that is not going to happen if it goes about the objective in a business-as-usual manner. In fact, if the policies do not change for the better, I am afraid the country’s imports may go up to eight to 10 million tonnes by 2030 because the demand is likely to touch 40 million tonnes — we have been producing between 22 to 25 million tonnes in the last seven to eight years. Pulses are less water- and fertiliser-consuming. If governments reward farmers who grow pulses with the kind of subsidies they provide rice cultivators — in power and fertiliser — the country will not only be self-sufficient in pulses but people will eat healthier diets. The change will also have a positive effect on soil, water, and environment (GHG emissions). Our research at ICRIER suggests that providing Rs 35,000/ha to farmers in the Punjab-Haryana belt for at least five years could encourage a shift from paddy to pulses. The change requires bold policy making, but it is doable provided the Centre and the states join hands.

Agri-R&D, irrigation, opening up land-lease markets, building value chains of perishables on the lines of the Amul model are some of the other policy measures that need to be put in place. Only then can India provide food security on a sustainable basis in the face of climate change. Nutritional security still remains a major challenge. Roughly 35 per cent of our children below the age of five are stunted. We need to move from food security to nutrition security.

The writer is Distinguished Professor at ICRIER. Views are personal