Minimum Basic Income For Farmer

The crisis in rural India reflected through a crisis in agriculture has been a matter of persistent concern. This has led to two farm-related peaceful marches in Mumbai and in New Delhi in 2018.

Many state governments, in recent times, have come up with different schemes. Telengana has waived off loans and water dues, provides free electricity to farmers, gives insurance for farmers, and has revived the age-old tank based irrigation system among others. It has also come up with the Rythu Bandhu scheme to provide investment support of ₹4,000 per acre per season.  

The states of Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have also come up with loan waivers and are planning other things. However, it is said that debt waiver can be iniquitous across regions and across farm sizes. Further, it may lead to a culture of non-payment of loans.

Odisha's KALIA (Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation) with an acronym that is a popular name of Lord Jagannath allays some of these fears. It has five instruments: ₹5,000 per cultivator per season for five seasons for all marginal and small farmers, ₹12,500 per landless agricultural labourer household for three years to take up non land-based allied agricultural activities,  ₹10,000 to vulnerable households who cannot take up any activity, life insurance for all cultivators and agricultural labourers, and interest subvention on crop loan up to ₹50,000. 

The KALIA scheme is being implemented on a war-footing and almost all officials from agriculture and sister departments as also staff specifically employed for this are burning mid-night candles. This shows that if the powers that be want then they can stretch the system to its physical limits and also deploy additional human resources to implement pro-people programmes. This needs to be applauded. However, this urgency and importance should also be taken beyond its immediate implementation and extended (if not in its entirety) but at least in its spirit (with a limited rigour) to this as also many other pro-people programmes that have a knowledge-intensive approach such as in Paramparagat Krishi Vigyan Yojana, Integrated Farming and Odisha Millets Mission among others.   

Getting back to India, a rough estimate for 2019 puts the number of rural households at 20 crore (200 million), of which nearly half are likely to be cultivators/farmers. These farmers may be contributing ₹10 lakh core (₹10 trillion) or 5 per cent of the ₹200 lakh crore (₹200 trillion) economy, ie ₹1 lakh (₹100,00) per farmer household. The Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers in 2013 indicates an average income per farmer household from all possible sources of income for 2012-13 at ₹77,112.

If ₹2.5 lakh (₹250,000)  is considered as a minimum basic income per annum per household (similar to the minimum salary for a central government employee) then the shortfall, with the possibility of being an underestimate, is ₹1.5 lakh (₹150,000)  per household, or, ₹15 lakh crore (₹15 trillion) for the 10 crore (100 million) farmer households. Similar shortfalls may be assumed for other rural households like agricultural labourers and casual labourers, which may also be ascribed to lower returns to farmer households. 

The shortfalls are an outcome of farmers not being paid adequately for their produce and for not being paid anything for their ecosystem services. In short, the farmer has been subsidising the nation.

Ironically,  the system may incentivise production that may harm ecosystems and may also propagate application of harmful chemicals in our food.These need to change. 

There is a need to incentivise and facilitate systems that encourage no poison in our food. There is a need to provide minimum basic income support to farmers. For this, Rythu Bandhu and KALIA may be good beginnings, but it only opens up the door for more. 

#NoPoisonInOurFood #IncomeSecurityForFarmer #iStand4Farmer

The Door

The child in me believes

that the door gives -

a sense of security, 

by keeping aside fear;

a feeling of freedom,

from the unknown;

an impression that,

dark forces remain outside.

The wanderer in me thinks

that the door gives -

a sense of insecurity,

by keeping aside fear;

a feeling of unfreedom,

from the unknown;

an impression that,

one remains closed inside.

Bali Yatra: Aaa Kaa Maa Boi

Bali Yatra is celebrated on the day of Kartik Purnima,an auspicious day that falls on a full moon around November and is celebrated among Hindus, Jains and Sikhs in India and elsewhere. In Odisha, among other things, this also marks the end of the holy month of Kartik (a month when people give up non-vegetarian eating - can also be linked to the breeding season of fish, and hence, a sustainable practice; at earlier times people used to give up non-vegetarian food for four months - the chaturmas - some may follow this practice even today). Besides, in paddy cultivation areas of Odisha the month of Kartik being one of lean agricultural activity (because sowing/transplantation is completed and harvesting is yet to begin) a month of religious vows and spiritualism also keeps them away from uncalled for nefarious activities.

It also marks an end to possible cyclonic storms in the Bay of Bengal, and hence, the time is ripe to venture into the seas or so thought the ancient mariners (Sadhabas), two millennia earlier. It seems that they set sail to Bali (an island to the Southern tip of Indonesia) and on their way touch upon Sri Lanka, Java and Sumatra and sometimes even go beyond. To mark this ancient activity, even today, people in Odisha celebrate Bali Yatra (journey to Bali). A week long festival begins on the banks of the Mahanadi. In 2018, the celebrations began on 23 November. A song sang on this occasion is as follows. 

ଆ କା ମା ବୈ,
ପାନ ଗୁଆ ଥୋଇ ।

ପାନ ଗୁଆ ତୋର,
ମାସକ ଧରମ ମୋର ।

The songs transliteration in Devanagri script will read as follows.

आ   का   मा   बो इ,
पा न   गु आ   थो ई ।

पा न   गु आ   तो र,
मा स क   ध र म   मो र ।

The songs transliteration in English alphabet will read as follows. 

Aaa Kaa Maa BoE,
PaaNa  GuAaa ThoI.
PaaNa  GuAaa ToRa,
MaSaKa DhaRaMa MoRa.

When the mariners set sail they were seen off by their near and dear ones. Given these, I provide two interpretations. The first interpretation from the perspective of the mariner may read as follows.

O Mother of the Mariner - protector of the Seas and our Sails.

We offer before thee the auspicious Betel and Arecanut.

Let these sacred offerings of Betel and Arecanut be Yours,

Protect us in the months when we venture into the high seas.

In short, before we start our journey, we pray thee for our safe passage to and from the far away lands and for peace and prosperity for all.

A second interpretation from the perspective of those who see the Mariners off may read as follows.

O first among equals, all set to sail with thy Mother

We offer you the auspicious Betel and Arecanut.

Let the sacred offerings of Betel and Arecanut be Yours,

It is my month long penance that will bring you back to be Mine.

Note that Aa(a) and Ka(a) are sort of the first vowel and the first consonant in Odia alphabet, respectively. Hence, first among equals, which could refer to a son or to a beloved. If it is being sung by a mother then it may convey that you are going with another mother who will take care of you during your journey and will return you safe and sound back to this mother - one mother's pain, agony and penance will be understood by another mother. If it is being sung by the spouse/partner then it may convey that you are going with your mother and my penance will bring you back - a mother ought to understand the pain, agony and penance of another woman (the subtle difference between mothers and lovers, notwithstanding). The month long penance could refer to the month of Kartik before the Mariners set sail or it could refer to the coming months, beginning with the month of Margasira when women in Odisha pray on Thursdays to thank and welcome the coming of Godess Laxmi in the form of  harvest bounties and other forms of wealth.

Indian agriculture needs another revolution

The crisis in Indian agriculture, which has been persisting for nearly two decades now, adversely affects farmers and farms and depicts a scenario of poison-to- mouth. This crisis of today has a greater predicament than the ship-to-mouth crisis of the 1960s. To address this, India has to invest substantially on agro-ecological approaches.

The Peasant at Risk

There is an Indian peasant saying: "Abundance of water, destroys life; scarcity of water, destroys life." In spite of these vagaries from the weather-gods, peasants have shown grit and resilience in adapting to the adversities. Their capability to resist is compromised because they have to increasingly address market shocks and withstand climate change.

Indian agriculture, for nearly two decades now, has been in a state of crisis. This crisis has twin dimensions - the agrarian and the agricultural. The agrarian crisis being the adverse impact on the livelihood of the people dependent on it - a symptom of this being the more than three hundred thousand reported farmers suicides in the last two decades. The agricultural crisis stems from the inappropriate designing and inadequate interventions - a reflection of this has been an insistence on increasing production of certain crops through an input-intensive agriculture that may not be in sync with the underlying agro-ecological considerations and thereby adding to the risks and vulnerability.

Ship-to-Mouth and Green Revolution

One ought to acknowledge that the input-intensive cultivation itself was a response to an earlier crisis of the 1960s. At that time, large masses of the population had to depend on grain grants from the United States, under Public Law 480 - India lived from ship to mouth. While, in principle, this was a grant. In the complex world of international relations, particularly during the cold war era, it would have had its unwritten demands.

It was at the time of ship to mouth that there was a debate going on whether India should or should not adopt the high yielding varieties (wheat from Mexico and rice from Philippines) that required investment in seeds, irrigation, fertilisers, research and extension, public procurement through support prices, and distribution of procured grains through fair price shops. The unwritten demands that came with Public Law 480 along with food shortages (particularly, in urban India where decision-makers lived) tilted the balance in favour of input-intensive cultivation or the green revolution. Thus, an emergency like situation that required an immediate solution ended with a permanent solution.

Recourse to green revolution was perhaps the need of the hour then, but it created a structure where the technique associated with input-intensive cultivation came down from scientists to farmers, from lab to farms, from a controlled and certain environment to an open and uncertain environment. This has resulted in monoculture production systems that has led to overuse of inputs (water, fertilisers, pesticides, and credit among others) and dependence on a technique where the rate of increase in costs happens to be higher than the rate of increase in output. This increases net returns when the situation is close to lab-controlled conditions, but added to risks when there is deviation from those conditions. And, thereby, making agriculture unsustainable and credit non-serviceable.

Production or GDP Fetish and Poison-to-Mouth

What is more, it is this overuse and dependence that, unknown to the farmer, has adversely affected soil health and water quality. Along with these, to increase shelf-life and saleability, chemicals are added at the storage and distribution stage. So much so that all these has poisoned the food that one eats. A recent study by National Institute of Nutrition finds that food intake by children in Hyderabad has ten-to-forty times more pesticides than that in Europe or North America. The Central Institute of Fisheries Technology has issued a guidance note to guard against use of formalin in fish. All these are driven by a production or income or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fetish.

As against these, inter-cropping or crop rotation practices that add to soil health and provide micronutrients to the plants from the soil do not add to GDP. Activities that stop the production, sale and use of harmful chemicals and pesticides will not only have adverse implications on GDP but will also have an uphill task against powerful economic interests.

The GDP accounting is such that expenses incurred towards treatment of patient's travelling in the  cancer train from India's green-revolution belt in Bhatinda, Punjab to Bikaner, Rajasthan will add to GDP. At the same time, relatively lower health-related expense because of a better health status among residents of Enabavi, the first organic village of India that also contributes to ecosystems, does not augur well for GDP.

In spite of the importance of ecosystems, a 100 year old tree that has enormous value from the perspective of ecosystem services will have no contribution to GDP. However, if the tree is cut and sold as wood it will add to GDP.

The irony in GDP accounting, the poison on our plates, and the unsustainable agriculture imply that the crisis in India's agriculture today has many facets. Poison to mouth of today seems to point to a greater predicament than the ship to mouth of yore. Hence, any intention to address this requires a commitment to invest. 

Call to Agro-ecology and Knowledge Systems

There is no alternative (TINA) reflects a poverty of reason because if the powers that be will and facilitate appropriate investments in knowledge systems and agro-ecological approaches for location-specific resilience then many alternatives exist (MAE). In other words, MAE makes TINA redundant. Some notable recent initiatives are zero-budget natural farming of Andhra Pradesh and revival of millets in Odisha. The University of Cambridge led consortium to Transform India's Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable food Supplies (TIGR2ESS) also holds promise.  But, more needs to be done.

ZBNF field, Ramjogi, Dharmavaram, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh

To do away with poison on our plates and to keep income fetish aside we have to think afresh. India needs to overhaul her agriculture. More of the same cannot be an option. India needs to invest in knowledge systems and agro-ecological approaches that recognises location-specific resilience that nature provides.

[The views expressed are those of the author and not of the organisations that he is associated with.

Srijit Mishra researches and teaches development-related issues. He is Director, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies (NCDS), an Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) institute in collaboration with Government of Odisha and Professor (on leave), Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR). He is the co-editor of Agrarian Crisis in India (OUP), has recently co-authored A MANUSH or HUMANS Characterisation of the Human Development Index and has been involved in the action research intervention of Odisha Millets Misson (OMM).]

Snakes

Snakes conjure up images multiple,
some profound, some mundane.

From the sacred to the profane,
from reverence to fear.

The slithering beauty, adorning the neckline,
of the three-eyed Lord, Shiva.

The devoted companion, born again and again,
for thy love, in life and in death.

Nagina, Voldermot's double or horcrux,
epitome of evil, that will devour you in full.

The African saying: kill it,
before it bites.

India - the land of the snake charmer,
in penury, addressing man-animal conflict.

In blindfold, the trunk of an elephant,
spewing water, not venom.

Save the stick, save snake,
save the venom, save life.

Population of India in a non census year: 2017

A quick look at the world wide web does not give any clarity on population estimates for non-census years for India. Besides, agreeing on a single estimate, subgroup consistent estimates can help in the designing and planning of public policy initiatives for vulnerable communities. The Ministry of Home Affairs (Office of Registrar General), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation should come together to take this forward.

Curious

I was curious to know of India's population in a non-census year, 2017. The need arose, as I wanted to estimate snake bite rates (SBRs) across states by gender for 2017. I will address that in a different note, but for now I would like to comment on my search for an estimate of India's population in 2017.

Technical Group of 2006

My search took me to the Statistical Year Book of India 2017 available through the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), as also the National Health Profile of India - 2018 (released in June 2018 by the Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, CBHI). Both these documents provides population estimates for 2017 based on a Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections (TGPP) published in 2006. The report used census 2001 as base to estimate population rounded-off to the nearest '000 on  1 March for the years 2001 through 3026. The TGPP estimate for India in 2017 being

• 1,283,600,000 (or, 1.28 billion), for 1 March 2017.

CSO implied estimate

Recently, on 31 May 2018, a press note was released on provisional estimates of annual national income for 2017-18 and revised estimates for earlier years in 2011-12 prices by Central Statistics Office (CSO). In this, one has data for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita GDP for financial years (starting 1 April of year 't' to 31 March of year 't+1'). While there are no explanation on the method for computing population and the population estimates, one assumes that the per capita GDP ought to have been calculated by taking into consideration the population on 31 March of year 't+1'. The Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy (in notes to macroeconomic aggregates) points out that for 2011-12 series population figures are derived from census 2011. For 2016-17, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at ₹121,96,006 crore and per capita GDP at ₹93,888 by CSO indicates a population of

• 1,298,995,186 (or, 1.30 billion), perhaps for 31 March 2017.

UIDAI estimate

In addition to the above two estimates, the Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI), have also provided a projection of population for 2017 in an analysis of Aadhaar saturation. The note also indicates that  data for nine states/union territories (Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh) were provided by the respective states/union territories. It is not clear whether the independence to states was in estimating of population or for saturation analysis. In any case, the note does not delineate the method of estimating population, but as this is meant for an analysis of Aadhaar saturation in 2017, one expects that the estimate of population is likely to be for 31 December 2017. The UIDAI estimate for 2017 is

• 1,316,632,920 (or, 1.32 billion), perhaps for 31 December 2017.

UN estimate

Independent of the above three estimates, the United Nations led exercise of  World Population Prospects 2017 (also available at worldometers) estimates population for all countries from 1950 to 2100 with the reference date being the middle of the year, 1 July of each year. The UN estimate for 2017 for India is

• 1,339,180,127 (or, 1.34 billion), for 1 July 2017. 

Comparing four estimates

A cursory glance may suggest that the difference in population estimates may be because the reference dates are likely to be different. To address this, we take the estimates for 2017 and 2018 provided by the four different entities in Table 1 and one observes that the range of the estimates for two consecutive years by any entity (TGPP, GDP, UIDAI, and UN) does not overlap with the others.

Table 1: Population estimates for India in 2017 and 2018 through Different Entities
Years	TGPP	CSO	UIDAI	UN
2017	128,36,00,000	129,89,95,186	131,66,32,920	133,91,80,127
2018	129,80,41,000	131,59,94,518	133,56,10,549	135,40,51,854
Notes and Sources: TGPP-Technical Group on Population Projections 2006, CSO-Central Statistics Office (press note 2018, also see Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy), UIDAI-Unique Identity Authority of India (projections for 2017 and 2018), and UN-United Nations (World Population Prospects 2017).

 

Policy pointers

Prima facie, one cannot reject the scientifically grounded UN estimates, unless substantive arguments are put forth. Besides, UN estimates, as is the practice, would have been developed with active engagement of officials and academia from all countries, including India. If there were any substantive differences then that ought to have been provided at that stage. If after that differences remain then they ought to be put up in the public domain.

It would help in provisioning of public policy if there is a common understanding to a basic matter like the total population of the country. This starting point will take us a long way in identifying sub-group consistent population estimates for different categories of vulnerable population and their geographical concentration or spread.

There should be serious efforts to provide population estimates for non-census years by taking into account the census of 2011. In today's age and computing advantages, even without the involvement and technological advantage of UIDAI, all this should be easily possible.

Way forward

The Office of the Registrar General under Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (including the Central Statistics Office) and all other entities should come together at the earliest to provide us with a subgroup consistent population estimates for non-census years. Till that happens, the UN estimates could be a starting point, the shares of population across states may be used from UIDAI or CSO estimates, and within states the sex ratio of TGPP estimates may be used to arrive at a gender-specific population estimate.

Exclusion errors, Inclusion errors and Aadhaar

This post discusses exclusion and inclusion errors in the context of Aadhaar. From a welfare perspective, reduction of exclusion errors need greater attention. The two errors are either inversely related or are positively related. The Aadhaar architecture is designed to address inclusion errors, and hence, it could either add to exclusion errors or require independent efforts to reduce them. Further, identification being independent, Aadhaar cannot address these errors at that stage. Besides, no one can be held accountable for exclusion errors.   

Introduction: Day 36

On day 36 of Aadhaar hearing in the Supreme Court of India, an implicit reference was made to exclusion and inclusion errors in the delivery of entitlement. I have already discussed about exclusion and inclusion errors in the context of Aadhaar in my earlier posts on proportionality, right to physical existence, and nir-aadhaar among others. Nevertheless, the deliberations on day 36 of the hearing urge me to further elaborate on these.

The two errors

• Exclusion error occurs when a person deserving an entitlement is excluded (we identify entitlement with receiving of benefits, subsidy, and services in Aadhaar Act). 
• Inclusion error occurs when a person not-deserving an entitlement is included. 

In comparing the two errors, there are two broad perspectives.

First, from a welfare perspective, exclusion errors are considered the greater evil and to ensure that this is reduced the system can be lenient to inclusion errors. Under this, the two errors are inversely related. In this, efforts to reduce the exclusion errors, will lead to an increase in inclusion errors. Similarly, efforts to reduce the inclusion errors will lead to an increase in exclusion errors.

Second, under certain situations when targets are fixed, the two errors can be positively related. The lower the exclusion errors, the lower will be the inclusion errors. As a corollary, the greater the inclusion errors, the greater will be the exclusion errors. If targets remain unaltered, then a reduction in inclusion errors will also imply a reduction in exclusion errors. Otherwise, reduction in inclusion errors cannot automatically transfer to a reduction in exclusion errors. There ought to be independent efforts to address reductions in exclusion errors. 

In fact, as targets ought to be independently assigned from macro aggregates (say, poverty ratio) then any reduction in inclusion errors leading to savings in budget implies that there are greater exclusion errors.  Or, we are no more in the realm of positive relationship between the two errors. We have moved to the realm of inverse relationship. A reduction in inclusion errors imply an increase in exclusion errors. The authentication failures or absence of Aadhaar that add to the exclusion errors will all fall under this. The savings to the state from these would be like a regressive tax.

Additional concerns

The Aadhaar architecture based on biometric authentication to receive entitlement is designed to reduce inclusion errors (reduce ghosts and duplication among others). However, it is possible that it could also add to inclusion errors. There is nothing in the architecture to prevent inclusion errors that happen after authentication. There can be either denial or reduction of entitlement (like less or no ration) after authentication. However, as the amount will be accounted for it automatically changes hands leading to inclusion errors. This is a continuation of denials when authentication was not done biometrically. Such exclusion-cum-inclusion errors, in the past, have been effectively addressed through social audits and that should continue to be be an effective method, as Aadhaar cannot address it.

A recipient of entitlement ought to be identified independently. It is only after identification that the recipient's information can be integrated with Aadhaar for biometric authentication to facilitate delivery of entitlement. This means that that inclusion and exclusion errors at the stage of identification will remain outside the purview of Aadhaar.

Entitlement denial, with or without authentication, exempts accountability from state. Under Aadhaar Act, any future claims on denial of entitlement may not stand the scrutiny of courts in the sense that the implementing entity cannot be penalised. This is so because authentication will be proof for having received the entitlement and authentication failure cannot be held against them. No one can be held accountable for denial of entitlements.

Conclusion

To sum up, between exclusion and inclusion errors the former is a greater evil. The relationship between exclusion and inclusion errors can either be inversely related or positively related. Aadhaar is designed to address inclusion errors, and hence, it could either increase exclusion errors or need additional independent efforts to reduce exclusion errors. It may weed out some ghosts, but not all inclusion errors. The architecture and design of Aadhar not only does not address exclusion errors, but it could also add to exclusion errors. Further, as identification ought to be independent of Aadhaar, the errors at  the identification stage cannot be addressed by Aadhaar. Besides, under an Aadhaar architecture, the implementing entities cannot be penalised for exclusion errors. 

Earlier blog posts on Aadhaar by the author

On Aadhaar Proportionality

Right to Physical Existence Matters

Idhar, Udhar, Aadhaar

Aadhaar: Privacy, National Security and Democracy

Nir-Aadhaar

Neither for you, nor for me

Creative Identification

Right to Privacy, Aadhaar and Democracy (also re-posted at LSE blog)

Aadhaar Interim Order Calls for Some Clarification

If a Lie is told Three Times

Aadhaar, Radiagate and Cablegate 

[The views expressed are that of the author and not that of the institutions/organisations that the author is associated with. Some of the arguments that are not elaborated here may be found in the earlier related blog posts or in tweets by the author. The author comes from a non-legal background and the final outcome of the Aadhaar hearing would depend upon the arguments put forth by the petitioners and the respondents and their considered interpretation by the honourable judges. Comments are welcome.]