{| class="wikitable"

</div> Additional information may please be sent as messages to <br/> the Facebook community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. <br/>All information used will be acknowledged in your name.

NEW DELHI: Armed with sticks and rocks, thousands of farmers from various states are marching towards Delhi to protest against the new farm laws cleared by Parliament in September. The protest march is reminiscent of several agitations held by farmers in recent times over a range of issues, including land allocation deals, loan waivers, suicide rates, and minimum support price (MSP). In fact, India has witnessed a worrying rise in protests, clashes and riots related to agrarian distress over the past few years, shows data.

As per data from 2014 to 2018, there have been more than 13,000 protests by farmers on various agrarian issues. These protests have seen a sharp increase over the years, having escalated by eight times from a little over 600 in 2014 to more than 4,800 in 2016.  

''' Major farm protests, 2011-20 '''

{| border="1"

<center>On November 29, farmers and farm organisations gathered at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan.</center>

<center>Demanded a 3-week special Parliament session to discuss agrarian crisis.</center>

<center>Demanded moratorium on land acquisition; farmers' suicides, falling incomes and GMOs.</center>

<center>Protest against the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2015.</center>

<center>Six farmers were killed and eight were injured in two separate incidents of firing in Mandsaur.</center>

<center>In June, 10-day 'Gaon Bandh' farmers' agitation saw cultivators taking to the streets</center>

<center>In December, Bharatiya Kisan Union protested in front of SP's residence.</center>

<center>A person was killed and several farmers, police officials were injured in the protest.</center>

<center>Punjab, Haryana & other states</center>

| valign="middle" |

<center>Farmers protested across the nation.</center>

Government officials admit that frustrated farmers have taken out their anger on the roads in the last couple of years with some major protests reported from states like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, UP. They said it's due to issues like shrinking of farmlands, failure of crops, poor irrigation facilities, bad seeds, drought, debts etc.  

According to 2017 NCRB report, the maximum number of riots related to agrarian distress were reported from Bihar (2,342 cases), almost double the number registered in 2015 (1,156 cases). This was followed by 1,709 riots involving farmers reported from Uttar Pradesh in 2016, while only 752 such incidents were reported from the state in 2015.  

A look at the timeline of farmers' protest over the last 10 years show that the minimum support price (MSP) for various crops has been a major grouse. Another issue has been that of land acquisition, with farmers complaining that compensation for land acquired for industrial projects was not in tune with market rates.

The farmers’ march in Maharashtra last month got much sympathy from a public fed on stories of rising farm suicides. But the agitating farmers demanded waivers of all farm loans and electricity dues. Such outrageous demands for freebies may impress politicians wooing the farm lobby, but will not improve justice or fairness.

Rising farmer agitations are not good indicators of rural distress. Rather, they reflect high returns to agitations, increasing the incentive to organise and make new demands. Farm loan waivers have been granted by UP, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Punjab. Many states provide free farm electricity. Meanwhile non-performing bank loans for agriculture are up from 2% to 6%. One reason is that farmers default, hoping their dues will soon be waived.

The biggest farmers get the biggest bank loans. Marginal farmers and labourers get little or no formal credit, and borrow at extortionate rates from moneylenders. Waiving bank loans will fatten the richest while neglecting those in real need.

Some farm families own hundreds of acres, and one farmer in Punjab has 150 tubewells. Most small farmers have no tubewell at all. So free electricity benefits the biggest and richest farmers. Landless labourers are far poorer than farmers, but get no benefit from loan waivers or free electricity. The Modi government promises higher food prices to help farmers, but this will hit labourers, for whom cheap food is a blessing.

Farmers are a powerful lobby across the world, even in rich industrialised countries like the US. In India, rural areas represent two-thirds of the population and almost half of all employment, so they have much political clout. State governments have been falling over one another to woo the farm vote bank. The fact that loan waivers and free power mostly benefit large farmers and not poor labourers is hardly mentioned in media debates.

One reason is that the public has been fed with stories of rising farm suicides, so nobody wants to be accused of promoting such suicides. Sorry, but there is nothing special about suicide rates of farmers, and they are not rising. The national suicide rate has historically been in the region of 10-11 deaths per one lakh of population, not very different from the rate globally or in rich countries like the US. Indian farmers have a lower suicide rate than non-farmers.

In a 2012 research paper in The Lancet, Vikram Patel and others found that suicides among unemployed persons and those professions outside agriculture were, collectively, thrice as frequent as among farmers and agricultural labourers. Suicide rates are 10 times higher in southern states than northern ones, mainly for cultural reasons. Former Niti Aayog chief Arvind Panagariya showed that barely 25% of rural suicides were farm-related.

Some other studies using a narrow definition of farmers claim that farmers have a higher suicide ratio than others. The question remains whether farmers should be defined as self-cultivators, cultivators plus agricultural workers, or all persons connected with agriculture. Broadly speaking, almost half of Indian households claim to be employed in agriculture. On any broad basis, the farm suicide rate is lower than the non-farmer rate.

Puducherry, with little agriculture, has the highest suicide rate among states, followed by Kerala. This surely has nothing to do with low farm prices. Anuradha Bose in The Lancet in 2004 found that the suicide rate among Tamil girls aged 10-19 was 148 per lakh people. This is over ten times the farm suicide rate, yet the latter hogs the headlines. Depression and mental health are the main causes of suicides, which is why rich nations also suffer, but nobody discusses this problem. Official data shows farm suicides rose from around 11,000 in 1995 to 18,241 in 2004, and then fell substantially. Farm suicides fell to 12,602 in 2015 and 11,370 in 2016. This is hardly 8% of total suicides, although almost 50% of the population is engaged in farming. The accuracy of suicide data can be questioned, but the overall trend shows declining, not rising distress.

A reply to a Lok Sabha question showed suicides rising among agricultural labourers (from 4,595 in 2015 to 5,019 in 2016) even as they fell among land-owning farmers (from 8,007 to 6,351). This suggests rural distress is greater among labourers than farmers.

''' The political class has read the agrarian crisis wrong. It's about time rhetoric met reality '''

''' Gajendra Singh ''': In his death, Gajendra Singh gave the political class much to outrage over. And outrage they expressed, but mostly over the wrong reasons. The middle-aged man from a farming family in Rajasthan's Dausa district hanged himself at a farmers' rally organised by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at Jantar Mantar on April 22, 2015. Almost immediately, the televised suicide was taken over by the opposition parties to rail against the Narendra Modi government's land acquisition ordinance, equating Singh's death, and those of other farmers, with the law.

There's very little, however, to suggest any connection between land acquisition and either the rising level of agrarian crisis or the overall number of farmers who took their own lives. And those numbers have in fact declined in the last 10 years until 2013, says the National Crime Records Bureau. But in their attempt to score brownie points, the politicians seemed to be barking up the wrong tree. Discussions in both houses of Parliament focused mostly on easy solutions to the crises, virtually ignoring deeper structural issues that need political solutions.

Not that agrarian crisis is a non-issue. Far from it. The 2011 Census estimates 168 million of India's total 247 million households are in rural areas. The "Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households", conducted during the 70th round of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) held in 2013, says only 90.2 million of those 168 million rural households are engaged in agriculturally productive operations. But that's not the problem. The assessment survey suggests that farmers involved in farming operations on land up to 2 hectares (ha)-the small or marginal farmers-cannot meet even their average monthly consumption expenditure from only incomes generated from farming (cultivation and animal husbandry). It says as many as 78.1 million of the 90.2 million farming households (86.6 per cent) do not earn enough from farming to meet their expenses. And that is where the problem lies.

A NABARD paper released in February 2015 suggested that the average size of operational landholdings has reduced by half in the last 40 years-from 2.28 ha in 1970-71 to 1.16 ha in 2010-11. As a result, the number of landholdings in the marginal and small categories have swelled by 56 million and 11 million, respectively. NABARD's assessment of unviability of smaller farms, in a way, has been validated by NSSO survey results made public in December 2014, which say only farms more than 2 ha are yielding more income than farmers' consumption expenditure.

The solution then lies in arresting this fragmentation and consolidation of farms-a task the political class needs to take up forthwith. "The answer lies in farmers getting together to collectivise farmlands; not Soviet collectivisation but taking the shape of producer companies. (It requires a) limited form of cooperation where a farmer does not give his land away but cooperates for input purchases and selling of the produce," says noted agricultural economist Y.K. Alagh.

Ramesh Chand, director, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), suggests a regulatory framework to facilitate legal leasing of farmland to ensure security and stability for farmers. India's land lease laws are based on conditions dating back to Independence, which makes many farmers unwilling to lease out land. "Or those who want to take farms on lease don't get it," Chand says. "Farmers prefer to keep land fallow rather than lease them out; they fear they would lose control."

For the political class, the challenge lies in fragmentation of landholdings that are getting unviable. Agriculture administrators recommend proliferation of oral or informal leasing/renting of farmland to advocate a legal framework to protect landowners and facilitate consolidation of landholdings.

If this was the winter of discontent for farmers in most parts of north India, the spring arrived with little hope. The unseasonal rain and hailstorm in patches ravaged standing crops on nearly 189 lakh ha of about 606 lakh ha of rabi acreage. The twin demands that arose as a result were of central relief by state governments and relaxation of procurement norms by farmers to ensure their spoilt crop is assured of a market.  

As expected, the political rhetoric has hit the high notes: in Parliament, ruling NDA MPs were keen to highlight the Centre's call to relax relief disbursement norms, while the Opposition panned the government for its failure to release more funds to states promptly. Lost in this politicking was the fine difference between relief and compensation. Lesson for politicians: the Centre provides relief if crops fail, but the need of the hour is to insure them.

Farmers are hardly out of the woods once the yield comes out good and is harvested. The next part of the harrowing journey only begins then. And one merely needs to follow the Gangetic plain eastward to hear complaints of farmers in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal about their produce remaining unsold, or being sold below the minimum support price (MSP).

"Farm holdings are so fragmented in eastern India that farmers find little merit in incurring transportation cost to procurement centres. This allows aggregators, traders to purchase the produce at the farm gate instead of the mandi (wholesale), and that is usually below the MSP," says Ashish Bahuguna, former agriculture secretary.

While the political leadership of Punjab and Haryana, the original Green Revolution states, have institutionalised their procurement networks, political leaders elsewhere, especially in the Gangetic plain, need to learn a lesson from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Chief Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Raman Singh respectively. The two CMs have given a sustained push to a sound procurement network for wheat (MP) and paddy (Chhattisgarh) farmers, and thereby good price for their crops.

Not unlike the politicians, the prevailing laws also do not help much. Both the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Acts and the Essential Commodities Act have patronised traditional and entrenched traders and have not allowed modern trading, and need to be amended. Political leaders need to mull over how to modernise domestic trade to facilitate modern capital infusion to create logistics and storage facilities.

== Fight for inputs ==

The entire political class may take pride in India's agricultural tradition, but most farmers still continue to struggle for basic inputs such as seeds, fertiliser pesticide, irrigation, power and credit. There was a large-scale disruption in fertiliser supply only last year, raising the political heat in several parts. "Inputs such as seed and fertiliser need to be available on time. Fertiliser requirements for kharif crops should be tied up at the end of the previous rabi crop," points out Gurbachan Singh, for-mer federal agriculture commissioner and now chairman of the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board.

The political class also needs to learn from state governments such as Shivraj Singh Chouhan's to expand irrigation coverage to reach the benefits to farmers. Similarly, for power supply for irrigation and other operations they need to look at Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, which have demonstrated efficacy of separate agricultural feeders for farmers.  

As for agriculture credit, though it has jumped to more than Rs 8 lakh crore, Ramesh Chand underlines the wide inequality in institutional credit between states.  

There's a lot to be learnt for politicians to address the varied crises farmers face. As India looks at a year of below-normal monsoon, it's important that they show outrage over deaths such as that of Gajendra Singh's. But that fury has to be for the right reason for it to have any lasting effect.

[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=LEGALLY-SPEAKING-Parties-must-rise-above-politics-over-27042015011031 ''The Times of India'']

We have been told that agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian economy . Monsoon gives life to agriculture. The agricultural workforce reinforces India's granaries and ensures its food security . If agriculture occupies a pivotal role, why have governments in 65 years not been able to improve the plight of the farm workforce? At the same time, land owners have flourished. They own huge tracts of land, which helps them acquire money , muscle and political influence.

In contrast, farmers have remained on the fringes. Over the years, ruling parties have tom-tommed policy decisions to sanction easy farm loans and later, write them off. Who benefits ­ the land owners or the farmers? To take a loan, a farmer has to show that he has land. A small percentage of farmers own land. So, loans are cornered by land owners. When loans are written off, its double benefit for them.

Most land owners give their land for farming on contract basis. The usual contract is the farmer will till the land, sow the seeds, water the crop and look after it. At harvest time, the land owner will take either onethird or half the crop. To buy seeds, fertilizer and other farm requirements, the farmer needs money . He takes loan, not from banks but village money-lenders at hefty rate of interest. Given the inadequate irrigation system, most farmers feel the heat in a bad monsoon year. Failed crop means loan defaults. Spiraling interest soon overtakes the principal, due to which the trapped farmers seek release by embracing death.

A farmer's death at the AAP rally at Jantar Mantar showed us yet again the eagerness of parties to score brownie points, unmindful of the fact that our policies have failed to ensure a better life for those who take care of our food and fill our granaries.

All parties behaved as if this death exemplified the present situation of farmers.Irrespective of the party in government in various states, thousands of farmers have ended their lives over the years to escape the debt trap. The party which sold dreams to hitch a ride to power says it is not even a year-old and blames the previous party which was in power. But no one has given a concrete policy framework providing farmers an honourable release from the debt trap.

The farmers' plight was explained vividly by the Supreme Court in its December 14, 2010 judgment in Maha rashtra vs Sarangdhar Singh Shivda Singh Chavan case. It was about the illegal money lending (at the rate of 10% interest a month) racket in Maharashtra. The petitioners said, “Nearly 300 farmers have committed suicide in Vidarbha as victims of such illegal money lending business and the torture perpetrated by the recovery of such money . A complaint has been made that the farmers do not get the benefit of various packages announced by the government and the state machinery is ruthless against farmers.“

The collector of Buldhana, on instructions of the then Congress CM, had ordered non-registration of police case against a money lender, Gukulchand Sananda, and his family , despite 50 complaints against them.The SC had sought explanation from the ex-CM, who in 2010 was Union minister for heavy industries. The exCM didn't deny the charge of his office asking the collector not to register a case against the Sananda family .

In the verdict's concluding paragraph, the SC had said, “This court is extremely anguished to see that such an instruction could come from the chief minister of a state which is governed under a Constitution which resolves to constitute India into a socialist, secular, democratic republic. CM's instructions are so incongruous and anachronistic, being in defiance of all logic and reason, that our conscience is deeply disturbed.We condemn the same in no uncertain terms.“

Such serious judicial condemnation did not cast any shadow on the politician's career. He merrily continued in the UPA cabinet. None ­ he himself, his party or the prime minister -suffered any moral pang.

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F06%2F02&entity=Ar01700&sk=4B4D137F&mode=text  SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR, June 2, 2019: ''The Times of India'']

BJP’s rural votes show talk of farm crisis misleading

Annual GDP growth fell from 6.9% in 2017-18 to 6.8% in 2018-19. Worse, GDP in the latest January-March 2019 quarter slowed to just 5.8%. Yet Narendra Modi swept the general election. The BJP’s national vote share rose from 31.3% to 37.5%. In the seats it contested, its vote share rose to 46%. Contradicting conventional wisdom on agrarian distress, the BJP actually boosted its vote share in rural areas to roughly 46%, double the Congress’ 23%.

This suggests that talk of agrarian distress is much exaggerated. The latest data shows that agricultural growth in 2018-19 was 2.9%. Growth fell quarter after quarter — 5.1%, 4.9%, 2.8% and -0.1%. Clearly a good rabi and summer crop in 2018 was followed by serious slowing because of drought.

Congress apologists argue that Modi diverted voter attention from agrarian distress to the Balakot bombing, highlighting the need for a strongman to enhance national security. But the very fact that economic issues could so easily be overwhelmed by security issues proves that the economy is not in such bad shape. Yes, there is a slowdown. That always causes some pain. But it does not amount to a crisis. That word is seriously overused.

No country has managed more than 3% agricultural growth over a long period. The main reason is that you can build more factories to boost industry and more offices to boost services, but you cannot create more land to expand agriculture. Indeed, with growing urbanisation, India’s cultivated area is falling. So, all gains have to come from higher productivity.

Globally, agricultural productivity has grown historically at barely 2% a year. India’s potential is higher than in some other countries because of catch-up possibilities. Yields in India are far below those in China or Egypt. Even so, calling India’s agricultural growth of 2.5 -3% in the last decade an “agrarian crisis” is simply wrong.

Farmer agitations have risen. They are equally common in rich countries where farmers earn 100 times more. Rising agitations reflect rising returns from demonstrations as governments give in, not distress. Distress was worst in the twin droughts of 1965-66 but there were no agitations, just starvation.

The main rural problem is that rising population has reduced the average farm size to 1-2 acres. Prosperity on such tiny plots is impossible. Agriculture accounts for barely 13% of GDP today but almost 50% of employment. The answer is to move people massively out of agriculture into industry and services.

India has failed there. Its labour laws have prevented the emergence of giant factories (as in China and Bangladesh) with tens of thousands of workers. So, ironically, the biggest rural problem is labour legislation. A massive shift of people out of agriculture would help double or triple farm size.

=Agrarian crises, flashpoints, distress signals=

==As in 2018==

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F12%2F13&entity=Ar00401&sk=901A7111&mode=text  Surojit Gupta, 10 REASONS WHY FARMERS ARE IN DISTRESS, December 13, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, 2011-18; Value of agricultural output; Value of manufacturing production; Share of agriculture & manufacturing in states' GDP; Per capita GDP.jpg|Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, 2011-18 <br/>  Value of agricultural output <br/> Value of manufacturing production <br/> Share of agriculture & manufacturing in states' GDP <br/> Per capita GDP <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F12%2F13&entity=Ar00401&sk=901A7111&mode=text  Surojit Gupta, 10 REASONS WHY FARMERS ARE IN DISTRESS, December 13, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

'''1 Two years of drought'''

Two successive years of drought (2014, 2015) have taken a toll on the farm sector. The government has allocated significant funds for the sector but slow implementation of projects has not eased the pain. Drought in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka have also added to farmers’ woes

'''2 Collapsing farm prices'''

Prices have collapsed for farm commodities. Low international prices have meant exports have been hit while imports have hurt prices at home. For example, there was a bumper production of pulses in 2016-17 but imports of nearly 6.6 million tonnes arrived, compounding the problem. In 2017-18, another 5.6 million tonnes flowed in, depressing domestic prices further. The government delayed imposing tariffs on imports, which heightened the problem of prices for farmers. According to a Niti Aayog paper, on average, farmers do not realise remunerative prices due to limited reach of the minimum support prices (MSP) and an agricultural marketing system that delivers only a small fraction of the final price to the actual farmer

'''3 Insurance fails to serve'''

The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana was launched in 2016 to provide insurance and financial support to farmers in the event of failure of any crops due to natural calamities, pests and diseases. It was also meant to stabilise the income of farmers and ensure they remain in farming. But the scheme has seen lower enrolments due to a string of factors, including high premiums and lack of innovation by insurance firms

Irrigation is crucial for the farm sector, where large tracts of land still depend on monsoon rains. The Centre launched the Rs 40,000-crore Long-Term Irrigation Fund, operated by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard). Under this programme, 99 large irrigation projects were to be completed by December 2019 but the progress so far has been limited. Experts say a number of factors, including bureaucratic delays and slow implementation by states, have hurt progress for this crucial input

5 Marketing is ignored According to a Niti Aayog document, farm sector development has ignored the potential of marketing. Archaic laws still hobble the sector. Access of farmers to well-developed markets remains an issue although several initiatives have been launched to develop an electronic market place. Reforms to the APMC Act have been slow and most states have dragged their feet on it. Experts suggest an entity such as the GST Council to bring together states and the Centre to jointly take decisions to reform the sector and provide better access to markets for farmers. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the combination of market regulations and infrastructure deficiencies leads to a price depressing effect on the sector

'''6 Modern tech missing'''

Introduction of latest technology has been limited due to a number of reasons. Access to modern technology could act as a boost to productivity through improved variety of seeds, farm implements and farming technology. According to a Niti Aayog paper, there has been no real technological breakthrough in recent times

Large gaps in storage, cold chains and limited connectivity have added to the woes of farmers. It has also added to the significant post-harvest losses of fruit and vegetables, estimated at 4% to 16% of the total output, according to the OECD

'''8 Lack of food processing clusters'''

This has meant that there is little incentives for farmers to diversify. According to an OECD document, share of high-value sectors in food processing is low with fruit, vegetable and meat products accounting for 5% and 8% of the total value of output compared to cerealbased products at 21% and oilseeds at 18%

'''9 Delayed FCI reforms'''

A government-appointed panel had recommended that FCI hand over all procurement operations of wheat, paddy and rice to states that have gained sufficient experience in this regard and have created reasonable infrastructure for procurement. These states are Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh. It had suggested a complete overhaul of FCI and recommended that farmers be given direct cash subsidy (of about Rs 7000/ha) and fertiliser sector deregulated. The panel had said direct cash subsidy to farmers will go a long way to help those who take loans from money lenders at exorbitant interest rates to buy fertilisers or other inputs, thus relieving some distress in the agrarian sector. The report has been put in cold storage

'''10 Low productivity'''

The share of the farm sector in GDP has declined from 29% in 1990 to about 17% in 2016, but it remains a major source of employment. According to OECD data, 85% of operational land holdings are less than 2 hectares and account for 45% of the total cropped area. Only 5% of farmers work on land holding larger than 4 hectares, according to the Agricultural Census, 2016. Productivity lags other Asian economies such as China, Vietnam and Thailand and average yields are low compared to other global producers. Wheat and rice yields are nearly 3 times lower than world yields while those for mango, banana, onion or potato are between 2 and 7 times lower than the highest yields achieved globally, according to the OECD

==2010-11==

[http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=132799  9^th December 2018: ''Press Information Bureau'']

As per Agriculture Census 2010-11,

·        Total number of operational holdings were estimated as 138.35 million.

·        The total operated area was 159.59 million hectare.

·        The average size of the holding has been estimated as 1.15 hectare. The average size of holdings has shown a steady declining trend over various Agriculture Censuses since, 1970-71.

·        The Size Group wise percentage of number and area of operational holdings are given in the following table.

'''Percentage of number of operational holdings to total'''

Marginal (below 1.00 ha.)

21.20

Large (10.00 ha. & above)

10.59

·        The Gross Cropped Area (GCA) was estimated at 193.76 million hectare.

·        The nine States, viz., Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and West Bengal together account for about 78 per cent of the Gross Cropped Area in the country.

·        The Cropping Intensity as per Agriculture Census 2010-11 works out to 1.37.

·        For 96.95 per cent of operational holdings, entire operated area was located within the village of residence.

·        Among various sources of irrigation, Tube-wells was main source of irrigation followed by canals.

All India level, during 2010-11, the proportion of net irrigated area to net area sown was 45.70 percent.

Agriculture Census in India is conducted at five yearly intervals for collection of information about structural aspects of agricultural holdings in the country. The basic statistical unit for data collection is ‘Operational Holding’. The reference year for the present Census was Agriculture Year 2010-11 (July-June). Agriculture Census data is collected in three phases. During Phase-I, data is collected on primary characteristics such as number and area of operational holdings. In Phase-II, detailed data is collected on sample basis from 20 per cent villages covering characteristics such as tenancy, land use, irrigation, cropping pattern, dispersal of holding etc. During Phase-III, generally referred to as Input Survey, data is collected on pattern of use of inputs.

{| border="1"

'''Sl.No.'''

'''Category'''

The concept of agricultural operational holdings does not include those holdings which are not operating any agricultural land and are engaged exclusively in livestock, poultry and fishing etc. On the basis of operated area, operational holdings in Agriculture Census are categorized as follows:-

The results of Phase-I and Phase-II of Agriculture Census 2010-11 have already been finalized and released. The detailed data /tables of Agriculture Census are available in the website of the Department at http://agcensus.nic.in. The All India Report of Agriculture Census 2010-11 is based on the data collected during Phase-II of the Census.

==1970-2016: farm size shrinks, women landowners rise ==

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F10%2F02&entity=Ar01707&sk=E6E02DB0&mode=text  Vishwa Mohan, Slide in farm size, but women land owners rise: Agri census, October 2, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: 1970-2016- Land holdings, total number and average size.jpg|1970-2016/ Landholdings, total number and average size <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F10%2F02&entity=Ar01707&sk=E6E02DB0&mode=text  Vishwa Mohan, Slide in farm size, but women landowners rise: Agri census, October 2, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

The increase in farmland holdings, a consistent trend since the 1970s, has been slowing down in the past 20 years but there is a rise in the number of female landholders, a possible indicator of higher involvement in farm activities, the provisional agriculture census 2015-16, has revealed.

The trend could mean the association of farming with “kisan bhai (farmer brothers)” might be less exclusively a male domain than popular belief has it. The trend may reflect migration of men to cities for non-agricultural activities and also explain slowing down of land division as rural people seek alternate livelihoods.

The figures show landholdings have doubled in past 45 years (from 71million in 1970-71 to 146 million in 2015-16), resulting in decline in average size of farms by more than 50% — a real worry for policy-makers as this makes agriculture unremunerative for farmers.

But the pace of such division is declining. Number of land holdings increased by 12% from 1995-96 to 2000-01, 7.5 % after that till 2005-06, 6.9% by 2010-11and 5.33% till 2015-16.

The agriculture census is carried out at five-year intervals as part of the world agriculture census programme. The first census in India was conducted in 1970-71. Data provides valuable inputs to policy makers as they plan various intervention.

The current agriculture census is the 10th in the series whose final figures, comprising other details, are expected to be released by December. According to provisional data, the percentage share of female land holders increased from 12.79% (17.65 million) in 2010-11 to 13.87% (20.25 million) in 2015-16. Their numbers were nearly 11% ( 15.11 million) in 2005-06.

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F02%2F03&entity=Ar01112&sk=D7052C80&mode=text  Vishwa Mohan, UP to gain most from PM’s farm proposal, February 3, 2019: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: Landholders and landholdings- all- India and state-wise- 2015-16.jpg|Landholders and landholdings: all- India and state-wise: 2015-16 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F02%2F03&entity=Ar01112&sk=D7052C80&mode=text  Vishwa Mohan, UP to gain most from PM’s farm proposal, February 3, 2019: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

''In Percentage Terms, Kerala Top Beneficiary''

State-wise figures of such landholders show that over 50% of total beneficiaries will collectively be from five states with the highest of them (2.21 crore) coming from UP, followed by Bihar (1.59 crore), Maharashtra (1.18 crore), MP and Andhra Pradesh (over 75 lakh each). Over 80% of total beneficiaries will come from 10 states where Kerala figures at the top in percentage terms followed by Bihar, West Bengal, UP and Tamil Nadu. Except Bihar and West Bengal, all the states in the list along with Telangana have adequate digital land records.

These figures are part of the 2015-16 agriculture census, released late last year, which will be the basis of implementing the assured income support programme while arriving at corroborative land data.

Union agriculture minister Radha Mohan Singh confirmed to TOI about making the 2015-16 census as the basis of implementing the programme. The ministry on Friday wrote to all states asking them to share their digital land data base comprising details of beneficiaries including name, gender and SC/ST status. States which don’t have complete records in digital formats may share their data of beneficiaries of various schemes.

The Centre will issue detailed guidelines for the implementation of the scheme in the next two-three days and appoint link officers in agriculture ministry for each state for monitoring.

Asked how the Centre would arrive at exact data of beneficiaries for properly implementing the scheme, additional secretary in agriculture ministry Ashok Dalwai said, “It’ll be implemented through electronic medium so that money is transferred directly to the farmers’ ‘Jan Dhan’ accounts”.

[[File: Agriculture reforms The best performing states, presumably in 2015.jpg| Agriculture reforms: The best performing states, presumably in 2015 |frame|500px]]

[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Maha-tops-Niti-Aayogs-agriculture-reforms-index-01112016017014  Maha tops Niti Aayog's agriculture reforms index. Nov 01 2016 : The Times of India]

Maharashtra is on top of the ladder, followed by Gujarat and Rajasthan, in Niti Aayog's index reflecting states' performance in undertaking agriculture and farm sector reforms.

The first-ever such index, by Niti Aayog, is aimed at ranking states on the basis of implementing agriculture marketing reforms and ease of doing agri-business.

States like Bihar, Kerala and Manipur are not included in the ranking because they either did not adopt Agricultural produce market committee (APMC) or revoked it. “We are talking to them as we think this is not the best thing to do,“ said Ramesh Chand, member of Niti Aayog. Almost two-third of the states could not reach even half way mark of reform score of the index. Major states like UP , Punjab, West Bengal, Assam, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu and J&K, have poorly performed .

As per the states' score in the in dex, Madhya Pradesh ranked fourth, followed by Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Goa and Chhattisgarh.An official said, “The index is aimed at helping the states to identify and address problems in the farm sector, which suffers from low growth, low income and agrarian distress.“

Stressing on urgent need to push reforms in the farm sector, Niti Aayog vice-chairman Arvind Panagariya said that post 1991, reforms focused on non-agriculture sector. “Reforms did not focus on the agri sector. One effort was made in 2003 through the model APMC Act reform and some progress was made but not enough and that has led to gap between industry and services on one hand and agri on other hand,“ he added.

[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=STATOISTIC-SUPERHIT-CEREALS-27042015007029 ''The Times of India''], Apr 27 2015

Between the 1940s and 1960s, research helped many countries increase agricultural yields. The yield per hectare is an indicator of the use of modern techniques like mechanisation and use of high-yielding varieties as well as improvement of traditional infrastructure like irrigation. The World Bank includes wheat, rice, maize, barley, oats, rye, millet, sorghum, buckwheat and mixed grains to calculate cereal yields. A comparison of India with other major economies shows that India's cereal yield is among the lowest. In 2013, cereal yield in the US was about two and half times that of India.

=‘Big’ landholders=

==2015-16==

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F06%2F04&entity=Ar00302&sk=CAF45D4F&mode=text  Vishwa Mohan, June 4, 2019: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: Categories of landholders, 2015-16.jpg|Categories of landholders, 2015-16 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F06%2F04&entity=Ar00302&sk=CAF45D4F&mode=text Vishwa Mohan, June 4, 2019: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

Though such big landholders account for merely 0.6% of total farmers in India, their numbers in some states, such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Karnataka, Haryana and Gujarat, are high.

''2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part I''

''2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part II''

[[File: 2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part I.jpg|2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part I <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F02%2F02&entity=Ar01209&sk=41F0FC5D&mode=text  February 2, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

[[File: 2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part II.jpg|2009-18- higher incomes for food producers were accompanied by higher costs as well-Part II <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F02%2F02&entity=Ar01209&sk=41F0FC5D&mode=text  February 2, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=LEARNING-WITH-TIMES-MSP-fixed-for-23-farm-12062017011044  Jun 12 2017: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: Fixation of Minimum Support Price, the procedure.jpg|Fixation of Minimum Support Price, the procedure; [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=LEARNING-WITH-TIMES-MSP-fixed-for-23-farm-12062017011044  Jun 12 2017: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

''Fixation of Minimum Support Price, the procedure''

The government fixes minimum support prices or MSPs for a selected list of crops that account for the bulk of India's cropped area. These prices are announced at the beginning of each sowing season. The government essentially guarantees to buy any of the harvest that is offered to it at this price. The assurance of remunerative prices are supposed to encourage farmers to invest more and hence increase production of these crops. If the market price after the harvest is more than the MSP , farmers would be able to get a higher return but if not, the MSP is supposed to provide a safeguard against prices falling too low.

'''What are the factors that determine MSP?'''

The MSP is fixed for 23 agricultural commodities for which the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) is required to give recommendations to the government. Various criteria encompassing the interests of both producers and consumers are used for fixing the MSP . The commission assesses demand and supply by sending questionnaires and holding discussions with government agencies and various trade and industry bodies.

'''Do all farmers get benefited by MSP?'''

A 2016 NITI Aayog evaluation report on MSP that studied 36 districts in 14 states showed a mixed picture. While there is general consensus among farmers that MSP should continue, there are huge implementation issues. Only 10% of the farmers surveyed were aware of MSP before the sowing season, which meant there was no incentive to have a particular crop. Also, despite knowing about MSP many farmers could not sell their products to FCI because of various logistical issues like transportation and storage. A vast majority of Indian farmers are small farmers and a delay in official procurement (which is quite frequent) forces them into distress sales of their product due to urgent need of money .Also, public procurement at MSP is largely focused on certain crops like paddy , wheat and sugarcane and on cer tain states like Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and so on.

'''Why do some criticise the concept of an MSP?'''

They argue that political pressure increases the MSP without considering the size of the harvest. As a result, prices may not fall despite a good harvest and there could be inflationary pressure on consumers. The middle men who procure crops from marginal farmers and sell it to FCI centres would be the ones to benefit as the farmer gets a low price because of the high yield and prices will not fall correspondingly for the consumers. Also, they say large scale procurement effectively reduces the amount of the produce that reaches open markets and hence creates an artificial shortage in these markets, thereby pushing up prices.

''Minimum Support Price in India, a timeline, 1958-2017''

'''See graphic''':

''How MSP has increased over the years, 1985-2018''

Fixing the minimum support price (MSP) to deliver remunerative prices to farmers have been at the forefront of the debate on the farm crisis. In July 2018, the govt implemented a budget promise that the govt will fix MSP at 50% over the cost. The big question is, will higher MSP end farmer crisis? Here's a look at how MSP has risen over the years.

[[File: Minimum Support Price- wheat, paddy and coarse cereals, 2002-03 to 2017-18, year-wise.jpg|Minimum Support Price- wheat, paddy and coarse cereals, 2002-03 to 2017-18, year-wise <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F01%2F17&entity=Ar03109&sk=E05B418B&mode=image&fbclid=IwAR2Ym9MeI_BV2bpwXWN4kfko2AJAFk0sRMpTmzryxXqtZ28sti8AmsWdc3s  January 17, 2019: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

''Minimum Support Price- wheat, paddy and coarse cereals: 1985-86 to 2001-02, year-wise''

''Minimum Support Price- wheat, paddy and coarse cereals, 2002-03 to 2017-18, year-wise''

==2018: India giving rice, wheat excess support, US tells WTO==

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F10&entity=Ar02802&sk=9A3F4B6F&mode=text  May 10, 2018: The Times of India]

India is supporting its rice and wheat farmers with payments that are far higher than the amounts allowed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US said in a statement published by the WTO on Wednesday.

“It appears that India provides market price support (MPS) for wheat and rice vastly in excess of what it has reported to the WTO,” the US statement said. “India’s apparent MPS for wheat appears to have been over 60% of the value of production in each of the last four years for which India has notified data. Its apparent MPS for rice appears to have been over 70%.”

Anything over 10% would break WTO rules, it added. India has made reform of agricultural subsidies a major negotiating issue at the WTO in the past five years.

It has won preliminary WTO backing for a system of public stockholding of farm produce for food security purposes, but the US and others have been wary of its plans, warning that payments which encourage production could lead to oversupply and potentially a spillover onto world markets. In its analysis, the United States looked at India’s payments for the four most recent years that it had notified to the WTO, from 2010-11 to 2013-14.

The US statement said that India was the world’s second or third largest agricultural producer.

==‘Kharif MSP to be 150% of production cost:’ PM, 2018==

[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIM%2F2018%2F06%2F30&entity=Ar01812&sk=7BFF7803&mode=text  June 30, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: MSP for Kharif; Commodity MSP (per quintal) 2017-18.jpg|MSP for Kharif; Commodity MSP (per quintal) 2017-18 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIM%2F2018%2F06%2F30&entity=Ar01812&sk=7BFF7803&mode=text   June 30, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the government would fix the minimum support price (MSP) for kharif crops at 150% of the production cost, in line with the promise to compensate farmers and tackle distress in rural areas.  

The government will announce the MSP for kharif crops next week after the Union cabinet approves the move, Modi told sugarcane farmers in an interaction at his residence. This is part of the government’s effort to double farmers income by 2022, a poll promise of BJP, and ends speculation regarding the delay in fixing MSP rates. The PM also said the government would raise fair and remunerative price for sugarcane for 2018-19 in the next two weeks.

“It will provide incentive for those farmers whose recovery from sugarcane will be higher than 9.5%,” he said, adding that recent measures undertaken by the government had helped reduce cane arrears by more than Rs 4,000 crore in the past 7-10 days.  

The Union budget for 2018-19 had unveiled the idea of raising the MSP for farmers. In the past months, a highpowered committee of ministers has held several meetings to work out the MSP proposal considering this will require government spending from the exchequer and is likely to impact inflation.  

Modi called for use of sprinkler and drip irrigation, latest farming techniques, solar pumps and solar panels in their farms. He also emphasised on value addition of crops, judicious use of farm waste, and up to 10% reduction in use of chemical fertilisers by 2022.

==The MSP in 2018==

[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/govt-announces-new-msp-of-kharif-crops-nutri-cereals-millets-got-substantial-hike/articleshow/64854455.cms  Vishwa Mohan, MSP of 14 kharif crops hiked, millet growers to benefit, July 4, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: The Minimum Support Price for various cereals and pulses, as till 2017 and proposed for 2018-I.jpg|The Minimum Support Price for various cereals and pulses, as till 2017 and proposed for 2018-I <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/govt-announces-new-msp-of-kharif-crops-nutri-cereals-millets-got-substantial-hike/articleshow/64854455.cms  Vishwa Mohan, MSP of 14 kharif crops hiked, millet growers to benefit, July 4, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

[[File: The Minimum Support Price for various cereals and pulses, as till 2017 and proposed for 2018-II.jpg|The Minimum Support Price for various cereals and pulses, as till 2017 and proposed for 2018-II <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/govt-announces-new-msp-of-kharif-crops-nutri-cereals-millets-got-substantial-hike/articleshow/64854455.cms  Vishwa Mohan, MSP of 14 kharif crops hiked, millet growers to benefit, July 4, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

The Centre hiked the minimum support price (MSP) of 14 kharif (summer sown) crops for the 2018-19 marketing season, syncing it with BJP’s 2014 poll promise to provide farmers a profit margin of at least 50% over their cost of production for all the notified crops across the country.  

Seven of these 14 crops have reported hikes of nearly 20% or more as compared to the MSP of these crops in 2017-18. The most popular kharif crop, paddy, has, however, got a hike of nearly 13% (from Rs 1,550 per quintal in 2017-18 to Rs 1,750 per quintal in 2018-19).  

The new MSPs of these crops were approved by the Cabinet committee on economic affairs (CCEA), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday. Modi later called it a “historic increase” and tweeted that the government has fulfilled its promise of increasing the MSP to the tune of one and a half times of the cost of production.  

The announcement comes against the backdrop of the political imperative to fulfil the commitment to improve the deal for farmers ahead of the crucial round of state elections and the 2019 battle for the control of the Lok Sabha.

Interestingly, less-water-consuming and climate-resilient millets (jowar, bajra and ragi) — recently notified by the government as “nutri-cereals” due to their very high nutritional value — got substantial hikes as compared to the water-guzzling paddy. As compared to the acreage of paddy (396 lakh hectares), the millets currently cover nearly 120 lakh hectares of land during kharif season — less than one-third of the acreage of paddy.