Unfortunately, the government could not resist giving the decision a political twist. It justified its scaling down of the Commission's recommendations on the grounds that some state governments had difficulties with them. Some of the governments indicated are run by parties in opposition to the coalition at the Centre. They firmly rejected this claim, which cast them in the role of opposing higher prices for their farmers, which could prove to be politically costly in the elections coming up over the next several months. Rather than trying to score political points through this needless controversy, the government should recognise that its political survival depends most importantly on its ability to gain control over inflation, particularly in food items. This is most likely to be achieved by raising the price by just enough to ensure that production is not intentionally reduced by farmers. If it had the good sense to do just this, then this is the message that it should be sending out to the ultimate vote bank, the average consumer.
The immediate issue of managing supplies and prices aside, the recent shocks from food prices around the world have focused the spotlight on the efficiency of agricultural policy regimes around the world. India, given its income levels and employment patterns, is among the most vulnerable to the kind of price volatility that was seen recently. For this reason, politics will never be disentangled from food pricing and distribution. However, the least that the citizen can expect is that the nexus between the two is constructive. This calls for a transparent long-term policy framework that is followed by the government of the day, with genuine monitoring by the opposition.