Like all pledges, this one too could have comfortably receded into graveyard of political rhetoric. But the new government has chosen to reiterate the promise with some enthusiasm. And although this crucial ministry still lacks a minister of cabinet rank, its minister of state for agriculture Som Pal has even said the government would allocate 60 per cent of plan funds for agriculture.
This claim, then, calls for more than a cursory look. Even assuming the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lasts ten years in power, two questions arise. Is this a feasible promise? And two, is it needed? Our research shows that the answer to the first question is no. To the second, maybe not.
Here's why. Doubling foodgrain production in the next 10 years implies a compounded annual growth rate of 7.17 per cent. But through the nineties, foodgrain production has been growing at an average annual rate of 1.7 per cent. That too in an era that has seen nine consecutive good monsoons. So the government would need to more than quadruple this historical rate of growth every year.
The task would be increasingly difficult because all the factors that affect agricultural output -- area, yield, irrigation, capital formation -- show declining or or plateauing growth.
Availability of land could be the biggest inhibitor to agricultural growth. The potential of expanding net sown area is practically nil. The growth rate of area under foodgrains (rice, wheat, coarse cereals, gram, pulses) was a minimal 0.38 per cent between 1967-68 to 1980-81. This has actually been reducing at the rate of -0.28 since then (till 1995-96).
Accelerated growth would, therefore, need far more effort at increasing yields, cropping intensity, irrigation and input use. But crop yields are also stagnating (see chart: The food chain). According to the Economic Survey 1996-97, part of the reason for falling yields is that the seed technology breakthrough that spawned the green revolution seems to have lost momentum in the nineties. It is this virtual stagnation in the evolution of new seed varieties that could thwart the BJP's vast agricultural plan.
Irrigation is another major hindrance; it has grown at a slow pace and its potential hugely unexploited. For instance, the target for fresh creation of irrigation potential during the eighth plan (1992-97) was 15.80 million hectares while anticipated achievement during 1992-96 is only 8.34 million hectares. Irrigation's share in plan funds has also been declining steadily (18.7 per cent in the first plan, 8.9 per cent in seventh plan and 7.5 per cent in eighth plan).
The dismal trend of capital formation (especially public investment) in the sector is unlikely to help reverse this trend either. The compound annual growth rate of gross capital formation in agriculture during the post-green revolution period (1969-70 to 1990-91) was lower at 2.3 per cent compared to 3.8 per cent in the period that preceded the pre-green revolution (1950-51 to 1964-65).
Also, since 1990-91, public investment has been falling and its share has declined to almost half its 1980-81 level . The Economic Survey attributes this decline to the diversion of resources from investment to the ever-mounting "current expenditure" or subsidies.
The government thinks it has the answer in its 60 per cent plan allocation (which also include expenditure on flood control and rural development). Compare this figure with past trends.While the eighth plan had apportioned 20.6 per cent of funds to these heads, the draft ninth plan document had set aside only 19.4 per cent!
Even if this promise finds a place in the new ninth plan document that the government intends to formulate, the drastic reallocation of plan funds that it would entail is bound to create a problem. From which sectors precisely will the money be extracted? Infrastructure? Surely not. The government is, in fact, committed to increasing public investment in this sector. The social sector then? Possibly, but that gets little enough money anyway.
But is this vaulting ambition worth all this trouble? After all, in the past 50 years, the country has not only become self-sufficient in cereals, it has also increased per capita foodgrain production by around 35 per cent. And any temporary shortfall, can be made up from the international market.
For one, doubling foodgrain production would create serious logistics problems. The massive transportation needs of these low value-high volume bulky grains would require huge capacity additions in the rail and road networks. There would also be the daunting task of carrying large food inventories from one year to the next in the face of financially unremunerative exports.
This is not all. The 10-year doubling programme could also put pressure on the environment. Says B B Bhattacharya of the Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi: "Food production is constrained by natural resources like land and water. If you try and extract too much too fast, it could cause serious ecological imbalances."
So surely the BJP's think tank had a compelling reason to pursue this formidable goal? Jagdish Shettigar, economist and BJP idealogue, has one explanation. "India might be self-sufficient in terms of `effective demand' -- that is, demand backed by purchasing power. But what about those without the purchasing power?."
Admittedly, the average annual foodgrain growth rate of 1.7 per cent in the nineties has lagged behind population growth of 1.9 per cent. A study by the Food and Agricultural Organisation during 1992-94 shows that around two billion people in the world suffer from "silent hunger"; and one-third of these people live in India. "If we double foodgrain production, more food could percolate to these people," says Shettigar.
But according to experts, even this concern for food security does not really need doubling production. A better targeted public distribution system would work just as well. Shettigar now comes clean on the issue: "One should try to reach for the stars; at least, you'll reach the tree-top." Does this mean that the party has already accounted for unavoidable delays, bureaucratic tardiness and political hurdles, and hopes to achieve, perhaps, just a 50 per cent rise in 10 years? Shettigar only smiles.
