Subbaiya is a farmer belonging to one of the backward villages of Andhra Pradesh.

His family was engaged in agriculture as long as his eightyyear-old grandmother could remember. This year Mr. Surya Narayan Reddy of his zila (district) was standing for elections. He promised the farmers free electricity, water, highly subsidized fertilizers and pesticides and last but not the least a higher price for their crops. Subsequently, he won the elections and didnt come back to the village till the next elections. Before the sowing season began, a coterie of government agents and officials from some biotechnology company arrived to replace the indigenous cost free seeds with corporate seeds, which in addition of not being free of cost also required the farmers to use fertilizers and pesticides, in return of higher yield. This resulted in a substantial increase in the expenditure, forcing them to borrow money from moneylenders. These moneylenders unlike banks charge high interest rates, but are more approachable as they require less collateral support on the part of the poor farmers. So, Subbaiya and other farmers, in the hope of receiving free electricity, water and subsidized pesticides and fertilizers and a higher yield buy these seeds from the MNCs by borrowing money from the moneylenders. Concessional credit facilities offered by the government are not yet widespread in rural areas. Therefore, they keep going back to the traditional and exploitative moneylenders for credit. The entry of commercial seeds in the Indian market is a consequence of the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank, in 1998, which forced the Indian government to open up its seed sector to MNCs such as Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta. These companies sold hybrid varieties of seeds that could not be saved by farmers due to patents as well as engineering of seeds. This forced the farmers to buy seeds year after year, which was not the case earlier. The support promised by the government to farmers under various schemes, also proved a set back, as the electricity was rarely supplied and the subsidies reached all farmers without any differentiation between the rich and the poor farmers. Subbaiya and the relatives of Surya Narayan Reddy who belonged to richer sections received subsidies alike. Also, Subbaiya owned a cotton farm and thereby was entitled to Rs 1300 per acre subsidy and he received this on time. And this season there were no rains; therefore his only source of water was the nearby bore well

whose water was sourced through irrigational facilities. But due to the dearth of electricity, the field could not be fed with water. TNEB (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) has an estimated Rs10, 000 crore in losses. The agriculture sector of TN contributes as much as 40% of this loss due to the governments policy of providing free electricity to the agriculture sector. There has been a shortage of power supply for over a decade. This has lead to increasing power cuts, therefore making available only a very minimal amount of electricity for the farmers, which has started to affect their yields. Similarly subsidized pesticides and fertilizers encourage harmful farming practices, which increases the replenishment period. This meant that the productivity of the farmland would come down if enough time were not given to replenish the land of its minerals etc. If the required time was not given then it will lead to a fall in the yield in the next season, ultimately reducing the farmers earnings. The use of chemicals also pollutes ground water resources and other nearby water sources. But these fertilizers and pesticides are the only source of increasing productivity and reducing crop failure for the current harvest. Therefore, government policies, in large, disregard the education of the farmer in various areas and encourage them to follow practices which are ultimately harmful not only to the farmers, but also the consumers of the crops. Also, according to Jeffery Sachs, an American economist, subsidies are being grabbed by the rich farmers and others close to the officials. Therefore, what is rightly meant for the poor farmers is being unfairly given to the rich farmers, further increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor. Along with this there is always the case of fluctuation in fertilizers and pesticide prices, which is not included in the subsidies program of the government. After harvest, the farmers sell their produce immediately as they do not have the necessary facilities to store their produce. So, they sell it to the merchant and other middlemen as soon as possible to avoid any kind of damage. This merchant class buys the produce at exceptionally low rates and sells them at higher prices. Subbaiyas neighbor Ram owned a coconut farm, which produced around 300-350 coconuts each year. He sold these to Ramana, a merchant for Rs 2 each. Ramana in turn sold these at Rs 8 each to the individuals who sell coconut on the streets in cities. His price is higher then the price at which he bought from Ram plus freight cost, as this would add up to only Rs 4

each. Now, the individuals from the city who bought the coconuts in turn sell it for Rs 15 each. Ram only earned a profit of Rs 0.5 per coconut where as Ramana a profit of Rs 4 each and the final coconut sellers earn Rs 7 each. This phenomenon is not just restricted to state or national level, but is also seen in the international market. Now, Ram also produces grapes and his major market is UK. So, once the grapes are ripe enough to be sold. He plucks them puts them in cartons and sells them to the agent of a UK based company that acts as a wholesaler and sells grapes to supermarkets in the UK. According to HM Revenue & Customs, between January and December, the total value of fruit imported from India amounted to 32 million and 40% of all fruit imported from India was fresh grapes. The average import value of these grapes was 96p per kg, but it was sold in UK supermarkets for almost 3 to 4 times this amount. This is a blatant example of exploitation of Indian farmers. Farmers, such as, Ram are exploited adversely as companies and middlemen earn high returns at the cost of these farmers earnings and lives in some cases. Subbaiya also has a brother Raghu, who had an acre land. He used it to grow Paddy. But at the time of harvest prices fell, fetching an amount that didnt even cover his costs. Despite the purpose of Minimum Support Price (MSP) being to insure the farmers against agriculture price volatility, it hasnt really served its purpose in many states. For instance, in 2006, the MSP for grain was set just 1.6% higher than the previous year, despite wholesale prices rising 4.3% in the previous year. This is an exemplary of poor planning. Subbaiyas crop sadly failed, which meant he had no income and also no money for going back to agriculture. It was difficult for him to narrow down to the reason for the failure. This was the first time he adopted a genetically modified crop, so he was even more clueless. But the fact that many who had adopted this crop in his village, in expectation of a higher yield and riches, faced crop failure proved that the culprit was none other than the biotechnology firm from whom they bought their seeds.

Between 1998-2008, about 1.78 lakh farmers committed suicides. One of the major reasons for this as reported by media, NGOs and government officials was crop failure from the use of genetically modified (GM) seeds. The consequences of the crop failure seem like myriad of problems to a farmer. The crop failure results in no income, increased pressure to repay mortgage liabilities etc. Subbaiya was brave enough to handle it, but many others have been driven to sell their kidneys or worse commit suicide because of not being able to handle the pressure of repaying the loans. The government of Indias role in helping the farmers has so far been quite depressing. The Aggregate measurement of support is widely accepted as one of the best measures of state intervention. It is the difference between the statesponsored income and the hypothetical incomes in a free market environment. In 1998, Japans AMS was as high as 70% of primary sector GDP, EECs (European Economic Commission) was 50% of primary sector GDP, USAs was 30% of primary sector GDP. But in India the AMS was negative, according to a report submitted by the Government of India to the WTO. It was -18%. This is a result of many unfortunate events such as crop failure, export restrictions, exploitation of middlemen etc. One of the main reasons for this is that the farmers are encouraged to buy domestic fertilizers and pesticides whose costs are higher than the full landed cost of imported fertilizers and pesticides. This and other reasons such as residual power supply to agricultural pumps, high repair and replacement cost of equipment, and bribes etc. have also lead to this situation. India follows almost the same model as the European Union and other American countries. Its policies are directed towards the greater portion of the population. They cover all aspects of the agriculture industry including research & development, farmers credit facilities and insurance schemes. Some of the schemes include the Scheme on organic farming, Jute Technology Mission, Technology Mission on cotton, National Project for Cattle and Buffalo Breeding, Livestock Insurance Scheme, Development of Aquaculture, National Scheme on welfare of fishermen, Technology development and transfer Promotion, Market

Information Services for various sectors etc. The schemes can be national or state level initiatives. And these schemes vary from state to state. Despite the enormous number of schemes followed, the farmers havent benefited to a great extent. This can be attributed to poor execution or even shoddy plans. The countless number of benefits and policies put together for farmers are of no use if they are not implemented properly. The political structure of India is also exploitative and the politicians and middlemen seem to prosper at the backdrop of poor and exploited farmers, which in itself is an incentive to keep them poor for the above two groups. As per reports 40% of Indian farmers want to leave agriculture, which is a massive 240 million. The distress of these farmers is well reflected in the above number. Setting right the evils of the agricultural sector is not as bleak as it appears. Everything has a good ending and it takes time and the right person (idea) to achieve it.