GOVERNMENTALITY IN AGRICULTURE: ECONOMY
NEWS: How governmentality
exacerbates the problem of farmers’ stubble burning
WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?
Stubble burning in India stems from
policy-driven mono-cropping and market failures, where farmers are incentivized
to grow wheat and rice but lack affordable alternatives for residue disposal.
Governmentality and neoliberal reforms have indirectly pushed farmers toward
unsustainable practices without adequate support or viable options.
Understanding Governmentality in Agriculture
- Conceptual Foundation:
Governmentality, as defined by philosopher Michel Foucault, is a form of
governance where the state controls populations not by force but by
shaping norms, expectations, and structures that guide individual
behavior.
- Agricultural Example in India: In
the Indian context, governmentality manifests through policies that
influence farmers’ cropping patterns without direct coercion. For
instance, the heavy emphasis on food security and grain procurement leads
farmers to grow wheat and rice.
- Unintended Effect: Though these policies aim to secure national
food supplies, they nudge farmers into adopting unsustainable and harmful
practices such as stubble burning due to the pressure of quick turnaround
times between crops and lack of viable options.
Minimum Support Price (MSP) and Policy-Induced
Mono-Cropping
- What is MSP?: MSP is a government-fixed price at which it
procures certain crops from farmers to protect them from market
fluctuations. While it stabilizes income for some, it is available
primarily for rice and wheat in select states.
- Incentive for Mono-cropping:
Since rice and wheat are the most assured under MSP, farmers increasingly
adopt mono-cropping—growing just one or two major crops—year after year.
- Environmental Consequences:
Mono-cropping depletes soil fertility, reduces crop biodiversity, and
generates enormous crop residue (particularly paddy straw), which is
difficult to manage.
- Link to Stubble Burning: To
prepare fields quickly for the next crop (especially wheat after paddy),
farmers burn stubble because mechanized residue removal is expensive and
time-consuming.
Market Failures and the Role of Neoliberal
Agricultural Reforms
- Weak Agricultural Market Structures:
Indian agricultural markets are riddled with inefficiencies—lack of
infrastructure, storage facilities, and market access. Farmers rely on
informal networks rather than formal institutions.
- Dominance of Middlemen (Arhtias):
These intermediaries offer credit and guarantee procurement, but at
exploitative terms. They fix prices and take a significant cut, reducing
farmers’ profit margins.
- Neoliberalism in Agriculture:
Post-1991 liberalization, there was greater market-oriented reform in
agriculture without adequate safety nets. This increased risks for small
and marginal farmers without empowering them to compete.
- Farmer Vulnerability: Due
to lack of financial agency, high input costs, and poor returns, farmers
are unable to invest in sustainable technologies, pushing them toward
low-cost solutions like stubble burning.
Farmers’ Perception and Contradictions in
Government Policy
- Mixed Signals from the State: On
one hand, stubble burning is criminalized under environmental laws. On the
other hand, the government has not ensured widespread access to viable,
affordable residue management technologies.
- Inadequate Support Mechanisms:
Schemes promoting machines like Happy Seeder or decomposers exist but
reach only a fraction of farmers due to cost, logistical issues, and lack
of awareness.
- Alienation and Frustration:
Farmers feel abandoned and scapegoated for air pollution, particularly
when urban-centric environmental narratives blame them while ignoring
systemic causes.
- Perceived Urban Bias: The
government is seen as prioritizing urban-industrial interests (clean air,
energy security) over rural realities, deepening distrust between farmers
and the state.
Proposals for Market-Based Alternatives to Stubble
Burning
- Creating Economic Value from Waste:
Stubble, instead of being burnt, can be used in multiple
industries—bioenergy (pellets, biogas), animal fodder, cardboard
packaging, and organic compost.
- Developing a Stubble Economy:
Establishing a market for crop residue requires connecting farmers with
industries that can use it. This includes building processing units near
farming zones and offering incentives for collection and transport.
- Need for Ecosystem Support:
Beyond markets, this requires logistics, training, storage infrastructure,
private sector participation, and government subsidies to make it viable
for all stakeholders.
- Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): The
government must collaborate with startups, agritech firms, and
cooperatives to build this stubble value chain, ensuring farmers benefit
from it directly.
Regulatory Interventions and Reforms
- Rethinking the Ban: A blanket ban on stubble burning may not be
practical or fair. Farmers need a transition period, during which
selective permissions and monitored burning may be allowed.
- Legal Enforcement with Empathy:
Policies must combine regulation with facilitation—punishing farmers
without helping them is counterproductive.
- Reforming Agricultural Market Access:
Farmers should be allowed and supported to sell directly to consumers or
agro-industries via platforms like e-NAM, bypassing middlemen.
- Improved Price Discovery:
Transparent and fair pricing mechanisms are crucial to ensure farmers get
remunerative prices and have the financial cushion to adopt alternatives
to burning.
Socio-Cultural and Behavioral Challenges
- Aspirational Consumption Patterns:
Farmers face increasing social pressure to own luxury goods (mobiles,
vehicles, branded items), despite uncertain and seasonal incomes.
- Link to Indebtedness: To
fulfill such aspirations, many borrow from informal sources, falling
deeper into the debt trap. This prevents them from investing in
sustainable agricultural practices.
- Role of Cultural and Religious Organizations:
These institutions can help counter aspirational pressures by promoting
values of simplicity, community welfare, and environmental responsibility.
- Behavioral Change Campaigns:
Awareness drives led by trusted local voices, panchayats, and farmer
leaders can nudge collective behavioral shifts away from harmful practices
like burning.
Final Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
- Stubble Burning as Structural Failure: It
is not simply a matter of negligence or defiance by farmers, but a symptom
of deep-rooted issues in policy, economics, and governance.
- Flawed Governmentality: The
state’s indirect control mechanisms—focusing on procurement and
productivity—have led to unintended ecological consequences.
- Need for Integrated, Holistic Solutions:
Solutions must combine policy reform (MSP restructuring, crop
diversification incentives), market support (residue-based industries),
and social change (norm shifts, rural empowerment).
- Empowering Farmers: Any sustainable solution must place the
farmer at the center—giving them autonomy, viable choices, fair income,
and a dignified role in ecological stewardship.
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/how-governmentality-exacerbates-the-problem-of-farmers-stubble-burning/article69449013.ece