Editor,
Social media platforms in the last two days have come up with a very interesting development on a major policy shift of this MDA Govt relating to Agriculture and Agriculture production. It is interesting because the Government claims that it is approaching this major policy decision based on the demands of the agriculturists. Concern is no mention was made of the needs of the larger section of society which goes beyond the vested interests of a few farmers. Here things get interesting as it is evident that the major policy decision ( already taken it seems) springs solely from the demands of organised groups of farmers from East Khasi Hills only. What about the views/opinions of farmers from the other 11 districts of the state? Apparently not taken. Question is whether a major policy decision affecting the whole state be taken based only on the demands of a few farmers from one district only? Who are these farmers? Do they represent the interest of farmers of the state or only the electoral interests of a few politicians? The haste of the decision, on the eve of elections, raises public suspicion.
Meanwhile the Minister for Agriculture who belongs to the PDF speaks on this major policy decision in one voice while the Dy CM , who has nothing to do with Agriculture (but who interestingly belongs to the NPP) speaks in another voice. So is the MDA coalition which from the very start had no Minimum Common Policy and which has been steaming along in fits and starts; knee jerk reactions (called Policies) in another of its epileptic fits to please individual political constituencies?
The decision to revert to a fertiliser cum pesticide mode of Agriculture and of abandoning the Organic Policy enunciated earlier appears to be based on the low production ratio between Organic and Inorganic agricultural products. True, but this is no recent earth-shaking discovery. It was known from the start. The higher price of organic products was felt sufficient to counter the loss of quantity of production. Problem here is the non-existence or official follow up on a lucrative market for organic products. Government was supposed to have facilitated such markets, within and outside the state. This was not done. In view of Government failure to do this, is the decision to junk Organic farming and revert back to inorganic farming justified?
The earlier decision to go in for organic farming was based primarily on three main issues (a) that organic products fetched a higher price.(b) It was more suitable for upland farming such as ours and is the globally preferred mode in a World that is desperately seeking to reduce chemical footprints in agricultural practices(c) to prevent unregulated and unsupervised use of pesticides , especially on vegetables, which were sold and consumed by people of East Khasi Hills. The high incidence of cancer in EKHs was linked to this factor. So, is the health of the public to be sacrificed for a few rupees profit of some farmers?
In view of the above major factors the whole state of Meghalaya needs to be considered before any major long term policy decision is taken on the subject. (a) Since the health of consumers is now under question, it is unfair/unwise/unhealthy/politically unethical for such a decision to be taken by the Agriculture Department alone without the considered opinion of the Health Department. Has this been done? If not then why not, if only in the interest of the general public? (b) If no proper scientific research has been conducted to support such a major policy shift, how can the same be endorsed by a few politicians, whose academic qualifications and capacity to understand, leaves much to be desired, without a wider public discourse on the subject in the public domain. Scoring political brownie points is uncalled for. Approaching elections or not a more in-depth examination on the subject is called for.
It is totally unethical to make such a decision based only on the demands of a few farmers, who perhaps are supporters of some politician or the other, taking advantage of approaching elections to achieve more profits. Political expediency cannot be at the cost of the welfare of the general public. These farmers seem to be interested only in the profit they make. This is understood. What is difficult to understand is for the cabinet to be influenced by such demands alone without taking into consideration the wider ramifications of such decisions.
These doubts are being raised not because of political preferences of one party over the other. They are the outcome from concerns for the general welfare of a larger public. We all know that Assembly elections are approaching and of the need for politicians to appease their voter base and supporters . But should this be done at the cost of the health of the people? The electorate has to decide. It cannot remain dumb and quiet on such crucial issues. As a former agriculture officer serving in another state I feel compelled to raise my concerns and hence this letter.
In view of the dangers posed by chemical fertilisers and pesticides to human lives, may I ask what the other MLAs who are not in the Government have to say about this potentially dangerous move of the MDA Government which seems to be aimed at commerce at the cost of public health.
Yours etc.,
AK Mukherjee,
Via email