But do these enabling conditions necessarily ensure that targets will be met? The answer is no. The problem in the past has not been in setting targets and creating enabling conditions at the Central level. Whenever trade-offs were required, agriculture suffered. Hence when political trade-offs are required, agri trade reform takes a back seat; when fiscal control was required, public infrastructure investments take a back seat. Over time the extension system has more or less become defunct, public sector banks have not been able to establish sustainable agri credit mechanisms on a wide enough scale, and somehow technical improvements have just not been able to spread as rapidly.

Given this, what we need is ownership and responsibility at the highest level. The PMO is of course the only centre that would be able to coordinate the various actions. The PM’s statements should be taken in this light; and with the political backing of the first family and their friends in the Left, it may just be possible to re-invigorate this sector.

Many argue that agriculture is at the core of sustained equitable growth. And therefore economic reforms should first be seen through that lens. I would argue otherwise. Barely one-fifth of our output is accounted for by agriculture. By that metric, agriculture is one small part of the economy. Of course there is that oft-cited number — “65 per cent of our population relies on agriculture” — but this claim does not present a true picture of reliance in that this 65 per cent does not solely rely upon agriculture. One member of a rural household may be predominantly in agriculture, another may have a small shop, a third would be making masala at home, a fourth would be a migrant to a city, and so on. Thus the old picture where households only relied on one occupation is changing rapidly.

... contd.