The relief packages do recognise this problem. One strategy adopted is investment in irrigation projects; another is the adoption of individual beneficiary schemes. Even before the present packages, the distribution of improved agricultural implements, seeds and milch animals have been important mainstays of agriculture plan schemes for many decades. Feedback about these schemes has indicated a number of problems in implementation.

The problems range from distribution of milch animals to farmers who have no access to fodder to feed the animals to farm implements that are unsuited to the local area. Officials insist that conceptually the schemes are good — if only the implementation was proper and due attention paid to forward and backward linkages. Conceptually, however, these schemes assume that the needs of farmers can be adequately anticipated by Central planners and state governments. There is little data to support such an assumption.

These schemes are part of a larger belief that the government knows best. This is not to deny that governments have access to some of the best planners, all the statistics in the world and well meaning bureaucrats too. But however well meaning and well informed any official might be, it is not feasible to anticipate all that any specific farm populace might need. These schemes benefit the middlemen who supply agricultural inputs far more than they benefit farmers.

Reports from Vidarbha indicate a variety of factors as being responsible for distress. In some cases it is crop failure, in others it is a faulty procurement mechanism or lack of support services for health, education and agriculture extension. Government tries to address this issue by placing a contingency fund at the disposal of the district administration to provide assistance for education, health and other measures. But the bulk of the funds are tied up in schemes with pre-defined parameters.

... contd.