Book review: Ashok Gulati,Ranjana Roy and Shweta Saini. Revitalising Indian Agriculture and Boosting Farmer Incomes

The book under review by Ashok Gulati, Ranjana Roy and Shweta Saini has come out as a timely intervention amidst the debate of farmer protests against the centralised farm laws designed to liberalise and deregulate the agriculture market of India. The authors explore the connection between agricultural performance and nutritional outcomes, highlighting policies that impede progress. The book examines six states, each representing different stages of agricultural development, including high-performing (Punjab, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (MP)) and low- or average-performing states (Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar and Odisha). The first part establishes the link between agricultural outcomes, poverty and malnutrition, followed by agriculture performance in six states. The final two parts discuss the farmer income beyond agri-gross domestic product (GDP) and critically analyse agriculture policies. After reviewing the book, readers will understand the need to consider regional priorities during policy formulation rather than implementing similar strategies across all states and centralising control, as seen in recent government policy reforms.

Despite a decline in stunted, underweight children and malnutrition, anaemia among children under five remains a significant concern. The authors emphasise that while agriculture is pivotal, factors such as healthcare, literacy and economic structures also impact malnutrition. Those facilities are lacking in India, and despite the significant impact on nutritional status, half of the population by 2015–2016 did not have access to basic amenities. This condition will affect child nutrition, and with the current rate of child nutrition, India will achieve by 2055 what China has today. Analysing the state performance, they argue that states with high-value agriculture show better nutritional outcomes, highlighting the need for crop diversification alongside improved healthcare and education. The diversification towards high-value crop cultivation offers the potential for nutritious food and increased farmer income and employment but needs to assure access to technology, infrastructure, institutional support and favourable policies to benefit smallholder farmers (Birthal et al., 2020).

The following three chapters analyse high-performing states’ agricultural performance and policies: Punjab, Gujarat and MP. Punjab’s GDP growth rate, once double the national rate during the Green Revolution, has declined significantly to 1.6%, less than half the national rate of 3.6% from 2005–2006 to 2016–2017. Uninterrupted electricity supply facilitates irrigation for 99% of Punjab’s cropped area. However, budgetary allocations primarily spent on free electricity promote water-intensive crops, leading to environmental degradation. Fertiliser subsidies and minimum support prices (MSP) mainly benefit wheat and rice cultivation, encouraging mono-cropping. Higher government charges on commission force food processing industries to source raw materials from other states, hindering agricultural progress. The solution lies in demand-driven policies promoting livestock and horticulture, shifting focus from national food security to enhancing farmer income. The authors’ critique of MSP support, fertiliser subsidies, free electricity driving crop specialisation and environmental degradation is similar to many others. However, it appears unfair and overlooks the needs of small and marginal farmers.

Gujarat achieved remarkable growth with a rate of 8.6%, surpassing the national average of 3.2% from 2001–2002 to 2014–2015 in agriculture. State initiatives, including electrification and irrigation projects, facilitated agricultural shifts towards high-value crops and livestock farming, increasing agricultural growth. Cooperative markets, cold storage, processing industries and a strong demand for livestock products also played a role. However, Gujarat should focus on enhancing export value chains, following successful models like the cooperative milk industry for sustained progress. The main takeaway from this chapter is that the state has emphasised diversification by sustainable resource allocation in budgetary backed to animal and dairy farms, resulting in better performance.

It is evident from the first two states that policy focus and budgetary allocation play crucial roles in agricultural diversification and performance. Despite lower per capita income, MP achieved significant GDP growth (8.1% from 2005–2006 to 2016–2017) and reduced poverty from 53.6% to 35.7% (2004 to 2011–2012). Recent GDP rates of 11.5% outpaced the national average (4.7%), showcasing the state’s economic progress. Strategic initiatives, including irrigation expansion, robust procurement system (bonus over, MSP for wheat) and infrastructure development, transformed cropping patterns from mono-crops to high-value multi-crops. Innovations such as the ‘yantradoot scheme’ and ‘custom hearing centres’ provided modern agricultural equipment at the village level. Lower tax rates facilitated private traders’ purchases, and both private and public investments in irrigation and roads enhanced productivity and connected markets, particularly for fruits and vegetables. The comparison suggests that although MSP led to mono-crops and declining GDP in Punjab, MP utilised it for diversification, reducing poverty. However, despite higher agricultural GDP rates, it could not accelerate income but has reduced poverty.

The following three chapters focus on low or average agriculture-performing states UP, Bihar and Odisha. UP has experienced a growth rate of 3%, lower than the national average of 3.6% from 2005–2006 to 2018–2019. The state primarily focuses on cereals, mainly wheat (38% of gross cropped area (GCA)) and pulses (9.1%). Despite progress in irrigation (80.2% coverage in 2014), regional imbalances persist. UP holds a significant share in the country’s wheat (28.1%) and sugarcane production. However, economic growth is affected by low productivity, selling below the MSP (8% wheat and 21% rice) and declining food grains, fruits and vegetables. The diminishing share of fruits and vegetables impacts income and nutrition. The authors suggest livestock and fisheries, managed primarily by women, may help alleviate poverty. However, disproportionate budget allocation for livestock and fruits/vegetables instead of crop husbandry hinders growth. While UP registered over 100 mandis under ‘e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM)’ to address collusion issues, inviting investments in processing industries could significantly boost horticulture production and market growth. Restructuring budget allocations in agriculture sectors is essential for crop diversification, enhancing farmers’ income and ensuring nutritional outcomes.

Bihar, a state dominated by smallholder farmers, experienced lower family income (₹7,175) than the national average (₹8,931) in 2015–2016. Despite having the largest share of GCA for cereals, livestock (37%), fruits and vegetables (20%) contribute significantly to the state’s gross value added (GVA). The state’s decision to repeal the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act in 2006, exempting processing industries from mandi taxes, negatively impacted wheat and paddy procurement on MSP, causing prices to fall below MSP. Although irrigation ratios have improved (68.7%), unreliable power supply forces farmers to use costly diesel tube wells, affecting production costs. Bihar has introduced initiatives such as the Deendayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY) for segregated power supplies, crop insurance schemes and seed programmes. The dairy industry, powered by the Bihar State Milk Co-operative Federation, is thriving. However, inequitable budget allocations, limited subsidies on irrigation and power, and insufficient infrastructure hinder progress. Bihar’s experience suggests the need for policymakers to reconsider policy frameworks, focusing on state priorities and equitable resource allocation.

Odisha faces challenges in GDP growth (3% from 1991–1992 to 2017–2018) and agriculture household income (₹7,731, below the national average of ₹8,931 in 2017–2018). Climatic conditions and inadequate irrigation have caused significant GCA losses. Although paddy dominates GCA (48%), low productivity persists. Low productivity also affects pulses despite a fair GCA share. Poverty and food security issues persist. Cultivating high-value crops like fruits and vegetables (12% GCA but 30% gross value of output (GVO)) could boost growth. Budget allocations are inequitable, with crop husbandry receiving a large share despite lower GVO contributions. Initiatives like ‘Kalia’ for direct income support and the ‘Potato Mission’ aim to improve self-sufficiency. Odisha ranks seventh in vegetable production and contributes 4.9% of India’s total production but must focus on irrigation improvement, stress-tolerant seeds and high breeding milch animals to increase income and reduce poverty.

The evidence from six states reveals that despite higher agricultural GPD, some states could not accelerate farmers’ income. National household income increased from ₹2,115 to ₹8,931 between 2002–2003 and 2015–2016, but inequality exists across states and farm sizes. Marginal farmers earned less (₹6,650–8,171) than small (₹9,990) and large (₹14,682) farmers in 2015–2016. Punjab had three times higher monthly agricultural income (₹23,133) than states such as UP, Bihar, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. Despite high agricultural GDP growth, Gujarat and MP could not raise farmers’ incomes. At the same time, Odisha, Punjab, UP and Bihar experienced rapid income growth despite low GDP performance. Stagnant crop productivity necessitates high-yielding seeds and improved value chain management, especially for perishable crops. Farmers’ access to regulated markets is a concern, with long travel distances in some regions. This chapter posits that augmenting agricultural GDP alone may not significantly improve farmers’ income and welfare.

The following chapter evaluates recent central government agriculture policies. The Model Agriculture Produce Livestock Market Act 2017, aimed at resolving market issues, is fully adopted only in Arunachal Pradesh. The e-NAM initiative, connecting 585 APMCs, benefits 11% of farmers facing limitations like interstate trading challenges. The 2018 Contract Farming Act was adopted in Tamil Nadu, with other states considering it, although later, the state repealed it. ¹ Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) aimed at irrigation, fell short as many projects showed minimal progress. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) linked to insurance, favoured companies over farmers. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) provided cash transfers to farmers but excluded landless and sharecroppers. In recent years, unfulfilled promises and falling crop profitability have worsened farmers’ conditions. This chapter critically examines agriculture policies and compares recent government performance with previous in terms of agricultural gross domestic product (AGDP). Although agriculture faced below-average rainfall and consecutive drought years during Modi’s term, AGDP growth was more stable during United Progressive Alliance (UPA) 2.0 than Modi-1.0.

The book aims to identify the best agriculture practices, policies and issues, which other states can rectify or replicate in their agricultural growth. The discussion has made it adequately clear that agriculture has the potential to reduce poverty and malnutrition, while other facilities also need to improve. Institutional reforms are required to transfer proper signals to attract higher investment and improve farmers’ income. Under the AMUL, Gujarat farmers receive nearly 57%–80% of consumer spending on dairy, so this kind of cooperative model needs to be replicated in high-value crops for more profits for farmers. Infrastructural development significantly impacts agriculture, such as irrigation positively impacts, while only 49% of GCA is under assured irrigation in India. Insufficient resource allocation, in cases such as Punjab, allocating a greater budget for irrigation has resulted in the provision of free electricity. This policy, in turn, led to unscrupulous underground water drilling and the persistent cultivation of mono-crop paddy and wheat. So, the right incentives, suitable investments in infrastructure and agricultural research and development can improve farmers’ economic conditions by lowering poverty and malnutrition.

The book offers an evidence-based discussion for revitalising Indian agriculture while ensuring efficient, inclusive and sustainable growth to enhance farmers’ incomes. The key takeaway is that proper policy reforms, resource allocation and logistic management can augment agriculture growth and income, eventually reducing poverty and malnutrition. The comparison of the agricultural performance of selected states and critical analysis of government initiatives is a valuable contribution to the literature, which can be used for policy reforms and further research on agriculture and farmers’ income currently in crisis. Future studies should focus on the states in the eastern and north-eastern regions to understand the performance of smallholder farmers in growing high-value cultivation, considering those states are lagging in poverty, income and food security compared to the rest of the country. The contrasting nature of policy, which benefits one state but not the other, suggests that policymakers should consider regional issues rather than formulating at the central level and expecting to benefit all. The significance of this book lies in presenting the nexus between agriculture, poverty and malnutrition and pointing out the necessity of other factors in nutritional outcomes. The evidence-based insights from different states of agriculture performance, major initiatives that enhance growth and policy issues that dampen growth are discussed systematically. The authors may have overemphasised the role of diversification as a remedy for agricultural development and nutritional outcomes. However, they did not consider the arguments against diversification at the level required.