Authors Amaan
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Good Question.
It is important to understand that GR was not specifically meant for Pb ONLY and was attempted in other parts of country. Important to know that three things played important role
1. British Canal system.
2. Land holdings size
3. Nature of cultivating population.
Contrary to what most people think about GR and that it suddenly took place in 1960, the truth is that country had to build on to actually enable something of the scale of GR. The work had started from 1939 onwards.
So we could have had GR in 1950s itself, an intensive program was launched in 1952 with Ford funding that identified 5,50,000 villages in India over Pb, UP, Kr, MP, MH for GR. But the program never saw light because a team of agronomists visited india and found that-
-It is not possible to make headway into 5,50,000 villages at the same time. They also found that irrigation is not same in all the areas, the soil texture varies in all areas and people have different indigenous varieties as well. In addition to this the rainfall varies as well.
So the program was called off and instead in 1960, almost 8yrs later, IADP mission with 15 districts one in each state was identified for GR. Ludhiana was chosen in Pb for its better mix of urban and rural demographics. It also had small scale industrial units like cycles etc.
It is important to understand that GR was not specifically meant for Pb ONLY and was attempted in other parts of country. Important to know that three things played important role
1. British Canal system.
2. Land holdings size
3. Nature of cultivating population.
Always had the question \u201cwhy punjab was chosen for GR and not UP/MO\u201d. Thanks for touching base.
— Rahul Duggal \U0001f426 (@rahulduggal18) December 28, 2020
Regarding Pepsico, further reading suggests it was forced into food processing by GOI to allow pepsi to sell colas. Hence once markets opened after \u201891, they bailed out. You missed it.
Contrary to what most people think about GR and that it suddenly took place in 1960, the truth is that country had to build on to actually enable something of the scale of GR. The work had started from 1939 onwards.
So we could have had GR in 1950s itself, an intensive program was launched in 1952 with Ford funding that identified 5,50,000 villages in India over Pb, UP, Kr, MP, MH for GR. But the program never saw light because a team of agronomists visited india and found that-
-It is not possible to make headway into 5,50,000 villages at the same time. They also found that irrigation is not same in all the areas, the soil texture varies in all areas and people have different indigenous varieties as well. In addition to this the rainfall varies as well.
So the program was called off and instead in 1960, almost 8yrs later, IADP mission with 15 districts one in each state was identified for GR. Ludhiana was chosen in Pb for its better mix of urban and rural demographics. It also had small scale industrial units like cycles etc.
It is a FACT that GOI accepts that there are faults worthy of amendments. This leads is to an entire new discussion that govt still isn’t willing to believe that there are implementation faults & not just faults in the clauses.
The eyewash that the proposal is aimed to put better clauses in place. A very nice example is contract farming column itself. GOI proposal suggests that ‘PAN card registration will continue but state govt can register the trader if it WANTS to- literally shifting onus to state.
Another example is that onus is shifted on farmer himself to go to the higher court with his expenses. The trader can choose to go to SDM at primary level. Both the options are kept open. This amendment proposal is literally a joke.
Regarding the MSP, govt proposal nowhere cites that it will be assured at C2+50 formula. It is indicated that a written assurance will be given. This is very ambiguous for govt with legal battery of dozens. And disappointing too.
There are concerns on payment systems that haven’t been addressed in the proposal and have been kept as ‘as per understanding between trader and farmer’. This is ambiguous again. Why isn’t DBT assured at govt agency procurement?
So, if the government has accepted that the bills had these flaws where do those people stand who were defending them as perfect?
— smg (@sialmirzagoraya) December 9, 2020
The eyewash that the proposal is aimed to put better clauses in place. A very nice example is contract farming column itself. GOI proposal suggests that ‘PAN card registration will continue but state govt can register the trader if it WANTS to- literally shifting onus to state.
Another example is that onus is shifted on farmer himself to go to the higher court with his expenses. The trader can choose to go to SDM at primary level. Both the options are kept open. This amendment proposal is literally a joke.
Regarding the MSP, govt proposal nowhere cites that it will be assured at C2+50 formula. It is indicated that a written assurance will be given. This is very ambiguous for govt with legal battery of dozens. And disappointing too.
There are concerns on payment systems that haven’t been addressed in the proposal and have been kept as ‘as per understanding between trader and farmer’. This is ambiguous again. Why isn’t DBT assured at govt agency procurement?