[Answered] Examine the paradoxes in India’s agricultural policy regarding cereal stocks versus pulse and oilseed imports. Critically analyze the necessity of reforming cropping patterns for food security.

Introduction

India simultaneously maintains excess rice stocks (356 lakh tonnes vs 102 lakh tonne norm) yet imports oilseeds and pulses worth ₹1.5 lakh crore, reflecting structural distortions highlighted by NITI Aayog (2023) in cropping patterns and procurement policies.

The Paradoxes in India’s Agricultural Policy

1. Cereal Surpluses vs Persistent Deficits in Pulses and Oilseeds: Rice procurement in 2024–25 was over 525–547 lakh tonnes annually, while PDS offtake averaged only 392–427 lakh tonnes. Despite this surplus, India imported:
2. Edible oils worth ₹1.2 lakh crore (2023–24), covering 55% of demand, Pulses worth ₹30,000 crore, even though India is the world’s largest pulse producer (252 lakh tonnes). This mismatch indicates a policy-induced cereal-centric bias driven by MSP, assured procurement, and PDS requirements.
3. Procurement-Driven Mono-Cropping of Paddy and Wheat: States like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana show heavy paddy dependence due to MSP assurance. Kuruvai season in Tamil Nadu—characterised by a large procurement glut—reveals incentive distortions and procurement leakages.
4. Unsustainable Fiscal Burden: Food subsidy exceeds ₹2 lakh crore annually, majority spent on procuring and storing rice/wheat. Excess cereals in FCI godowns (2–3× buffer norms) create financial, logistical, and environmental strain.
5. Paradox of Import Dependence Despite Similar Land Use: Oilseed area has stagnated at ~25 million hectares for two decades. Production crossed 400 lakh tonnes only once since 2014, reflecting chronic neglect despite rising consumption.

Causes Behind the Distorted Production Structure

1. MSP and Procurement Skewed in Favour of Rice and Wheat: Over 70% of MSP procurement expenditure goes to paddy–wheat. Pulses and oilseeds, despite MSP, lack assured procurement, discouraging farmers.
2. Policy Legacy: Edible Oil Import Liberalisation (1990s): Cheap palm oil imports suppressed domestic oilseed prices, creating a long-term decline in competitiveness. Even today, India imports 55% of edible oils, making domestic oilseed farmers less profitable.
3. Poor Market Linkages and Value-Chain Integration: Lack of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), direct procurement, and agro-processing for pulses/oilseeds limits returns. Contrasts sharply with highly networked rice–wheat systems.
4. Environmental Externalities: Paddy monoculture contributes to
   • groundwater depletion (Punjab groundwater table falling 0.5 m/year),
   • methane emissions,
   • declining soil health due to urea-intensive practices.

Why Cropping Pattern Reform is Necessary

1. For Long-Term Food and Nutritional Security: Pulses and oilseeds are indispensable for protein and fat security in Indian diets. FAO warns that overreliance on cereals weakens nutritional outcomes.
2. To Correct Market and Policy Distortions: Reforms needed like Diversified MSP + assured procurement for pulses and oilseeds (like Madhya Pradesh’s Bhavantar Scheme). Remunerative price support, local processing clusters, and contract farming reforms.
3. Encouraging Crop Diversification and Climate-Resilient Farming: Promote water-efficient crops such as millets, pulses, oilseeds under PMFBY, PMKSY, and MSP reforms. Introduce region-specific diversification plans, leveraging agro-climatic zones.
4. Strengthening FPOs and Supply Chains: FPOs can organise direct procurement (e.g., blackgram supply for papad units), ensuring better price realisation. Tamil Nadu, West Bengal models of FPO-led procurement should be scaled up.
5. Linking Production to Global Markets: Allow freer rice exports; avoid sudden export bans that destabilise farmer expectations.

Conclusion

As Amartya Sen emphasises in Poverty and Famines, food security is about access, not stocks. India must shift cropping patterns to rebalance nutrition, sustainability, and long-term economic resilience.