top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Beyond the Waiver Reflex

As Tamil Nadu approaches a high-stakes election, its farm policy will test whether voters favour a blend of immediate relief and long-term reform over familiar short-term populism CM MK Stalin uses a handloom during an early morning outreach campaign ahead of the state Assembly elections in Ramanathapuram. Pic: PTI New Delhi: India’s farm policy is generally trapped in a loop. Each crisis, whether drought or flood has shown state governments usually reaching out for the same palliative...

Beyond the Waiver Reflex

As Tamil Nadu approaches a high-stakes election, its farm policy will test whether voters favour a blend of immediate relief and long-term reform over familiar short-term populism CM MK Stalin uses a handloom during an early morning outreach campaign ahead of the state Assembly elections in Ramanathapuram. Pic: PTI New Delhi: India’s farm policy is generally trapped in a loop. Each crisis, whether drought or flood has shown state governments usually reaching out for the same palliative instruments – be it loan waivers, raising procurement or subsidising inputs. However, these are measures that do not solve the problem, The underlying system of fragmented holdings, fickle markets and water stress remains brittle. What distinguishes Tamil Nadu’s recent approach in recent years - particularly under Edappadi K. Palaniswami’s tenure as Chief Minister - is not that it broke from this cycle, but that it tried to bend it. That matters all the more in a poll-bound state. As Tamil Nadu edges toward its next electoral test, farm policy is poised to become more than a ledger of promises. It is a referendum on whether voters reward immediate relief or longer-term repair - or, as this model suggests, a calibrated mix of both. Take the Rs. 12,110 crore crop loan waiver of 2021. The waiver came in the wake of the economic dislocation caused by COVID-19 and the destruction wrought by cyclones Cyclone Nivar and Cyclone Burevi. It functioned as a stabiliser during systemic shock. Crucially, it was paired with measures designed to reduce the likelihood of such distress recurring. Among the most consequential was the notification of the Cauvery delta as a Special Protected Agricultural Zone. Covering eight districts, the policy imposed restrictions on non-agricultural activities, effectively redrawing the boundary between industrial expansion and fertile land. In a country where urbanisation often consumes prime farmland, this was an explicit political choice: preservation over encroachment. Revival and Expansion Water management - Tamil Nadu’s perennial Achilles’ heel - was tackled through a blend of revival and expansion. The Kudimaramath scheme, rooted in traditional community-led tank restoration, was scaled up significantly, with thousands of works completed. Alongside this decentralised effort, the state pushed forward with the Athikadavu-Avinashi project, a large-scale attempt to divert surplus water from the Bhavani River to drought-prone regions. River-linking proposals and negotiated land acquisitions aimed to extend irrigation benefits further. The logic was that resilience begins with water security. Yet improving production is only half the battle. Farmers’ incomes depend less on what they grow than on what they earn. Here, too, Tamil Nadu attempted incremental correction. Procurement under price-support schemes was expanded beyond staples to include pulses and copra. The state set relatively generous support prices for paddy and sugarcane, seeking to inject a degree of predictability into an otherwise erratic market. Such measures cannot eliminate volatility, but they can soften its edges. Mitigating Ecological Risk Diversification has formed another layer of the strategy. India’s long-standing bias towards water-intensive monocropping has heightened ecological risk. Incentives were therefore introduced to promote millets and horticulture - crops better suited to changing climatic conditions. By integrating millets into the public distribution system in cities such as Chennai and Coimbatore, the state attempted something more ambitious: aligning production incentives with consumption patterns. It is a subtle but important shift. Lowering the cost of cultivation was another priority. Subsidised solar pump sets hinted at a convergence between agriculture and renewable energy, while assurances of continuous three-phase electricity addressed a mundane but critical constraint on farm productivity. These are not headline-grabbing reforms, but they shape the everyday economics of farming. Beyond the farm gate, attention turned to value addition. Plans for Mega Food Parks in districts such as Dindigul, Krishnagiri and Salem sought to integrate farmers into processing-led supply chains, reducing post-harvest losses and capturing greater value. Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University released dozens of new crop varieties and hybrids, spanning cereals, pulses and horticulture. Such investments in research and development rarely yield immediate political dividends, but they underpin long-term productivity. Institutional reform, too, has been part of the picture. Proposals for a State Agricultural Commission suggest a move towards continuous policy calibration rather than episodic intervention. Efforts to strengthen Farmer Producer Organisations through financial support, federated structures and tax relief reflect an understanding that aggregation is essential in modern agricultural markets. The contrast with the broader Indian pattern is instructive. Agriculture is often treated as a sector requiring periodic rescue rather than systemic redesign. Tamil Nadu’s approach, imperfect and incomplete though it is, hints at a different framing: farming as an economic system that must be made more resilient, diversified and knowledge-driven. The emphasis shifts from producing more to earning better. Under subsequent administrations, including that of M. K. Stalin, improvements in irrigation and output have continued, though the translation into higher farm incomes remains uneven. Tamil Nadu does not offer a ready-made template for India. Its geography, politics and institutional capacity are distinct. But its experience illustrates that where political intent aligns short-term relief with long-term restructuring, the contours of a more stable agrarian system begin to emerge. Over to the voters now.

Broker’s Farce

If diplomacy is theatre, then the recently collapsed US–Iran talks in Islamabad was an elaborate farce staged with all the solemnity of statecraft but none of its credibility. After 21 hours of marathon discussions, the outcome was as predictable as it was embarrassing with no agreement or breakthrough achieved, and no illusions left intact. Except, perhaps, among those still inclined to believe that Pakistan could ever serve as an ‘honest broker.’


But the fact that the talks failed is hardly the story. It is that they were held at all in Pakistan, a nation that has openly sponsored terror. The premise itself was surreal. Two bitter adversaries - the United States and Iran - were expected to bridge their deepest differences under the watchful mediation of a country whose own record in international affairs is deeply compromised. Pakistan was a curious choice of venue, akin to asking an arsonist to supervise a fire safety drill.


Pakistan’s proponents – from Donald Trump and a section of his inner circle to its admirers within India’s self-styled ‘left-liberal’ circles - have long indulged the fiction of Islamabad as a misunderstood stabilising force in the region.


This section of the Indian commentariat in particular, with its strident opposition to PM Modi and the ruling BJP, rhapsodize about Pakistan’s ‘strategic importance,’ its ‘geopolitical leverage’ and its supposed ability to convene difficult conversations.


For anyone with eyes to see, the far more inconvenient truth is that Pakistan’s state apparatus has for decades been entangled with precisely the kinds of non-state actors and duplicities that make genuine diplomacy impossible. To cast such a state as a neutral mediator in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical disputes was wilfully absurd to begin with.


Predictably, the talks foundered on the most intractable issues. The United States, represented by Vice President JD Vance, reiterated its insistence on a verifiable commitment from Iran to abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. Iran, for its part, dismissed Washington’s demands as excessive and unlawful, pointing to broader grievances that included sanctions, war reparations and control over the Strait of Hormuz. These are structural antagonisms embedded in decades of conflict.


What, then, was Pakistan expected to contribute? Moral authority? Strategic clarity? Institutional trust? It possesses none in sufficient measure. Instead, Islamabad offered what it often does - optics without substance, posturing without consequence.


One might reasonably ask whether the intent was ever genuine. For Pakistan, the benefits of hosting such talks are largely reputational. In a country perennially seeking international validation and frequent international bailouts, playing host to high-stakes negotiations offers a fleeting veneer of relevance. It allows its leadership to project an image of indispensability, even as its domestic and economic realities tell a different story.


While diplomacy is the art of restraining power without humiliation, Pakistan’s turn as broker looked more like the art of staging illusions without consequence. Can America pick better mediators?

Comments

bottom of page