|
PREFACE
In presenting this Report, which is bound to lead to controversy, I start by expressing my personal humility in the face of the challenge that was set by the Terms of Reference presented to the Committee. The issues we were required to cover were vast and essential. Foodgrains are the sustenance of life, and farming the occupation of most Indians.
The Committee was required to propose Long Term Grain Policy in a situation where there are huge stocks of grain. The coincidence of these stocks with widespread and visible hunger has been the subject of many learned articles, press reports and even comments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this situation, although our main concern was the long-term, we have made recommendations for the short-run also. I hope, my colleagues, Prof. R.Radhakrishna, Prof. Madhura Swaminathan, Mr. A. Mohandas Moses, Mr. S.N. Kaul, Mr. K.M. Sahni, Mr. Sanjay Kaul and I have been able to raise all the essential questions, and answer at least some of them.
After the Report was finalised, news is coming in that the monsoon might fail in several regions this year, probably making it the worst in the last decade. This sudden change from a situation of embarrassing plenty to the prospect of shortage, at least in affected regions, is in the very nature of contingencies that Long Term Grain policy has to be able to handle.
It is a tribute to our existing system that we are today able to face the prospect of widespread drought without fear of starvation or even serious shortage. Nonetheless, it remains true that the problems of high and unsustainable stocks which took up much of our deliberations is also a real, and perhaps a systemic, problem. Our approach to Long Term Grain Policy was to suggest principles and changes which can reform the system. My colleagues took this task very seriously indeed, and have in fact helped to shape a Report which was finally quite different from what it might otherwise have been. It has been a shared effort addressed to a very serious problem.
Two of the original members of the Committee were unable to continue with us till the end of the final Report. Dr. Ashok Gulati accepted an appointment in Washington shortly after the Committee was set up and was, therefore, unable to continue. Midway through the Committee’s term, Prof. Suresh Tendulkar expressed his inability to continue because of pressure of work. The Committee has missed their wisdom and experience. However, both Dr Gulati and Prof Tendulkar had approved the Interim Report of the Committee and the broad approach and basic principles that we had unanimously agreed upon at that time. We hope that they will find the Final Report in consonance with that approach and those principles. Mr. B.K. Devvarma, who was Member Secretary of the Committee for a period, was transferred before submission of the Report.
The Committee has had 22 meetings in locations spread all over the country. It also sent a questionnaire to all States and received replies from almost all of them. In the course of these meetings, we have not only obtained the views of most interested groups but also have had the privilege of being hosted by a number of State Governments
| |
|
