Supriya Sule
Rajya Sabha MP, National Congress Party

Q: Could you start with your overall impressions of the recent loan waiver?

A: The waiver is a great start and I am wholly behind it. In fact, this waiver is also in line with the recommendations of the National Commission for Farmers, headed by Professor Swaminathan. We think there will be positive results from this initiative.
As you know, the waiver is for all farmers who own less than five hectares. The loan amount being waived is pretty substantial [Rs. 60,000 crores], and of this, Rs. 10,000 crores will go to those who have been paying regularly. As for those who claim that the waiver doesn’t cover all farmers, even the government admits that the benchmark should be increased. Also, some people argue that the waiver distribution is not equitable. However, if you look at certain parts of Maharashtra, an average of 70 to 80 percent of farmers will have their loans waived off [after this policy is implemented]. That said, a lot more needs to be done to help farmers and many other initiatives are underway. Some examples include new soil development programmes, joint efforts between the Irrigation and Agriculture departments to assist farmers in rain-fed areas, and food security programmes.
Many state governments are also taking initiative, which is important because states are typically responsible for the implementation of the various programmes. Let’s take the example of drip irrigation, which is being promoted in areas where water is scarce. Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have done a great job of utilising subsidies and funding available from the Centre to provide much needed relief to their farmers. This year farmers have produced record amounts of wheat, rice, and pulses, amongst other food grains. But, Low prices have negatively impacted many farmers, and the loan waiver should help some of these struggling farmers. It’s not that farmers just want loan waivers; they need the waiver. If farmers need help to improve their livelihoods, we must help them. Therefore, we should support farmers through subsidies and other initiatives. Almost three quarters of this country is dependent on agriculture, and farmers are the food suppliers of this country, so how could the Central or State governments ever neglect them?

Q: Having worked closely with Self-Help Groups and championed the cause of microfinance in your home state, how do you think this loan package will impact microfinance clients?
A: I think this loan waiver will help a lot of women because in my experience, many women do not get loans because their husbands already owe people money. With many farmers’ loans being written off, their wives will now have the opportunity to start a business. So the loan waiver should also be helpful for these women. Speaking of Self Help Groups, I strongly believe that if they are subsidized for, say, the next five to ten years, this support could equip these women to create market linkages and promote their products in a big way.

Q: Moving over to some of the criticisms of this package, many people have claimed that while the package is a significant respite to farmers with formal loans, the vast majority of farmers don’t have access to formal loans. How would you react to this criticism?
A: Absolutely, this is big issue that we all care about. However, logistically it is almost impossible to address this problem because the government cannot track transactions without official records. If a farmer takes a loan from an unregistered moneylender at 18 percent, it is very hard for the government to control this transaction. All these sahukars, these moneylenders, they must be brought into this system. This exploitation is simply unacceptable. Figuring out how to remove this exploitation and bring moneylender loans into the formal financial system is an important issue for our country’s financial experts to solve, and we must commit ourselves to this goal.
As an alternative to the loan waiver, I would like to bring up the Grameen Bank model from our neighbour Bangladesh. Maybe we could make bank loans into long-term loans by rescheduling them, instead of them writing them off. Again, this is an issue for the experts. But obviously, the Grameen model has worked in Bangladesh. When looking at this waiver, we must remember
what farmers are facing in this country. Farmer suicides give us a lot of pain, and the government should help. Bottomline, it’s very easy for all us to make statements, but it’s difficult to resolve the problems our farmers face. I personally don’t want to make any promises that I can’t deliver. We should be realistic and pragmatic. We need action to see which possible solutions are workable and viable.

Q: Some people have argued that the parameters which determine whether or not a farmer benefits from the waiver need to be revisited. For instance, there is the issue of varying soil productivity across regions and whether it should affect the provision of waivers. Would you agree?
A: Absolutely, there are specific regions that need the waivers most, such as Bundelkhand and Vidarbha. In Vidarbha, the Agriculture Minister’s response to the soil productivity question in the Rajya Sabha reveals that a vast majority of farmers are going to receive the waiver. As the Minister pointed out, in most states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, farmer suicide rates have come down everywhere except in Maharashtra. Suicide rates coming down is a positive step and provides a positive starting point. From my limted personal experience in the field, I believe the only way to solve the farmers’ problem would be to totally irrigate our entire country, which would reduce our dependence on the rain.
Also, the loan waiver should not be the only programme to help agriculture; we need do a lot more work to address the growing number of challenges. For instance, I think we need to have debates at the gram panchayat level, and invite experts to speak at these sessions. Challenges related to global warming and climate change are coming to the forefront. It’s never been so hot before and our dependence on rain complicates issues. Look what’s happened to the paddy in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. So now, we should not just think about irrigation, we have to think about whether or not the crop variety can survive in such conditions. Increasing our research into the effects of climate change and irrigation would be very beneficial.

Q: I really agree that policies have to be realistic and feasible, but you have acknowledged that many things need to be done. What would you have changed, if you had the chance to design this policy all over again?
A: Well, I think policy design is best left to the experts, and the experts in the Planning Commission, and Finance and Agriculture Ministry have done a lot of good work. Change doesn’t happen overnight and I think we must welcome this step with open arms. Given the record production of food grains in this country this year, this is one of the happiest, most secure moments for our country and our farming community. Both the farmers and policy experts should be applauded and complimented.

Q: You have carved a niche for yourself working with SHGs and women’s empowerment, and we would like to know more about your work here.
A: I work in Maharashtra, and my work in this area is unrelated to any particular party because it’s a development programme in the social sector. Our main goal is to train SHG group members. We focus on how to invest in various productive activities, how to create better quality products, and more importantly, how to create market linkages. For example, so many of these women are making papad or achaar. However, without the appropriate packaging and marketing, the average consumer would not buy their products. We need to create an environment where our SHG women’s products are in every Big Bazaar, in Reliance, and in Spencers. We have the capacity to accomplish this goal, and if the government can help translate this potential
into reality in the next five years, SHG group members will be making better wages and paying taxes. And this tax money will go into education, roads, and irrigation projects.
But there are some obstacles to reaching this goal. For instance, the Licchad papad success story inspires many people to make papad. Yet, we need to identify new products like dairy, poultry, masala, etc. The other issue is one of branding; even children, who can’t read and write, are able to identify the big brands. We need to help these SHG women compete. However, at the end of the day, empowerment isn’t just about economic growth. Every woman should know her rights, know how to protect herself when being abused, and her children should go to school. And once the woman gets empowered, the entire family will become empowered.

Q: Any concluding remarks?
A: I am very hopeful and optimistic that this waiver will bring positive results. It’s human nature to be apprehensive about new policies, but we should wait until the implementation phase before we start judging. Ultimately, who are all these programmes for? They are for the benefit of our farmers and our country. That said, we need to make sure there is no gap between planning and implementation. Implementation will be hard work, but it’s very important to the policy’s success. I would also like to reiterate that we should analyze the Grameen model and see what we can learn. We should work together to find solutions to our country’s problems, and be optimistic that there is happiness along the road and much more at the end of the road.