@UtkarshaMuley
Nashik: The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) has not been a great success as it was intended to be. The PMFBY has actually been more beneficial to the insurance companies rather than the farmers, remarked Dr Neelam Gorhe deputy chairperson of Maharashtra Legislative Council. She also called for a state-level policy on farmers’ crop insurance scheme.
She said this at a panel discussion on the “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana: Maharashtra an Evaluation research paper by Unique Foundation of Pune”. The panelist included R. Ramkumar- Professor at TISS, Dr. Ajit Navale- AIKS, Shivajirao Shejul – farmer from Beed, Pooja More- Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana and Chief Guest was Dr Neelam Gorhe
She said that this is not a new issue. If we look at the history of India it is shaped by farmers’ protests, even the green revolution came about so that farmers’ questions can be solved. Dr Gorhe added, “Farmers are a very important part of our society, they are a reflection of people. Shiv Sena has always supported the farmer’s cause and still does, there are lots of protests which Shiv Sena has supported.”
Dr Neelam Gorhe said, “There is a lot of discussion around farmers’ issues but very few studies about crop insurance are available. Centre for Management in Agriculture (CMA) IIM of Ahmedabad, CAG report, reports by standing committees are some of the few reports on Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY).”
She said that Ramkumar’s whole deliberation was very important in this discussion session. He very precisely and in simple words brought into the light all the problems of PMFBY. He raised important questions like how many people are aware of this and how many get benefited.
“This crop insurance scheme is benefitting insurance companies more than the farmers for whom it is intended. As R Ramkumar rightly said, ‘while evaluating the policy the main focus should be on how many people benefit from this scheme. Also, how much premium the government pays the insurance companies vis-a-vis how much compensation farmers get is important’” added Gorhe.
She said that all the recommendations suggested by the research paper as well as all the panellists are valid. Dr Neelam Gorhe further added, “I agree with the recommendation of making the village the smallest unit for the scheme instead of block or taluka.”
She said that all the recommendations made are both long-term and short-term and I will see on my behalf that they are heard by the government. Along with this, the issue will be discussed in the upcoming budget session of the assembly which will start on February 28.
“One of the recommendations was that there should be a state-level policy and state company so that these corporate companies don’t benefit but the actual farmers in need do. It is a good suggestion but very difficult to implement as there are various complexities involved with this,” said Gorhe.
She suggested another such discussion would help to solve these complexities like in PMFBY half of the premium is paid by the central government. If such a policy is to be started at the state level by the state government, another issue is who will pay the centre’s share of the premium.
She added that the point raised by Pooja is right that giving farmers a choice to choose the insurance company will increase the compensation but there is a big drawback with this that these corporate companies just merge to get the profit and it won’t be beneficial to the poor and needy farmers.
She said that we all can work together from another committee to have more rounds of such detailed discussion and together work to find a solution for various other issues like setting up grievance cells, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), etc.
She also said that as everyone in the panel pointed out the Beed model is not working is because of a lack of a proper database. “As Ramkumar said there is a huge number of farmers that are excluded from getting benefits from the schemes”, she added.
She further highlighted that another problem with such schemes is that the farmer’s and state participation is reducing. Also, when some state governments implement these schemes in their state, they realise that they are not working out as per the requirement.
