Sowing discontent: Budget cuts threaten farm sustainability

The allocation for various sections of agriculture in the 2025-26 Union Budget is a mixed bag. There are incremental improvements in credit access, research and specific crop-focussed missions. But the overall reduction in budgetary allocation, capital expenditure and lack of focus on climate resilience and rural infrastructure raises serious concerns.

The success of government efforts will depend on effective fund utilisation, transparent implementation and timely interventions to address agricultural distress. Without addressing these issues, achieving sustainable growth in the farm sector may remain a challenge.

Farmers have been agitating for purchase at minimum support price (C2+50 per cent) since 2017, but the government has not made any allocation in the Budget for the legal guarantee of purchase and loan waiver.

This Budget will make farmers more indebted. The government has waived Rs 16 lakh crore of corporates' loans, but Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has not waived farmers' loans worth Rs 16,000 crore. The increase in the Kisan Credit Card credit limit will only result in increased debt for farmers. The government should have taken steps to reduce their indebtedness.

The Finance Minister spoke repeatedly about increasing the production of pulses in the country. We need to do this quickly. But I don't see this happening in the near future unless farmers are assured of remunerative prices for crops. They made the country self-sufficient in wheat and paddy production. But, in the absence of MSP for many other crops, their incomes have gone down, along with the water tables in Punjab and Haryana. This is a big disincentive and will make farmers wary of sowing pulses.

The minister spoke of agriculture as the first engine of growth. In the northern region, Haryana and Punjab are the leading agrarian states and Himachal Pradesh and J&K major producers of fruits and vegetables. The hill states have good tourism potential, too. Unfortunately, all these sectors have been accorded a low priority. The minister has rejected all recommendations of the Agriculture Parliamentary Committee.

The PM-KISAN scheme allocation remains unchanged despite the rising input costs for farmers. With inflation and the increasing cost of fertilisers, seeds and labour, the stagnation in the PM-KISAN support could reduce its real impact.

The agriculture sector employs more than 60 per cent of the working population and contributes 18 per cent to the country's GDP. The allocation for agriculture is Rs 1.71 lakh crore, which is only 3.37 per cent of the total budget of Rs 50.65 lakh crore.

If the farmers' income is to be doubled, the agriculture sector will have to grow at the rate of 12-to-14 per cent. To make India a developed country by 2047, the GDP should also grow at the rate of 8 per cent. Agriculture investment should be around 10 per cent of the total budget expenditure.

The cut in the allocation for fertilisers is likely to impact the fertiliser subsidy. This year, the allocation is

Rs 1,56,502.44 crore as compared to the last financial year's revised estimates of Rs 1,83,003.29 crore.

The new initiatives like the National Mission on High-Yielding Seeds and the Mission for Cotton Productivity are promising, but there is no clear roadmap or fund allocation breakdown to ensure effective implementation of the schemes.

A mission for fruits and vegetables has also been planned. But in view of the earlier programme for tomato, onion and potato (TOP) — which was later expanded and termed Greens — not showing much results, it will be interesting to see whether this thrust helps achieve the desired results.

The Finance Minister allocated Rs 41,000 crore to J&K, which is down from

Rs 42,277.74 crore from the current financial year. This region requires far more for recovery and growth.

The Budget fails to address specific challenges faced by farmers in states like Punjab and Haryana, where crop diversification, water scarcity and increasing input costs remain pressing issues. The measures are seen as generic and not targeted enough at regions with distinct agricultural needs.

On May 12, 1994, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Uttarakhand had signed a water-sharing agreement for the Yamuna river. It was intended to resolve disputes over water-sharing among the states. Three multipurpose dams — one at Renuka (HP) and the Lakhwar-Vyasi Multi-Purpose Dam Project (MPDP) and Kishau Dam in Uttarakhand — were to be constructed. The Centre had to contribute 90 per cent of the cost and the state governments the remaining 10 per cent. All three projects were cleared by the authorities concerned. Work was started, but it has now been stalled at all these dams for reasons best known to the Centre. The Finance Minister has said nothing about this.

The health sector in the Union Budget 2025 has several gaps. The budget increases spending on tertiary care and physical medical infrastructure, but the PHCs, CHCs, civil hospitals and rural hospitals remain underfunded, affecting preventive care and early disease detection. The Budget also aims to add 10,000 new medical seats, but the shortage of trained faculty and inadequate infrastructure in medical colleges remain major obstacles.

The Budget does not adequately cover the challenges faced by the education sector in teacher recruitment, infrastructure and research support. Rural schools lack basic facilities like toilets, drinking water and electricity.

It is surprising that even after 78 years of independence, the government has not been able to provide clean drinking water and has asked for three more years to provide it. The figure presented by the government of having provided tap water to 80 per cent of the rural population is not true.

The Budget also lacks innovative solutions to pressing economic issues. It primarily aims to woo the middle class and certain sections of voters of Bihar and Delhi, neglecting the needs of the common people.

It also fails to provide substantial support for job creation. The budgetary allocations for this are insufficient. Strong governance, monitoring and regulatory reforms are needed. Without addressing these concerns, India's vision of an inclusive and developed nation by 2047 may remain elusive.