Deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia recently dropped a bombshell when he suggested at the Emerging Kerala meet that the state should look beyond paddy cultivation and use its fields for value added agriculture. His statement was at once opposed by politicians of all hues, who accused him of playing into the hands of the land mafia at a time when paddy cultivation was under threat in Kerala.

They also waxed eloquent about the impact on the ecology such a transformation would make. But strangely, the politicians who showed their antipathy to Mr Ahluwalia’s suggestion, have not exactly been champions of agriculture themselves otherwise.

“Several of the politicians who have taken such a strong stand on preserving paddy cultivation, irrespective of whether it fetches the farmer returns or not, have sold their own agriculture land and bought flats in cities. While they acknowledge that the farmers needs a fairly decent income and deserve more help from the government, they dont tell you what has been done so far in their interests or explain why do they dont practice what they preach,” says an officer of the agriculture department, also pointing out that paddy cultivation is turning out to be unviable in the state owing to shortage of labour, fragmented land holdings, climate change and so on.

Congress leader, V.M. Sudheeran, who ridiculed Mr Ahluwalia’s suggestion, however, doesn’t buy the argument that only those who practice agriculture have the right to oppose his views. Evading a question on whether he owns agriculture land himself, he merely says politicians and social activists may not be able to cultivate paddy themselves, but that should not stop them from fighting for causes they believe in.

“One does not need to climb coconut trees to champion the cause of coconut climbers,” he contends, claiming that Mr Ahluwalia’s observation reflects organised attempts to corner paddy fields. “Kerala is an agro-economy. Its paddy fields and wetlands need to be protected. The government should help paddy farmers make profits and conserve the environment too,” he insists.

A leader of his own party, however, observes, “While we swear by the Mahatma and wear khadi, we blissfully forget that he spun and wove the clothes he himself wore.”

‘Look beyond real estate’

A hectare of paddy field means much for the ecosystem and taking into consideration its ecological services, the value will be around Rs22 lakh a year, seven times that of a hectare of forest land.

Unfortunately, when there is this complaint of paddy cultivation becoming unviable, it is looked at in terms of real estate value, ignoring the ecological services, says S.Leenakumari, professor at the Rice Research Station of the Kerala Agricultural University at Mancompu.

Earlier, paddy was cultivated only to meet our food needs. While the state produces around 6 lakh tonnes annually, it needs more than 40 lakh tonnes”, she says.

The problem lies in looking at rice as monoculture. While there are high-yielding varieties like ‘Uma’, which has been generally accepted for the last 10 years, there’s the need to look at integrated farming.

From shrimp farming in one season in low lying areas, farmers can look at introducing duck-farming in the fields which will not only enhance productivity but also help in doing away with pesticides.

A government marketing intervention can make a big difference, she added.

‘Growing paddy no more viable venture’

There’s an element of truth in what Montek Singh Ahluwalia said, admits Dr K.J.Joseph of the Centre for Development Studies in Thiruvananthapuram.

It has to be seen as a comment from someone with a national perspective. Coming as it does from the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, it has a national perspective.

It is based on his analysis of the state’s strengths. And it has to be seen in the right perspective as paddy cultivation is no longer a viable venture in the state which has now to depend on other states for its rice, says Dr Joseph.

But taking into consideration factors other than economical, there’s the need to ensure that this advice is not stretched too far, says Dr Joseph. Though Ahluwalia is not wrong, it’s a matter of concern for the state’s development.

“It’s for the authorities to look at and decide how much of Montek’s advice has to be considered. Let the government decide how much of what he said is acceptable to the state”, he adds.