6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web

GS 2 Polity/Governance/Social justice/IR

New clouds over the Persian Gulf

(Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India's interests)

Context

• Iran’s decision to reduce its commitments to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the P5+1 agreement, comes as a reaction to the U.S.’s attempts in recent weeks to
reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero.

• As a response to U.S. sanctions, Iran is demanding that the remaining signatories of the deal the U.K., China, France, Germany and Russia ease the restrictions on its banking and oil
sectors in the next 60 days.

• In case the five endorsers of the deal decide not to act in favour of Iran, the authorities of Tehran will remove the caps on uranium enrichment levels and resume work on the Arak nuclear
facility.

Loss of patience

• Iran’s plans are very clear, and they put an end to long and laborious multilateral negotiations which put strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in return for lifting most international
sanctions.

• Undoubtedly, Iran’s decision comes as an expression of loss of patience with a deal that is providing very few of the promised economic benefits.

• But by resuming its uranium enrichment operations, Iran could be taking a huge risk, putting at danger its diplomatic relations with Europe and playing the game of the Trump
administration that has been taking a hard line against Tehran.

• Iran might be economically isolated, but the message coming out from Russia is that Iran is not alone.

• The Kremlin has joined Tehran to accuse the U.S. of retreating from the nuclear deal, while approving Iran’s rolling back of some of the terms of the deal due to pressure from the U.S.

• The Russian gesture is not without some long-term interests for the Kremlin.

• U.S. sanctions against Iran will certainly result in the development of cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, but also with countries like Turkey which are important to American
foreign policy.

Stoking unrest

• It is no secret that last year the 2.5-million-strong

government workforce did not get a raise while prices accelerated.

• To this end, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy on Iran aims directly to stoke social unrest in Iranian cities by creating labour strikes (in the Polish style of Solidarity
back in the 1980s) within the metals industry.

• For Donald Trump and his aides, the outcome of their

confrontation with Iran is clearly to deprive the Iranian regime of the funds it can use to impose its hegemony around West Asia, but also to put pressure on the everyday life of Iranian citizens.

• From the Trump administration’s perspective, the economic malaise in Iran should stoke protests sooner or later.

But does this mean the beginning of the end of the regime of the Ayatollahs?

• The geostrategic situation of West Asia, Iran’s threat to violate the JCPOA is a very worrisome decision.

• Mr. Trump’s America is considered a rogue state.

• As for the Trump administration, it considers the Islamic

regime in Tehran as its Enemy Number One in West Asia.

• The recent announcement by John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s National Security Adviser, that the U.S. was dispatching an aircraft-carrier strike group and bombers to West Asia to protect
American allies and their interests is an unmistakable attempt to intimidate the Iranian regime.

• Over the past few weeks, the White House has intensified its campaign of pressure and threats against the authorities in Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Conclusion

• In Washington’s eyes, Iran is a rogue state because of its support of militant groups, its violations of human rights, and its pursuit of nuclear-related technologies.

• If Iran’s leadership is to successfully resist U.S. “maximum pressure”, it must do more than choose the military path.

• Those who oppose any unilateral U S military action against Iran can only hope that the Ayatollahs and the IRGC will not react violently to U S forces in the region and to its allies
https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 1/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web
Those who oppose any unilateral U.S. military action against Iran can only hope that the Ayatollahs and the IRGC will not react violently to U.S. forces in the region and to its allies.

• In case that happens, troubled times are ahead for Iran, West Asia and the global market.

For a full bench

Progress in judicial appointment is welcome, but it is tme for systemic change

The government and the Supreme Court collegium seem to disagree on recommendatons for judicial appointments quite frequent these days.
In case of disapprovalit requires reiteraton by the collegium for the names to be cleared.

it acquires the character of a controversy if the government’s objectons suggest an oblique motive to thwart or delay the appointment of partcular nominees.

Latest Recomendations and the govt sought reconsideration,

Anirudh Bose Jharkhand High Court Chief Justce

A.S. Bopanna, Gauhat High Court Chief Justce

Collegium has repeated its recommendation stating “conduct, competence and integrity” and that there is no reason to agree
with the government.

NOW, as per present procedure,the government is now bound to accept the recommendation.

It has also recommended two more judges, Justce B.R. Gavai of the Bombay High Court and Chief Justce Surya Kant of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, for
appointment to the apex court. 

it is tme to think of a permanent, independent body to institutionalize the process.

Loud and clear: on India-U.S. discord on market access

Context
After a scathing speech by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in New Delhi this week, it is no longer possible for the government to brush under the carpet
its differences with Washington.

Speaking to Indian and U.S. businesspersons, Mr. Ross lashed out at what he called India’s unfair trade practices and “overly restrictive market access barriers”.

His comments followed a series of measures by the U.S. that have affected India.

These include a refusal to revoke or waive tariff increases made last year on steel and aluminium, an ultimatum that India “zero out” oil imports from Iran by May
2 even without securing comparable alternatives, and the decision to withdraw India’s GSP (Generalised System of Preferences) trade status.

Mr. Ross repeated President Donald Trump’s accusation that India is a “tariff king”, and threatened India with “consequences” if it responded to U.S. tariffs with
counter-tariffs, something New Delhi had threatened but not yet implemented in the hope of hammering out a comprehensive trade package.

Despite rounds of talks, however, a package has remained elusive, and it is time for the government to articulate the problem on its hands.

Growing of U.S. aggression

In the face of growing U.S. aggression on the issue, the government that takes office after the election will have to urgently consider its options ahead.

Clearly, the strategy of the past year, to ignore the differences in the hope that the problems would be resolved or that the U.S.’s trade war with China would
occupy the Trump administration more, has not worked.

New Delhi and Washington need to make a more determined attempt to sort out issues, starting from scratch if required, with tariffs.

While the 50-60% duties on motorcycles and cars and 150% duties on American liquor that India imposes need a second look, the U.S. must see that average
tariffs imposed by India (13.8%) are not much higher than those levied by economies such as South Korea and Brazil.

In addition, the government will need to revisit some of its decisions like data localisation requirements and new e-commerce regulations, which were declared
suddenly, while the U.S. must show some flexibility on India’s price caps on coronary stents and other medical devices.

Conclusion
The U.S. must understand the cultural differences over the labelling of non-vegetarian dairy products.

It is unlikely that the Trump administration will temper its “my way or the highway” approach to Iranian oil sales, and New Delhi will have to work closely with

https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 2/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web
other countries to build alternative financial structures to avoid U.S. sanctions.

Where a compromise is not possible, the government should be ready to push back on unreasonable demands.

 Perhaps the most worrying signal from Mr. Ross’s outburst was that Washington may not be willing to meet India halfway on trade issues. New Delhi must prepare
accordingly.

Endless war ( Bilateral, Regional and Global Groupings and agreements involving India | )
CONTEXT

A call by Afghanistan’s Loya Jirga, a grand assembly of senior politicians and tribal and religious leaders, for a ceasefire between government
troops and the Taliban underscores the mood in Kabul.The U.S. must put pressure on the Taliban to heed the Afghan government’s concerns.

Background

Afghanistan’s leaders, from its rulers to tribal chieftains, want to resolve the 17-year-long conflict.
Over a four-day meeting that ended on May 2, the Jirga asked the government to set up a negotiating team with members from the assembly for
talks with the insurgents.
It also backed women’s rights, a critical issue being debated by the political class amid the Taliban’s rising clout.
President Ashraf Ghani has said his government would honour the assembly’s proposals, but wants the ceasefire to be mutual.
The Taliban, for its part, immediately shot down the proposal, vowing to continue attacks through the Ramzan month.
Without the Taliban’s reciprocity, no ceasefire will hold.

Current Situation

The group controls half of Afghanistan and has shown its capacity to strike anywhere, including in the most fortified of locations.
It has also been engaged in direct talks with the U.S. for months.
But the peace talks haven’t prevented the Taliban from carrying out its summer offensive against the government.
By rejecting the Loya Jirga proposal, the Taliban has once again made it clear that it is not ready yet to engage with the government in Kabul.

Us Stance

The talks between Taliban representatives and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special representative, are primarily focussed on withdrawing foreign
troops from Afghanistan.
The U.S. seeks, in return, an assurance that Afghanistan will not provide a safe haven to transnational terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the
Islamic State.

Stalemate situation

But for an eventual settlement of the Afghan crisis, the government and the Taliban need to talk. The war has long been in a stalemate.
But the government and the Taliban see different ways out.
The government is willing to engage the insurgents, a move which has now been endorsed by the Loya Jirga as well.
But the Taliban, like any other successful insurgent group, wants to prolong the conflict, hoping that it can weaken the government’s morale
and reduce its military strength.
The Taliban will change track only if it is forced to do so militarily or through pressure.
The government lacks the resources to accomplish either.
It cannot defeat the Taliban militarily, as the 17 years of the war suggest.
It cannot forge peace on the Taliban’s terms as it would mean endangering whatever few freedoms the Afghans enjoy right now.
This resource deficit can be bridged only with the help of the international community.

Way Forward

The U.S., which is in talks with the Taliban, should not overlook the interests of Kabul. It must put pressure on the Taliban to cease hostilities and
engage with Mr. Ghani’s government.

Global implications of the mandate

Editorial Analysis:
Experts opine that the clear and decisive mandate for Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a defining moment in India’s democratic history.
As a matter of fact, its extent, which is manifest from the highest-ever voter turnout in a general election and the share of votes won by the winning coalition,
https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 3/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web
s a atte o act, ts e te t, c s a est o t e g est e e ote tu out a ge e a e ect o a d t e s a e o otes o by t e g coa t o ,
creates its own very unique set of circumstances.

What are these unique circumstances?

To put this in perspective, as the world’s largest democracy, India has a staggering 900 million-odd voters, of whom about over 67% turned out, making it about
a little over half-a-billion people participating in the general election of 2019.
Out of this, the winning coalition is estimated to have earned close to 300 million votes.
When we compare this with the next biggest democracy, the United States, which has a population of more than 320 million, the magnitude of the mandate
earned by Mr. Modi becomes clear.
It is a unique moment for India that the rising aspirations of people in one of the fastest growing economies have resulted in this kind of a mandate.
Further, while it raises the bar on expectations, more importantly, it gives the leadership of the country the necessary wherewithal to take the kind of decisions
that are needed to put India on a high growth trajectory.
At a time when two of the largest economic powers in the world, the U.S. and China, are locked in a trade war of sorts, this mandate opens the window for
India to take advantage of economic opportunities that are likely to develop in the geopolitical space.
To get the Indian economy on the right trajectory, to spur our exports and to create jobs — while this kind of a mandate creates expectations, it also empowers
the leadership to take the right decisions to realise the same.

An opportunity to steer geopolitics:

Experts opine that the poll result also paves the way for India to take its rightful place in the world order not just as a participant in the deliberations that happen
at multilateral platforms but, more importantly, to set the course for the kind of change that we would like to see in the world.
India over the last five years has taken a leadership position in quite a few initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, while facilitating global action
on climate change through the Paris Agreement.
As a matter of fact, India has also projected its soft power through a global projection of yoga to shine the spotlight on how Indian spirituality can be a force for
greater good.
Now, with this kind of a political mandate and the unique set of global circumstances it has been delivered in, the expectation is even higher that India would
take up its rightful role in steering geopolitics in a host of areas. These areas range from:

1. global trade to regional conflicts

2. setting the global direction in emerging technology areas such as artificial intelligence and space exploration, to name a few.

It is also important to note that India’s democracy after Independence is a very unique experiment, just a few years away from turning 75.
As a matter of fact, there is no democratic parallel anywhere else in the world to the Indian context and the Indian experiment.
This is missing in the manner in which the global media, especially influential western media outlets, have tended to view India.
Experts opine that this mandate ought to be a wake-up call for global media outlets to shun their myopic view of the democratic discourse in India. They must
now discard the stereotypes they still use in their reportage.

What else does the mandate imply?

The mandate also places Mr. Modi as first among equals within his peer group of world leaders today.
Further, while a whole generation of strong leaders have emerged from among the G20 nations, be it the U.S., Japan, Russia, Turkey, Australia, Indonesia or
South Africa, only Mr. Modi can credibly claim to have been tested by the largest number of voters in a free and fair election.
The mandate gives India’s voice heft at key multilateral platforms.
The mandate also creates the opportunity for Mr. Modi to advance Indian values and advocate uniquely Indian ways of solving global problems.

Concluding Remarks:

Experts opine that the mandate also calls for a new creed of techno-nationalism as a counter to borderless techno-activism that has threatened Indian interests
through its pursuit of innocuous agendas (net neutrality and privacy) which have advocated measures inimical to India.
Further, the political mandate also demands that India devise ways and means to stay ahead of the curve in emerging technology areas such as 5G and
artificial intelligence, among others.
It also calls for out-of-the-box thinking as India can no longer risk being left out of setting the course for technology changes that will not only shape the global
economy but also geopolitical dynamics.
It is important to note that India is also the largest open market to global technology majors which continue to locate their computing and storage infrastructure
outside India and beyond Indian jurisdictions.
The mandate demands that India leverage the strength of its democracy and the power of its markets to ensure that the global platforms play by rules that do
not hurt the Indian national interest.
In conclusion, while India continues to benefit from global digital innovations, this needs to happen within a framework that enhances Indian interests.

An India-US trade deal? No thank you

Note to the Students:

th
This analysis is taken from an article entitled, “An India-US trade deal? No thank you”, as published in the Hindu Business Line on the 28 of May, 2019.

Editorial Analysis:
Experts opine that while the government formulates its policy priorities for NDA-II, grappling with the challenges confronting India-US trade ties is likely
to be high on the agenda.
https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 4/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web

As a matter of fact, how this thorny issue is addressed by the government could have far reaching implications for India’s economic growth.

What does India’s list of grievances against the US include?

India’s list of grievances against the US include:

1. problems encountered by its exporters of IT services,

2. tariffs imposed by the US on exports of steel and aluminium products and
3. the threat of the US to remove India from the list of developing countries enjoying preferential access to its markets.

What does the US’s list of grievances against the US include?

US complaints include:

1. perceived barriers erected by India to its exports,

2. India’s recent measures related to e-commerce and
3. its perennial criticism of India’s intellectual property laws.

It is important to note that at the WTO, the two countries have divergent positions on many issues, including the crisis at the dispute resolution mechanism and
WTO reform.

What is needed to iron out the differences?

In order to iron out the trade friction between the two countries, some strategic experts and foreign policy analysts have suggested that India should
work towards a comprehensive bilateral trade deal with the US.
No doubt it should be a high political priority for India to have an enduring and mutually beneficial trade link with the US.
Crucially, experts opine that any move by India for a comprehensive trade deal with the US should come only after a detailed examination of the
fundamental reasons bedevilling trade relations between the two countries.
Further, despite the gradually deepening links between India and the US on geo-political issues, an important question arises: why have the two
countries failed to forge deeper trade ties?
Even a superficial analysis of the interests of the two countries would make it obvious that the path to strengthened trade relations is fraught with
hurdles, many of which are insurmountable.
As a matter of fact, how does the US wish-list stack up against India’s interests and concerns? Experts point out that there are at least six grounds
of concern, which arise from an India-US trade deal.

India-US trade deal: Grounds of Concern

Firstly, as the average tariffs in the US is 3.4 per cent, India’s exports are unlikely get any significant boost, even if the US were to reduce its existing
tariffs to zero.
Secondly, India would be conceding considerable market access to the US by reducing/eliminating its tariffs from the existing average level of 13.8 per
cent.
It is important to note that as India is not price competitive in a large number of products, the country may find it extremely difficult to face import
competition under a zero-duty regime.
This would pose severe risk to the manufacturing sector and could frustrate the Make in India flagship initiative of NDA-1.
Thirdly, on the agriculture front, India’s farmers will be continuously exposed to the risk of being knocked out of the market by cheap and subsidised
imports from the US. Tariff as a policy instrument would not be available to the government to regulate such imports.
The consequences of such a situation can be extremely alarming.
In particular, the horticulture sector, dairy sector and wheat would come under extremely intense pressure from US imports.
As a matter of fact, the prospects of doubling farm income are likely to get dented by a comprehensive trade deal with the US.
Fourthly, on the IPR front, India will get confronted by US to agree to its onerous demands, particularly for extending the monopoly protection
enjoyed by the US pharmaceutical companies in India. This would require India to make crucial changes to its domestic laws and regulations, which
would eventually destroy the generic pharmaceutical industry in the country.
This would result in a sharp increase in prices of medicines, thereby compromising the health of the sick and the needy in India.
Fifthly, the India-US trade deal would significantly erode the policy space currently available to the government to nurture the fledgling domestic digital
economy in India.
As a matter of fact, we are already witnessing a strong backlash unleashed by the US-based digital giants against some of the recent actions of the
government, including data localisation for credit cards and the press note seeking to contain the unfair practices indulged in by retail platforms.
Further, it is important to note that the trade deal will certainly be used by the US-based digital giants to ensure that their interests in India are
strongly protected. This will compromise the digital future of our country.
Another important question arises:

Would the trade deal help India secure greater market access for its exports of services to the US?

If the past FTAs of the US are an indicator, the US is extremely unlikely to agree to India’s demands for more access for its professionals under Mode 4
of Services.
Further, given the strong emotions unleashed in the US against immigration, the US is not likely to show any flexibility to India in allowing the seamless
movement of professionals.
On the other hand, India would be required to grant considerable access to US firms in many sectors, including for financial services.

What are the proponents of the India-US trade deal optimistic about?
https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 5/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web
at a e t e p opo e ts o t e d a US t ade dea opt st c about

The proponents of the India-US trade deal are also optimistic on two issues, both of which need careful scrutiny.
Firstly, some experts have claimed that the trade deal will enhance India’s access to high technology. This is not only incorrect, but also goes
against the grain of the consistent stand of the US at various inter-governmental forums that technology transfer is governed by patents; and
that it cannot direct its firms to share high technology.
In essence, the trade deal will certainly not have provisions that would facilitate technology transfer.
Another aspiration being articulated by some supporters of the trade deal is that it will enhance US investments in India. However, the link between
bilateral investment protection treaty (BIT) and investment inflows is extremely weak.
On the contrary, based on a rigorous empirical exercise, UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Report (2014) has concluded that “BITs appear to have no
effect on bilateral North-South FDI flows”.
It is, thus, unlikely that the India-US trade deal will result in enhanced investment inflows from the US into India.
In conclusion, the stark reality is that a bilateral trade deal with the US would be extremely skewed and loaded against India’s economic interests.
As a matter of fact, the injurious consequences for India would far outweigh the export gains of a few billion dollars.
The proponents of the trade deal need to examine the nuts and bolts of a potential treaty and objectively assess its economic impact on the country.
India must not fall into the dangerous trap of initiating negotiation for a comprehensive trade deal with the US.
Instead, the two countries must continue to talk and address individual irritants in trade ties.
The time for a comprehensive India-US bilateral trade deal has not yet come.

Realising grand objectives – On addressing India’s regional policy challenges

Context:

The editorial talks about the many regional policy challenges inhibiting India’s performance.

Challenges:

While the broad directions of India’s foreign relations — with the neighbourhood, Afghanistan, the U.S., China, Indo-Pacific, Russia, and Europe — have been set over
the past several years, the main factors inhibiting India’s performance are ultimately domestic in nature. Three stand out:

1 – Trade:

India’s trade-to-GDP ratio is higher than China’s or the U.S.’s. India’s market, and access to it, remains a valuable lever with other countries.
But much of India’s commerce involves raw materials and low value-added goods, and is still insufficiently integrated into global supply chains.
With global trade stagnant and the World Trade Organization at a standstill, the only way for India to seize a larger share of exports is through well-negotiated
preferential trade agreements.
India’s past record in this department has been poor, leaving some sectors exposed to dumping and others unnecessarily cloistered.
A smarter trade agenda will not only create jobs and drive reforms at home, it could become a potent strategic tool in international affairs.

2 – Defence:

India has the world’s fifth largest defence budget but is also the world’s second largest arms importer.
Not only does this compromise national security, it means that India cannot offer an alternative as a defence supplier to countries in its region.
Defence indigenisation will require
Financing for defence capital expenditure
Assessments of costs
Technology transfer capabilities
Fair competition between the Indian private and public sectors

3 – Overseas project implementation:

India’s outgoing aid budget has been relatively low, reflecting a scepticism of grant aid from India’s own experience as a recipient.
Instead, it has now started to explore other financing options.
Indian overseas credit has increased significantly, with over $24 billion extended primarily to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
But building on several recent steps will significantly increase the country’s delivery and regional credibility. These include
Better project planning
More attractive and competitive financing terms
More reliable disbursal of funds
Enhanced coordination and communication with the private sector for implementation.

Conclusion:

Many regional policy challenges would be addressed with these three major fixes. These would also demand tackling vested interests. Key policy interventions in
these three areas will now be necessary for India to realise its grander objectives.

https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 6/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web

PM – KISAN scheme

What to study?

For Prelims: Key Features of the scheme.

For Mains: Significance, relevance and need for the scheme, concerns and challenges over its implementation, is it sufficient?

Context: The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved that the ambit of the Pradhan Mantri KisanSamman Nidhi (PM-
KISAN) would be comprehensively extended.

The revised Scheme is expected to cover around 2 crore more farmers, increasing the coverage of PM-KISAN to around 14.5 crore beneficiaries.

With this decision, all land holding eligible farmer families (subject to the prevalent exclusion criteria) would avail of the benefits under this scheme.

About Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi:

Under this programme, vulnerable landholding farmer families, having cultivable land upto 2 hectares, will be provided direct income support at the rate
of Rs. 6,000 per year.

This income support will be transferred directly into the bank accounts of beneficiary farmers, in three equal installments of Rs. 2,000 each.

The complete expenditure of Rs 75000 crore for the scheme will borne by the Union Government in 2019-20.

Definition:

For the purpose of the calculation of the benefit, the Centre has defined a small and marginal landholder family as the one comprising of husband, wife and
minor children up to 18 years of age, who collectively own cultivable land up to two hectare as per the land records of the concerned states.

Significance:

Around 12 crore small and marginal farmer families are expected to benefit from this. It would not only provide assured supplemental income to the most
vulnerable farmer families, but would also meet their emergent needs especially before the harvest season. It would pave the way for the farmers to earn and live
a respectable living.

Similar programmes by states:

Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana in Madhya Pradesh was sought to provide relief to farmers by providing the differential between MSPs and market prices.

The Rythu Bandhu schemeof the Telangana government provides 4,000 per acre for every season to all the farmers of the state. Similar initiatives have
also be framed in Jharkhand and Odisha.

In December 2018, Odisha launched the Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income augmentation (KALIA). KALIA is more complicated in design
and implementation. It commits to give Rs 5,000 per SMF, twice a year, that is Rs 10,000 a year.

Benefits of direct cash transfers:

https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 7/10
6/5/2019 editorials - Evernote Web
Benefits of direct cash transfers:

It has immediate impact on reducing hunger and rural poverty.

They can help households to overcome credit constraints and manage risk. This can increase productive investment, increase access to markets and stimulate
local economies.

Income support can be used to make a repayment or at least activate a bank account which can then receive a loan.

It can increase investment in agricultural inputs, including farm implements and livestock.

It can serve as an important complement to a broader rural development agenda, including a pro-poor growth strategy focusing on agriculture.

Challenges with cash transfers- criticisms:

Landless labourers are not being covered under PM-KISAN.

Cash transfers are not greatly superior in terms of leakagescompared to other schemes of in-kind transfer such as the public distribution system (PDS).

A targeted cash transfer scheme envisions the role of the state to only providing cash income to the poor. This kind of approach seeks to absolve the state of
its responsibility in providing basic services such as health, education, nutrition and livelihood.

Cash transfer scheme such as PM-KISAN cannot be substituted for subsidies and other institutional support systems such as the National Food Security Act-
powered public distribution system. In fact, such cash transfer schemes could be counterproductive and may lead to more distress.

Cash transfers do not solve the following problems which are the reasons for the current agrarian crisis. The Agrarian crisis is not just of low incomes in
agriculture. The genesis of the current crisis lies in the faulty and ad hoc export-import policy, lack of infrastructure and cartelisation and collusion in
agricultural markets, which have prevented farmers from realizing the market prices for agricultural produce.

Cash transfer is neither a substitute for the structural reforms needed in agriculture, nor does it adequately compensate the farmer for the risks and
uncertainty of crop cultivation.

In the absence of proper tenancy records, it will also benefit the absentee landlords.

It is no substitute for the lack of investment in agriculture, which has declined at 2.3% per annum in real terms.

https://www.evernote.com/client/web?login=true&newReg=true#?anb=true&b=b8d2015b-16e4-4173-95dd-cc3c63e639ab&n=2e507e39-96dd-4774-9… 8/10