Rate of MSP Increase Comparison Across Administrations: Who Materialized Higher Growth?
In a recent press statement, former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh discussed the growth rates of Minimum Support Price (MSP) during the UPA II and the current NDA government. However, a closer examination of the data reveals a more nuanced picture.
The data, collated from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture's website and the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) website, provides insights into the MSP growth of 25 crops from 2008 to 2018.
The average MSP growth rate during the UPA I rule (2004-2009) was higher for a majority of the crops compared to the current NDA rule (2014-2018). The crops with higher growth rates under UPA I include Paddy (Common), Paddy (Grade A), Jowar (Hybrid), Bajra, Maize, Ragi, Arhar, Moong, Urad, Cotton (Medium Staple), Cotton (Long Staple), Groundnut in Shell, Sunflower Seed, Soya Bean (Black), Soya Bean (Yellow), Sesamum, Nigerseed, Wheat, Barley, Toria, Copra (Milling), Copra (Ball), Dehusked Coconut, Jute, and Sugarcane.
Interestingly, the case of gram is an exception, with the average MSP growth rate during the UPA II rule (2009-2014) being higher than UPA I, but still lower than the growth rate under the current NDA rule.
For five crops, the UPA I has higher average MSP growth rates than UPA II as well. However, it's important to note that for Sugarcane, the difference between the growth of MSP in the two governments was 15 percentage points, which is significantly higher than the difference for most other crops.
Contrary to Dr. Singh's claim that the policies of the past UPA government were more favorable to farmers in terms of MSP growth, the data does not support this assertion. The average MSP growth rate during UPA II was 11.28%, while that under the NDA government was 4.91%. This difference of 6.48 percentage points is less than the 15.7 percentage points claimed by Dr. Singh.
In conclusion, while the growth rates of MSP under the UPA I rule were generally higher than under the current NDA rule, the difference is not as significant as claimed. It's crucial to approach such claims with a critical eye and to rely on data for a comprehensive understanding.
