UPSC Q & A : Agricultural Reforms and Progress Under the Modi Government

Here in this blog you are going to get answers on some of the important questions regarding Agricultural reforms by Modi Government.

Overall, these questions are important for GK also and you will come to know how much active the Government is in the Agri sector.

Before starting here is some more coding related info I want to give. There are MOOC courses and W3schools on the Internet which are free sources of Coding knowledge and Programming. So if you want you can try to go for that also.

Q1: Discuss the significance of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system in ensuring farmer welfare in India. How effective has MSP procurement been in different states?

The Minimum Support Price (MSP) system is a key agricultural policy in India aimed at ensuring price stability and income security for farmers by guaranteeing a minimum price for their crops. The MSP is announced by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and implemented by government agencies like the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state procurement bodies.

Significance of MSP in Ensuring Farmer Welfare

Income Assurance: MSP acts as a safety net, protecting farmers from market price fluctuations and distress sales.

Food Security: By incentivizing production of staple crops (wheat, rice, pulses), MSP helps maintain buffer stocks for PDS (Public Distribution System).

Risk Mitigation: Farmers are shielded from price crashes due to bumper harvests or external shocks.

Crop Diversification: MSP encourages cultivation of non-cereal crops like pulses and oilseeds, reducing import dependency.

Credit Access: Assured prices improve farmers’ creditworthiness, helping them secure loans.

Effectiveness of MSP Procurement Across States

MSP procurement has been highly uneven, with significant variations across states:

1. Highly Effective States (High Procurement)

Punjab & Haryana: Dominate MSP procurement, especially for wheat and rice, due to well-established APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) infrastructure.

Madhya Pradesh: Emerging as a major wheat procurer due to state-led initiatives.

Andhra Pradesh & Telangana: Strong procurement of rice and cotton.

2. Moderately Effective States

Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan: Some procurement but limited by infrastructure gaps.

Maharashtra: MSP works well for cotton and soybeans but weak for pulses.

3. Low-Procurement States (Limited MSP Benefits)

Bihar, Eastern UP, Odisha, West Bengal: Poor procurement infrastructure and lack of awareness.

North-Eastern States: Minimal MSP reach due to logistical challenges.

Challenges & Criticisms

Skewed Benefit: Only 6% of farmers benefit from MSP (NSSO 2012-13 data), mostly in Punjab, Haryana, and a few other states.

Cereal-Centric Bias: Overemphasis on wheat & rice leads to water depletion (e.g., Punjab’s groundwater crisis).

Limited Coverage: Many crops (fruits, vegetables) lack MSP, leaving horticulture farmers vulnerable.

Market Distortions: MSP discourages crop diversification and private market competition.

Way Forward

Expanding Procurement: Include more states and crops (pulses, oilseeds).

Direct Income Support: Schemes like PM-KISAN complement MSP.

APMC Reforms: Improve market access for farmers outside MSP.

Price Deficiency Payment (PDP): As an alternative (e.g., Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana in MP).

Conclusion

While MSP has been crucial for farmer welfare in procuring states, its limited reach and regional disparities reduce its overall effectiveness. A multi-pronged approach (MSP + market reforms + direct transfers) is needed to ensure equitable benefits for all farmers.

Q2: “The issue is not just MSP hikes but the limited procurement infrastructure.” Analyze this statement in the context of ongoing farmers’ protests in India.

The statement “The issue is not just MSP hikes but the limited procurement infrastructure” highlights a critical flaw in India’s agricultural support system, which has been a major trigger for ongoing farmers’ protests (such as the 2024 protests demanding a legal guarantee for MSP). While MSP increases are politically announced, inadequate procurement mechanisms prevent most farmers from actually benefiting.

Analysis of the Statement in Context of Farmers’ Protests

1. MSP Hikes Alone Are Not Enough

The government announces MSP hikes for 23 crops, but only wheat and rice see large-scale procurement (mainly in Punjab, Haryana, and a few other states).

Small & marginal farmers (86% of total farmers) often sell to traders below MSP due to lack of state procurement.

Example: In Bihar, where APMC mandis were abolished in 2006, farmers sell paddy at prices 20-30% below MSP.

2. Limited Procurement Infrastructure: Key Bottlenecks

Geographical Bias:

Punjab & Haryana account for ~80% of wheat and rice procurement, while states like UP, Bihar, and Odisha lag despite high production.

Eastern India (major paddy producer) has poor mandi network, forcing farmers to sell to middlemen.

Lack of Procurement Centers:

Many states have too few procurement centers, making it difficult for distant farmers to access MSP.

Example: In Maharashtra, only 30% of cotton farmers benefit from MSP despite it being a major crop.

Delayed Payments & Corruption:

Farmers face long delays in MSP payments, pushing them towards private traders.

Leakages in procurement (e.g., fake beneficiaries) reduce actual reach.

3. Farmers’ Protests Reflect These Grievances

Demand for Legal MSP Guarantee: Farmers fear that without mandatory procurement, MSP remains a paper promise.

Expanding Procurement Beyond Wheat & Rice: Protesters want MSP for pulses, oilseeds, and millets, which suffer from low procurement.

Better Infrastructure: Farmers demand more procurement centers, faster payments, and transparent systems.

4. Government’s Counter-Arguments

Fiscal Burden: Universal MSP procurement could cost ₹10-12 lakh crore annually (NITI Aayog estimates).

Market Distortion: Excessive MSP procurement leads to overproduction of rice & wheat, causing storage issues (FCI godowns overflow).

Alternative Schemes: The Centre promotes PM-AASHA, e-NAM, and direct transfers (PM-KISAN) as substitutes for MSP expansion.

Way Forward

Decentralized Procurement: Expand procurement in eastern India (UP, Bihar, Bengal) to reduce Punjab-Haryana dominance.

Strengthen APMCs: Reinstate or reform mandis in states like Bihar to improve MSP access.

Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) for MSP: Compensate farmers for the gap between MSP and market price (as in Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu).

Focus on Non-Cereal Crops: Improve procurement for pulses, oilseeds, and cotton to reduce import dependence.

Conclusion

The farmers’ protests underline that MSP hikes alone are meaningless without procurement infrastructure. A legal MSP guarantee may not be feasible fiscally, but better procurement systems, fair pricing, and alternative income support are necessary to address farmers’ distress. The real solution lies in bridging the gap between policy announcements and ground-level implementation.

Q3: Critically examine the challenges in the procurement process under MSP in India. Suggest policy measures to make MSP more effective and inclusive.

Critical Examination of Challenges in MSP Procurement in India

India’s Minimum Support Price (MSP) system, while designed to protect farmers, suffers from structural inefficiencies that limit its reach and effectiveness. Below is a critical analysis of key challenges and policy recommendations for reform.

Key Challenges in MSP Procurement

1. Limited & Skewed Procurement Coverage

Geographical Bias: Over 80% of wheat and rice procurement happens in Punjab, Haryana, and MP, leaving farmers in eastern and southern states (Bihar, Bengal, Odisha, Telangana) with minimal access.
Crop Bias: MSP is effectively implemented only for wheat & rice, while pulses, oilseeds, and cotton suffer from low procurement (only 10-30% of marketable surplus is procured).

2. Weak & Corrupt Procurement Infrastructure

Insufficient Procurement Centers: Many states have too few mandis, forcing farmers to sell to traders below MSP.
- Example: Bihar (no APMC mandis since 2006) sees paddy sold at 25-40% below MSP.
Delayed Payments: Farmers face months-long delays in MSP payments (₹21,000 crore pending in Punjab, March 2024).
Leakages & Fraud: CAG (2022) found fake procurement records in UP and Bihar, where traders siphon off benefits.

3. Fiscal & Storage Constraints

High Fiscal Cost: Full MSP procurement for all 23 crops could cost ₹17-20 lakh crore/year (NITI Aayog 2023).
Excessive Stocks: FCI holds 3x buffer stock norms, leading to wastage & inefficiency.

4. Market Distortions & Lack of Diversification

Overproduction of Rice & Wheat: MSP incentivizes water-intensive crops, worsening Punjab’s groundwater crisis.
Private Traders Dominate: Due to poor procurement, 80% of farmers sell below MSP (NSSO 2019-20).

5. Legal & Policy Paralysis

No Legal Guarantee: MSP is not a right, leaving farmers vulnerable.
Failed APMC Reforms: Only 18 states adopted Model APMC Act, and e-NAM handles just 1.7% of trade.

Policy Measures to Make MSP More Effective & Inclusive

1. Expand & Decentralize Procurement

Increase procurement centers in eastern & southern states (UP, Bihar, Bengal, Odisha, Telangana).
Include more crops (pulses, oilseeds, millets) to reduce import dependence.

2. Direct Income Support & Price Deficiency Payments

DBT for MSP gap: Compensate farmers for difference between MSP & market price (like Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu).
Pilot Price Deficiency Payment (PDP) schemes (e.g., MP’s Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana).

3. Strengthen APMCs & e-NAM

Revive APMC mandis in Bihar and improve transparency.
Boost e-NAM adoption by integrating FCI, NABARD, and private players.

4. Warehouse Receipt Financing & MSP Loans

Allow farmers to store produce in warehouses and get loans at MSP value (like Karnataka’s scheme).
Reduce post-harvest losses by improving cold storage.

5. Sustainable Crop Diversification

Shift from rice/wheat to millets, pulses, oilseeds with higher MSP incentives.
Link MSP to agro-climatic zones to prevent water depletion.

6. Legal Safeguards & Transparency

MSP as a legal right (with fiscal safeguards to avoid excessive burden).
Blockchain-based procurement tracking to prevent fraud.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond Token MSP Hikes

The MSP system is broken due to poor procurement, corruption, and policy gaps. Instead of just announcing higher MSPs, the government must:
Expand procurement infrastructure in neglected states.
Introduce direct income support for crops outside MSP.
Reform APMCs & e-NAM for a competitive market.

Without these steps, MSP will remain a privilege for a few, not a right for all farmers.

Data Sources:

FCI Procurement Reports (2024)
NSSO 77th Round (2019-20)
CAG Audit on MSP (2022)
e NAM

Q4: Explain the role of MSP, procurement, and the Public Distribution System (PDS) in ensuring food security in India. How can the system be reformed for better efficiency?

Role of MSP, Procurement, and PDS in India’s Food Security

India’s food security system relies on a three-pillar framework:

Minimum Support Price (MSP) – Guarantees farmers a stable income.
Government Procurement – Ensures buffer stocks of essential grains.
Public Distribution System (PDS) – Distributes subsidized food to the poor.

Together, they stabilize prices, prevent shortages, and reduce hunger.

1. How MSP, Procurement & PDS Ensure Food Security

(A) MSP: Incentivizing Production

Stabilizes Farm Incomes: Prevents distress sales (e.g., wheat/rice farmers in Punjab).
Encourages Staple Crop Cultivation: Ensures adequate supply of rice & wheat for PDS.
Limitations: Only 6-14% of farmers benefit (NSSO 2019-20), skewing benefits to a few states.

(B) Procurement: Building Buffer Stocks

FCI & State Agencies procure ~30% of India’s rice & wheat (FCI 2024).
Buffer Norms: Maintains 41.1 million tonnes of grains (enough for 3-4 months).
Limitations:
- Overstocking: FCI holds 2.5x buffer stocks, leading to wastage (CAG 2022).
- Regional Bias: Punjab-Haryana contribute 80% of procured wheat, while Bihar, Bengal lag.

(C) PDS: Delivering Subsidized Food

Coverage: 800 million beneficiaries under National Food Security Act (NFSA).
Prices: Rice (₹3/kg), Wheat (₹2/kg), Free grains under PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY).
Limitations:
- Leakages: ~30% diversion of grains (Economic Survey 2018).
- Exclusion Errors: Many poor left out due to outdated ration cards.

2. Key Problems in the Current System

Issue	MSP	Procurement	PDS
Skewed Benefits	Only 6-14% farmers benefit	Punjab-Haryana dominate	Urban bias in PDS shops
Inefficient Storage	–	FCI godowns overflow (3x buffer norms)	Grain rotting in warehouses
Leakages & Corruption	Traders exploit small farmers	Fake procurement records (CAG)	Ghost ration cards
Crop Imbalance	Overproduction of rice/wheat	Neglect of pulses, oilseeds	–
Fiscal Burden	MSP hikes strain budgets	FCI debt: ₹3.5 lakh crore	Subsidy cost: ₹2.8 lakh crore/year

3. Reforms for a More Efficient System

(A) MSP & Procurement Reforms

Expand Procurement to Eastern India (UP, Bihar, Odisha) to reduce Punjab-Haryana dominance.
Include Pulses & Oilseeds in MSP to cut imports (India spends ₹1.5 lakh crore/year on edible oil imports).
Shift to Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) for MSP – Compensate farmers for price gaps (like Rythu Bandhu).

(B) PDS Modernization

Aadhaar-Linked Ration Cards – Reduce leakages (already cut diversion by 10-15%).
Doorstep Delivery via Women SHGs (as in Odisha).
One Nation, One Ration Card (ONORC) – Allow migrant workers to access PDS anywhere.

(C) Storage & Supply Chain Upgrades

Modernize FCI Warehouses with AI-based stock tracking.
Promote Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) to bypass middlemen.

(D) Crop Diversification

MSP for Millets & Nutri-Cereals – Align with climate resilience & nutrition goals.
Reduce Water-Intensive Crops – Shift Punjab from rice to pulses.

4. Case Studies of Successful Reforms

Chhattisgarh: Universal PDS reduced hunger by 20% (NITI Aayog 2023).
Andhra Pradesh: e-procurement cut corruption in MSP purchases.
Telangana: Rythu Bandhu (DBT for farmers) improved income security.

Conclusion: A Three-Pronged Reform Approach

Fix MSP & Procurement (expand coverage, reduce wastage).
Digitize PDS (Aadhaar, ONORC, doorstep delivery).
Diversify Crops (MSP for millets, pulses, oilseeds).

Without reforms, India’s food security system will remain bloated, inefficient, and exclusionary. A tech-driven, decentralized, and inclusive model is the way forward.

Extra Sources for Reading :

FCI Annual Report (2024)
NITI Aayog (2023)
CAG Audit on Food Storage (2022)
Economic Survey (2018)
NSSO 77th Round (2019-20)

Q5: The government’s financial constraints limit its ability to procure all crops at MSP. In this context, evaluate the feasibility of making MSP a legally guaranteed right for farmers.

Feasibility of Legally Guaranteed MSP: Balancing Farmer Welfare & Fiscal Realities

The demand for a legal guarantee of MSP has been a key issue in recent farmers’ protests, but its implementation faces significant economic, logistical, and policy challenges. Below is a structured evaluation of its feasibility:

1. Arguments in Favor of Legal MSP

(A) Income Security for Farmers

Prevents distress sales (e.g., tomato farmers selling at ₹2/kg despite high MSP).
Covers all 23 MSP crops, not just rice & wheat (benefits pulse/oilseed farmers).

(B) Reduced Market Exploitation

Stops traders from buying below MSP (currently, 80% of farmers sell below MSP, NSSO 2019-20).
Encourages crop diversification (if MSP covers millets, pulses, oilseeds).

(C) Political & Social Justice

Fulfills long-standing farmer demands (e.g., 2020-21 & 2024 protests).
Reduces agrarian distress (over 10,000 farmer suicides annually, NCRB 2022).

2. Challenges & Risks of Legal MSP

(A) Fiscal Burden (Biggest Constraint)

Estimated Cost: ₹10-17 lakh crore/year (NITI Aayog 2023) – 2-3x current food subsidy (₹2.8 lakh crore).
Debt Risks: FCI already has ₹3.5 lakh crore debt; legal MSP could worsen fiscal deficit.

(B) Market Distortions

Overproduction of MSP Crops: Could replicate Punjab’s rice monoculture crisis (depleting groundwater).
Private Trade Collapse: Traders may refuse to buy if MSP is higher than market rates.

(C) Implementation Challenges

Procurement Infrastructure Gap: Only 6% farmers currently benefit (NSSO). Scaling up requires 10x more mandis, storage.
Corruption Risks: Fake procurement (seen in Bihar/UP CAG reports) may increase.

(D) Global Trade Issues

WTO Violations: MSP above market prices could be seen as trade-distorting subsidies, inviting disputes.
Export Restrictions: If India stocks grains for MSP, it may face export bans (like 2022 wheat ban).

3. Alternatives to Full Legal MSP

Option	Pros	Cons
Price Deficiency Payment (PDP)	Direct cash if market price < MSP (e.g., MP’s Bhavantar)	Requires strong IT systems, may exclude small farmers
MSP for Procurement Only	Limits fiscal burden (current system)	Doesn’t help non-procured crops
DBT for MSP Gap	Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu model works	Still costly, needs accurate price data
Contract Farming + MSP	Ensures assured prices without state procurement	Corporates may exploit farmers

4. Way Forward: A Balanced Approach

(A) Phased Legal MSP for Priority Crops

Start with 5-10 crops (e.g., pulses, oilseeds) to reduce import dependence.
Expand procurement in eastern India (Bihar, Bengal, Odisha) to reduce Punjab-Haryana bias.

(B) Strengthen Procurement Infrastructure

Double APMC mandis (from 7,000 to 15,000).
Warehouse receipts & e-NAM to help farmers get MSP without FCI.

(C) Hybrid Model: MSP + Direct Support

MSP for staples (rice, wheat) + DBT for other crops.
Example: Pulses MSP + ₹5,000/acre subsidy (like PM-KISAN).

(D) Sustainable Farming Incentives

Higher MSP for millets, organic crops to align with climate goals.
Penalize water-intensive crops in critical zones (e.g., Punjab rice).

Conclusion: Legal MSP is Noble but Needs Fiscal & Structural Reforms

While a full legal MSP guarantee is fiscally risky, a targeted approach—covering select crops, improving procurement, and using direct cash transfers—can balance farmer welfare and economic stability. Reforms must address infrastructure gaps, corruption, and crop diversification to make MSP truly inclusive.

Q6: Discuss the impact of middlemen and delays in payments on the MSP procurement process. How can digital reforms like e-NAM and direct bank transfers improve the system?

The Persistent Role of Middlemen in India’s Agri-System & How Digital Reforms Can Fix It

1. Middlemen Still Dominate India’s Agricultural Markets

Despite reforms, middlemen (commission agents, traders, arhatiyas) control 85-90% of agricultural trade (NITI Aayog, 2021). Key stats:

Only 10-15% of farmers sell directly to government procurement agencies (NSSO 77th Round, 2019-20).
APMC mandis remain trader-dominated: In Punjab & Haryana, 80% of wheat/rice sales go through middlemen (FCI Procurement Data, 2023).
Exploitative commissions: Farmers lose 3-5% of earnings to unauthorized fees (CAG, 2022).
Non-MSP sales: Over 75% of Indian farmers sell below MSP due to middlemen’s influence (NITI Aayog, 2023).

2. Delays in MSP Payments Worsen Farmer Distress

Punjab & Haryana: Farmers wait 3-6 months for MSP payments (₹21,000 crore pending in 2024, FCI).
Bihar & UP: Weak procurement systems force 60% of paddy farmers to sell to traders at 20-30% below MSP (NSSO).
Corruption leaks: 15-20% of MSP funds siphoned via fake invoices (CAG Audit, 2022).

How Digital Reforms Can Break Middlemen’s Grip

1. e-NAM (National Agricultural Market)

Current Reach: Only 1.7 crore farmers (12% of total) use e-NAM (2023 Agri Ministry report).
Impact:
- Andhra Pradesh reduced middlemen margins by 25% via e-NAM auctions.
- Transparency: Real-time pricing prevents cartelization (e.g., tur dal prices rose 18% post-e-NAM in Maharashtra).
Limitations: Just 200+ mandis (of 7,000) fully digitized.

2. Direct Bank Transfers (DBT) for MSP

Success Cases:
- Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu: ₹10,000/acre DBT cut out middlemen, benefiting 5.8 million farmers.
- PM-KISAN: ₹6,000/year DBT reaches 110 million farmers directly.
Potential Savings: Switching to DBT could reduce MSP leakage by 30% (World Bank, 2022).

3. Blockchain & Smart Contracts

Pilot in Tamil Nadu: 10,000 farmers now get MSP payments in <72 hours via blockchain-verified procurement.
e-NWR (Warehouse Receipts): Farmers in Karnataka secured ₹5,000 crore loans against stored produce (2023).

Case Studies: States Reducing Middlemen’s Role

State	Reform	Impact
Punjab	Mandatory Aadhaar-linked MSP payments	Cut fake beneficiaries by 40% (2023)
Odisha	Women SHG-run PDS procurement	Reduced trader monopoly in paddy markets
MP	Bhavantar Bhugtan Yojana (DBT for MSP gap)	1.2 million farmers benefited

5-Point Reform Blueprint

Make e-NAM Mandatory: Link all 7,000 APMC mandis by 2025.
DBT for 100% MSP Payments: Eliminate cheque delays (saves ₹15,000 crore/year in leakage).
FPO Empowerment: Give 10,000 FPOs collective bargaining power vs traders.
Blockchain Procurement: Expand Tamil Nadu model nationally.
Warehouse Receipt Financing: Enable 50 million farmers to avoid distress sales.

Conclusion: A Digital Overhaul is Urgent

Middlemen still pocket ₹1.5 lakh crore/year from India’s farmers (NABARD, 2023). While e-NAM, DBT, and FPOs show promise, scaling reforms requires political will. The goal? An MSP system where farmers—not middlemen—keep 100% of earnings.

Q7: “The demand for a legal MSP guarantee reflects farmers’ concerns about market exploitation and corporate control.” Discuss with relevant examples.

Farmers’ Demand for Legal MSP: A Shield Against Market Exploitation & Corporate Control

The push for a legal MSP guarantee stems from deepening farmer anxieties about unfair market practices, corporate dominance in agriculture, and the erosion of their bargaining power. Below is an analysis with real-world examples:

1. Market Exploitation: Why Farmers Need Legal MSP

(A) Distress Sales Due to Price Volatility

Example 1 (Tomato Crisis, 2023):
- MSP for tomatoes: ₹8-10/kg
- Actual market price crashed to ₹2/kg in Andhra Pradesh, forcing farmers to dump produce.
- Result: Middlemen bought cheap and later sold at ₹100/kg during shortages.
Example 2 (Cotton in Maharashtra):
- MSP: ₹7,020/quintal (2023)
- Farmers sold at ₹5,500/quintal due to trader cartels.

(B) Middlemen Monopoly in APMCs

Punjab-Haryana Model:
- Arhatiyas (commission agents) control 85% of wheat/rice sales, charging 2.5% mandi tax + hidden fees.
- Impact: Farmers receive ₹1,800/quintal less than MSP after deductions (CAG, 2022).
Bihar’s APMC-Free Chaos:
- After APMC abolition (2006), private traders dominate—paddy sells at ₹1,200/quintal (MSP: ₹1,940).

2. Corporate Control: Contract Farming & Unequal Bargaining

(A) Corporate Contract Farming Exploitation

PepsiCo vs Potato Farmers (Gujarat, 2019):
- Farmers sued for growing patented potatoes without permission.
- Issue: Lopsided contracts favored corporates, leaving farmers with no price guarantees.
Dairy Sector (Amul/Nestlé Model):
- Private dairies set arbitrary milk prices (₹30-35/liter), while production costs exceed ₹40/liter.

(B) Fear of Corporatization via Farm Laws 2020

Protest Trigger: Farmers feared MSP would be scrapped, allowing corporates like Reliance/Adani to control prices.
Example: Punjab farmers protested Walmart’s direct deals, fearing mandi bypass would kill MSP.

3. Legal MSP as a Protective Measure

(A) Success of MSP in Stabilizing Markets

Rice & Wheat: Punjab-Haryana’s 90% procurement ensures price stability (but skews benefits).
Pulses MSP (2018): Tur dal MSP hikes reduced imports by 30%.

(B) Global Precedents

EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): Direct income support + price floors protect farmers.
USA’s Farm Bills: Loan-based price guarantees act like MSP for soybeans, corn.

4. Counterarguments: Why Legal MSP Faces Resistance

Challenge	Example
Fiscal Cost	₹17 lakh crore/year if all 23 crops covered (NITI Aayog).
WTO Rules	MSP above market rates may violate Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
Storage Issues	FCI already holds 2.5x buffer stocks (leads to wastage).

5. The Middle Path: Balanced Reforms

(A) Limited Legal MSP + DBT

Cover 5-10 critical crops (e.g., pulses, oilseeds) + cash transfers for others.

(B) Strengthen APMCs & e-NAM

Break trader cartels via transparent e-trading (e.g., MP’s e-Uparajan portal).

(C) Empower FPOs

Kerala’s MILMA Model: Farmer cooperatives negotiate directly with corporates.

(D) Price Deficiency Payments

Haryana’s Bhavantar Bharpai: Compensates farmers if market price < MSP.

Conclusion: Legal MSP as a Necessary Safeguard

Farmers’ demand for legal MSP is a defensive response to systemic exploitation by traders and corporates. While full MSP guarantee is fiscally risky, a smart, crop-specific approach—backed by digital reforms and FPO empowerment—can balance equity and efficiency.

Key Stats:

86% of Indian farmers sell below MSP (NSSO 2019-20).
Middlemen pocket ₹1.5 lakh crore/year from farmers (NABARD 2023).
Only 6% benefit from MSP procurement (NITI Aayog).

I hope you get good info out of this full UPSC analysis of Agri sector related works done by Modi Government in last 10 years. Even you cannot read everything, just giving it a glance might be beneficial.

Best of luck