Which of the following are having direct touch with the farmers? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following are having direct touch with the farmers?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->That which can not be perceived by touch....

QA->One word Substitution of " That which can not be perceived by touch....

QA->India � s first touch-and-feel garden for visually impaired has been set up in which state?....

QA->The language used by the blind people to read by touch is?....

QA->Touch or stroke lovingly....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.Agriculture has always been celebrated as the primary sector in India. Thanks to the Green Revolution, India is now self-sufficient in food production. Indian agriculture has been making technological advancement as well. Does that mean everything is looking bright for Indian agriculture ? A superficial analysis of the above points would tempt one to say yes, but the truth is far from it. The reality is that Indian farmers have to face extreme poverty and financial crisis, which is driving them to suicides. What are the grave adversities that drive the farmers to commit suicide, at a time when Indian economy is supposed to be gearing up to take on the world ?Indian agriculture is predominantly dependent on nature. Irrigation facilities that are currently available, do not cover the entire cultivable land. If the farmers are at the mercy of monsoons for timely water for their crops, they are at the mercy of the government for alternative irrigation facilities. Any failure of nature, directly affects the fortunes of the farmers. Secondly, Indian agriculture is largely an unorganized sector, there is no systematic planning in cultivation, farmers work on lands of uneconomical sizes, institutional finances are not available and minimum purchase prices of the government do not in reality reach the poorest farmer. Added to this, the cost of agricultural inputs have been steadily rising over the years, farmers’ margins of profits have been narrowing because the price rise in inputs is not complemented by an increase in the purchase price of the agricultural produce. Even today, in several parts of the country, agriculture is a seasonal occupation. In many districts, farmers get only one crop per year and for the remaining part of the year, they find it difficult to make both ends meet.The farmers normally resort to borrowing from money lenders, in the absence of institutionalized finance. Where institutional finance is available, the ordinary farmer does not have a chance of availing it because of the “procedures” involved in disbursing the finance. This calls for removing the elaborate formalities for obtaining the loans. The institutional finance, where available is mostly availed by the medium or large land owners, the small farmers do not even have the awareness of the existence of such facilities. The money lender is the only source of finance to the farmers. Should the crops fail, the farmers fall into a debt trap and crop failures piled up over the years give them no other option than ending their lives.Another disturbing trend has been observed where farmers commit suicide or deliberately kill a family member in order to avail relief and benefits announced by the government to support the families of those who have committed suicide so that their families could at least benefit from the Government’s relief programmes. What then needs to be done to prevent this sad state of affairs ? There cannot be one single solution to end the woes of farmers.Temporary measures through monetary relief would not be the solution. The governmental efforts should be targeted at improving the entire structure of the small wherein the relief is not given on a drought to drought basis, rather they are taught to overcome their difficulties through their own skills and capabilities. Social responsibility also goes a long way to help the farmers. General public, NGOs, Corporate and other organizations too can play a part in helping farmers by adopting drought affected villages and families and helping them to rehabilitate.The nation has to realize that farmers’ suicides are not minor issues happening in remote parts of a few states, it is a reflection of the true state of the basis of our economy.What does the author mean by “procedures” when he says that ‘farmers do not get a chance of availing institutional finance because of procedures involved in it’ ?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question. Political ploys initially hailed as master-strokes often end up as flops. The Rs. 60,000 crore farm loan waiver announced in the budget writes off 100% of overdues of small and marginal farmers holding upto two hectares, and 25% of overdues of larger farmers. While India has enjoyed 8%-9% GDP growth for the past few years, the boom has bypassed many rural areas and farmer distress and suicides have made newspaper headlines. Various attempts to provide relief (employment guarantee scheme, public distribution system) have made little impact, thanks. to huge leakages from the government’s lousy delivery systems. So, many economists think the loan waiver is a worthwhile alternative to provide relief. However the poorest rural folk are landless labourers, who get neither farm loans nor waivers. Half of the small and marginal farmers get no loans from banks and depend entirely on money-lenders, and will not benefit. Besides, rural India is full of the family holdings rather than individual holdings and family holdings will typically be much larger than two hectares even for dirt-poor farmers, who will, therefore, be denied the 100% waiver. It will thus fail in both economic and political objectives. IRDP loans to the rural poor in the 1980s demonstrated that crooked bank officials demand bribes amounting to one-third the intended benefits. Very few of the intended beneficiaries who merited relief received it. After the last farm loan waiver will Similarly slow down fresh loans to deserving farmers. While overdues to cooperatives may be higher, economist Surjit Shalla says less than 5% of farmer loans to banks are overdue i.e. overdues exist for only 2.25 million out of 90 million farmers. If so, then the 95% who have repaid loans will not benefit. They will be angry at being penalised for honesty. The budget thus grossly overestimates the number of beneficiaries, It also underestimates the negative effects of the waiver-encouraging willful default in the future and discouraging fresh bank lending for some years. nstead of trying to reach the needy, through a plethora of leaky schemes we should transfer cash directly to the needy using new technology like biometric smart cards, which are now being used in many countries, and mobile phones bank accounts. Then benefits can go directly to phone accounts operable only by those with biometric cards, ending the massive leakages of current schemes. The political benefits of the loan waiver have also been exaggerated since if only a small fraction of farm families benefit, and many of these have to pay bribes to get the actual benefit, will the waiver really be a massive vote- winner? Members of joint families will feel aggrieved that, despite having less than one hectare per head, their family holding is too large. Lo qualify for the 100% waiver. Alliance ministers, of central or state governments, give away freebies in their last budgets, hoping to win electoral regards, Yet, four-fifth of all incumbent governments are voted out. This shows that beneficiaries of favours are not notably grateful, while those not so favoured may feel aggrieved, and vote for the opposition. That seems to be why election budgets constantly fail to win elections in India and the loan waiver will not change that pattern.Why do economists feel that loan waivers will benefit farmers in distress?
....

MCQ-> The income disparity in the new India is massive: 36 billionaires in India and 800 million people living on less than $2 a day. The challenge for achieving inclusive growth relates to the revival of agriculture. Farming is becoming a non-viable activity. A confluence of factors, from poor rainfall to the new availability of consumer goods which consume much of Indian familie's incomes, has driven many farmers into crushing debt. The agriculture sector has many problems with a growth rate of less than 2% in the last decade. Further scope for increase in net sown area is limited. Disparity in productivity across regions and crops has persisted. Far from benefiting from the economic boom, many complain that banks don't offer the rural poor credit, forcing them to turn to greedy money-lenders, who typically charge up to 20% interest on a four-month loan. Healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, while the global price of cotton has become depressed, largely due to the billions of dollars in subsidies Washington hands out to U.S. farmers. The approach to the revival of Indian agriculture seems to be incremental, rather than a holistic strategy. It is important to stress that growth and equity should be pursued simultaneously rather than following the 'growth first and equity next' approach. What are the challenges for achieving 4% growth and equity in agriculture? Policy makers like the National Commission on Farmers mention cost reduction in agriculture as important to compete in a globalised world. The most important problem for the farmers is output price fluctuations. There is a big gap between producer prices and consumer prices. In order to protect farmers from National and international price volatility, a price stabilization fund is needed. The supply and demand side constraints have to be removed to raise growth. The support systems have to be tuned to improve productivity and incomes of farmers with emphasis on small and marginal farmers and dry land areas. One of the differences between the green revolution in the 1960s / 70s and the present 'second green revolution' is that risk is higher in the latter approach as it has to concentrate more on dry-land areas. Trade liberalisation has also raised the risk and uncertainty. Thus, policymakers have to keep in mind the increasing risk in agriculture. Agriculture policies have to be gender sensitive too since the share of women is increasing. The Government is aware that the crop sector may not be able to grow at 4% per annum but horticulture and allied activities like dairying, poultry and fisheries have to grow at the rate 6 % to 7 % to achieve 4% growth in agriculture. Investment in irrigation and rural infrastructure is important for agricultural growth. It is known that public investment in agriculture is lower than the requirements needed for achieving 4% growth. Bharat Nirman Programme is in the right direction but the progress has to be much fasterWhat does the author view as a challenge for achieving inclusive growth?
....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ-> Below is given a passage followed by several possible inferences which can be draw from the facts stated in the passage. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon its degree of truth or falsity. The immediate challenge is on the food front. Shortfalls in production have been allowed to affect supplies and hence prices. The government is planning to focus on investment in irrigation and strategy. It appears that the Green Revolution instruments to encourage farmers to invest are no longer effective. The Green Revolution strategy was based on the state taking out the risk of collapse in prices. Farmers were offered remunerative prices and a guaranteed procurement of their produce in case the open market could not absorb it. Farmers could them borrow from banks, acquire the Green Revolution Technology and produce as much as they could. The pressure on the food subsidy was manageable as long as there was a food shortage. Prices in the open market then tended to be above the procurement prices. But with the food surpluses the situation has changed. The situation was unsustainable not merely because of the magnitude of this subsidy. It was also inefficient. It meant farmers were being led to produce crops based just on the pieces Government fixed and not in relation to any legal demand. In these circumstances, the Government was reluctant to keep increasing procurement prices at the pace that used to be the norm in earlier years.The Government is planning to make crucial changes in the Green Revolution strategies.
....