Nirmesh Singh | 26 Jan 2026

The President’s speech on the eve of Republic Day should have reassured India’s farmers at a time of deep agrarian distress. Instead, it offered little beyond familiar assurances that the government is committed to ensuring “fair prices” for agricultural produce. For farmers facing prolonged income insecurity, rhetoric without enforceable rights offers no comfort.

It was particularly disappointing that the address projected PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi as the principal instrument to “honour” farmers. A modest income transfer, however welcome, cannot replace the dignity that comes from assured and remunerative prices for one’s produce. Farmers do not seek charity; they seek economic justice. The continued refusal to provide a legal guarantee on Minimum Support Price (MSP), a long-standing and central demand of farmers raises a troubling question: does denying MSP as a legal right not amount to systematic disregard for farmers’ labour and contribution?

This silence on assured incomes is especially glaring as the Budget session approaches. Parliament will once again debate national priorities, and agriculture will once again be discussed in terms of production targets rather than income outcomes. Governments routinely celebrate record foodgrain output and rising crop production, yet conspicuously avoid addressing whether farmers’ incomes have grown at the same pace. This omission reflects a deeper policy failure: productivity has increased, but prosperity has not followed.

For India’s farmers, particularly small and marginal farmers , who constitute over 80 per cent of the farming population—this failure translates into chronic income insecurity. In effect, Indian farmers continue to subsidise the nation by supplying food at prices far below what is fair or sustainable. Cheap food for consumers is achieved by underpaying producers, a burden borne almost entirely by farmers.

The MSP system was originally designed to protect farmers from market volatility and distress sales. In practice, however, MSP remains a declared price rather than a guaranteed one. There is no legal obligation on government agencies or private buyers to purchase crops at MSP. As a result, although MSPs are announced for over twenty crops each year, effective procurement is largely limited to wheat and rice in a few states. Farmers growing pulses, oilseeds, millets, or even paddy outside major procurement zones are often forced to sell below MSP simply because no buyer is willing to pay the announced price. This gap between official claims and ground reality explains why record production has not translated into higher incomes.

India’s food policy rests on the systematic under-pricing of farm produce. Prices are deliberately kept low to manage inflation and appease consumers, but the cost of cheap food is silently transferred to farmers. In no other sector are producers expected to sell below cost in the name of national interest. This structural injustice has normalised farmer impoverishment as an acceptable policy outcome.

Successive governments have attempted to manage farm distress through a proliferation of schemes, PM-Kisan, PM-ASHA, price deficiency payments, and various state-level compensation programmes. Together, these form a complex and fragmented policy framework that treats symptoms rather than the root cause. A legal guarantee on MSP would simplify this entire landscape by ensuring remunerative prices at the point of sale, reducing the need for multiple compensatory schemes and bureaucratic interventions. Instead of managing losses after they occur, it would prevent losses altogether.

The repeated emphasis on “increasing farmers’ income” without committing to measurable income outcomes exposes the limits of current policy thinking. Productivity, diversification, and technology adoption are important, but they cannot raise incomes if output prices remain depressed. Market reforms alone cannot deliver income security when farmers are price takers with little bargaining power.

A legal MSP would also bring predictability to farming. Small and marginal farmers invest borrowed money into each crop cycle without knowing whether prices at harvest will even cover their costs. Guaranteed MSP would allow better planning, improved credit access and informed production decisions. It would also strengthen rural demand by putting assured purchasing power in farmers’ hands, benefiting the wider economy.

State governments also have a critical role to play. Agriculture is a state subject, and states are empowered to legislate MSP guarantees within their jurisdictions. If the Union government remains reluctant, states, particularly those governed by opposition parties should introduce MSP guarantee bills in their budget sessions. Such initiatives would demonstrate political sincerity and help rebuild farmers’ trust in promises that have remained unfulfilled.

Ultimately, the resistance to legal MSP raises a deeper question. Why is it acceptable for farmers to remain economically vulnerable while other sectors enjoy price protection and safety nets? If food security is a national priority, income security for those who produce that food must be one too.

The upcoming Budget offers an opportunity to correct this long-standing imbalance. A legal guarantee on MSP would mark a shift from rhetoric to rights and from fragmented schemes to structural reform. For India’s farmers, this is not a demand for charity, but for fairness, dignity and economic justice. If the Budget is truly to serve the backbone of the nation, it must finally enshrine the right to a fair price in law.
__________________________________________________________________________________