KPRS: FEROCIOUS 2 DEMANDS AND A BLEEDING HOPE OF FARMERS

The Karnataka Prantha Raitha Sangha (KPRS) has intensified pressure on the Union and State governments by demanding a higher Minimum Support Price for red gram and the imposition of a 50 per cent import duty on pulses, arguing that farmers are being pushed into deep economic distress by falling prices and unchecked imports. The twin demands, raised amid mounting agrarian anxiety, have once again brought the fragile economics of pulse cultivation into sharp focus, highlighting the widening gap between policy assurances and the lived reality of farmers.

Red gram, a key pulse crop for Karnataka’s dry regions, has long been projected as a livelihood stabiliser for rain-dependent farmers. However, growers now say that market prices have consistently failed to cover even basic input costs. KPRS leaders contend that while production costs have risen sharply due to higher seed prices, fertilisers, labour wages, and transport expenses, procurement prices have stagnated, eroding farm incomes year after year.

At the centre of the agitation is the MSP, which farmers argue must reflect actual cultivation costs plus a reasonable margin. According to KPRS, the existing MSP is grossly inadequate and does not align with the realities faced by small and marginal farmers. The organisation claims that procurement mechanisms are weak, leaving farmers at the mercy of traders who exploit distress sales during peak harvest season.

The demand for a 50 per cent import duty on pulses is equally forceful. KPRS argues that cheap imports flood domestic markets just when local produce arrives, causing a sharp crash in prices. Farmers insist that without strong protective duties, domestic pulse cultivation will become unviable, forcing growers to abandon crops that are crucial for both income security and nutritional needs.

The agitation has gathered momentum across several districts, with farmer leaders warning of intensified protests if their demands are ignored. They stress that the issue is not merely about price but about survival, dignity, and the future of agriculture in drought-prone regions. For many farmers, the KPRS demands represent a last stand against a system they believe consistently favours traders and importers over cultivators.

Government responses so far have been cautious, acknowledging farmers’ concerns while pointing to broader market dynamics and international trade commitments. However, for farmers battling mounting debts and uncertain incomes, such explanations offer little solace. The KPRS demands have thus become a rallying cry, capturing the frustration of a sector that feels increasingly marginalised.

As negotiations loom, the red gram issue has emerged as a powerful symbol of the broader agrarian crisis, raising fundamental questions about price policy, import dependence, and the State’s responsibility toward its farming communities.

RED GRAM FARMERS AND THE REALITY OF DISTRESS

Red gram cultivation occupies a vital place in Karnataka’s agricultural landscape, particularly in districts prone to erratic rainfall and limited irrigation. For thousands of farmers, the crop represents a balance between risk and resilience, requiring relatively less water while offering steady demand. Yet, this balance has been steadily undermined by volatile prices and weak policy support.

KPRS leaders point out that over the past few years, red gram prices in open markets have frequently fallen below the MSP, rendering the announced price meaningless in practice. Procurement centres, they allege, are either insufficient in number or operate with restrictive conditions that exclude many farmers. As a result, growers are forced to sell to private traders at rates that barely cover costs.

The cost of cultivation has become a major point of contention. Farmers cite rising expenses on seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, diesel, and labour, all of which have increased significantly. In contrast, MSP revisions have been incremental, failing to keep pace with inflation. This mismatch, KPRS argues, has steadily eroded farm profitability.

For smallholders, the consequences are severe. Many rely on informal credit to finance cultivation, making them vulnerable to debt traps when prices crash. Delayed payments and low returns often force families to cut back on essential expenses, including education and healthcare. In such circumstances, the demand for a higher MSP is seen not as a bonus but as a lifeline.

Women farmers, who play a significant role in pulse cultivation, are also disproportionately affected. Their labour often goes unrecognised and uncompensated, further lowering household incomes. KPRS leaders have highlighted this dimension, stressing that fair pricing has broader social implications beyond individual farms.

The organisation has also raised concerns about the long-term impact on cropping patterns. If red gram continues to be unremunerative, farmers may shift to less sustainable or riskier crops, undermining soil health and food security. Pulses are critical for nutritional security, and declining domestic production could deepen dependence on imports.

By foregrounding these realities, KPRS has sought to reframe the debate from market efficiency to farmer survival. The red gram crisis, they argue, is not an isolated issue but part of a systemic failure to ensure fair returns for cultivators.

IMPORTS, TRADE POLICY, AND FARMER PROTECTION

The demand for a 50 per cent import duty on pulses reflects farmers’ anger over what they see as policy indifference to domestic producers. KPRS contends that liberal import policies have repeatedly destabilised local markets, particularly during harvest seasons. Cheap imports, they argue, depress prices just when farmers need remunerative returns the most.

Pulse imports are often justified by the government as necessary to stabilise prices for consumers. While this rationale may hold in years of short domestic supply, farmers argue that imports continue even when local production is adequate. This, they say, indicates a policy bias that prioritises short-term consumer prices over long-term farmer sustainability.

KPRS leaders have emphasised that Indian farmers cannot compete with heavily subsidised pulses from other countries. Differences in production costs, labour standards, and government support create an uneven playing field. Without protective duties, domestic farmers are exposed to unfair competition, undermining their livelihoods.

The call for a 50 per cent import duty is therefore framed as a corrective measure. Farmers argue that such a duty would discourage unnecessary imports, stabilise prices, and encourage domestic production. They stress that food security cannot be built on import dependence, especially for crops that Indian farmers are capable of producing sustainably.

Trade experts, however, caution that import duties must be calibrated carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Sharp restrictions could lead to price spikes, affecting low-income consumers. KPRS counters this by arguing that stable domestic production, supported by fair prices, is the best way to ensure long-term affordability.

The debate highlights a fundamental tension in agricultural policy. Balancing farmer interests with consumer welfare and international trade commitments is complex, but farmers insist that the current balance is skewed against them. They argue that repeated sacrifices by cultivators in the name of market stability are neither fair nor sustainable.

The red gram issue has thus reopened a larger conversation about trade policy and sovereignty. For KPRS, protecting farmers is not protectionism but a necessity to preserve rural livelihoods and national food security.

POLITICAL RESPONSE AND POLICY CHALLENGES

The KPRS demands have elicited mixed responses from political parties. Opposition leaders have largely supported the call for a higher MSP and stricter import controls, accusing the government of neglecting farmers. They argue that repeated assurances have failed to translate into meaningful policy changes, deepening agrarian distress.

The ruling establishment, meanwhile, has adopted a more cautious stance. Officials acknowledge the challenges faced by pulse growers but point to fiscal constraints and international obligations. They stress that MSP increases must be balanced against budgetary realities and market conditions.

Within the State government, there is recognition that red gram farmers are under strain. Some leaders have suggested strengthening procurement mechanisms and improving market access as interim measures. However, farmers argue that such steps fall short without a substantial revision of MSP and firm control over imports.

The Centre-State dynamic further complicates the issue. MSP decisions and trade policies fall largely under the Union government’s purview, limiting the State’s ability to act independently. This has allowed political actors to shift responsibility, frustrating farmers who demand coordinated action.

Policy analysts note that the red gram crisis underscores structural weaknesses in agricultural pricing. MSP announcements without assured procurement often fail to deliver intended benefits. Strengthening institutions and ensuring timely purchases are as crucial as price revisions.

The political stakes are high, particularly in regions where pulses form the backbone of rural economies. Ignoring farmer demands risks electoral backlash, while conceding them requires difficult policy choices. The KPRS agitation has thus become a test of political will and policy coherence.

As discussions continue, farmers remain sceptical of promises without timelines. For them, the urgency is immediate, shaped by debts, harvest cycles, and market volatility. The credibility of political responses will be judged by concrete outcomes rather than rhetoric.

AGRARIAN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FUTURE OF PULSES

Beyond immediate demands, the KPRS agitation raises broader questions about the future of pulse cultivation in India. Pulses play a vital role in sustainable agriculture, enriching soil fertility and requiring fewer resources than many other crops. Encouraging their cultivation aligns with environmental and nutritional goals.

Yet, without economic viability, such benefits become irrelevant to farmers struggling to survive. KPRS leaders argue that sustainability must include economic sustainability, ensuring that farmers receive fair returns for environmentally beneficial crops.

The decline in pulse profitability risks reversing years of progress in boosting domestic production. Farmers may abandon pulses for crops perceived as more lucrative, even if they are less suited to local conditions. This could exacerbate water stress and ecological imbalance.

Researchers and experts suggest that a holistic approach is needed, combining fair pricing, stable trade policy, investment in storage and processing, and promotion of value addition. Strengthening farmer cooperatives and market linkages could also enhance bargaining power.

The current agitation has brought these issues into the public arena, forcing policymakers to confront uncomfortable truths. It has highlighted that piecemeal measures are insufficient to address deep-rooted agrarian challenges.

For farmers, the hope is that the demands for higher MSP and import duty will catalyse a broader rethinking of pulse policy. They argue that supporting pulses is not merely about appeasing farmers but about securing the nation’s food and nutritional future.

A STRUGGLE FOR FAIRNESS AND DIGNITY

At its core, the KPRS demand reflects a struggle for fairness and dignity in agriculture. Farmers cultivating red gram are not asking for charity but for policies that recognise their labour and risk. The demand for a higher MSP and protective import duty is framed as a rightful claim, not a concession.

The agitation has brought together farmers across regions, united by shared frustration and uncertainty. Their voices reflect a deep sense of betrayal, rooted in years of unmet promises and inconsistent policy signals. For many, continuing in agriculture feels increasingly untenable.

Whether the government responds decisively or opts for incremental adjustments will shape the trajectory of this movement. A meaningful resolution could restore some faith in policy mechanisms, while continued inaction may deepen alienation.

The red gram issue has thus become more than an economic debate. It is a moral and political question about who bears the cost of market fluctuations and policy choices. Farmers argue that they have borne this cost for too long.

As the agitation unfolds, all eyes are on policymakers to see whether they will address the demands with urgency and sincerity. The outcome will not only determine the fate of red gram growers but also signal the future direction of agricultural policy in Karnataka and beyond.

In the end, the KPRS demands stand as a reminder that agriculture cannot be sustained on rhetoric alone. Fair prices, protective policies, and genuine engagement are essential if farmers are to continue feeding the nation with hope rather than despair.