Governmentality and Stubble Burning
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Ecology
Source: TH
Context: A 2025 study by IIM Amritsar links stubble burning in Punjab to governmentality and market failures. The research highlights how state policies, like MSP, inadvertently promote unsustainable farming practices.
What is Governmentality?
Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality refers to how states influence citizens’ self-regulation rather than using direct coercion.
Types of Governmentalities in Agriculture:
• Neoliberal Governmentality – Market-driven policies (e.g., MSP) shape farmer behavior without direct enforcement.
E.g. MSP incentivizes rice-wheat monoculture, discouraging crop diversification.
• Disciplinary Governmentality – Penalties (e.g., fines for stubble burning) force compliance without offering alternatives.
E.g. Punjab imposed ₹2.5 lakh fines but failed to provide affordable stubble management solutions.
• Pastoral Governmentality – State positions itself as a protector but prioritizes urban-industrial interests over farmers.
E.g. Crackdowns on farm fires while ignoring industrial pollution in Delhi.
• Security-Oriented Governmentality – Policies focus on food security (e.g., MSP for wheat/rice) but neglect ecological costs.
E.g. Punjab’s 35 million tonnes of paddy residue burnt annually due to lack of alternatives.
• Market-Driven Governmentality – Middlemen (arhatias) control pricing, trapping farmers in debt cycles.
E.g. Farmers sell paddy at ₹1,900/quintal while market rates exceed ₹2,500.
How Governmentality Worsens Pollution?
• MSP Promotes Monocropping – Focus on rice/wheat leaves no incentive for eco-friendly crops.
E.g. Punjab’s 85% paddy area under MSP-linked varieties.
• Lack of Affordable Alternatives – State penalizes burning but doesn’t subsidize happy seeders or bio-decomposers.
E.g. Only 15% of Punjab farmers use crop residue management machines.
• Urban Bias in Policy – Industrial pollution (30% of Delhi’s PM2.5) is overlooked while farm fires are vilified.
E.g. NCR industries emit 280 tonnes/day of PM2.5 vs. 120 tonnes/day from stubble burning.
• Middlemen Exploitation – Arhatias control credit, forcing farmers into debt and cost-cutting measures like burning.
E.g. 60% of Punjab farmers are indebted, per NABARD 2022.
• Weak Enforcement & Incentives – Short-term schemes (e.g., ₹100/quintal for non-burning) fail to address systemic issues.
E.g. Only 20% of Punjab’s 1.5 million farmers availed central aid for residue management.
Remedies to Address Systemic Failure:
• Create Stubble-Based Markets – Promote fodder, biofuel, and packaging industries to monetize crop residue.
E.g. Haryana’s 12 biomass plants utilize 1.2 million tonnes/year of stubble.
• Reform MSP & Crop Diversification – Include millets, pulses, and oilseeds in MSP to reduce paddy dependency.
E.g. Andhra’s ZBNF scheme cut water use by 30% while improving soil health.
• Strengthen Value Chains – State-led price transparency and direct farmer-market linkages to bypass middlemen.
E.g. eNAM platform links farmers to buyers but covers only 18% of Punjab’s mandis.
• Subsidize Sustainable Tech – Expand access to happy seeders, bio-decomposers, and balers via cooperatives.
E.g. Punjab’s 50% subsidy on machinery reached only 25,000 farmers in 2023.
• Behavioral Change Campaigns – Partner with religious/NGO groups to reduce aspirational debt-driven farming.
E.g. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Zero-Budget Farming workshops in Haryana reduced input costs by 40%.
Conclusion:
Stubble burning stems from policy-driven market failures, not farmer negligence. Solutions require systemic reforms—MSP diversification, stubble valorization, and fair pricing. A balanced approach must address rural marginalization while curbing pollution.
• Discuss in detail the photochemical smog emphasizing its formation, effects and mitigation. Explain the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol. (UPSC-2021)