Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - June 2026 issue.
Who speaks for the Indian farmer in NITI Aayog?
NITI Aayog is the Government of India’s apex public policy institution and think tank. It plays an influential role in shaping long-term national policy across sectors ranging from the economy and infrastructure to health, education, technology, and agriculture. Its recommendations and policy frameworks often influence both Central and State government decision-making.
India’s agriculture sector remains one of the foundations of the national economy. Nearly half of India’s workforce continues to depend on agriculture for employment and livelihood. The sector contributes around 18% of India’s Gross Value Added and supports rural communities across the country.
And yet, when one looks at the composition of NITI Aayog, a troubling question arises:
Who actually speaks for the Indian farmer?
The recent restructuring of NITI Aayog, including the appointment of Ashok Kumar Lahiri and several new full-time members, once again highlights a familiar pattern. The institution is filled with economists, bureaucrats, technocrats, administrators, scientists, and academicians. The current and recent members include development activist and scholar R. Balasubramaniam, academic Joram Aniya from Arunachal Pradesh, former Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba, economist K. V. Raju, AIIMS Delhi Director M. Srinivas, and scientist Abhay Karandikar. Many are undoubtedly accomplished individuals with distinguished careers.
But where is the farmer?
Where is the person who has actually cultivated land, faced monsoon failure, struggled with labour shortages, dealt with rising fertilizer costs, negotiated with traders, or worried about crop prices collapsing after harvest?
India’s agricultural policy today is increasingly shaped by people who understand farming through reports, spreadsheets, presentations, and committee discussions in Delhi conference rooms. What is missing is lived experience.
This is not to deny that NITI Aayog has contributed important ideas. The institution has supported natural farming, agricultural market reforms, land leasing reforms, pulse self-sufficiency strategies, and more recently discussions around AI and precision agriculture. Some of these initiatives are valuable and forward-looking.
But policy expertise alone is not enough.
Agriculture is not merely an economic sector. It is a civilizational foundation tied to rural society, ecology, food security, and the lives of millions of families. Policies designed without deep farmer participation risk becoming disconnected from realities on the ground.
India’s policy establishment already has ample representation from bureaucrats, economists, and administrators. But it is far more difficult to find institutions willing to share real decision-making power with people who have practical agricultural experience.
This absence partly explains the growing mistrust between farmers and policy institutions. Many farmers increasingly feel that reforms are designed for efficiency statistics rather than for farming communities themselves.
This growing disconnect became particularly visible during the controversy surrounding former NITI Aayog member Ramesh Chand and claims that farmers’ incomes had effectively doubled during the Modi years.
The estimates were based largely on GDP-linked economic calculations and broader sectoral growth assumptions. Critics, however, argued that such conclusions did not adequately reflect ground realities faced by ordinary farmers. Rising input costs, inflation, mounting debt, fragmented landholdings, and stagnant earnings in many regions continued to place severe pressure on rural households.
Farmer groups and several observers questioned whether statistical models prepared in Delhi could truly capture the financial condition of small and marginal farmers across India. The controversy highlighted a deeper issue: when agricultural policy and evaluation are dominated primarily by economists and bureaucratic institutions, there is always the danger that numerical optimism may drift away from lived rural experience.
There is also a larger cultural problem within India’s policy establishment. Agriculture has increasingly become a sector managed by professional policy experts, consultants, economists, and retired administrators who circulate between committees, think tanks, advisory roles, international conferences, and prestigious positions in Delhi. Many speak endlessly about farmers, rural transformation, sustainability, and reform — yet few have personally experienced the uncertainties and hardships of farming life.
Too often, the conversation about Indian agriculture is dominated by those seeking influence within Delhi’s policy ecosystem rather than those rooted in the soil itself. The result is a peculiar situation where urban experts lecture farmers on what is good for agriculture, while the actual voices of cultivators remain peripheral.
This is precisely why India needs genuine farmer representation within institutions like NITI Aayog. Not as symbolic participants invited occasionally for consultation, but as full participants in national policy discussions.
Of course, the answer is not simply to appoint the same familiar political faces who routinely claim to speak for farmers. India has no shortage of self-styled farmer leaders who spend more time in television studios, protest platforms, political negotiations, and Delhi power circles than in actual fields. Some have themselves become part of the same ecosystem of influence and patronage that ordinary farmers increasingly distrust.
But beyond this noisy political layer, a new generation of educated and progressive farmers is emerging across India. One can find scientifically minded cultivators experimenting with natural farming, water conservation, agri-technology, precision agriculture, direct marketing, exports, and sustainable rural enterprises. These are individuals who combine practical farming experience with modern knowledge and an understanding of rural realities.
India’s agricultural institutions should actively seek out such voices. The country does not merely need more agricultural policy experts in Delhi. It also needs credible farmers who can bridge the gap between policy discussions and life on the ground.
India does not merely need more presentations on agriculture in Delhi. It needs greater humility from those shaping agricultural policy — and greater respect for the lived knowledge of the people who feed the country.
A farmer representative sitting at the policy table may not produce elegant economic models or sophisticated presentations. But such a person might ask the most important questions of all:
“Are farmers themselves actually experiencing this issue being discussed?”
“Does what is being discussed in Delhi make sense from what we are seeing in the villages?”
“Will these policies work in the realities of rural India?”
These questions deserve a place inside India’s highest policy institutions.
A country where nearly half the population depends on agriculture cannot afford to treat farmers merely as “stakeholders” to be consulted occasionally through workshops and committees. They deserve direct representation at the highest policy-making levels.
NITI Aayog does not need fewer economists or scientists. India needs both expertise and experience. But alongside the academicians and administrators, there must also be people who can articulate the realities of Indian agriculture from firsthand knowledge.
If agriculture truly matters to India’s future, then the Indian farmer must have a seat at the table — not merely outside the conference hall waiting to be consulted after decisions are already made.
A sector that supports nearly half the population should not be governed entirely without voices from within that world.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - June 2026 issue.
Who speaks for the Indian farmer in NITI Aayog?
NITI Aayog is the Government of India’s apex public policy institution and think tank. It plays an influential role in shaping long-term national policy across sectors ranging from the economy and infrastructure to health, education, technology, and agriculture. Its recommendations and policy frameworks often influence both Central and State government decision-making.
India’s agriculture sector remains one of the foundations of the national economy. Nearly half of India’s workforce continues to depend on agriculture for employment and livelihood. The sector contributes around 18% of India’s Gross Value Added and supports rural communities across the country.
And yet, when one looks at the composition of NITI Aayog, a troubling question arises:
Who actually speaks for the Indian farmer?
The recent restructuring of NITI Aayog, including the appointment of Ashok Kumar Lahiri and several new full-time members, once again highlights a familiar pattern. The institution is filled with economists, bureaucrats, technocrats, administrators, scientists, and academicians. The current and recent members include development activist and scholar R. Balasubramaniam, academic Joram Aniya from Arunachal Pradesh, former Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba, economist K. V. Raju, AIIMS Delhi Director M. Srinivas, and scientist Abhay Karandikar. Many are undoubtedly accomplished individuals with distinguished careers.
But where is the farmer?
Where is the person who has actually cultivated land, faced monsoon failure, struggled with labour shortages, dealt with rising fertilizer costs, negotiated with traders, or worried about crop prices collapsing after harvest?
India’s agricultural policy today is increasingly shaped by people who understand farming through reports, spreadsheets, presentations, and committee discussions in Delhi conference rooms. What is missing is lived experience.
This is not to deny that NITI Aayog has contributed important ideas. The institution has supported natural farming, agricultural market reforms, land leasing reforms, pulse self-sufficiency strategies, and more recently discussions around AI and precision agriculture. Some of these initiatives are valuable and forward-looking.
But policy expertise alone is not enough.
Agriculture is not merely an economic sector. It is a civilizational foundation tied to rural society, ecology, food security, and the lives of millions of families. Policies designed without deep farmer participation risk becoming disconnected from realities on the ground.
India’s policy establishment already has ample representation from bureaucrats, economists, and administrators. But it is far more difficult to find institutions willing to share real decision-making power with people who have practical agricultural experience.
This absence partly explains the growing mistrust between farmers and policy institutions. Many farmers increasingly feel that reforms are designed for efficiency statistics rather than for farming communities themselves.
This growing disconnect became particularly visible during the controversy surrounding former NITI Aayog member Ramesh Chand and claims that farmers’ incomes had effectively doubled during the Modi years.
The estimates were based largely on GDP-linked economic calculations and broader sectoral growth assumptions. Critics, however, argued that such conclusions did not adequately reflect ground realities faced by ordinary farmers. Rising input costs, inflation, mounting debt, fragmented landholdings, and stagnant earnings in many regions continued to place severe pressure on rural households.
Farmer groups and several observers questioned whether statistical models prepared in Delhi could truly capture the financial condition of small and marginal farmers across India. The controversy highlighted a deeper issue: when agricultural policy and evaluation are dominated primarily by economists and bureaucratic institutions, there is always the danger that numerical optimism may drift away from lived rural experience.
There is also a larger cultural problem within India’s policy establishment. Agriculture has increasingly become a sector managed by professional policy experts, consultants, economists, and retired administrators who circulate between committees, think tanks, advisory roles, international conferences, and prestigious positions in Delhi. Many speak endlessly about farmers, rural transformation, sustainability, and reform — yet few have personally experienced the uncertainties and hardships of farming life.
Too often, the conversation about Indian agriculture is dominated by those seeking influence within Delhi’s policy ecosystem rather than those rooted in the soil itself. The result is a peculiar situation where urban experts lecture farmers on what is good for agriculture, while the actual voices of cultivators remain peripheral.
This is precisely why India needs genuine farmer representation within institutions like NITI Aayog. Not as symbolic participants invited occasionally for consultation, but as full participants in national policy discussions.
Of course, the answer is not simply to appoint the same familiar political faces who routinely claim to speak for farmers. India has no shortage of self-styled farmer leaders who spend more time in television studios, protest platforms, political negotiations, and Delhi power circles than in actual fields. Some have themselves become part of the same ecosystem of influence and patronage that ordinary farmers increasingly distrust.
But beyond this noisy political layer, a new generation of educated and progressive farmers is emerging across India. One can find scientifically minded cultivators experimenting with natural farming, water conservation, agri-technology, precision agriculture, direct marketing, exports, and sustainable rural enterprises. These are individuals who combine practical farming experience with modern knowledge and an understanding of rural realities.
India’s agricultural institutions should actively seek out such voices. The country does not merely need more agricultural policy experts in Delhi. It also needs credible farmers who can bridge the gap between policy discussions and life on the ground.
India does not merely need more presentations on agriculture in Delhi. It needs greater humility from those shaping agricultural policy — and greater respect for the lived knowledge of the people who feed the country.
A farmer representative sitting at the policy table may not produce elegant economic models or sophisticated presentations. But such a person might ask the most important questions of all:
“Are farmers themselves actually experiencing this issue being discussed?”
“Does what is being discussed in Delhi make sense from what we are seeing in the villages?”
“Will these policies work in the realities of rural India?”
These questions deserve a place inside India’s highest policy institutions.
A country where nearly half the population depends on agriculture cannot afford to treat farmers merely as “stakeholders” to be consulted occasionally through workshops and committees. They deserve direct representation at the highest policy-making levels.
NITI Aayog does not need fewer economists or scientists. India needs both expertise and experience. But alongside the academicians and administrators, there must also be people who can articulate the realities of Indian agriculture from firsthand knowledge.
If agriculture truly matters to India’s future, then the Indian farmer must have a seat at the table — not merely outside the conference hall waiting to be consulted after decisions are already made.
A sector that supports nearly half the population should not be governed entirely without voices from within that world.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - June 2026 issue.
Last edited: