Jharkhand government’s paddy centre plan fails to take off

How can something which never opened be closed? Only the Jharkhand government has the answer to this puzzle.
In November last year, chief minister Raghubar had Das had announced that paddy procurement centres will be opened across the state and the government will purchase paddy at the rate of Rs 1,900 per quintal (100 kg). The gullible farmers, who are showered with sops by all political parties during the poll season, were happy. They decided against selling their produce at market prices, which hovered around Rs 1,350.

Then, the wait for opening of paddy procurement centres began. Three months passed, but not a single such centre opened in several places, including Maheshpur Raj block, which is said to be the rice bowl of Jharkhand, in Pakur district. Towards the end of March, the government announced the closure of all paddy procurement centres, including those that never opened.

“The state government cheated us. We waited for four months to sell our produce at these centres. We eventually had to sell our produce to local traders at very low prices. The government is not bothered about farmers. It only makes tall claims,” Fatu Let, a farmer from Dubrajpur village, said.

Arnesh Kisku, a college student from Gopaldanga village, said: “If farmers would not have relied on the government’s promise, they would have earned more money. They stored paddy for months, leading to reduction in it’s humidity. If the weight of a bagful of paddy was 100kg three months ago, it fell to about 95kg in March.”

He added, “Surprisingly, the opposition parties have not yet made it a poll issue. It seems the ruling party as well as the opposition leaders are not concerned about the welfare of farmers. They are only interested in votes,” Kisku added.

Maheshpur falls under Rajmahal parliamentary constituency, where polling will be held on May 19. JMM’s sitting MP Vijay Hansda (JMM) is up against BJP’s Hemlal Murmu for this seat.

When contacted over phone, Pakur deputy commissioner Kuldip Choudhary said he was busy in a meeting. He, however, asked this reporter to contact Kumar Gautam, assistant registrar, cooperative society, in this regard.

Gautam said: “We tried our best to buy the paddy, but the rice mill owner in Maheshpur Raj is absconding after an FIR was lodged against him. The mill owner in the neighbouring Dumka district refused to purchase paddy from us.” He added that five blocks in Pakur district are drought-hit.

According to sources, the Jharkhand government had set a target to purchase 87.16 lakh quintal in the state this year, but ended up buying only 19.82 lakh quintal — only 20% of the target was achieved. The government had allotted Rs 226.9 crore for this purpose.

Among the districts, Pakur is at the bottom of the table in paddy purchase, where only 1,381 quintal paddy was sold by the farmers. “The drought-hit farmers needed more help from the administration this time, but see what it has done,” Sapan Mal, a local farmer of Jamnagar village, said.

State minister of food and civil supplies Saryu Rai said: “Show-cause notices will be served to the DCs who failed to open paddy procurement centres. It is their responsibility, not some junior officials’, to open such centres.”

Rai wondered why mill owners refused to purchase paddy from the government. “Every year, the government signs an agreement in this regard with the mill owners. How can they refuse to buy the paddy?” he said, adding that there is a need to open at least one mill in each district.

A rice mill owner, on condition of anonymity, said: “The government’s payment method is lengthy and cumbersome. We don't want to get stuck in the red tape.”

A complaint regarding the closure of paddy procurement centres was also lodged through internet at the Union ministry of personnel, public grievances and pension portal, which is linked to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

It transferred the complaint (registration No. GOVJH/E/2019/00222) to the director, IPRD, Mukhyamantri Jansanwad Kendra IPRD, Ranchi. After that, there was no response despite repeated reminders to the Union ministry concerned and the IPRD director.