Fields of discontent in Tamil Nadu

A sharp rise in the area under cultivation during the short-term kuruvai paddy season, especially in the Cauvery delta region, and the consequent glut in production have turned into a logistical quagmire for the government’s foodgrain procurement system in Tamil Nadu this year.

The overstretched system left farmers desperate at the very onset of the Northeast monsoon, as the first spell of rain drenched both the harvested paddy and the ready-to-be-harvested crop, leaving the grains with a moisture content higher than the limit fixed by the Union government for procurement.

With no takers in the open market, farmers were left dependent on the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC), which procures paddy on behalf of the Centre, to sell their produce. The procurement and storage chain came under severe strain as direct purchase centres (DPCs) in the Cauvery delta region were overwhelmed by heavy arrivals within a short span of time, thanks to the mechanisation of harvesting.

Many of the DPCs, built to accommodate about 3,000 bags each, were packed with 10,000 bags or more. Problems in moving the procured paddy from the DPCs to storage points/hulling units, along with limited transport options and inadequate foodgrain storage capacity, further exacerbated the situation.

Visuals of stockpiles and germinated paddy bags at DPCs, along with SOS calls from farmers, caused a furore. With an election year ahead, the issue quickly took on a political hue, with AIADMK general secretary and Leader of the Opposition Edappadi K. Palaniswami rushing to inspect the situation in the delta. Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and other State Ministers followed suit to oversee the procurement process. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin directed officials to expedite the process and continued to monitor the procurement, storage, and transportation of paddy on a daily basis.

Following a request from the Tamil Nadu government to relax the permissible moisture content for paddy procurement from 17% to 22%, the Union government dispatched senior officials to assess the situation. Split into teams, they fanned out across various parts of the State and are expected to submit their report soon.

According to data from the Central Foodgrains portal, nearly 11.77 lakh tonnes of paddy were procured from 28 districts in Tamil Nadu as of October 31 through 1,894 DPCs during the kharif season. Over 1.39 lakh farmers have been paid about ₹2,840 crore towards the minimum support price.

Long wait at DPCs

Amid the political hullabaloo, farmers in the region faced long waits at the DPCs. Many had to dry their paddy and wait by the roadsides.

“For 15 days, my harvested paddy lay on the road in front of the DPC, soaked by rain,” said R. Arivazhagan, a farmer from Olathevarayanpuram in Perambur village near Thiruvaiyaru. He had cultivated paddy on six acres but found no private buyers. Traders, particularly from Kerala, would usually come looking for bold-grain varieties. “This time, no one came. We had no option but to depend solely on the DPC,” he added.

Traders were reportedly reluctant to buy the kuruvai paddy due to its high moisture content and to match the government procurement rates of ₹2,545 a quintal for Grade A and ₹2,500 a quintal for the common variety. There were allegations that some of them brought in paddy from other places to sell at the DPCs.

Farmers contended that the situation was entirely man-made and could have been averted if officials had put in place a plan of action to anticipate the scenario, as they were aware of the increase in acreage well in advance.

The Cauvery delta achieved a record coverage this kuruvai season, with the area exceeding six lakh acres (against the normal coverage of about 4.4 lakh acres), thanks to the timely and copious release of water from the Stanley Reservoir at Mettur. Farmers who were raising other crops had switched to paddy, drawn by the prospect of good returns in a short period due to the price guarantee offered by the government.

“This year, kuruvai paddy was cultivated on over six lakh acres in the delta, with an estimated production of around 13 lakh tonnes,” said P.R. Pandian, president of the Coordination Committee of All Farmers Associations. “Barely six lakh tonnes have been procured so far. The rest lies in the fields or on the roadsides. It is a historic failure of planning,” he alleged.

Minister for Food and Civil Supplies R. Sakkarapani attributed the delay to procedural hurdles in obtaining the Union government’s approval for fortified rice. Speaking to reporters in Thanjavur, he said the Centre had yet to approve the fortified rice blend submitted by companies according to the new specimen. “Because of this, hulling of procured paddy has been delayed, which in turn has slowed the movement of stocks from warehouses to mills,” he added.

“The authorities should have strengthened the infrastructure once the Agriculture Department reported an increase in coverage. But there was no planning at all, and the officials were negligent. They kept claiming that they were ready, but ultimately it is the farmers who have been affected. We have no choice but to suffer because of the system,” said Cauvery Dhanapalan, president of the Tamil Nadu Vivasaya Sangankalin Kootamaippu.

Given the corruption and malpractices in the procurement system, several small and marginal farmers were forced to sell their produce to middlemen, who collected the paddy from their fields and sold it at the DPCs using the farmers’ documents, even if it meant they would receive ₹200 less than the price offered by the government. “They cannot afford the cost of transport, labour, and the bribes,” he claimed.

“The onset of the monsoon, the increase in area under cultivation, and the resulting good yield have compounded problems this year. If the Tamil Nadu government had implemented a few simple measures, the hardship faced by farmers could have been avoided,” said K.V. Elangeeran, president of the Cauvery Delta Farmers Federation.

The authorities were clearly not prepared to handle the situation, observed V. Jeevakumar, a progressive farmer from Budalur. “Even adequate gunny bags, jute cord, and tarpaulins were not kept ready. Unlike in the past, there was no effort to introduce mobile DPCs, which could have been of great help to farmers. There was no protection for the paddy bags at the storage points,” he said.

Delta farmers have long demanded that the Centre empower the State government to raise the moisture content limit up to 24%, based on the prevailing weather conditions at the time of harvest. “The 17% norm is impractical for farmers due to our climatic conditions. The DPCs must be equipped with dryers,” said Sivakumar, a farmer from Kundiyamallur in Cuddalore district.

Unlike the samba season, farmers cannot afford to wait for the stem to dry before harvesting, as the monsoon rains loom large, explained Mr. Dhanapalan.

Vanishing traditional varieties

Progressive farmers such as Santhanam of Maharajapuram and Srinivasan of Mannargudi feel that hybrid paddy varieties are partly to blame for the problem and point out that traditional flood-resistant paddy varieties have vanished from the old Cauvery delta region.

G. Sathiyanarayanan, Associate Professor at the Tamil Nadu Rice Research Institute (TRRI), Aduthurai, emphasised the need to promote varieties suited to the Cauvery delta’s soil and climate. “Farmers here prefer high-yielding varieties that are not suited to local conditions. They mature late, pushing harvests into the monsoon and increasing the risk of damage,” he said.

“High-yielding short-term varieties were introduced to provide food security, but their harvest now coincides with the Northeast monsoon, exposing farmers to moisture risk,” said R. Shibi Nandan, an independent researcher from Puducherry who studies the Cauvery delta’s agrarian systems.

The Fair Average Quality (FAQ) norms, set by the Central Grain Analysis Laboratory in Ghaziabad, are uniform across India and calibrated for the Hindi heartland’s kharif crop, not for the delta’s rain-fed conditions. “Moisture disputes are not new. Even in 1965, the issue was discussed in the State Assembly. Yet procurement norms still follow a one-size-fits-all model, ignoring the region’s climatic and varietal realities,” he added.

TNCSC’s structural issues

However, most farmers in the field tend to blame the TNCSC for their plight. K. Ilavari, general secretary of the INTUC-affiliated TNCSC Employees’ Union, traced the procurement bottlenecks to deeper structural issues in the system. Infrastructure, he said, remains a major constraint. “TNCSC godowns and CAP yards are overflowing, and many open storage spaces have vanished,” he added.

Field staff have to strictly enforce the moisture cap, and any deviation invites recovery from salary or disciplinary action. Transportation is also an issue. “In many districts, just two or three contractors with political connections control lorry operations under proxy tenders. Small lorry owners are shut out, rates are suppressed, and delays cascade through the chain,” he said.

However, V. Arumugam, Joint Secretary of the State Federation of Lorry Owners’ Associations, termed the allegations of transport delays “misleading and exaggerated.” He said lorry availability far exceeded current utilisation. “The real issue is not transport but manpower; there is a shortage of field officers and loadmen,” he added.

Non-delta regions

Timely rains had led to an increase in kuruvai paddy coverage in other parts of the State as well. Over 6.23 lakh acres were covered under the kar, sornavari, and summer planting seasons in the non-delta districts this year, adding to the glut.

In Tiruvallur, the coverage under the sornavari season went up to 26,436 hectares from last year’s 25,302 hectares. “This year, we saw farmers who have never sold their paddy to DPCs bring their produce to the centres. Since the rains were good, farmers had sown plenty of paddy. The increase in moisture content of up to 22% was seen in the last batches of paddy brought in around Deepavali when the rains would not just stop,” explained Tiruvallur District Collector M. Prathap. Juggling space for paddy storage was a challenge, as it was unavailable at mills and drying yards, sources said.

Chengalpattu also witnessed an increase in acreage under paddy this year, from 13,000 hectares to 14,200 hectares. R. Muralimohan, secretary, Chengalpattu District Farmers Association, said that due to continuous rainfall, farmers were unable to dry paddy. “Paddy with moisture content over 17% has been waiting at the DPCs,” he said.

Farmers in Madurai district too complained of delay in procurement. M.P. Raman, president, Vaigai-Tirumangalam Main Canal Water Users Farmer Association, said paddy bags were lying in the open and getting spoiled due to the delay in procurement and absence of proper storage facilities.

Farmers of Tirunelveli district felt the early and timely release of water from the dams for the kar season (June-September) would have prevented the paddy getting drenched during the Northeast monsoon. “Our ranches at Thirukkurungudi, Ervadi, and nearby areas are getting water for irrigation from Kodumudiyar Dam near Valliyoor in Tirunelveli district. Even though the dam had water for about 45 feet against its maximum capacity of 52 feet in May, the water was released only mid-June. The paddy crop, now ready for harvest, is getting drenched by the monsoon rain. If the water was released earlier, we would have harvested by now, and there would have been no need to seek relaxation in the moisture content,” said P. Perumbadaiyar, vice-president of Tamil Nadu Vivasayigal Sangam.

In districts that are not covered under the procurement system, such as Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri, paddy growers are left at the mercy of traders from Andhra Pradesh, who buy the produce at a non-negotiable price.

“The government should grow wiser from this experience to prevent such crises in the future,” observed Mr. Jeevakumar. Clearly, the clamour is for modernising DPCs, improving operational efficiency, eliminating irregularities, increasing storage capacity, and putting in place an effective transportation system.

(With inputs from V. Venkatasubramanian in Thanjavur, Deepa H.Ramakrishnan in Chennai, P. Sudhakar in Tirunelveli, R. Krishnamoorthy in Tiruppur, P.V. Srividya in Dharmapuri, S. Prasad in Cuddalore, S.P. Saravanan in Erode, and B.Tilak Chandar in Madurai).