Conclusion
169
500 million people in the next seven years
is not only overly ambitious,
1
but also likely
to result in low quality courses that might
not produce competent, skilled manpower
for the employer. The need in skilling is to
moderate the ambition, invest in quality
and make the trainees employment-ready.
Another aspect of skill initiative is the shift
in the mindset to be achieved among youth
on educational choices they make after leav-
ing school. Guidance to students on career
choices should be available from their sec-
ondary school onwards. The functionality of
artisan, craftsmen, tradesmen skills and how
these can lead to better livelihoods should
be fully explained so that students canmake
the right choices. Aspirational education in
universities leads to disappointments and a
large well educated but unemployed labour
force. Scarce resources utilised for a univer-
sity education without clear career options
can be applied for technical/vocational skill
development with all options of wage and
self-employment.
Agriculture based livelihoods suffer from
a crisis of confidence. The suicides as an
extreme decision are a powerful reminder
of the fragility of the livelihoods based on
farming. Except in niche crops and well-
endowed states with all linkages, farming
is not a profitable vocation. Those who
practise farming in vulnerable conditions,
do so for want of a better choice. They
farm more for the cash flow rather than for
profits; with passage of time these farmers
are becoming bankrupt. The debt build-up
in farming in some states is far in excess of
their yearly income. Situation Assessment
Survey (SAS) of farmers reports that in AP
the annual income of an average farmer
is about
`
72,000; the debt level is about
`
123,400. If the surplus of income over
expenditure is taken as the benchmark,
barring states such as Haryana, Punjab and
Karnataka, farmers elsewhere will find it
difficult to repay the loans. At all India level
SAS reports the average loan outstanding per
farm household is about
`
47,000 and the
net surplus of income above expenditure
2
is
about
`
2,400 per annum. The risks in farm-
ing are far too varied and idiosyncratic that
even the best riskmanagers will find difficult
to contain. In farm livelihoods, the focus of
government should be to develop efficient
and transparent markets with a sound price
discovery mechanism, invest in farmers’
collectives and overhaul the crop insurance
arrangements. The crop insurance should
be converted in to a safety net instead of
pretending that crop insurance can be a
commercial proposition. The restructuring
of crop insurance will be a better alternative
to providing interest subsidies which reach
only 50 per cent better-off farm households
that are lucky enough to get a bank loan.
The dairy sector is a mixed bag. The
resounding success of cooperative milk
societies and their higher level organisa-
tions has not provided enough learning
for replication of the AMUL and GCMMF
model successfully in other states. Success
in organising livelihoods is not just about
having sound ideas, but also the passion and
commitment. For a sector that provides sus-
tenance to a majority of vulnerable people,
dairying does not attract adequate attention.
Since small dairy holders are numerous,
their capacity to negotiate with the market
for inputs, technical services and market-
ing outputs should be improved. The milk
procurement arrangements in many states
do not seem to prioritise farmer interests.
The extension services run by governments
are unable to provide satisfactory quality
services in a timely manner. A number of
good organisations that provide dedicated
service such as BAIF and JK trust could
1
In 2014–15 all ministries and NSDC together
trained less than eight million people. In seven years,
at the current rate of workflow, about 10 per cent of
the target, that is, 50 million can be trained.
2
The expenditure interest on loans but not the
principal repayment.
