Power, Policy, and the Politics of Food in India
Abstract
Food, as a fundamental necessity for human survival, represents not only a basic right but also a critical responsibility of the state. This responsibility becomes even more significant in developing and poverty-stricken nations, where the state'sdual obligation lies in supporting both the producers—primarily farmers—and the consumers, who often face food insecurity. Moreover, agriculture plays a pivotal role in shaping a country’soverall economic health, influencing employment, income distribution, and trade balance. Agricultural policy, therefore, becomes a key instrument through which the state can drive inclusive growth and ensure food security. However, this paper seeks to analyze how private corporate interests, in collaboration with state mechanisms and influenced by global powers, are reshaping agricultural policy to serve market-oriented objectives. This reorientation often sidelines ethical and moral considerations of food justice, sustainability, and equity, ultimately compromising the broader economic and social goals of food security.
Keywords
Download Options
Introduction
After the discoveries of fire and the wheel, agriculture stands as one of humanity’smost significant breakthroughs. Yet, it took humans along time to truly master agriculture, the science of producing food, which ultimately gave them something unique in the natural world: food security. Humans became the only species capable of deliberately controlling food production. However, we need to be cautious when using terms such as human, food production, or food security. This is because agriculture is often assumed to be a universal human practice, which is not the case. By human, we specifically mean Homo sapiens—the only surviving species among nearly nine different human species identified by science. And even within Homo sapiens, agriculture has never been universal. Many nomadic tribes, pastoral communities, and indigenous groups continue to live without practicing settled farming.
The advent of agriculture also marked a fundamental rupture in the natural relationship between humans and nature. In the natural world, the link between food and hunger is direct: when food is available, it is accessible to all. A forest filled with fruit-bearing trees sustains birds, primates, and other creatures who freely share in its bounty. In contrast, human societies regulate access to food through systems of ownership and commodification. A warehouse stocked with grains, fruits, and vegetables cannot be accessed by a hungry individual without the means to pay. Food may exist in abundance, but access to it is mediated—and restricted—by purchasing power.
This introduces a critical distinction: in natural ecosystems, availability equals accessibility. Among humans, hunger intersects not only with the production (supply side) but with economic entitlement (demand side). As Amartya Sen famously argued in Poverty and Famines (1981), famines often occur not due to an absence of food, but due to lack of accessibility. In other words, a biological need of hunger creates demand in all the animal species except the human beings. For humans just being hungry is not enough to create demand. It’sthe purchasing capacity which creates the demand. For humans who practice the agriculture hunger is more of apolitical economic activity thana biological one. This paper is not about the human population in general but that precise section of the population which practices agriculture.
Next comes the question of purchasing capacity. For along time, human societies relied on barter, exchanging one commodity for another. The monetization of the economy, where goods (including food) began to be exchanged for money, took centuries to evolve. Once this system was firmly established, it brought about a permanent shift: the “demand” for any good was no longer defined simply by need, but by the purchasing power of the buyer. Agriculture, too, was shaped by this transformation. Yet, there remains a common belief that food security can be ensured merely by increasing production. This perception has kept the focus largely on the supply side, while the demand side, people’sability to access food—remains neglected. The result is a paradoxical situation: hunger persists even in the midst of abundance. In nature, such a contradiction is unthinkable, you would never find animals starving in a forest rich with fruit. But inhuman societies, particularly in India, this paradox of “hunger amidst plenty” has become an everyday reality.
Conclusion
The corporatisation of agriculture in India—shaped by colonial legacies, the Green Revolution, and WTO-led liberalisation— has undeniably transformed the sector. While it has brought investment, technology, and global integration, it has also intensified inequalities, eroded smallholder resilience, and deepened food insecurity despite surplus production. The paradox of “hunger amidst plenty” underscores that food security cannot be reduced to production alone; it must integrate accessibility, equity, and sustainability.
Moving forward, a balanced model of agricultural governance is needed—one that prevents corporate monopolies while leveraging private sector efficiency.
Solutions must focus on: Reviving the Universal PDS with stronger digital tracking to curb leakages, ensuring every citizen has guaranteed access to affordable food. Revisiting MSP and procurement policies, expanding them beyond rice and wheat to include pulses, millets, and oilseeds, thereby enhancing dietary diversity and farmer incomes. Regulating contract farming and FDI through farmer-centric laws that mandate fair pricing, transparent dispute resolution, and protection from corporate exploitation. Promoting cooperative and producer company models, which pool smallholder resources, enhance bargaining power, and democratise market access. Investing in agro-ecological and sustainable farming practices, reducing input dependency and restoring soil, water, and biodiversity. Strengthening rural non-farm employment and social safety nets, so that farmers are not forced to distress-sell or migrate under debt pressure. Decentralising food governance by empowering panchayats, self-help groups, and farmer-producer organisations (FPOs) to design localised, context-specific food security strategies. Ultimately, Indian agriculture must not be reduced to a site of corporate profit-making; it is the lifeline of rural livelihoods, cultural identity, and national food sovereignty. Policies must re-centre farmers, especially smallholders, women, and marginalised communities, ensuring that the politics of food align with the ethics of justice, sustainability, and universal human dignity. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflict of interest.
