Editorial 1: Urea fixation
Context: Record consumption of urea is the outcome of rampant overuse from underpricing.
Introduction
- The previous UPA government introduced the so-called nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) regime in fertilizers from April 2010. The Narendra Modi government made it mandatory to coat all urea with neem oil since December 2015 and replaced 50 kg bags with 45 kg from March 2018.
Failing to achieve balanced Fertilization
- None of these measures — or even the much-talked-about Nano Urea — have succeeded in their stated goal of achieving balanced fertilisation.
- On the contrary, sales of urea, the primary cause of worsening plant nutrient imbalance and deteriorating soil health, have crossed an all-time high 35.7 million tonnes (mt) in 2022-23. Urea consumption has gone up by over a third compared to the pre-NBS year of 2009-10. Far from discouraging nitrogen use at the expense of other primary, secondary and micro nutrients, farmers are over-applying urea. This, when there is clear evidence of declining nitrogen use efficiency and crop yield response to fertilisers.
Reasons for such skewed nutrient use
- The maximum retail price (MRP) of urea has been unchanged at Rs 5,628 per tonne since November 2012. Given the corresponding per-tonne MRPs of Rs 27,000 for di-ammonium phosphate, Rs 34,000 for muriate of potash and Rs 28,000-31,000 for most complexes, why would farmers apply less urea?
- The various solutions currently offered — from Nano Urea to incorporation of compounds that reduce ammonia volatilisation and nitrate leaching — skirt the real issue of rampant overuse from underpricing. While diesel, petrol and LPG aren’t under-priced like before — they are, in fact, net taxed — urea has continued to be a political hot potato for successive governments.
- And one cannot expect anything substantial in this regard, till at least next year’s general elections.
Solutions
- There can only be one solution to the problem: Raising MRPs. This can be done by first bringing urea under NBS.
- The government should do what it has done in other fertilisers: Decontrol MRP of urea and pay a fixed per-tonne subsidy linked to its nutrient content of 46 per cent nitrogen. In the long run, even the NBS should go and be replaced by a flat per-acre subsidy that could be given for every crop season. This wouldn’t penalise the serious farmer who takes more than one crop a year and, at the same time, applies fertilisers (including organic manures) judiciously.
Editorial 2: The problem with universal child rights: Cultural differences abound in how we raise children
Context: 'Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway' underlines the distance between the rigidity of child-rearing practices in the wealthy West and the economic constraints so common in the developing world.
Introduction: What is a Child?
- The recently released film, Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway reminds us that child-rearing is deeply rooted in culture. For a concept as universal as childhood, one must use the plural form, childhoods.
- Each culture has its norms and practices for raising children. What is normal in one culture may be vehemently disapproved of in another country. And the vehemence may be extreme. A country like Norway, known for its concern for conflict resolution, presents a shockingly harsh face to a young immigrant family from Bengal in this film.
UN Convention and Cultural Differences
- The fact that children’s rights are now recognized under a UN convention does not mean that the role and importance of cultural differences can be ignored.
- The UN convention does not aim to impose a global format on child-rearing or educational practices. All it intends to achieve is a protective cover for children from the consequences of economic hardship, entrenched inequalities, and abuse of different kinds.
- A uniform code for parents to follow would be completely against the spirit of the international consensus on child rights.
- That is what the film portrays as Norway’s attempt in the case of the Bengali couple’s children.
The Film
- Ashima Chibber’s film comes at a time of heightened parental worries across the world. Its story derives from a widely reported chain of incidents that started in 2011 and stayed in the news for several years. A film based on something so recent could hardly afford to deviate from known facts.
- Watching it, we learn how vulnerable children are in today’s globalised world, and how their fate intersects with the social reality of women and marriage.
- Rani Mukherjee (Chakarborty) represents a young woman’s struggle against a prejudiced and arrogant bureaucracy. As the story unfolds you realize that she was living in a society where ordinary life has been conquered by bureaucratic norms. When Rani Mukherjee screams, she expresses the extreme helplessness of a human being inescapably surrounded.
- One’s impression of Norway comes in the way. Its role as a peace broker, its professed commitment to feminism, and its progressive system of education form the highly positive stereotype of Norway. It is hard to reconcile these wonderful attributes with what you see on the screen.
Conclusion
- The Norwegian ambassador in India has criticised the film and his anguish can be understood. The news coverage of the original story had dented Norway’s image as a liberal and progressive country. The film deepens the dent, and so does the ambassador’s response.