IE: It must have been a tough year for you. Not a good performance in Lok Sabha and Maharashtra polls and then the sugar and price rise issues haunting you as the Union agriculture minister.

Pawar: It's all part of public life. We should have won a few seats more at Lok Sabha elections. About price rise issue, we have been doing our best. Last year our food production was surplus. The position of our stock was okay. But there came drought and then floods in some states. I have always stressed on working hard especially during rabi season towards increasing the production.

IE: But government actions did not bring in expected results. The price rise continues to deteriorate and there was also the sugarcane pricing policy crisis with UP sugarcane farmers taking to Delhi streets and got the Parliament paralysed?

Pawar: We all know what you are talking about. We did not sit idle. Our initial analysis was that there would be probably a shortfall of 6 million hectare in the sowing of paddy. It is bound to have adverse impact on production and consequently on availability of rice in the near future. I have been monitoring things closely. I always said it is imperative to plan and take compensatory steps to make good the production losses of kharif crops by careful and judicious planning of the rabi season. I also said there is a good opportunity for ensuring timely sowing of wheat, especially in the eastern region, in states like Bengal and Bihar.

We made it clear that farmers should be supported and accordingly we made arrangements for supply of quality seeds. We also said advantage of residual moisture due to the late rains can also be exploited in bringing more areas under rabi pulses, particularly chickpea and mustard besides rabi jowar.

IE: What about the sugarcane pricing policy? What was the provocation for the Ordinance? Your detractors term it mill-owner friendly.

Pawar: The government and the mills were involved in a legal battle over the basis for determining the levy price. It was in consonance with legal advice that the government brought in a clause in the ordinance. The ordinance issued by the President and the Essential Commodities (Amendment and Validation) Bill we passed later were aimed at removing the ambiguities.

It's true certain sections were pressing for complete withdrawal of the sugarcane ordinance. This would have resulted in a windfall of Rs 14,000 crore for the sugar mills at the cost of the Central exchequer.

IE: But how did the new system of Fair Remunerative Price (FRP) help farmers?

Pawar: There's no question of sugarcane growers losing anything. Unlike the minimum support price (MSP), under new FRP system now, there will be a responsibility on the mill-owners to give a part of their profit, say about 50 per cent, in advance to the sugarcane growers, irrespective whether the mill-owners make profit or not. So how is it anti-farmers? Those who oppose the new legislation really do not know whose cause they are helping.

With regard to sugar, I have said in Parliament also, sugar was an industry with a cycle of five years – of which there is surplus in three years and shortage in the other two. Even during the NDA regime, there was shortfall in one year and even they had to import sugar. Even then there was opposition, but Atal Bihari Vajpayee was able to convince everyone.

IE: There's another issue cropping up, time and again; you and the Central government have sought to put the onus of price rise on the state governments. Is it like running away from your responsibilities?

Pawar: We are not running away from anything. Under the given circumstances, the Centre could frame certain policies as regard to supply of food items, but under the given circumstances there are areas where the state governments have to implement policies decided upon.