BJP backs Fasal Bima Yojana

Bima-1

CHANDIGARH, August 13- The BJP led present Haryana Government has refuted the allegations leveled by the opposition leaders, especially the INLD Member Parliament, Mr Dushyant Chautala terming the implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna  (PMFBY) as not in favour of farming community.

Bima-2.jpg
In a statement issued here today, the Chairman, Haryana Housing Board, Mr Jawahar Yadav  said that the PMFBY is in larger interest of the farmers. It has been implemented after thread bare discussion with farmers, insurance companies and different state governments. He said that the crop insurance schemes implemented by the previous governments of the INLD and the Congress had limitations, but the PMFBY is much better. When the INLD and the Congress were in power, they used to appreciate their crop insurance schemes and did not see the limitations. And when the BJP Government has introduced a farmer friendly scheme, they are criticizing it to  remain in news and mislead the farmers. The success of the BJP Government is not being digested by the opposition, he added.
Mr Jawahar Yadav questioned   Mr Dushyant Chautala that was  he criticizing the crop insurance scheme implemented  by the INLD  led by Mr Om Parkash Chautala. The INLD did not implement the scheme in 2004-05 because of elections. Mr Yadav said that the BJP Government  has made the scheme in the interest of the farmers and it has been implemented  for the welfare of farmers and not to gain any political milage. It has the lowest premium.  The crop insurance scheme is being implemented by the State Government led by Mr Manohar Lal in its true spirit.
He said that it is for the first time that localized calamity inundation has been covered under PMFBY. Also,  for the first time damage caused to crops due to cyclones and unseasonal rains have been included in the whole country. With a view to ensure correct assessment of damage and prompt payment of compensation, emphasis has been laid on  use of   mobile and satellite technologies. It is easy to come under the ambit of this new scheme as it is more safe, he added.
He made it clear that the Central Government has been implementing various crop insurance schemes in the country  from time to time.These schemes were amended from time to time on the basis of the experience gained from previous schemes. In Haryana, different schemes were launched from time to time between Kharif 2004 and Rabi 2013-14 (except Rabi 2004-05).There   implemented was partial as these covered  some of thedistricts and blocks of Haryana.
He said the PMFBY  has been implemented    before Kharif  2016 because the  previous schemes  had limitations, either the rate of premium used to be high or the claim amount used to be meager or at times the damage due to localized calamities was not included. As a result of it  only 20 per cent of the farmers used to   come under their ambit. Apart from this, they had to face hardships in getting their claim. As a result of it, the farmers began to lose faith in such schemes. As a result of it the PMFBY is the best among such schemes implemented so far . It has the lowest premium rate and the rest of the amount will be paid by the government even though it is more than 90 per cent. There will be uniform rate of premium in a season for foodgrains, pulses and oil seeds. The farmers will get rid of district wise and crop wise rate of premium. The premium will be only two per cent for Kharif crops and 1.5 per cent for Rabi crops. The farmers would be fully protected, there would be no capping on insurance and this would not reduce claim amount.
While clarifying   the allegation on fixing village as a unit for the insurance in PMFBY, Mr Yadav  reminded Mr Dushyant Chautala  that even the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS),  was implemented from Kharif  2011 to Rabi 2013-14 at village level.   A village or Gram Panchayat or a unit above that were decided as the unit for insurance.
He also said that it was also wrong on the part of Mr Chautala to say that the farmers have been forced to come under the ambit of PFBY. He clarified that  in case of a natural calamity, the crops do not get damaged in a particular field, but in a larger area. Therefore, the village as a whole has been decided as a unit and the same practice has been followed even in previous such schemes.
While pointing out that the PMFBY is better as compared to the previous MNAIS, he said that in localized calamity inundation is covered under PMFBY in addition to hailstorm and landslide in MNAIS.He said that the sum insured per hectare for both loanee and non loanee farmers are more in PMFBY. The sum insured in PMFBY is equal to the scale of finance as decided by district level technical committee. He said that the sum insured in case of PMFBY  is Rs 55,000 per hectare for wheat and Rs 62,500 per hectare for paddy. As compared to it, he said that it  was less in MNAIS, which was Rs 40,000 per hectare for wheat and Rs 45,700 per hectare for paddy.He said that there would be no capping on the sum insured.
He said that the premium rate under PMFBY is very less and uniform in all over the state as compared to earlier scheme that is MNAIS. Only two per cent of sum insured in Kharif and 1.5 per cent in Rabi and five per cent for horticulture and cash crops is applicable.The difference between the premium paid by the farmers and the premium fixed by the insurance companies will be subsidized and there would be no cap on the maximum subsidy paid by the government.
He said that as compared to it in case of MNAIS, the rate of premium to be paid by the farmers used to be fixed on the basis of the actual rates and it had no maximum limit. Also the rate of premium used to vary for different crops. As compared to it in case of PMFBY there is uniform rate of premium for all crops in a season.
In case of amount of claim in PMFBY, he said that it is payable upto the insured amount on the basis of quantum of damage  and if the rate of actual premium is  more, the insured amount or  claim amount is not reduced. On the other hand, in case of MNAIS the rate of actual premium in Kharif was 11 per cent and nine per cent in Rabi. In case the rate of premium is more than 13 per cent for commercial crops the sum insured used to be reduced on the basis of ratio thus reducing the claim amount.
While referring to the subsidy payable by the Central and State governments, he said that in PMFBY there is no upper limit of subsidy. On the other hand, in case of MNAIS, the subsidy used to be 40 to 70 per cent of the actual premium as per the slabs. In case of damage due to localized calamities he said that while the PMFBY includes damage due to hailstorm, landslide and inundation whereas in case of MNAIS, only the damage caused due to hailstorm and landslide used to be covered. Referring to the damage caused to the crops after harvest he said that in PMFBY this aspect has been implemented all over the country and includes cyclonic rain in addition to cyclones. Also, it covers damage caused due to unseasonal rain. As compared to it in the MNAIS, it used to cover only coastal areas and only  damage caused due to cyclones.
He said that both the PMFBY and MNAIS have village/ Gram Panchayat or the higher unit as a unit for insurance cover. Both  the schemes, that is PMFBY and MNAIS, have been implemented at the level of village in Haryana. Also both the schemes are mandatory for loanee farmers, but for others these are optional. Similarly in case of both the schemes the amount of premium gets deducted from the bank account  of the beneficiary. Also, another similarity of both the schemes is that the claim is assessed on the basis of trial of harvesting.
While referring to the statistics of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)  from 2004 Kharif to Rabi 2012-13, except Rabi 2004-05 when it was not implemented he said that a total of 6,35,751 farmers and 7,69,347 hectares were covered in all these years. The sum insured was Rs 83,407.57 lakh with collection of over Rs  2,412 lakh as premium. Also, 1,29,156 farmers were benefitted as Rs 4,367.97 lakh were paid as claim.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s