Prerequisite 14 of 21

Fair prices (Swaminathan formula)

← All prerequisites
14Partially built

The 2015 proposal

Fair prices on the Swaminathan formula — a minimum support price at least 50% above the average weighted cost of production.

Where it stands in 2026

The principle is conceded; the arithmetic is the fight. Since 2018-19 the government has fixed MSP for its mandated crops at 1.5 × A2+FL — paid-out costs plus imputed family labour — and PM-AASHA is the umbrella that backs it with procurement and price-deficiency payments. Farmer movements, citing the Swaminathan Commission, demand the fuller 1.5 × C2 benchmark, which also counts imputed rent on owned land and interest on owned capital and can run materially higher for many crops. So the dispute is not whether a remunerative price is owed but precisely which cost concept counts — a gap measured in rupees per quintal, crop by crop.

The open gap

The fight is the cost concept: 1.5×A2+FL is paid, but 1.5×C2 — the Swaminathan demand — is not.

The path to close it

Move the benchmark from 1.5×A2+FL toward 1.5×C2 in phases rather than overnight — beginning with the most distress-prone, low-margin crops — and back the higher floor with PM-AASHA procurement plus deficiency-price payments, so the guarantee bites without the state physically buying every harvest. The decisive move is transparency: publish CACP’s A2+FL and C2 for every crop and state on an open dashboard (this site’s price tool already exposes the gap), so the cost-concept debate is settled with auditable numbers instead of slogans. Pair it with the price-discovery rails — e-NAM, e-scales and machine assaying — so the farmer can actually realise the declared floor at the mandi, not just read it in a circular.

Specifications — what “built” requires

Illustrative — a proposed specification and sequence, not an official government roadmap.

Acceptance criteria

  • The MSP benchmark moves from 1.5×A2+FL toward 1.5×C2, phased by crop.
  • The guarantee is backed by PM-AASHA procurement + deficiency-price payments, not full state purchase.
  • CACP's A2+FL and C2 are published for every crop and state on an open dashboard.
  • The farmer can realise the declared floor at the mandi (via e-NAM, e-scales and assay).
  • Roll-out starts with the most distress-prone, low-margin crops.

Technical spec

Benchmark
phased 1.5×A2+FL → 1.5×C2 (cost-concept switch)
Backstop
PM-AASHA PSS/PDPS hybrid (procurement + deficiency payment)
Dashboard
open per-crop / per-state A2+FL & C2 (CACP data)
Realisation
e-NAM + e-weighment + assay so the floor is enforceable
Sequencing
distress-prone crops first; published phase plan

Roadmap to built — phase 1 → 2 → 3

Illustrative — a proposed specification and sequence, not an official government roadmap.

  1. 1
    Phase 1 · Now

    Make the gap visible

    Publish CACP's A2+FL and C2 per crop and state on an open dashboard.

    The cost-concept gap is seen in numbers, not slogans.

  2. 2
    Phase 2 · 6–12 months

    Lift the worst-hit crops

    Move the most distress-prone crops to 1.5×C2, backed by PM-AASHA procurement and deficiency payments.

    The higher floor bites where distress is worst.

  3. 3
    Phase 3 · 12–24 months

    Phase in and enforce

    Extend the C2 benchmark across remaining crops and enforce realisation via e-NAM, e-scales and assay.

    The declared floor becomes the realised price — built.

See it working: MSP reality checker →

Where it sits in the chain

See the full map →

Depends on

Enables

Sources