HISTORY often teaches us that change is not always achieved through grand gestures or loud protests but through quiet, measured steps.
The struggle for fairness, whether in the realm of economics or politics, is rarely straightforward.
It is often muddled with conflicting interests, emotional appeals and practical considerations that challenge us to find a balance between competing needs.
This is the very dilemma that Pakistan faces today as it navigates the complex issue of wheat prices, a commodity that has become emblematic of the tensions between farmers and the common man.
Wheat, the staple of every Pakistani meal, holds a pivotal place in the country’s agricultural and economic framework.
Its price has become a contentious issue, with farmers, particularly the large landowners, regularly pressuring the government to set higher rates and purchase wheat at these raised prices.
Yet, when the government offers solutions to balance the needs of both the farmers and the general populace, it is met with resistance and dissatisfaction.
The recent narrative surrounding wheat prices is emblematic of a larger, ongoing debate about how economic resources are distributed and who ultimately benefits from them.
Last year, when wheat fetched 3300 to 3400 in the open market, well above the official support price, farmers criticized the government, insisting they be allowed to sell freely if the state couldn’t match market rates.
Yet this year, as prices dip and volatility sets in, the same voices now demand a fixed price and government procurement.
This shift reveals a deeper paradox in the expectations of the farming community, a desire for market freedom when it favours them and state intervention when it does not.
It prompts question, can a system truly be just if it is only expected to serve in convenience, not in principle?
The wheat crisis isn’t a simple clash between small farmers and large land-owners, grain bears no mark of its producer’s size.
It is a shared output of the agricultural system.
Government price-setting aims to stabilize markets and protect the public from soaring food costs.
Yet, when farmers demand higher prices and the state resists, a deeper tension emerges between individual profit and collective food security.
It is a reflection of a broader dilemma, how to balance free enterprise with social responsibility in a system where both are essential, yet often at odds.
In the current context, the government has introduced several measures to address the wheat issue, including the Kissan Card, which offers financial support to farmers for the upcoming sowing season.
Additionally, the Punjab Government covers four months of storage rent for excess wheat stored in government facilities.
Farmers receive computerized receipts for stored wheat, redeemable for 70% of the current market price at the Punjab Bank, interest-free.
These efforts aim to provide immediate financial relief without destabilizing the market, with repayment expected once prices stabilize.
Furthermore, incentives for increased yield and the removal of fixed water and agricultural taxes have been implemented.
Despite these measures, farmers continue to demand higher prices and government procurement at those rates.
The government’s attempts to stabilize the market, offer financial support and regulate wheat storage have faced resistance, as farmers remain dissatisfied.
The crux of the issue lies not in wheat prices but in the resistance of certain farmers seeking higher profits at the expense of the broader population.
This behaviour reflects the danger of blackmail tactics in negotiations, where one group demands solutions to benefit them alone.
The government must balance farmers’ interests with the needs of millions of working-class individuals who rely on affordable wheat for survival.
While farmers’ grievances are valid, their demands cannot overshadow the needs of the wider population.
In a country where agricultural land rental prices and living costs are rising, high wheat prices deeply impact the common man.
Those in low-paying jobs struggle to afford basic necessities, making it crucial to ensure that the financial burdens of a few do not disproportionately affect the many.
The way forward lies in striking a balance that guarantees fair compensation for farmers’ hard work while also ensuring that essential food remains affordable for the average household.
Resorting to coercive tactics will not yield a lasting solution.
Instead, a collaborative approach, bringing together farmers, government authorities and the public, is crucial for achieving a just and sustainable outcome.
It is imperative to move beyond the limited interests of a few and focus on the greater good, where the well-being of the majority takes precedence over individual profits.
Only through such collective efforts can we build a more equitable and inclusive system that meets the needs of all.
—The writer is PhD in Political Science, and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad. (zafarkhansafdar@yahoo.com)
