Meghalaya Farmers Struggle Despite Market Opportunities

New Delhi, India Jul 30, 2026 ALN: Over the last few weeks, there have been distressing visuals of farmers dumping their produce at throwaway prices because of a lack of buyers. Then the National People’s Party (NPP) Farmers’ Unit found out that the demand for vegetables from Meghalaya has fallen significantly in major markets such as Siliguri in West Bengal and parts of Upper Assam. This was attributed to buyers sourcing produce from Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland at more competitive prices. This could mean many things.

Farmers from Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland may have increased their efficiency, which has allowed them to reduce their cost of production, thus making their vegetables more competitive in the market. However, if farmers are forced to sell at Rs. 2 per kg, this means that the prices the farmers from these two states are getting are also not very high. The only way the farmers from Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh will be able to compensate for the low price is through volume, and this is highly unlikely since the landholdings in these two hill states are similar to those in Meghalaya.

Transport costs could also be a factor, but they would be higher for states like Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh to distant markets like Siliguri, unless the railways are involved, which would reduce the overall costs. However, I suspect that there is an oversupply of vegetables in the market. This appears to be the case in Lower Assam, which is also purchasing fewer vegetables from Meghalaya because of adequate local production. For me, these appear to be the possible reasons why farmers from the state are not able to sell their produce; otherwise, the economics does not work.

One way out of this is to increase the efficiency of farming in Meghalaya, which simply translates to increasing the use of fertilizers and pesticides, the use of which is comparatively quite low by national standards. That, of course, comes with its own problems of long-term environmental degradation and serious health dangers to the local population. The negative relationship between pesticide use and health is well documented by the experience of the ‘cancer belt of Punjab’, where significantly higher cancer incidence rates are correlated with the heavy use of pesticides. The use of chemical fertilizers like urea has also been found to lead to contamination of soil and water bodies, along with the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, not to mention the use of fossil fuels in producing these chemicals. Therefore, this is not a sustainable solution.

So, there is a need to find alternative markets for the produce of the farmers, which generally means establishing new markets or exploiting existing ones through niche products that can fetch a high price. In the latter case, we have examples of pineapple, oranges, and Lakadong turmeric, which, according to reports, are fetching good prices outside the state. However, not every farmer is engaged in the production of these crops, and neither should the extensive monoculture of only a few specific crops be encouraged. Such systems are less resistant to climate change and pest infestations, which will necessitate the use of more synthetic chemicals. So, a change in the farming system is not needed right now. Rather, it is the availability of markets for the existing produce. In fact, markets already exist in the state that can be immediately tapped into. These are the existing settlements in the state, i.e., towns and villages.

According to the 2011 Census, Meghalaya has a total of 6,893 villages, a number which should have increased by now. But even assuming that the number of villages stays the same, there are potentially 6,893 markets that already exist for farmers’ produce. The potential customers here are of two types, viz., institutional and non-institutional. The latter would be the households residing in these villages, and in 2011 that number was 555,131, or more than 5 lakh households. If we assume that they would spend around Rs. 100 per day on buying various household necessities that amounts to spending of over Rs. 5 crore in a day, which translates to more than Rs. 2,000 crore in a year. The fact that Meghalaya is known to be a food-importing state means that domestic supply is insufficient to meet domestic demand, which, if simple economic logic is applied, should actually translate to higher prices. But this is not the case because prices get depressed due to agricultural produce arriving from other states. If one goes to the local market, one can find vegetables and other produce from both local farmers as well as supplies brought in from outside the state. Consumers prefer this situation because it makes things cheaper for them. But the flip side is that it makes farmers poorer because they are unable to get a fair price for their produce.

In a state like Meghalaya, where 80% of the population is based in rural areas and 60% of the workforce is engaged in agriculture, this leads to a situation where a large part of the population is unable to overcome poverty. This also means that 80% of the state’s population has lower purchasing capacity, and therefore the demand for non-agricultural commodities will also be low because there is no extra cash to spend on such items. Poor prices keep farmers poor, which means a weakened market and therefore a weaker economy, and the cycle continues. It is no wonder the state is today one of the poorest in the country.

But while potential markets exist in the form of villages, with potential consumers being the households already residing in them, they are, at best, a long-term solution, and there is a need for something in the short term. It is here that there is a need to tap into institutional markets that are relatively easier to exploit.

The institutional markets are in the form of schools through their mid-day meal programme (now rechristened as PM-POSHAN), ICDS, and various government institutions, e.g., prisons, hostels, government offices, etc. NESFAS (North East Society for Agroecology Support) has, in fact, been implementing a local procurement programme in some selected schools in the state, where the SMC (School Management Committee) enters into an agreement with local farmer groups to supply vegetables to the school. The school gets a regular supply of vegetables, which includes highly nutritious wild vegetables, while the farmers get access to an assured market. Thus, every school where PM-POSHAN is being implemented, which is over 13,000 schools in the state, is a potential market. This is true for the ICDS programme as well. The government could also mandate that canteens or shops within government premises must source vegetables from local farmers. Many homestays in the state have been built with government subsidies, and there should also be an agreement requiring them to buy vegetables from local farmers. Any hotels that have also come up with government support must do the same. If any institution or group is receiving or has received government support, they must be required to include such a clause in the agreement for receiving that support. As for the suppliers, the government already has details of farmer groups through its FOCUS programme. These groups can be tapped into and helped to enter into agreements with these institutions. In the case of institutions found not to be honouring the agreement, the support should be cancelled and any support already provided should be reimbursed. A few high-profile cases being punished will send a message to others, who will then adhere to the agreement.

In many countries, public procurement has been used as a means of providing farmers with a fair price. India’s PDS system and MSP (Minimum Support Prices) are examples of this. However, this requires that the state shoulder the responsibility of acting as the market. In this case, though, the state only has to mandate a procurement system for institutions supported by it and ensure its implementation. After all, the government is already spending a lot of money on various livelihood initiatives, many of which are repeated across different projects. The common concern for all such initiatives is the unavailability of markets. Such an approach, as described above, uses existing programmes and institutions to function as those markets. As long as those programmes remain and as long as the government supports or maintains various institutions, a market is already assured. In the long run, as the financial capacity of the 80% of the population and the 60% of the workforce improves, they could become enduring customers, without restricting supplies from outside, which would not be fair to competition or to those who still depend on lower prices. But that is for the future. Right now, markets already exist for the produce of our farmers, and they must be activated immediately.

(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)