WTO AND INDIAN AGRICULTURE
India is one of the founding members of WTO which came into existence on January 01, 1995 replacing GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)and promising the herald of a new era in the rule-based system of governing and promoting international trade concomitant with the needs of the on-going process of globalization. WTO provisions related to international trade are now similarly applicable to agriculture which was brought within the fold of GATT in the Uruguay Round (1986-93) of Multilateral Trade Negotiations ( MTNs ). Application of WTO provisions on agriculture involves many contentious issues and is an area of serious concern for developing countries which are primarily agrarian economies, More-over, the world, despite growing interdependence and integration, is highly hetero-generous with regard to levels of development. This heterogeneity is very much noticeable when we compare the agricultural sector of developed and developing countries. Support infrastructure like storage, processing, finance, marketing, transport and R&D facilities are much more advanced and organized. In sharp contrast, in a country like India, for millions of farmers who derive their livelihood from agricultural, it is still a way of life and not an occupation they have chosen for themselves. Indian farmers are mostly involved in subsistence farming with very little or no marketable surplus. On the other hand, there have verb instances where in the USA farmers have been given subsidies worth millions of dollars to keep their farmland uncultivated. In India 70% of the holdings are not of the economic size, making application of modern technology difficult and unaffordable for the farmers.
 The developed countries like the USA, Japan and Ell countries heavily subsidize their agriculture with high-quality standards and aggressive marketing practices, these countries hold 72% share of world trade in agricultural products and keep the developing countries virtually at the periphery of the world market. The salient features of this agreement include three main provisions which have become effective since I Jan 2000.  indeed the best way of rectifying inequalities. The second issue is of whether quotas and academic excellence are fundamentally incompatible, as is suggested in some quotas. Another issue is whether the OBCs are affluent and therefore do not deserve reservation.
Almost everybody who is opposed to quotas claims to favour affirmative action, starting from referent vantage points, quotas and affirmative action converge strikingly in many ways, both are mechanics of preferential treatment to facilitate inclusion of disadvantaged groups. The principal difference is that quotas are constitutionally mandated, while affirmative action may not be given the persistence of social discrimination, that the question that must be posed should not be confined to the limited point as to whether preferential treatment must be in the form of quotas or affirmative action of a broader scope. Rather, the question should be: would alternative means produce the same outcomes that mandatory quotas produce?
While reservation might not be the best or the only method of correcting longstanding discrimination however, it is one of the more workable & feasible mechanisms for increasing access of disadvantaged groups to higher education. In the hysteria generated by the protests, we must not forget that the Indian reservation policy has been quite effective and has produced positive outcomes. For example, the proportion of SC students in seven IIT’s is about 9% which is below their allocated quota 15% but even this would have been hard to achieve in the absence of quotas. The proportion of OBC graduates is a more 8.6% so far, with the exception of a few institutions such as JNU, have introduced voluntary measures of affirmative action for the disadvantaged sections.
 Another argument is that quotas militate against academic excellence and will lead to further deterioration of academic standards. This flawed theory is contradicted by the experience of American Universities. Likewise, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, have been extremely positive with no dilution of academic standards.
 Another point that troubles the anti-reservations is the issue of economic status and determining who is eligible for reservation. Given the political momentum behind the policy of reservation for the OBCs, a shift to an economic criterion is unlikely; yet, the current controversy over OBC reservation placed the economic criteria on the political centre once again. Two factors should be remembered, one is the social composition of OBCs and the second, the definition of creamy layer. Athe s distinct from SCs and STs. there is internal differentiation and intra-group inequality among the OBCs. The Supreme Court in the Indira Shahani Vs the Union of India has held how economic factors should figure in the definition of backwardness, which means that the government must find ways to disqualify the more advantaged individuals in these classes and to help the truly backward.
 Higher education has grown enormously since Independence from 25 to 348 universities. 1970 onwards there has been an escalating demand for higher education, professional technical education in particular especially for engineering & medical colleges, management schools. But ironically in sharp contrast to the spiralling growth and demand, six decades after independence the opportunities for admission to these institutions are still largely monopolized by a small privileged section of society. This is suggestive of social inequality.
The effectiveness of Reservation as an instrument to rectify this imbalance might be a matter of debate, but there is no denying that the government is well within its rights to provide reservation. Our Constitution provides for additional reservation for the socially, educationally backward groups. Reservation for OBCs, much like the reservation policy of SCs & STs is based on the understanding that in a regime of formal equality and open competition, members of previously disadvantages and disabilities will be able to compete, and it, in fact, will not be able to compete, the will fall further behind.
The government on its part is reading what is being called a ‘Package formula’ implying a policy that contains conciliatory gestures towards all sections. The Government issued a statement about a formula that would be acceptable to everyone. Some of the measures are—a gradual implementation of quota in institutes of higher learning as opposed to sudden imposition; increasing the number of seats by 53-54%; simultaneously setting up state schools which impart high-quality education; aiming at 6% of GDP on education from the present 4.02%.
 As for, easing the increased pressure on seats, the government set the ball rolling when it asked the IITs & IIMs to raise its number of seats early this year. But the same formula is not applicable to medical colleges. Guidelines were drawn up by the Medical. Council of India says that the ratio of students to the teacher should be 4%. Also, infrastructure like labs & hospital facilities has to be first put in place. i.e. huge financial inputs. It will have a reverse impact on infrastructure, especially when most institutes do not have a full teaching staff.
 It should be remembered that the government has increased the seats without any fundamental change, whatever was recommended by the Mandal Commission’s first recommendation. Again the problem is unresolved. The second point of the Report that problems of inequality will remain because this reservation will not benefit MBC. This is suggestive of the fact that there is something more to be done. The reservation which was accepted as a temporary measure, only mitigate the inequality.
