Passage

One of the dismal realities of the agricultural sector in independent India has been that it never experienced a high-growth phase, unlike the non-agricultural economy. The highest decadal growth (compound annual growth rate or CAGR) for agriculture has been just 3.5% in the 1980s. Also, after experiencing a spurt in decadal growth during the 1980s, agricultural growth suffered relative stagnation thereafter. This is in sharp contrast to non-agricultural growth, which consistently increased from the 1980s to 2000s.

QUESTION

CSAT

Medium

Comprehension

Prelims 2025

With reference to the passage, the following assumptions have been made:

The growing divergence between the fortunes of the agricultural and non-agricultural economy in India could have been reduced/contained by: I. Adopting large-scale cultivation of commercial crops and viable corporate farming. II. Providing free insurance for all crops and heavily subsidizing seeds, fertilizers, electricity, and farm machinery at par with developed countries.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Select an option to attempt

Explanation

Assumption I is incorrect: The passage only contrasts the slower agricultural growth with faster non-agricultural growth but does not propose any reasons or solutions for this divergence. It never mentions or implies large-scale commercial cultivation or corporate farming. Hence, assuming that these would reduce the divergence goes beyond the scope of the passage.

However, one might cautiously argue that Assumption I could be considered valid, since the passage implicitly points to stagnation in agriculture and the absence of a “high-growth phase.” This could suggest that structural reforms and modernization—like corporate farming—might help boost efficiency and productivity, thereby narrowing the gap. But such reasoning is inferred, not explicitly supported.

Assumption II is incorrect: The idea that providing free insurance and heavy subsidies for all inputs would reduce divergence is not supported by the passage. The text does not discuss subsidies, insurance, or fiscal policy. Moreover, such an assumption also contradicts sound economic logic, as blanket subsidies are not necessarily growth-enhancing and may lead to inefficiencies.

Therefore, based on the passage alone, neither assumption is valid.
(However, Assumption I could be interpreted as tentatively valid if broader structural reasoning is applied.)