No one wants to stay in the agricultural profession in Nepal. Agriculture is only a last resort, why? Why has agriculture become such a neglected subject? There are many aspects to this. First, the state's policies and regulations do not protect real farmers. Second, the family economy does not run on agriculture. The labor force that has gone abroad, the seeds and fertilizers that depend on the market have made agriculture expensive. The real cost is not raised. Labor force is also not in agriculture. Agriculture is not understood as entrepreneurship. Farmers have been marginalized socially and culturally. It is not a matter of pride to say 'I am a farmer', but of shame.

The most important thing is that agriculture does not show any possibility of earning a living after reaching old age and being unable to work in the fields. That is why no one wants to stay in the agricultural profession. The farmer's pension is a means that can provide livelihood and support in old age by bringing agricultural work under the protection of the state. But in Nepal, farmer pension has become a topic of gossip for the government, not a matter of work.

Farmer identification and classification

Who is a farmer and who is not in Nepal – this has been made a difficult topic. Because, from one perspective, even teachers farm. A high-ranking government employee who has taken a job in Kathmandu also farms on his roof. Nowadays, even larger families have come into agriculture. They have cultivated a very large area. Even people who do not have land have rented other people's land or cultivated it based on various customs. So who is a farmer and who is not?

The most important issue to discuss in this regard is that not all those who do agricultural work are of the same status and situation. It is not appropriate from the point of view of social justice for the state to make all farmers participate in the farmer pension for farmer pension. Pension is for future security. People who get government jobs will have pension facilities in the future.

It should be understood that the farmer's pension scheme is only for those who have no future and currently do nothing other than agriculture, and farmers should be classified. Four years ago, through studies and research conducted in nine districts of all seven provinces with my involvement, the classification of farmers was obtained as mentioned in Table-1.

In the Nepali context, there are 6 types of farmers. But in the farmer's pension scheme, the state should include four types of farmers. Such classification should be done by every local government. This is a primary task for farmer's pension. One problem for the local government is that the status of farmers can change in terms of income, if someone goes abroad and earns a lot of money, he can move from low to medium, the local government needs to reclassify it once a year through the ward office. It is not very difficult for the local government to adopt this classification process annually. Because the employees of the agriculture branch under the local government have not been able to find work. In such a classification, full trust should be placed on the local government.

Contribution-based farmer pension

The state contributes based on social justice based on the class of farmers. The state helps small and marginal farmers more. When we say farmer pension, we understand that the state provides a facility to people who have been farming continuously for twenty years. This is actually a system implemented in collaboration with the state and farmers. Farmers themselves also contribute to their pension fund annually. And, the state adds based on the class of farmers. In particular, one of the theoretical meanings is the protection of agriculture and farmers by the state. Second, there is also collaboration between the state and farmers. Third, there is also state support for surviving as farmers. But the state's contribution is not equal for all farmers.

The state contributes based on social justice based on the class of farmers. The state helps small and marginal farmers more. It helps large farmers less. The farmer deposits the total production from his farming in the pension fund after calculating the financial cost and the state contributes to it. From the concept of social justice, the contribution made by the farmer and the contribution made by the state can be as shown in Table-2.

What is presented in Table-2 is that in the case of a marginal farmer, if he produces Rs 100 per year, he deposits 18 percent. The state adds 150 percent. Because he is the weakest farmer. This is the concept of social justice. In this process, the municipality should connect all the farmers with the bank.

Every farmer has a bank account at the local level. With the facilitation of the municipality, the farmers deposit their money in their accounts. Based on the classification of the farmers, the central government provides money to the local government and the local government deposits it in the farmer's account. This process is difficult to start once. Once started, it progresses smoothly. For this, the capacity of the local government should be enhanced.

Farmer classification and subsidy system

If the provincial and federal governments do not distribute agricultural subsidies and trust the local government's studies, then real farmers will receive subsidies and production will increase. Currently, those who do only agricultural work without looking into other professions have not received subsidies at all. The subsidies are in the hands of the bigwigs and non-farmers of the society. Those who have access to other state resources should not receive agricultural subsidies. Because they are using a state resource. Currently, there is a problem in farmer subsidies. If we actually identify and classify farmers in the farmer pension process, it will be easier for the local government to manage subsidies.

If the provincial and federal governments do not distribute agricultural subsidies and trust the local government's studies, then real farmers will receive subsidies and production will increase. It will be easier for the local government to do things like production-based subsidies, small farmer subsidies, transportation subsidies for markets, and subsidies for industrialization. That will increase production. Reduces our dependence on imported food. Helps to become self-reliant. The first thing that needs to be established to take this path is that agriculture should become a matter of state protection.

Structural management for farmers' pensions

It is difficult to manage farmers' pensions from the current regular bureaucracy. Regular bureaucracy is a huge burden for farmers. It is difficult to transform and become farmer-friendly right now. The most suitable option for this is to strengthen the Farmers' Commission.

The Farmers' Commission can facilitate the management of farmers' pensions under the core leadership of local governments with the financial support of the federal government. If the Farmers' Commission is developed as an institution to implement the 'scheme' of farmers' pensions and protect the rights of small, marginal, and medium farmers, it can serve. But it should be an autonomous institution. It cannot be an institution like a branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. Financial, human, and technical support from the federal government is necessary.

Development model and the illusion of the number of farmers

It is very good for our health to produce and eat ourselves. What I mean is that every household, regardless of profession or business, should be involved in production. The current development model recommends reducing the number of farmers. International experience is putting pressure on us that the fewer people are involved in agriculture, the more developed the country is. The current model of a few trading institutions producing and the common farmers buying and eating has become. Nepal is also following this path. This is harmful for us.

Because in a country like ours that is not industrialized, let alone in a situation of rapid industrialization, what will people do if they leave farming? There is no such place. That is why we should not follow the path of reducing the number of farmers not only from the perspective of food security but also from the perspective of the place where people are involved.

It is very good for health to produce and eat by yourself . What needs to be said is that every household, regardless of profession or business, should be involved in production . The production done by every household reduces imports . The local and national economy becomes stronger . But the state cannot protect everyone . It can facilitate those who engage in agricultural production by engaging in other professions or businesses, but it cannot make them participate in farmer pensions and subsidies .