Subsidies were essential to encourage farmers to adopt the new HYV technology. Since new technology is often viewed as risky, subsidies provided the necessary incentive for farmers, particularly small farmers, to test it. Without these subsidies, the adoption of modern agricultural methods would have been difficult.

However, subsidies represent a huge burden on government finances. Critics argue that once technology is profitable and widely adopted, subsidies should be phased out. Moreover, subsidies often fail to benefit the target group effectively; for instance, a significant portion of fertiliser subsidy benefits the industry and farmers in prosperous regions rather than the poor.

Additionally, subsidies distort price signals and lead to the wasteful use of resources. Providing free electricity and water encourages farmers to cultivate water-intensive crops even in scarce regions, depleting natural resources. Overuse of fertilizers due to subsidies also harms the environment.

Conversely, supporters argue that farming remains a risky business and most farmers are too poor to afford inputs without support. Removing subsidies would increase inequality between rich and poor farmers, violating the goal of equity.

Thus, instead of abolishing subsidies, the correct policy is to ensure they specifically benefit poor farmers. This would address the financial burden while supporting those in need.