Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has urged the Union government to intervene in the ongoing sugarcane pricing dispute, as farmers’ protests raise concerns over the timely start of the 2026–27 sugarcane crushing season. He has sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s intervention to address growers’ demands for higher cane prices and changes to sugar and ethanol policies, calling for coordinated discussions involving farmers, sugar mills and both central and state governments.
The dispute centres on several key issues, including an increase in the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) paid by sugar mills to sugarcane farmers, a revision of the Minimum Selling Price (MSP) of sugar, and separate pricing arrangements for domestic and commercial sugar consumption. Shivakumar has also highlighted concerns regarding ethanol procurement and the prices paid for ethanol produced from sugarcane, which provide an additional source of revenue for the sugar industry. 
Protests have intensified in parts of north Karnataka, where farmers are demanding better returns and changes to the existing pricing framework. The agitation has raised concerns about possible delays to crushing operations, a crucial annual activity that determines sugar production schedules, cane payments and the financial performance of sugar mills.
For the 2026–27 sugar season, the Union Cabinet approved an FRP of ₹365 per quintal at a basic sugar recovery rate of 10.25%. The FRP establishes the minimum price that mills must pay sugarcane growers, while the minimum selling price of sugar determines the minimum price at which mills can sell their finished product. Farmers’ continued demands indicate that concerns over cane prices and production costs remain unresolved.
The Centre has also moved towards examining the issue through a committee led by former NITI Aayog member Ramesh Chand, which media reports said was established to review sugarcane farmers’ demands in Karnataka and Maharashtra. The committee’s findings could help guide discussions on pricing and policy changes, although its recommendations and any subsequent government decisions remain pending.
The dispute has significant implications for farmers, sugar manufacturers and ethanol producers. Higher cane prices could improve growers’ incomes but may also increase mills’ procurement costs, particularly if sugar prices and ethanol revenues do not rise sufficiently to offset the additional expenditure.
Further discussions between the Centre, Karnataka government, farmers and mill representatives will be important in determining whether the dispute can be resolved and crushing operations proceed without significant disruption. Any changes to cane pricing, sugar selling prices or ethanol procurement policies could have wider implications for the state’s sugar industry and agricultural economy.
