Monday, July 16, 2012

AGRICULTURE MATTERS


LAND RIGHT AND LAND ACQUISITION
1.        There appears to be a conflict between Industrial interests and Agricultural interests.
Industry is trying to take away the space of agriculture.  Industry wants to subordinate agriculture.  This seems to happen in several ways.  In the name of industrialization of agriculture through introduction of technology, genetically modified seeds (BT Brinjal), high yielding variety seeds and fertilizer the industry is trying to gain control on agriculture.  Industrial capital is trying to gain control of production and marketing of agricultural goods.  The corporate like Cargill, Monsanto, and ITC have entered into agricultural sector trying to direct the course of agriculture towards industrial interests and thereby changing the very objective social need of agricultural production.
2.       The policy makers guided by the interests of the industrial capital want to make sure that contribution of agriculture to the GDP comes down to lower than 20%.  The population involved in agriculture similarly comes down to less than 20%.  There is a projection made that more than 60% of population should live in the urban centres and less than 40% in the rural areas.  The rise in the urban population will provide abundance of labour force for industry.
3.       When an economy gets heavily transformed in favour of industry there are issues:
·         The department that produces the means of subsistence essential to any society gets relegated to a secondary position.
·         Wages in all sectors depend on the value of the means of subsistence.  This means the cost of production of means of subsistence determine the wages.  This concern often makes the wages in agricultural sector and price of food grains to be kept low.  This is responsible for the uneven standard of living between the urban population and the population involved in agriculture.
·         When vast majority of the population gets shifted to the urban and industrial sector it means these people get reduced to property less masses depending on volatile employment and wages.  Only the minuscule population then owns capital.  The rest of the people find themselves outside the economic, political and social life.  They live on the fringe (edge) of the society with loss of purpose, relevance and meaning of life.
·         While consumption in terms of industrial products will be high in value involving high value of capital, consumption in terms of means of subsistence will be low in value resulting in low return in agriculture.  This will make capitalism unsustainable leading to crisis of over production and under consumption.
4.       There is no agricultural policy to boost its growth.  Agricultural growth is not considered in an attempt to revive overall growth.    Since agriculture cannot attract FDI it is relegated to the last space.  Only urban and industrial sector is considered to evaluate GDP.  In the Neo Liberal ideological perspective growth is seen only in terms of FDI and exposure to foreign capital.  Foreign investment is not a stable bench mark for growth.  It comes and goes like wind along the rumours and gossip about economy of the nation.
5.       When the land acquisition bill is debated apparently some interest for the problems of the farmers is shown.  But it is totally eyewash.  How can land acquisition be discussed without a discussion on the future of agriculture and the farmers?
It is not enough to have rehabilitation and resettlement plans.  This is looking at the issues of land and farmers negatively.  What is required is a positive agricultural policy which keeps the farmers’ interests in the centre stage. 
What is required is to identify the unproductive and uncultivable land and promote industrialization in these areas.  Of course this will require development of infrastructure and transport.

The rich farmers and big landlord often hold vast stretch of land.  They leave some land fallow.  Their per acre productivity is much lower than the small and medium farmers.  A more rational land reform is needed to make sure that the farmers hold viable size of land and the big landlords are forced to give up excess land.

The fertile lands should not be touched for industrialization.  There should be robust development of infrastructure like irrigation, power, cold storage and food processing units, transport and market facilities.  The rural roads are in horrible state.  Power supply is absent for the most part of the time.  There are possibilities for installing small power plants based on solar power, wind energy and through use of biomass.

Bank credit should be made available for the farmers on the lines of credit available to industry.  They should be able to draw on the basis of their product and stock.  If the banks function well in the rural areas along the line of urban banks there will not any need for loan waving.

If the small farmers become self sufficient it will solve the problem of unemployment and nutrition in the rural areas.  These farmers should be able to live in dignity and have access to modern education and lifestyle without having to give up agriculture.  Agriculture should become a dignified way of life like any other dignified occupation. 

While analysing the defeat of the Left Front government there were several point put forward as explanation for its defeat.  The left front held on to power for more than thirty years.  The reason for this long rule was that it enjoyed the support of the rural population which had immensely benefitted from the land reform (operation Borga).  But these people had developed aspiration bigger than just holding land.  The left front government was not able to meet these aspirations.  The rural masses wanted to enjoy the life style their urban peers were having.  They wanted to have access to modernity and the luxuries enjoyed by the urban middle class.  Since this is only at the analytical level it is not very clear what kind of economic engagement the rural masses were looking for.  Did the people want to give up agriculture and look for jobs in the urban centres?  In that case why were there strong protests against land acquisition in Singur and Nandigram, where many had given their lives?   Did the rural masses expect better life style by migrating to the urban centres and would that be possible.  The answer to these questions is probably very simple.  The growers of the food for the nation did not have the life they deserved.  The economic organization was unfair to the crucial agricultural sector.  The policy makers did not have imagination to think that given proper policies and plans the rural population should lack nothing in terms of good housing, health, education, infrastructure of every kind which would put their life style on par with the urban middle class.  But this could not happen given the liberalization.  When there is no regulation and planning the industrial and urban interests get better of the economy and society.    The growth oriented and market driven economy looks for higher profits and does not have eye for equity and justice.  They are so engrossed in their pursuit for profit that they forget the fact that it needs a market, i.e., people with purchasing power to realise their profits.  The fact that the economy has taken the turn for the worst is a clear proof of its non inclusive nature.  Inclusiveness should not be expressed by giving doles to the rural poor.  It should mean the rural agriculture should come in the calculation.  The rural infrastructure and way of life should be so cared for that it will provide people resources to life and benefit equitably from the growing wealth. 

There is a need for regulation and planning for the entire society.  The rural economy and the rural population should be able to grow along with the growth of the urban sector.  The dream of pushing 60% and more population to the urban centres and make them employable in the urban industries by depriving of their land and productive assets will turn this dream into nightmare.  It is like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

6.       Market and Trade is thought of only in terms of export – export to US and Europe.  The Central Asia and Pacific is not considered.  The domestic market is totally left out of calculation to promote growth.  The large population of about 60% to 70% living in the rural area in a vast country like India with more than a billion people offers the biggest market opportunity for Indian economy.  But this market needs to be developed by promoting development of agriculture.  This will also go a long way in defending food sovereignty and food security for the nation.

LAND RIGHT AND LAND ACQUISITION


AGRICULTURE AND LAND RIGHT: Introductory remarks
Alex Tuscano

Land Right:
=Respect for land rights is essential to sustainable development. Land is central to people’s identity, livelihood and food security. International standards and frameworks are abundantly available.
Yet time and again the human rights of the people who own or use land are violated due to policies and practices relating to its improper use and acquisition. Sub-Saharan countries are a poignant example.
For the past decade, foreign investors have been looking for greener pastures in Africa. Some foreign governments and private enterprises acquire long-term leases of large portions of arable land as part of efforts to secure sufficient food and energy for their home populations. Such actions could be explained in human rights terms. This is not the case, however, if foreign governments are acquiring land only with a view to trade in international markets.
Most of the poor share three traits: they live in rural areas, rely on agricultural labour to survive, but don’t own the land they till.


Immediately after independence there was only one official slogan ringing throughout the country.  It was “Jai Jawan Jai Kisan!”  The Jawans had just fought the first war with Pakistan to protect Kashmir.  And the nation that was predominantly agrarian needed Kisan to produce for the people.  But it was also admitted that this Kisan who fed their countrymen was himself lived a miserable life.

After independence Jawaharlal Nehru announced land reform as the immediate task before the nation.

Since then till today a lot of water has run down the bridge.  In India we saw two centres of power.  At the rural and state level the landlords dominated the economic and political power and at the centre the Industrial capitalists were trying to push themselves forward.

THE CONDITION OF FARMERS OF INDIA:
Extensive Indebtedness
·        The findings of NSSO 59th round (2005) clearly shows that 48.6 per cent of the farmers are indebted, and have incurred significant liabilities.

·         The estimated prevalence of indebtedness among farmers was seen to be highest in Andhra Pradesh (82 per cent) and lowest in Uttaranchal (less than 10 per cent).

·         More than 50 per cent of the farmers have availed loans for capital or to meet current expenditures for farming purposes.
·         58 per cent of borrowing accrues to cultivation and other agricultural activities while the remaining percentage suffices to meet other consumption needs.

·         Out of the estimated 43.4 million indebted farmer households, 6.9 million indebted households are from Uttar Pradesh, whereas 4.9 million are from Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra follows close with 3.6 million farmers and West Bengal is not far behind with 3.5 million.

·         The highest proportion of indebted farmers belongs to the other backward castes (OBC) category with 41.5 per cent, followed by the scheduled castes (SCs) with 18 per cent. Indebtedness and distress are quite significant among the scheduled caste farmers. It needs no emphasis that it hurts them more than those belonging to other castes. As a result, landlessness among scheduled castes and marginalisation of their holdings has been increasing in recent years.

·         The largest percentage of indebted farmers is located in the size class of 0.01 to 1 hectare. More than 70 per cent of farmers who own less than two hectares are in the indebted category. The average amount of loans outstanding is Rs 12,585.

Banks function differently for Industry and agriculture:

·         Non availability of banks.
·         No link of agricultural production to banking.
·         No advance on stocks.
·         No facility of over draft on current account.  Bank money is available only to industry.
·         Market for agriculture not organized to link with bank credit or over draft.

Insignificant growth in Agriculture:

·         However, all through the 1990s, farm business income showed insignificant growth.
·         grew at 1.02 per cent per annum during 1990-91 to 1999-2000
·         as against 3.21 per cent during 1983-84 to 1990-91 [Sen and Bhatia 2004: 241].

Far from Safety Nets:
It is evident that about one-third of farmers did not really like farming; because it is not a profitable activity and 40 per cent of farmers are even ready to give up farming provided they could secure some other job [NSSO 2005b]. In sum, almost 70 per cent of the farmers are frustrated with their profession.

Technology
The farmer does not get sufficient information from the extension worker, but it is rather the progressive farmer, who provides information to the farmer and this constitutes the best source as acknowledged by the farming community

A general survey of land reform policy and programmes in India up to mid-sixties, therefore, suggests that:
(1) The social motivation for agrarian policy in India was provided by the contending pressures of the erstwhile semi-feudal landlords on the one hand and the emerging class of medium landowners and superior tenants on the other.
(2) Within this common frame, the regional variations in India were determined by the relatively greater pull of the old landed class in the eastern region and of the upper layer of the peasantry in the north-west and the western regions.
(3) In both types of regions the rural poor were neither articulate nor organised at the political level to exercise influence on the land reform policy and programme in their favour either at the stage of legislation or of implementation.
(4) The impact of land reform was positive for the intermediate classes which were upgraded and pushed into a position of prominence both in the land and power structure. On the other hand, the impact was by and large negative for the rural poor. It was mainly instrumental in disturbing the old framework within which the rural poor had some security without creating for them alternative forms of security.
Colonial Land Acquisition Act:
Along with the failure of land reform there was a colonial ‘Land Acquisition Act 1894’ which was used for the colonial powers and subsequent Indian governments against the interests of the farmers. 
In its 117 years of existence, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (LAA 1894) has influenced the expansion of the power of the State to acquire and take over land. It has helped institutionalise involuntary acquisition. Premised on the doctrine of eminent domain, it presumes a priority to the requirements of the State which, by definition, is for the general good of the public, over the interests of landowners and users.

 In 1984, when the LAA 1894 went through elaborate amendment, the role that the State had taken on in acquiring land for companies was reinforced. The neo-liberal agenda, or the reforms agenda as some term it, forged a partnership between the state and compa­nies.

 Where it guarantees certain conditions and terms that would make projects friction free while guaran­teeing profits; as agents in procuring land and providing clearances; as disinvestors, through which process the transfer of assets would occur.

 In 1984, the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) of the Amendment Act referred to the “sacrifices” of the affected population. “The individuals and institu­tions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the com­munity”,

 A model of development that requires extraordinary sacrifices, that is ecologi­cally and in socio-economic terms of ques­tionable repute and which is linked with such phenomena as marginalisation, exclusion and impoverishment has not been able to cross the credibility barrier to convince those who are sometimes referred to as “victims of development”. Macroeconomic projections of growth and prosperity have not succeeded in convinc­ing the project affected that their sacrifice has value that they must respect;
The decades since the development project got underway in the 1950s has caused “development-induced displace­ment”.
It was not till February 2004 that a National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation 2003 was notified, to be replaced in 2007 by the National Rehabili­tation Policy 2006.
A “Foreword” to the draft bill that Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh displayed on the ministry’s web­site on 27 July 2011 begins with these words: “Infrastructure across the country must expand rapidly. Industrialisation, especially based on manufacture, has also to accelerate. Urbanisation is inevitable. Land is an essential requirement for all these processes.”
“In every case, land acquisition must take place in a manner that fully pro­tects the interests of landowners and also those whose livelihoods depend on the land being acquired”. This sets up a lexical priority for industry, urbanisation and infrastructure, and introduces pragma­tism into issues of displacement and reha­bilitation. This approach runs through the entire LARR 2011. In the bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, the preamble uses adjec­tives such as “humane”, “participatory”, “informed”, “consultative”, “transparent”, but the juggernaut of “development” is not to be slowed down; the process of dealing with its wake may be modified.
The attempt to reconcile conflicting interests has, however, produced some interesting elements. So,
the idea of “legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates acquisition of the land identified” (Clause 8(2)(a));
that “only the minimum area of land required for the project” can be sought to be acquired (Clause 8(3));
that “minimum displacement of people, minimum disturbance to the infrastruc­ture, ecology and minimum adverse im­pact on the individuals affected” should be ensured (Clause 8(3)).
The LAA 1894 was concerned exclusively with acquisition; it was innocent of the need for rehabilitation.
In 1984, “public purpose” was redefined to include the pro­vision of land for residential purposes “...to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by government...” (Section 3(f)(v)). There was no procedure prescribed, and no entitlements created. It was among the purposes for which the state had the power, under the Act, to acquire land.
The notion of the “affected family” (Clause 3(c)) has been introduced, and this is distinct from the “person interested” who was, and continues in this bill to be the person enti­tled to compensation. “Affected family” includes agricultural labourers, tenants, sharecroppers, artisans, those working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition, “whose primary source of livelihood stands affected by the acquisition of land” as also the person who loses land.
Diluting Forest Rights Act
If the state is itself to be acquiring the land, then the protection is diminished to that degree. If the state is legally permit­ted to acquire the land to be handed over to a private company, that dilutes the pro­tection further.
The idea of recognising rights so that they can be monetised and taken over could be viewed as amounting to a fraud on the tribals and forest dwellers. If land has to be diverted for the purposes of industry or infrastructure in scheduled areas and in areas in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, some route other than the coercive power under the land acquisition law will have to be found.
Change of public purpose – where acquisition is based on one purpose but it is used for another purpose – has been among the practices that brought co­ercive acquisition into disrepute. It revealed  casualness about state power.
Agriculture and Industry at cross purpose?
There is apparently conflict between the interests of the industrialists and the land owning agriculturists.
Industry is trying to take away the space of agriculture.
Industrial capital, essentially the multinational capital is bringing agriculture under their control, making farmers’ existence irrelevant.
The corporate are also taking possession of production, in the form of corporate or contract farming, procuring the food grains and marketing agricultural products.  
India is aiming to be one of the leading nations in the world along the ranks of most powerful advanced nations.  It boasts of its fastest growing economy.  The profile that is being slowly sold is that Indian is going to have economy where 80% of which will be contributed by industry and more than 60 % of the population would be living in the cities.  The planners would like to have less than 20% of the population living on agriculture.
The policy of the UPA II government was enumerated recently by Montek Singh Ahlluvalia in his interview with the NDTV on 25.03.2010.
1.      He wants to ensure that the economy is put on the growth mode of 10% and above.  This would mean more investments, greater exploitation of natural resources and mineral wealth, foreign investment and creation of more Special economic zones.
2.      The second element of the policy is infrastructure development in the cities, more green field airports, flyovers and express high ways.  To ensure faster urbanization which would mean that today there are 300 millions living in the cities; it should reach to 600 million people living in the cities. His expectation is that within ten to fifteen years the urban population will increase to 60% and above of the total population of India,  30% population to stay in the rural areas.
3.      Reform in education to create space for skill training for the youth to make them employable in the urban economy.

We shall take one by one to understand how these points expose the policy of the government with regard to Agriculture.
A.      Creation of more Special Economic Zones, exploitation of natural resources and minerals, building express high ways and green field airports have directly impacted on the rural masses, i.e. the adivasis, the daliths, the peasants and the fisher people.  So fare such projects have been implemented we have seen that the wealth of the middle class, , peasants, daliths, adivasis the poor and the marginalised people have been taken away from them and passed on to the hands of the industrialists.  It has resulted in displacement, converting the peasants and self employed masses into wage labourers. 
B.      We have been told that the 60% and more people will live in the cities.  It is very difficult to understand this as the people displaced from the rural agricultural economy will migrate to the cities in search of jobs.  In most of our metros between 25% to 30% people live in slums and glorified slums.  They are partially employed or unemployed.  The power and water supply in all the cities is dismal.  The transport system is inadequate and in shambles.  To these cities we will see more people, i.e., the double of the people already living in the cities are going to be added to.  These are not necessarily HSMP category of people but those who have been displaced from the rural agrarian economy.
C.      The government is speaking of giving skill training to the youth to make them employable.  But the kind of industries emerging in our society does not require semi skilled or unskilled workers that the skill training is going to generate.  This will lead to the frustration among the so called skill trained youth.
D.     Agriculture will be subordinated to industry.  This is already happening in several ways – industrialization of agriculture by promoting technological revolution in agriculture in the name of increasing productivity. There will be concentration and centralization of agricultural land.  Multinational companies and corporate like Cargill, Monsanto ITC, Reliance trying to push their interests by taking control of seeds and fertilizers and essentially research in agriculture, introducing genetically modified seeds known as BT technology. who will take over the agriculture of our country.   This process will push the farmers from their control on seeds and method of agriculture. There will be no place for self employed peasant economy.
E.        There will be contract farming.  No wonder the BT Brinjal controversy has been treated like highly sensitive security issue where any criticism would be dealt with serious consequences.
F.       The food sovereignty will be given a solemn burial.  Food security will be converted into dole of “25 kg rice per month at the rate Rs. 3.00 only”.  There will be very simple social analysis as there will be a few owning corporate and the rest will be wage labourers in our country.
To conclude: The government agricultural policy is neo liberal policy directly taken out of the text books from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Let me quote form David Smick’s book, “The world is Curved”.  By the way David Smick is the most insightful financial market strategists in the world who for more than two decades has conferred with central bankers such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and has advised Wall Street Executives.
“To be sure, Clinton advisers, such as Summers and Sperling, are correct when they argue that the middle class has not fully enjoyed the benefits of the global wealth machine. In today's financial system, where the wage-earning sector itself is shrinking, middle-class wages alone may never be enough to keep families from financially backsliding. This problem will remain a reality regardless of any government sponsored programs, including hikes in the minimum wage and targeted educational benefits.
Moreover, the gap between the haves and have-nots will likely continue to grow if globalization is allowed to continue. This is because there is an exponential aspect to wealth creation.  And as a result, the entire economic system becomes poorer with fewer jobs. Moreover, schemes aimed at aggressive welfare intervention have destroyed people's dignity, robbing them of any sense of accomplishment.
In the end, the political tensions created by vastly unequal income distribution will likely be difficult to measure and predict, and even harder to control. Highly entrepreneurial economies create big winners and losers. The challenge comes down to how to dramatically expand society's base of winners. The best way to do that is to expand the base of the investor class. In fact, bringing more people into the economy as capital owners may in the long run be the only means politically of saving globalization.
For the middle class, wages alone are not enough to prosper in today's new economy.
In recent years, the global economy has boomed to almost unprecedented levels. Mere wage earners, however, relative to those with a global stock portfolio, can't participate in this wealth creation. They are left at a huge disadvantage by having no way to benefit from worldwide economic growth.
To this extent, I agree with Barack Obama when he said in March 2008: "The core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well-being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned."
Here is one astonishing statistic that makes the point: Today 40 percent of Americans do not have adequate liquid savings to live at the poverty level for three months, according to New York University's Edward N. Wolff. For a family of four, living at that level for that amount of time would require $5,300 in savings.
As is obvious by now, I passionately believe working-class families want to ride the great financial wave. They want to be transformed from labour workers into capital owners. They want a real stake in the entrepreneurial capitalist system, and they are not resentful of the entrepreneurial success of others so long as the door for wealth creation and opportunity remains open for all.”
I would like to make one last point before I conclude.  The present growing nature of world economy is heavily leaning towards war economy as a safety valve to let out the steam that will be generated by the crisis of over production and under consumption.
We have seen war and production weapons have become inherent part of the economy.  Earlier we had cold war between the USSR and USA.  This cold war is replaced by a new cold war between USA and China in an attempt to gain greater control of the Pacific Ocean.  I warn you that this will trick the countries like India into believing in the need to align with USA.  But the fact remains that USA and China are so interdependent that they need each other for their existence.