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.