Your government departments and public enterprises are cutting down on staff. Private companies are buying technologies to replace labour. Traditional industries, such as the glassware industry of Firozabad and the shoemaking industry of Agra, where labourers’ hands and not machines produced goods, are devastated with the opening of international trade and inundation with foreign brands. Artisan industries are closing down because of growing consumer preference for the machine-finished quality of goods from big cities. Companies are not investing their surpluses in rural manufacturing, saying Manmohan Singh must first create infrastructure. Manmohan says his government has no money; only private capital can do it.
So, you see, the country is in a fix. Seventy per cent of Indians, who live in villages, are in a fix. And that makes more than 80 crore farmers, labourers, artisans...men, women and children. Where do you want to take them?
You say there is no food in the villages; food is in the towns. But how will you feed them? How will you house people from six lakh villages in 8,000 towns? How will you guarantee that they will not have to live in cramped, disease-breeding slums with open drains and no toilets? How will you ensure that they get tap water and electricity? Will they have public transport? If you can’t ensure all that, why are you moving them out of the villages in the first place? Why are you playing host in a royal Indian wedding when you have no food, accommodation, comfortable transport and no fans and lights to offer to the baraatis?
Photograph by Narendra Bisht
Messrs Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia, you have already humiliated them enough. By saying that they are trapped in a marshland, you have made them feel there is disgrace in being a farmer. They have come to believe agriculture is an accursed occupation. They feel they have brought themselves greater disgrace by reproducing more. You are shrewd enough not to betray your Malthusian humour, but when you say the proportion of our population dependent on agriculture is very high and unsustainable, your attitude towards them barely remains secret. But is overpopulation really why they are in the bog? Are you not to blame?
The nation has benefited more from farmers than farmers have from the nation. The nation has used them as horses to gallop to the goal of food self-sufficiency, to come out of the crippling shame of the ship-to-mouth days. As long as the political leadership was assured of enough food in the stocks, they were not bothered how the farmers were producing more and more. The consequences are there for everyone to see in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. This was a region consciously selected by the national leadership for cruising to self-sufficiency because it was well-endowed with fertile soil, irrigation and robust husbandry traditions. The natural minerals of the soil have been driven away by chemicals. So much water has been pumped by tubewells that the groundwater aquifers have shrunk. The same hybrid seeds that produced plenty are not yielding more any more. Farmers have been left in the lurch.
Now, the nation awaits a technological breakthrough to end the stagnation. It has been waiting for that breakthrough for over two decades. It is causing anxiety in the national leadership. The anxiety is not about farmers. The anxiety is about the nation. The fear is about the nation losing self-dependence for food, it’s about food inflation that will force town employers to raise wages. When Manmohan and Montek say, “Agriculture must grow at four per cent,” they are talking about the GDP. The attitude of the post-reform leadership is no different from that of the pre-reform leadership. Farmers are still, in their view, no more than draught animals. The best example of it is seen in cotton. The leadership introduced a technological breakthrough in genetically modified (GM) seeds to meet the objective of reducing import of cotton, which caused a drain on foreign exchange reserves. Within a few years, India became a cotton-exporting country. Then crop failure struck, as soon as the monsoon started failing, and thousands of farmers committed suicide. Bt cotton should not have been allowed to be grown in regions with low water availability, as it required a lot of water. But the leadership was not worried who was growing cotton where and how many were taking their lives—as long as its objective of achieving self-sufficiency in the commodity was met. The nation was happy, even if farmers were not.
Photograph by Apoorva Salkade
Of course, you can’t help wondering what actually public spending in the past yielded. Dams and canals took decades to build, guzzled money several times the original budgets and yet could not deliver as much water to as many farmers as they promised. Trillions of rupees supposedly advanced to farmers as credit still left most of them dependent on borrowings from food traders, moneylenders and relatives. What happened to the long list of programmes intended to insulate farmers from the vagaries of monsoon in the rain-fed areas—60 per cent of the total area of cultivation?
Why did the Planning Commission introduce a programme in one Five Year Plan, calling it key, crucial, game-changing, and then express regret in the following Five Year Plans that it was not properly implemented? Why was the nation rich in ideas, poor in practice? Why did we see little implementation, but plenty of lamentation? And why it is still so? What revolutionary restructuring of administration have you brought about during your two terms to change that?
The institutional failure in alleviating poverty was not only obvious in the poor management of crop productivity- raising programmes, it was also evident in the non-implementation of land ceiling and redistribution policies. Only, in these policies, the political leaders consciously opted to be poor managers. They would do nothing to destabilise the class and caste hierarchies in the village; on the contrary, they played along with them to survive and thrive in politics. Had they sincerely worked to see that the landless got even an acre or less, poverty would have been much less acute, as the beneficiaries would have conceivably at least grown food for their families. The consequence of unbroken social hierarchy was not only that the poor in the village remained poor, but they could either get no jobs or only low-paid jobs in towns where men from the higher castes would have a monopoly of better-paid and skilled jobs.
But what political leaders dare not do, the higher castes and classes have brought upon themselves. Never keen as agriculturists, they have sold their land or divided it among inheritors or ceded to militant cultivating peasants. The number of large farm holdings (10 ha and above) has plunged from 4.37 million in 1960-61 to 1 million in 2010-11. During the period, the total number of farm holdings has risen from 48 million to 137 million. Holdings under 2 ha (small and marginal farms) make 85 per cent of this total. In the next 20 or 30 years, most large holdings will split up, making India a country almost wholly of small farmers.
How does the nation take care of the crores of small farmers? Our economist-doctor knows only one remedy: Move them to towns. Urbanise, urbanise, urbanise. But he does not say all should move or only a certain percentage of them. What would be that certain percentage? Or does he want India to follow the path of America, where 80 per cent of the population was engaged in agriculture in the 1850s and only one per cent today is?
He will ruin India if he takes her along the American road. The historical factors—a small population of settlers and a continent of land; the World War II, which drew rural populations to the army and the post-war reconstruction boom—that shaped US agriculture are not to be seen in India. Nor are the cultural factors—a meat-eating population, requiring large grazing lands for animals. Nor indeed the economic ethos—a faith in capitalism bred by blind hatred of anything resembling socialism. The World War II and India’s wars with China and Pakistan did not drain villages of youth. India was a largely vegetarian country, comprising self-contained villages where peasants grew food for themselves and needed small pastures for their draught and milch cattle. The mean size of farms in the US increased from 50 hectares in 1870 to over 200 hectares by 2000. The average size of a farm in India shrank from 2.3 hectares in 1970-71 to 1.16 hectares in 2010-11.
What is Manmohan’s vision—that we draw out most of the farmers in order to facilitate the takeover of the countryside by big capital? In the United States today, less than 10 per cent of the farms account for 65 per cent of sales of agricultural products. Despite the ‘prosperity’ from the Green Revolution, even Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh have not witnessed concentration of cultivable lands on such an epic scale. The ‘rich’ farmers do not have much capital to buy lands. Corporates have big capital. Agribusiness multinationals have big capital. And they are eyeing India. They are goading the doctor at the top to do the surgery on rural India.
We have had a ‘socialistic’ past, the Congress party is shrinking, and there is a very real danger of disaffection among farmers turning toxic: so the doctor fears going for his scalpels and retractors. But that is what his heart seems to be telling him to do; he is obsessed with it, so he is doing it without surgery. His alternative remedy is: supply less nutrition to agriculture; smoke out the village population by causing a conflagration in their bellies.
Get rid of the misconception that farmers want to leave agriculture. A lot of migration is natural; members of farming families take up non-farm jobs in towns. But let that be voluntary. Today migration is forced. Let agriculture develop and let youth from farming families move to non-farm jobs by their free choice.
Farmers are deeply attached to the land. Even landless labourers are using earnings from non-farm employment to buy land, for land provides food security, is still a good asset and source of prestige. Villagers’ attachment to the land, their skills and their indigenous wisdom are pillars on which a strong edifice of agriculture can be built.
What better examples of this can one find than in the villages where farmers, frustrated by institutional failure, have developed and are managing water resources on their own. In the command area of the Waghad dam on the Kolwan river in Maharashtra’s Nashik district, it is farmers’ water user associations—and not irrigation department engineers—that are managing the operations and maintenance of the canal network. The cash crop boom resulting from their water management has ended out-migration and is attracting in-migration.
In Ralegan Sidhi village in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra, Anna Hazare brought water to the fields simply by mobilising villagers to go in for watershed development, reducing out-migration. In the Bhaonta-Kolyala village in Alwar district of Rajasthan, villagers developed watersheds in a similar manner, reducing out-migration. Rajendra Singh—the ‘Waterman of India’—is credited with bringing assured irrigation through participatory watershed development and management. This he has done in over a thousand villages through Tarun Bharat Sangh, his voluntary group. That just goes to show that if watershed is developed and managed by water users, the rain-fed areas—where much of India’s poverty resides —can grow crops round the year, raise productivity, create round-the-year employment and raise agricultural wages to reduce pauperisation and migration.
Census 2011 has discovered that fewer migrants are coming to megapolises like Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai, and more to smaller towns. That goes to show that given the choice, migrants would work in non-farm jobs, even if less paying, in towns nearer their homes.
An ideal India would be one in which non-farm jobs are available to working-age members of farming families near their villages. Food can come from the small farm, while the non-farm income fulfils other needs, without breaking the families, without breaking up the communities. But for this to happen, there must be robust rural industrialisation. And for that the State has to draw private capital to new places and provide education and skills to youth in farming families. Manmohan’s State is not taking the farming families in that direction. It is forcing the rural youth to move far away from their villages. That will leave only old people in villages and there will be nobody to cultivate their land after they die.
Who will take their lands?
Our economist-king is keeping that secret to himself.
(The writer is working on a book called No Country for Countrymen: How India is Ruining its Villages.)
Arun Sinha’s article No Country for Countrymen (Jun 17) on the plight of farming, farmers and rural communities is timely. The economics of the wizards at the helm of the country is the economics the governments of Great Britain and the US applied more than a hundred years ago. It’s a one-size-fits-all approach that does not take account of our diversity. I find it outrageous that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his cohorts believe India can progress only by uprooting rural folk from their farmsteads, extinguishing their sparkling arts and crafts, and trapping them in the psychological nightmares that are our cities.
Arun Sinha's was a well-written piece (No Country for Countrymen, Jun 17). It is high time the government focused on rural India, where 70 per cent of the population lives. Many farming families no longer have any income from agriculture and their young men and women lack the skills city jobs require. If the government does not adopt policies that give them livelihoods in rural areas, they could end up joining Maoist militias.
Bharat Paul, San Francisco
I relate to what Sinha writes about, for I am from a farming family but am employed in infotech. The new economics has spawned new disparities. And it’s sad that it’s killing our rich, rural culture, with its temples, festivals, fertility rites, farming rituals and celebrations, architecture, arts, crafts and husbandry practices.
Senthil, Chennai Conventional economic wisdom has it that surplus labour migrates from the primary sector (agriculture, mining, fisheries) to the secondary sector (industry, manufacturing) and eventually to the tertiary sector (service). That might have been true in many western countries. But in India today, surplus labour from agriculture is unable to find jobs in industry, which is cutting labour costs through automation. Service-sector jobs, mostly in the cities, require skills village youths do not have. True, there are many private universities and institutions to train them, but the courses are expensive in an age of commercialised education. Not everyone in the villages can afford them.
G. Niranjan Rao, Hyderabad
“An ideal India,” Sinha writes, “would be one in which non-farm jobs are available near their villages for working-age members of farming families. Food can come from the small farm, while the non-farm income fulfils other needs, without breaking the families, without breaking up the communities. But for this to happen, there must be robust rural industrialisation.” Isn’t that contradictory? The whole article reads like the rant of a deep conservative.
M.K. Saini, Delhi
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
While this is an excellent assessment overall, I see a few flaws which, if addressed by the author, could strengthen his forthcoming book on the subject:
- The author states, "The government wants Indian agriculture to take the American road. But the conditions that shaped American agriculture are not the same as those in India. For us, the American road leads to ruin." The first part is of course obviously true, but the second sentence implies, mistakenly, that, in America at least, the 'American road' has led to something other than ruin, namely 'success'. The 'American road' has led to ruin in America, too (abundantly documented).
- He betrays an unfortunate allegiance to economic growth/developmentalist ideology: "Agriculture is the engine of economic growth. To weaken agriculture is to weaken India’s foundations. How can we forget that the tiger economies of Southeast Asia were built upon a strong agricultural base?"
Message: India too should become a 'tiger economy', and agriculture is instrumentally useful to the degree that it provides a 'base' for that higher-order goal (nevermind that becoming a 'tiger economy' implies in part precisely abandoning this 'base' on the road towards heavy industrialization; in other words, this example contradicts and undermines the overall argument).
- He states, "America and Europe are allocating special budgets to sustain their village populations. They have recognised their mistakes belatedly."
Firstly, of the existence of 'village populations' in the U.S., I would
greatly like to know more. And of special budgets to 'sustain' them? This would be even more fascinating to learn about!
In the U.S. anyway, this claim is ridiculous, implying as it does a good-faith process conducted by ag. department bureaucrats that has finally, after decades of painful trial and error, arrived at enlightened, small farmer-supportive, agricultural policies. That the contrary is the case should by now be transparent to all. Here's but one of a multitude of reports documenting which entities are actually sustained by U.S. agriculture budgets:
The author is clearly also aware of this general trend, stating later that "In the United States today, less than 10 per cent of the farms account for 65 per cent of sales of agricultural products." If this is so, how exactly has America belatedly recognised its mistakes and set about fixing them?
We are moving in an unfortunate direction, thinking that development means larger buildings/more cars.
None of our leaders including Modi/Rahul not even think/plan for our villagers/poor people.Our media too is playing a role in this. For example last week there was a plan for metro relocation in Bangalore that can cause relocation of 200 families. For this every day there is news in our national papers . But what about the millions of villagers
, who have lost there land/livelihood. And if some one like Medha Patkar protests
then its labelled anti development.
We slowly killed our small industry/Manufacturing industry and the next turn will be Agriculture.
After that as a nation we will become a biggest beggars of world.
really he is a educated?i dont think so,he and other sardar what his name i dont know always talks nonsense,
The government does not care about its male citizens.
This is only part of that step motherly attitude.
When all the leaders are involved in making money for themselves, who has time or the inclination to think about villages? The blinkered Mamohan Singh has been a disaster to India.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT