|
Crisis in agriculture:In search of a solution
Agriculture in Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka,Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamilnadu and West Bengal
has become totally capitalist. In Haryana, Bihar, M.P. and Gujarat
capitalist farming is very pronounced. In Assam, Rajasthan, UP and
Orissa it is on a lower level. But even in these states agriculture
is developing on capitalist lines.
Presently
the Indian agriculture is in the throes of a crisis. A debate is on
about this crisis on the national and regional level. On several
occasions, questions have been raised in the country's parliament
but the crisis continues and the major section of the peasantry is
in its vicegrip. To find concrete solutions for its resolution in
the interest of greater section of the country's population, the
subject requires a deeper study. The sections grappling with it,
understanding the intensity of it, need to be more active. I am
resenting here some main issues for debate, particularly about the
role of the government and the peasant organisations. An endeavour
has been made in part I to illustrate the agro-crisis and the
peasantry. In part II, a mention has been made regarding the
agro-policy of the governments and their approach. In part III, some
points have been raised about the reaction, approach in mobilising,
and practice
of the peasant organisations.
THE CHARACTER OF
MODERN AGRICULTURE
To
understand the present agrocrisis, it is imperative to say something
about the character of modern agriculture. Since Congress Reforms
Committee Report (1949) to the first round of land reforms (1950),
second round (1971-72) and after the green revolution, lot of
changes have taken place in the character of agriculture. Enough
change is visible from a feudal/semi -feudal agriculture to that of
imperialistic agriculture. Daniel Thorner mentioned in detail
regarding this change in the Statesman newspaper from 1-4 November,
1967, published from Calcutta. In the different issues of Economic
and Political Weekly, a debate was conducted since 1969 to 1982
about the character of Indian agriculture which was concluded by the
wife of late Daniel Thorner with her essays. Later on, all the
essays of the weekly were published in 1990 in the book form
(Agrarian Relations and Accumulation: The mode of production Debate
in India; by Smt. Utsa Patnaik). Concluding this debate, Alice
Thorner wrote that there is no denial of the fact that capitalism
has taken over the Indian agriculture. But has in fact the mode of
capitalist production come to dominate the Indian agriculture? In
reply to this, Mrs Thorner has written that to prove it evidences
are insufficient, because Indian capitalism has developed from a
colonial basis. Therefore, it is quite different from the capitalism
of the developed countries where it originated.
About one fourth of the century (24 years) has passed after the
statement of Mrs. Thorner. Along with my colleague, Professor Ranjit
Singh Ghumman, we in 2001 worked again on the subject in the light
of available statistics of that time and tried to figure out how
much capitalist development in agriculture did emerge in various
states of India, taking as a basis for our study the investment in
agriculture, the productivity in agriculture, the impact of
agriculture labourers and marketization of agriculture. In our
opinion, the agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Punjab, Tamilnadu and West Bengal has become totally capitalist. In
Haryana, Bihar, M.P. and Gujarat capitalist farming is very
pronounced. In Assam, Rajasthan, UP and Orissa it is on a lower
level.
But
even in these states agriculture is developing on capitalist lines.
THE INCREASED
GRIP OF CAPITALISM
Although in different states, the level and development of
capitalism in agriculture is different, but the grip of capitalism
has much increased in the agriculture of whole of the country and
with the passage of time it is increasing greatly with the
development of capitalism in agriculture. The role of market-forces
has increased too. The production in this sector is being made
according to the market forces. Therefore, prices of the crops of
agriculture and the articles used in agriculture (such as seeds,
implements, fertilizers,insecticides and pesticides, medicines,
diesel, electricity etc.) and their rates effect the income and
profits that comes out of agriculture. The character of agriculture
has changed from that of livelihood to a profession. The peasant has
to take account of income and expenditure. He has to take notice of
profit and loss. It has become necessary because agriculture is
continuously laden with capital. The bigger section of peasantry is
capitalising on loans. If he does not take account of profit and
loss, then he enters the debt-net and his existence is at stake. The
capitalistagriculture is full of risks. This risk is further
aggravated by natural calamities. Even if the natural calamities are
not there, the ups and downs of the market make such type of
agriculture full of risks. A great crisis has been created by the
modern agriculture and the causes related to the capitalist mode at
all-India level, more particularly in the states like Punjab,
Andhra, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The development of capitalism in
agriculture has taken place at different levels in different states
of the country. Therefore, the death of agro-crisis is also visible
at different levels. Two expressions of agricultural crisis have
come up in these days. The first glaringly visible is that of debt
of the peasantry.
The
opinions of experts regarding debt do not agree with one another.
According to the 59th round of National Sample Survey conducted at
all India level 48.6 % of 8.93 crore peasant families are under
debt. But in Andhra Pradesh 82.0 %, Tamilnadu74.5 %, Punjab 65.4 %,
Kerala 64.4 %, Karnataka 64.4 %, Maharashtra 54.8 , Haryana 53.1 %
and in Gujarat 51.9 % peasant families are under debt. In India in
2003, on the average the debt per peasant family was Rs. 12,585/-
but in Punjab this debt was Rs. 41,576, Kerala Rs. 33,907/-, Haryana
Rs. 26,007/-, Andhra Pradesh Rs. 23,965/-, Rajasthan Rs. 18,372/-,
Karnataka Rs. 18,135/-, and in Maharashtra Rs. 16973/- in U.P.,
Bihar and other Eastern States of India, the burden of debt on
peasants is very small. In more developed states in respect of
agriculture the debt per peasant and the ratio of indebtedness is
more pronounced. The major portion of debt taken is from the
moneylenders and commission agents in those states. Besides this,
the bigger part of debt is for the capitalisation in agriculture.
The ratio percentage of unproductive debt is very low. This debt is
19.9 percent at all India level. It was 21.1 in Andhra Pradesh, 21.3
% in Kerala, 21.8 % in Tamilnadu, 13.0 % in Karnataka, 18.7 % in
Punjab, 18.8 % in Haryana and 9.1 % in Maharashtra. However, the
debt is less per small-farmer-household in these states, but the
burden of debt is much more on small and marginal peasant families
per acre. The majority among these families are not in a position to
repay the debt and they are caught in a debtnet.If this crisis
continues to be as such then these families will have to quit
agriculture because of the fact that their land already mortgaged
will very easily be sold.
THE
DEBT-TRAP
The
poor peasants along with burden of debt have little capacity to bear
the brunt of crisis. In case of destruction of crops or if a member
of the family falls seriously ill or gets entangled in litigation,
then all of a sudden the burden of debt upon the families increases,
which is much more than the tolerance of these families. Since the
last two decades, due to such reasons, the trend of suicides has set
in amongst the peasants. This trend has increasingly surfaced in
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Punjab.
As
per the home department, about 17,000 peasants and their family
members are committing suicides every year. Since 1998-2003, in 6
years, the number of suicides exceeded one lakh. According to Union
Minister Sharad Pawar, the main reasons behind these suicides is
because the peasant families got caught in a debt trap. As such the
trappings of the peasantry into the net of debt puts the family's
existence in danger. The peasant being trapped in debt and the trend
of suicides are the exterior symptoms of crisis in agriculture. The
process and reasons working behind them are something else.
TOW SIDES OF THE
MARKET
Along with the development of capitalism in agriculture, the
marketization of agriculture occurs from two sides. On the one side,
the production is done for the market and a very small part of it is
kept at home by the peasants for self consumption. The peasant
specialises in production in order to reduce the expenditure. But in
so doing, saving is done in implements and the resources of
production and more expertise is gained in their operation. On the
other hand, so many resources are to be obtained from the market
itself, e.g; seeds, implements, parts, diesel, electricity, water,
fertilizers, medicines and other articles of consumption. Besides
this, for the labour force too one has to depend on the market. When
emergency need arises one has to hire field workers to get it done.
In the process of market the greater unit of production is the
capital, purchase of resources, utilisation of resources,
particularly frugality is used in the case of machinery. Capitalist
agriculture works in the favour of big land-holdings, but small and
marginal land-holders cannot exercise economy.
On
the contrary, much capital is used in small holdings for want of
proper utility of implements, machinery and resources. Being
small-sized and more expenditure- prone, these units are not
allowed to be practical and to survive. These units delve into
bankruptcy. The small and marginal peasants who learn other jobs,
gradually move out of that area and start leasing out their lands;
and after some time they sell it also. But those who do not have the
art to get out of it, they keep on clinging on to the small holding
till they are shunted out of this. This jolt comes with the round
of debt, and forces the farmer to sell the land and the peasant is
turned into a labourer. The peasant who doesn't accept this social
plunge kills himself or can kill someone else. It is manifested in
one way in the form of suicides and the other manifestation is
visible in the form of peasants turning violent.
20 December 2006
|
Read Also
