Did last fifty-five years, after Britishers brought any change-or even after globalization-in the situation of farmers. A serious thought is to be given.

India’s natural resources have attracted many. Soil, environment, water, sunlight, under-ground treasure attracted Moghul’s and Britisher’s, they ruled here for centuries. Mahatma Gandhi’s follower late Vinoba Bhave said in this regard and set the goal of independence that,
“Before Moghuls Bharat was an independent country of independent villages, Moghuls made it a slave country of independent villages, Britishers came and they made it a slave country of slave villages. After Britisher’s it become an independent nation of slave villages. We should strive to make it an independent country of independent Villages.”

After fifty-five years have we achieved the goal of making India an independent Country of independent villages?

I am sorry to say that the even after Britishers, Government of independent India is implementing the same policies that of Britishers. British came in India to exploit the raw material and manpower. To purchase raw material cheap and sell finished product costly, to accumulate wealth and industrialize their country was their policy. Mahatma Gandhi explained this theory in very simple words. He gave example of cotton and cloth. He preached khadi for the same. Sign (emblem) of the freedom struggle was therefore charkha.

Gandhi believed that in independent India due weightage will be given to labour work. British wanted raw material and labour to be cheap therefore they wanted food to remain cheap. British exploited farm laborers via landlords. But in independent India this policy should have been changed. But that did not happen. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru gave priority to industrialization and expected that profit from big industries will percolate to the masses. He continued the exploitation of agriculture sector, same as the Britishers did, for the growth of the industries. Labor has to be cheap so that the profit in industrial sector increases, therefore food has to be cheap and therefore food producer has to remain poor.

Cotton, food grains and other essential commodities were imported under P.L. 480 from America and prices of these agricultural produce were kept low artificially in our country. Hence it proves that `market’ is influenced by government policies.

Many committees have submitted their reports, regarding what should be the agricultural policy of our independent country. But no heed is paid on to these. This is the tragedy if Indian Politics.

Here are the excerpts of two of these reports.

Mr. Wolf Ladjinski after going through detail study of Punjab farming concluded `even in Punjab the multitude of farmers are not yet part of green revolution’.

And in 1967, not carried away by the illusion of green revolution, ex.home minister Shri Yeshwantraji Chavan said, “unless the green revolution is based on social justice, I am afraid, the green revolution may not remain green”.

Ex-Prime minister late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri said the same in other words “he said we should not remain dependent on the red wheat from America-people should sacrifice-they must keep fast on Mondays” Not only this, he increased the support price of wheat to make market farmer friendly. It farmer get good price for his produce he can pay farm laborer better and hence living standard of the laborer will improve. All his decisions were influenced by this thought.

It was specially mentioned in the draft of second five year plan that import export policy is such that farmer is exploited and trade is given full protection. Every step was taken to keep food grains cheap and thus injustice was done to the farmers. Even levy on food was been procured from the farmers at irrational cost. To give cheap food to the poor, poor food producers were taxed.

Two different economics are going parallel in India. As if one economy belongs to India and another to Bharat. Many committees set up by the government itself brought forth this fact and warmed government that his should be stopped.

Krishanamachari committee has mentioned clearly on page no.60 `we are aware of the desire in certain quarters to reduce the level of agricultural prices, particularly the prices of food grains, on the plea that agricultural prices influence the cost of production of industry, and weaken the competitive capacity of Indian manufactures in domestic as well as in the foreign markets. While we are not unmindful of the importance of their considerations we are of the view that prior consideration should be given to assure an adequate return to the tiller of the soil. Once this is achieved the increased purchasing power of agricultural masses will be an adequate insurance of the success of the industry. Any deliberate effort to reduce agricultural prices, merely to safeguard the interest of urban areas or of the manufacturing industry will be at the cost of the standard of living in rural areas, which is already notoriously low.

But our government has over looked this important suggestion as we are already facing the danger that Rosa Lukzombery had foreseen.

Rosa Lukzomberg had said `today the colonies are being exploited for the industrialization of the rich countries to make them richer. Tomorrow when these colonies will be free from the clutches of rich industrialized countries their villages will be exploited for the development of industry and towns’. This is more true regarding the countries that were made free from European countries.

It can not be said that India has not progressed in last fifty-five years. It is among the first ten countries as per industrialization is considered but it is the last among the rich nations. How could India progress industrially though poverty is not eliminated? Because the governments of independent India carried out the same policies that were implemented by Britishers. World’s rich countries, which were earlier exporting their finished products to India, now prefer to sell machineries and technologies. Using domestic raw material and cheap labor uses these machineries and technology to produce finished product. Government of India also encouraged industrialists to earn supper profit by imposing high import duties on import of finished products. Tata, Birla, Bajaj, Dalmia and later Wadia, Ambani prospered as the result of same policy.

Organized labors and organized government servants also prospered owing to their unity. Even industries prospered because of increased purchasing power of some 10 to 15% of population. In the mean time food grains, cotton was being imported, that too imported costly and sold cheap, and prices of agricultural produce were dippressed. This subsidy was given in the name of poor but used for urbanization at the cost of living standards of villagers. This gave rise to discontent in villages, which gave rise to Naxal agitation, which was curbed by putting ceilings on the land. Poor was mislead by giving the slogan of `garibi hatao’ (poverty elimination) so that the poor does not realize the true reason behind poverty.

But discontent amongst the villagers grew. Farmer was awakening from the illusion of green revolution in the decade of 70 and 80. 1980 to 1990 was the decade of farmer’s agitation. Air of change in policies of government was very much expected in the near future. Every class of villagers was attracted towards the farmer’s movement. Agitation of cotton growers succeeded in attracting weavers (handloom workers). Small-scale industries and craftsmen also joined the movement.

At the same time was going on the Uruguay round called upon by the rich countries to give a new form to colonial exploitation. Dunkel proposal was introduced after which GATT was given a new form of WTO. 100 crores of Indian population can progress only by encouraging farming, small-scale industries and local craftsmanship. But in the guise of free trade and market the exploitation increased.

Uruguay round was going on since 1986. But it was not much discussed in India till 1991. The US and European countries were discussing and fighting amongst themselves on the issue of subsidies in agriculture. Here in 1991 when Indian government supported Dunkel proposal and started implementing some of the policies, then opposition parties started opposing these polices of Congress government. But none of the political parties talked or discussed about the need to increase the subsidies to farmers or of increasing the prices of agricultural produce. This was the time when organized sector succeeded in implementing the fifth pay commission. IMF and WTO directed government to reduce the subsidies of farmers and poor but did not say a word against the burden imposed on government treasure because of fifth pay commission. This must be taken very seriously. Those who talk about market take care of purchasing.

Power of only 25 to 30% of them and neglect the purchasing power of the masses i.e. 70. Example of fifth pay commission is the clear proof of this strategy.

In 1994-1995 WTO was formed. According to the rules of WTO subsidies given to agricultural sector of rich and developed countries was to be reduced. But instead of reducing, their subsidies are increasing.

Comparing the prices of agricultural produce in 1991-1995 are depressed today. For example price to wheat was $160 per tone which is today $90-$100 per tone. Price of cotton was $1.10 per pound; today it is 40-45 cents per pound. Edible oil cost $500-$600 per tone but in 1999-2000 it came down to $200-$225 per tone. Today edible oil is $400-$450 per tone. Prices of rubber, coconut, beatlenut, tea, coffee etc are depressed. An expectation that in the free market, export of agricultural products of the third world countries will increase and they will be benefited from this trade remained a shattered dream. In fact imports of agro-products grew and their internal prices dipped.

On the other hand, owing to the devaluation of rupee cost of energy increased-which resulted in increasing the input cost. Input cost grew but prices of farm produce went down-debts on farmer increased-they started committing suicides. This also adversely affected employment in villages, migration towards cities increased. Small business, small-scale industries in villages are wiped out. But on the other side market of MNC’s is expanding. Purchasing power of a particular class is increased through fifth pay commission. Loans are given for the finished industrial product like car, refrigerator, and a parallel economy is nurtured. Those who have purchasing power spend their monthly salary in paying installments of these consumer loans. The natural effect of this is on budget of kitchen expanses. If the budget of the middle class family is studied we find expenditure on petrol is more than that on edible oil. In short “take loans and drink petrol” is the economy today that favors M N Cs. Because of this policy exploitation of farmers and artisans has incased. Earlier PL48 was the only channel available for exploitation. Now it is in the name and form of so called free market. Employment of common man from unorganized sector is snatched away from him. Unemployment has resulted in lessening purchasing power. That is why we have godowns full of food grains on one side and malnutrition on the other.

Government, which encourages loan schemes for industrialized product and permitting parallel economy, does not have loan scheme fore purchasing edible items for the whole year. In the name of consumer interest and providing cheap food to the poor price of food grains are brought down-at the same time rupee is devaluated. Cost of petrol and diesel are increasing in domestic market. As a result of this, prices of fertilizers and pesticides are also increasing. As the result cost of production is increasing and market prices are decreasing. In international market developed countries have increased subsidies to there farm sector, because of this export of agricultural produce from poor countries is not getting market.

Developed countries are talking of free market but their market is protected. In Europe farmers need a permit to raise number of cow, sheep, goat, pig, etc. (Number depends of acres of land owned by the farmer). In European countries there is provision of subsidy per animal and per hectare. How can an Indian farmer without any subsides can compete with those heavily subsidized farmers? This clearly indicates that there is no level playing field in international market. And even in the domestic market when 70% population is without purchasing power, to dream of good prices in the market economy remains a remote possibility.

Information abut agriculture subsides in developed countries is easily available. I am of the opinion that there must be thorough discussions on this issue. This information must also be given to the poor farmers.

I will like to share my experience in Spain to make things clear. I asked a wheat producer the selling price of his wheat. His reply was “20 peseta per kg”. If converted into Indian rupees it is about 5 rupees. In Spain a cup of tea or coffee costs not less than 30 to 40 rupees. I asked that farmer how he manages to live in such a costly economy? His reply was very straight. He said he gets enough subsides and economic support from govt.

In Germany I met a farmer who is having a permit to raise 12 cows for meat. He was getting 500 Marc per cow per year as a subsidy. In Indian rupees it is 10,000 Rs. Addressing few NGO’s in auditorium of Switzerland I asked the question to audience that `according to WTO ruling if subsides of Swiss farmer are to be reduced, this will increased the cost of production. So as a consumer you will have to pay higher prices for your bread’. One of the audiences answered, “this is very important political-economical question. We are ready to pay higher prices for plastic but not for bread’.

It is clear that any step taken by the govt. to increase prices will have reaction this means that decreasing subsides will not be a correct political decision.

This clearly indicates that to give cheap food to consumer’s, farmer is not exploited but they are supported by subsides to maintain their purchasing power in these countries.

Since 1994 this is what is happening in the international market and Indian farmers are not getting inroads in the world market. In fact their exploitation is increased.

It is preached to farmers that to compete in this international market they should adopt new technology. This new technology in agriculture is going to replace human labor by machine. In fact this technology does not reduce the cost of production. If it would have reduced the cost of production, then what is the need of increasing subsides of American and European farmers?

In poor country like India there is huge manpower and economic policies based on utilization of this manpower will lead to expansion of market. But today industrialization of agriculture is encouraged and domestic industries are ruined. MNC’S and big industries are encouraged. This will lead Bharat towards Ethiopia & India towards super India. The market that exploits 75 crore population and protects market interest of 25 crores must be opposed at any cost. Economy that increases purchasing power of 75 crore people will only lead to independent country of independent villages. This will only lead to real expansion of market.

Vijay Jawandhia
Shetkari Sangathana
Ramnagar, WARDHA (M.S.) India