MR-2004 Workshop on Agriculture

8/6/2019 MR-2004 Workshop on Agriculture

1/26

Mumbai Resistance2004

Workshop on Agriculture, WTO and Imperialism

THE ALTERNATIVE

BY

Gian Singh

National Convener

Kisani Pratishtha Manch


2/26

2

A Paper on WTO, Agriculture and imperialism

(WORLDVIEW AND COURSE OPEN TO HUMANITY)

The Uruguay Round of negotiations on trade concluded for the first time to include agriculture in

the ambit of newly formed World Trade Organisation. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is

the new product under this regime. It is a declaration to capitaliseagriculture world over andconvert it into a profession for profit, which so far had been a means of subsistence for the

majority of populations in the world, barring a few western countries. The implications of this

change are grave for the toiling peasant communities in every country. It is a change of

fundamental nature, which no government is entitled to heap on the population without their

express consent.

Seizing the opportunity fast for a globalised market, after the collapse of a parallel economic

zone in former Soviet camp as a competitor, finance capital utilised Uruguay Round of

negotiations on trade and tariff to forge fresh instruments and force agreements for the set

agenda. The rulers in almost every country joined hands in this endeavour behind the back of

their respective citizens. The rulers found it as a blessed opportunity not to be missed for better

service to their respective capitalist class and for mutual aggrandisement. Agreement onAgriculture under WTO is an eloquent testimony to this changed scenario. It is a blue print for

capitalisation of agriculture in so-called third world countries, as an industry ready to serve

corporate interests in trade and commerce. It is seen as a green pasture for huge profits to these

corporates.

The globalised finance capital is now in hurry. At the earliest, it seeks to convert every field of

social life to its reach before any tangible resistance takes shape. It has forged such instruments

deliberately to serve the set goal. World Trade Organisation is one such instrument. It is

designed to subserve corporate capital at the global level through trade and commerce with

powers to adjudicate disputes and penalise. All rolled into one, almost as a super-state.

The strident efforts to capitaliseagriculture to the status of an industry, as fast as possible by

rulers in the so-called under-developedcountries must be seen in concrete situation that emergedby the beginning of last decade in twentieth century. The crusaders want the world to forget the

bloody chapter in history of such a path in West, more so in America when small proprietors

were exterminated to take over agriculture by big corporations and Banks. The corporate capital

is now keen to have agriculture in less developed countries of other continents within its fold to

expand pastures and grab super-profits. For them small proprietor-peasants are expendables and

cheap.

Agriculture in almost every under-developed country is not a commercial concern for most of

the inhabitants. It is a way of life for them; a means to subsist with family labour as the basic

input. The rulers, while agreeing to the terms under A.o.A, did not consider or cared less of the

tragedy these efforts to capitalise agriculture is bound to bring to the majority of inhabitants in

these countries. Truly, it is a going to be a gigantic human tragedy in its repercussions.

Agriculture by its nature is organic in development. It is unlike industry, trade and commerce,

which are exponential in their stride. To convert agriculture to exponential mode is bound to

explode for disaster to these huge populations and invite their wrath. The globalised economy is

incapable to provide them with alternative means to subsist. The dislocation of huge numbers is

another disaster that the capitalised agriculture will bring in trail with much social upheaval.

However, the globalised corporate world is not concerned with the fate of these millions after

millions destined to ruin. It is this sparepopulation they detest most!


3/26

3

We may recount Indian scene for a better understanding of the issues involved. This country has

traversed a path, so opted by its ruling elite in 1947, for more than half a century. This is not a

small period even in the life of a country to look back what it has gained or lost and to evaluate

its fundamentals. It is almost the full life span of a working individual. If the balance goes

against, no one can claim clemency for playing with lives involved and the enormity of the crime

would be stupendous. To sit back in complacency and close eyes to the problem also may not be

less offensive to the fait of a country. True, it requires a deep sense of obligation to the people

while accountability is an obligation for those who swear by democracy.It would be worthwhile to underline the reference point first. Since the days when state emerged

in history, the peopleare a distinct category to this day. The political theory of a later period that

ascribed representative character to the State is a fiction of a dubious character that does not

work, in fact, at least not now with global finance capital on rampage universally and the type of

control it exercises on economy and politics worldwide. In the circumstances, reference point for

this submission is the people as against the state.

With this clarification, two aspects need be underlined here to begin with. First, the choice by the

new set of rulers after 1947 was conscious and deliberate for a capital-centred industry as a

much-touted super-highway to progress based on economic thought that reflected a pattern of

development in West Europe. Second, those who made this choice were the products of

educational and socio-economic-cultural milieu that grew in conditions peculiar to Europe andtouted well for others to follow. Since Britishers were ruling for long over the sea-waves that

touched different continents, this milieu caught the fancy of hangers on or the elite in each

colonial country and soon became an universal thought representing progress and modernity.

The leaders that came to power here at the departure of British in 1947 were courting this

economic thought. They made their natural choice and then raised strenuous efforts from day

one to convince the country that this choice is a sure path to delivery.

The fact sheet

When this span of journey commenced, the country was in throes of a divided house. The British

had left it virtually bleeding on both sides of the divide. But the mood of countrymen was

upbeat, though in pain. Despite few discontented voices here and there, the people reposed faith

in the wisdom of this leadership that had inherited the Raj, largely because its leading lights

were participants in the freedom struggle. The faithful of the Royalty till recently also stood

behind the elite, fully assured of their place in the sun. The new constitution of the country was

utilised to convince them.

The communal hysteria that arose with the partition, along-with the Kashmir flare up between

India and Pakistan proved a boon for respective leadership to harness support at a critical

juncture. In addition, India inherited an infrastructure, including a well-groomed bureaucracy

with military and police combine, originally crafted to work for intense expropriation in the

interest of British rulers. In consonance, a workable network of Railways, ports, roads and

irrigation system was available. Except the communal holocaust and large-scale transfer of

population of the divided provinces, the change in power structure worked smooth that helped to

strengthen its grip hurriedly over the contending forces. There was no serious challenge to its

authority.

The socio-economic situation was however, desperate. The Birlas and Tatas though were upbeat

over their kill during Second World War, courtesy British rule; their class was gasping.

Economic situation in the country was in shambles. A neat division was available. Around

ninety percent of the then population having served the Raj through a long period of

expropriation to finance industrialisation of Britain and tide over the pangs of two world wars,

with entitlements on starvation level with a deep sense of injury from slavery was penury

incarnate. The foreign rule had disinherited this lot to a state of misery. The rest were the


4/26

4

beneficiary of leftovers as also doles from it, including the bureaucracy and servicemen for being

loyal to the Raj, having a good life to dream moon in future. The disinherited lot, making nearly

90 % of the population had put faith on the fruits of freedom for a better life against their labour

in dignity, justice and fair play. The countrywide surge however in emotions against imperialist

plunder and strife was high with a deep sense of injury. This the rulers were unable to ignore.

But, this leadership soon started fooling around and kidding with promises for the well being of

common man year after year that were never kept. While, wealth continued to concentrate at a

remarkable speed in few hands of the rich, the police-military-administration combine gainedmuscles to centralise on a frightening scale with one pretext or the other. Five-Year Plans did not

help to smooth over ruffled feathers or lessen regional disparities either. Nonetheless, these plans

proved a boon to keep fledgling hope survive year after year among the people, while providing

solid infra-structural support for an orderly growth and consolidation of capitalism here in a

period of anarchy worldwide, limping on Keynesian economics after Second World War. The

democracy proved spurious. Bureaucracy was ruling as ever. Decisions were made over the

heads of the people, but in their name. The family and its neighbourhood community were not

restored to their rightful place in the scheme of things. People soon were disillusioned, alienated

from the decision making process and felt disgusted with one set of leaders after another. The

political and administrative set up got stuck.

By now the situation has reached when the sense of equity and justice has taken a strong beatingwhile administration, legislature and even judiciary have lost their sheen for the people. Feeling

has grown among them that the Press barons have scooped the freedom of expression for their

benefit and are happy collaborators in the main with the establishment for privileges and

economic reasons. Mal-practices of the system and institutionalised corruption have left them

bewildered over sharp degeneration all around. This has not come in a day; neither it is a

temporary symptom from an isolated disease.

The context

To understand concretely what happened and why, it will be rewarding to see first what we are

faced to. The society worldwide is fed up of injustice, wants and misery despite honest labour.

Indignity faces man every moment from bullies and powerful. Life is full of avoidable strife in

spite of sermons of peace and tranquillity all around without any recess. Honest labour does not

pay anymore; neither simplicity of conduct is honoured any longer. Suspicion abounds

everywhere. Strife has become the law. Cutthroat competition to oust the other in dark alley is a

principle fully adorned shamelessly, unmindful to the social deficit. Crash individualism reigns

supreme, with no parallel in past history. If society is to survive, it cannot go this way. It needs a

rupture with its present. Simply put, today it is crying for a basic change in its relations. Indian

society no less.

It is true that change is the law of nature. Nothing is static, ever. And society is no exception. It

is always in flux. What, however, needed here is a qualitative change from the present

dispensation. While maintaining status quo, the reformatory patchwork tried so far incessantly to

tide over difficulties or cosmetic changes did not help in lessening the burden of a sick society

for the common mass.

Let us recall that the present Industrial society had started groaning of acute pains within a

century of its existence in its cradle comprising few countries of Europe. By late eighteenth and

early nineteenth century socialists of various hues, some of them quite honest in their profession

appeared on the scene and did try to ameliorate its ills by suggesting various routes, but to no

avail. Malaise was too deep as a result of capitalist expropriation leading to perpetual strife and

tension when a plea was raised with reason for a fundamental change in social relations.


5/26

5

This was the time when among others, Marx and Engels, with few of their compatriots tried for a

viable diagnosis and suggested an outline of basic change. For them, working masses were the

fountainhead for any such change in society,and with no via media. They took help from the

basics of natural sciences for their logic to arrive at their conclusions. The schema of their logic

naturally changed the whole gamut of perceptions and gave a new meaning to the social

obligation of concerned citizens. This was one course.

Later, in the early part of twentieth century Lenin with his companions followed this logic to

new dimensions on a number of important questions on social engineering. He led Russianrevolution in 1917 with a chain reaction in other countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba etc.

with a glittering hope of a better future for humanity.

In case of India, M.K.Gandhi became a classical example among those who propounded and

professed for a reformatory path with vengeance. He abhorred the very idea of fundamental

change (by then associated with October Revolution of 1917 in Russia), fighting it with an alibi

in violence taking it synonymous with revolution that signified basic change in every branch of

science, including social science. His reformatory campaign, laced with political aim drew a

large number of followers whom he groomed well with his train of thoughts. Here was suggested

another course.

To draw millions of commoners in the struggle for independence was Gandhis singular

achievement with no parallel in Indian history so far. For this he utilised various stratagem like a

master craftsman patiently reverting to social and cultural causes intermittently for political

mobilisation and building up his own ideological-organisational leadership in Congress party.

Still, like all political leaders and parties in history, it was Gandhi who with a singular mind, but

more brazenly capped fully the mass zeal and initiative to himself as dictator of the struggle.

He did not allow any movement going over his dotted line while people, mistakenly though

reposed faith in the political leadership. He abhorred any and every spontaneous movement

from the masses, as other political parties and leaders do. Here Gandhi was different from Marx

on this question. Gandhi used the mass strength to serve his purpose on the dotted line, while

Marx had an abiding faith in their creativity.

Gandhi suffered, though, unprecedented ignominy while alive when his heir apparent and other

disciples, on attaining power did not care about the philosophy he had advanced during

Independence struggle. So, it can be taken safely that his ideas found no field for even

experimentation and test for truth. The case of Lenin in Russia had been a bit different in this

matter. In Russia the precepts of Lenin on strategic questions were under experiment till the

period of Stalin at least. In the later period, one can take shelter to claim that Lenin, Stalin stood

betrayed by the followers on essential points of strategy, though this betrayal theory tells a sad

commentary on the revolutionary principles of a communist formation. The experiment in

Russia, then collapsed finally in 1991 with a whimper, but to the dismay of millions world over.

In case of Gandhi, the claim from his followers, later, those self-afflicting and non-violent

methods from him in conducting struggle for freedom proved remarkably successful with the

attainment of Independence remain largely unsubstantiated on historical facts. This claim,

though, is being repeated ad nauseam so long on state patronage with the result that unsuspecting

masses at large now tend to believe in the theory as something like a gospel truth.

As for his methods, there is hardly any substance to prove that British rulers became less

barbaric in repression because of Gandhian methods or these methods helped to change their

heart in terms of colonial possessions and ambitions. His heir-apparent and followers later

proved classical examples of stark failure of Gandhis philosophy in social trusteeship and

methods by running an outright exploitative system, exercising oppressive power, blatant misuse

of authority, amassing ill-gotten wealth and vulgar consumption.


6/26

6

Followers marginalised Gandhi

Just after attaining state power, Gandhian principles were discarded by his disciples, while

Gandhi was on the scene. The settled frame of the new Constitution for the country is an

eloquent testimony to this tragedy for his ideas. Though it is said that Gandhi ji was restless in

his last days over this betrayal of his principles, he did nothing or could not do anything

apparently against such blatant departure by them. May be, his disciples could ignore him so

clearly because Gandhi neither held any power in the government, nor he was in a controlling

position in the ruling party, while his followers having keen eyes on grabbing power, werecareful enough to walk in line with the authorities and later, with bureaucrats trained in British

methods. This is another type of tragedy for social activists that power and position alone have

become the criterion for being effective, though it could not be otherwise when grabbing of

power is adorned as a single point object of every social movement. Worshiping power thus,

merit of the principal or the person has lost relevance generally.

It is another matter that the new rulers needed an icon to swear by. They adore Gandhi in public

like anything till today, perhaps, because of his public appeal. This ruse of constant praise in

public suited the rulers nicely in the new scheme of things, while his views were brushed aside

on vital issues dear to him. His early death perhaps facilitated this ruse to work effectively so late

in the day.

The new crop of native rulers adopted the British model of governance as well as economic

development quite contrary to the views held by Gandhi close to his chest during the struggle for

Independence against British rule. He pleaded for the country to become a federation of little

village republics. In his scheme of things village republics were conceived as mode of

governance and cottage industries were to serve the cause of development. The new rulers on the

other hand fashioned their economic policy based on industrialisation with a highly centralised

state structure with full armed-strength to support it.

Gandhi made Charkha as a symbol for his concept of cottage industries that he posed to be the

fulcrum of future development in the country. The blueprint could not enthuse the common

masses as it hardly answered their timely aspirations. Yet, it can be stated that Gandhi too lacked

precision on his blue print for countrys development as an alternate paradigm in place of

industry. They could hardly distinguish Charkha and cottage of the future from their present state

of penury. The ruling elite could bypass him on this account.

The colonial state was made to exercise sovereign rights over natural resources here by British

rulers to extract wealth. The need of the hour, however, was to revert back community command

over means of production and natural resources, more so on land, mines, water and forests at the

time of Independence. But Gandhi could do little when his disciples retained the colonial legacy

by the Principle of Eminent Domainover natural resources with the state instead. This could

hardly enthuse the masses.

While the path represented by Gandhi collapsed before it could take off, the one for basic

change represented by Lenin and Stalin in countries of socialist camp floundered after 74 years

of experimentation. Reasons may be many. Few are important to study in our context.One fatal blunder the leadership committed, more so during this period of building socialism,

was to sidetrack theprincipal contradictionbetween the state and the people. With faith in the

strength and creativity of masses, the level of reliance on the state structure is inexplicable. In

addition, a ruthless state machine during the transitory stage of socialism saps this creativity of

the masses as well as their enthusiasm for a new experiment to build society.

On the question of state power in hand, leaders explain it as a sure lever to end their misery and

strife. The masses can initially be charmed with the prospect of handling state power in the

interest of common good for all honest workmen and their kins. In their honest simplicity they


7/26

7

may believe that state structure could as well be a lever to liberate them from misery, ignorance

and strife. They can hardly realise initially that it can never. That does not happen, as it could not

happen with some serious maladies at the base. Apart from others, one is the ill-conceived faith

nurtured in the state and its structures as something that can bring good to them. The system is

destined to act otherwise.

Let us recall that basically, the state is a sure organ of repression with its own dynamism that

cannot be by-passed. It cannot be an instrument of development and equity. State is not neutral,

as is believed by many. It acts and has the ability to act in favour of only the powerful. Andwithout equity, development means nothing but perpetuating expropriation of labour-power in

real terms. Human history testifies this bare truth to the hilt. Recent history of the experiment to

build socialism by the state in Soviet Union and companion countries of the camp amply

corroborates this bare lesson.

In addition, it is worth remembering that the state power in Russia as else where did never pass

into the hands of masses as enjoined in a coined slogan for revolution i.e. All power to Soviets.

In the name of Soviets again the state power slipped into the hands of a small number of people

representing the ruling party. True, it was in the name of workers, soldiers and peasants! Yet, it

was a replica of representative democracy and a sure travesty of the slogan. The way party

leadership then handled the state during this period of experiment to build socialism is also

important to analyse for a lesson.

The practice formulated and executed during this period both in the realm of state and political

organisation, as vanguard of the ruling class or classes is a good indication how the system

faulted. In realm of state, the leadership bent its energies in their mistaken belief that a highly

centralised state structure will lead happily to build socialism at a speed with no parallel. In

consequence, the state brought whole of social life under its tutelage with a leviathan

bureaucracy at every level. It usurped arbitrary powers in consonance with 'centralised structure.

Citizens life came under complete surveillance of the state leaving no room for him or her to

manoeuvre for freedom. Stratification and regimentation became complete and oppressive. In

course of time, it led to extreme alienation of people from the state and its leadership, which in

this case was also leadership of a political party, combining two incompatible roles of vanguard

and a ruler as well.

Moreover, the way how question of grabbing state power is focussed as a central issue of

revolution, necessarily develops a mindset that sanctifies struggle for power among fellow

beings by hook or crook breeding worst type of jealousies, cliques and violence against their

own comrades. Mind it, there is no other concept of state power so far except that entails heavy

dose of privileges for persons involved.

In such a setting, it is not surprising that one set of leaders in hurry to grab state power combine

to eliminate own comrades in power. By now it is a highly developed feature universally with no

end in sight. Any and every one has now a justification for such behaviour in grabbing power for

common good. Deceit, treachery, lies and corruption then find a valuable market with no

awkward question to answer.For power, the question of principles is relegated to background in routine when it is posed as a

sanctimonious object. This played havoc in Russia while people were busy in raising production

for abundance. It is playing havoc in other places too without fail.

On hindsight, it may be said that placing too much faith in the service of a state to deliver during

the phase of socialist construction without any tangible check on its fangs blinds reason against

ruthless state oppression not always justifiable. The whole democratic process remained

thwarted. People, in the process were disarmed ideologically and organisationally against the

might of state.


8/26

8

In addition, the midwife formulation for the state and its violence goes counter to the creative

power of the people. In case of basic change, with faith in the strength and creativity of people at

large, the question of such a mid-wife is a wrong poser and turns non-relevant.

Another folly of first grade the Soviet Union committed in all probability was its unchaste hurry

to compete with the capitalist world for industrial development of a foreign frame. It forgot,

perhaps deliberately, that so far development in the capitalist mode was dependent on internal as

well as external expropriation and deprivation of the commons as a matter of principle.

Industrialisation of necessity entails expropriation, overt or covert. In such a hurry then, the newrulers of the experiment in all probability sidetracked or did not care for the cost in terms of

social-cultural development and human relations.

Despite claim, the experiment remained rooted with the past basically, except in matters of

ownership over means of production. The State replaced private ownership over means of

production with a mistaken notion that it signifies social ownership. This socialist state was

mistakenly presented as something synonymous to people. That proved fatal. It turned the

masses complacent that took the ruling leadership in their simplicity as its own integral part. Let

us not forget that this trickery could succeed only by sidetracking the first principal contradiction

between state and the people from their active attention.

None can deny that the people had remained alienated in this erstwhile USSR dispensation too,

as before. If one does not opt to forget that alienationof man, even within the socialist society

is a symptom of a sure capital-based socio-economic structure that generates it hourly but surely

like individualism in vision and approach.

Pursuing unhindered industrialisation, in erstwhile Soviet Union, the ruling communist party, as

representative of labour proved ultimately to be a faithful instrument of developing capital,

may be unwittingly. The state remained monolithic and devilish with regard to the people at

large with a spacious argument. Commodity production dominated till end of the experiment.

Commons were destroyed and state property was equated with socialism that it was not.

Unnecessary faith was placed on industrial mode of production in unchaste copy of Adam Smith

and Ricardo who were high priests of unabashed capitalism and individualism; ignoring the

aspect of stability to the society that industrialization cannot provide, when speed is the essenceof this mode.

The state structure there did not reflect in any field that it was transitory in nature, preparing to

wither away. Uncouth claims of production in abundance proved slippery and highly

manipulated. Still, it was a gigantic experiment with fringe benefits to the working masses. At

best, it proved better in matters of social security than the advanced capitalist world. However,

the experiment essentially failed to be revolutionary in character with little benefit to the social

science of change in comparison to the labour put in by the working masses and sacrifices made.

With the collapse of this experiment in building socialism through instrumentation of the state,

the situation now in all countries is more or less the same. On three fundamental accounts,

namely, Principal contradiction between people and the state as also Basic contradiction

between collective way of life and individualism, the masses face the same situation universally.In addition, capital, at the exclusion of man, is taken as a vehicle of creating social wealth with

internal and external expropriation of labour-power to serve this interest as sacred. It is a

universal feature, notwithstanding differences in form or intensity. In the circumstances, this

status quo is a slow death, but death nevertheless.

Presently what is the situation? Life for the common man is no better than this slow death. We

are in a highly iniquitous and stratified world that is in perpetual strife for reasons not necessary

to survive or advance. As a consequence, the man who produces, stands at the tail end of the

spectrum deprived even of two square meals a day while the idle one at the top wallows in


9/26

9

wealth by sheer manipulating the system at will. The whole state apparatus is a happy

collaborator of the rich in this game of deceit whereas it initially was designed to provide

physical security from invaders and plunderers with a nominal share in produce for the service.

In addition, the state apparatus now has assumed a basically repressive character of an all-

pervading octopus over its citizens in the interest of rich and manipulators. Though

administrative and judicial structures promise equal treatment in law, in practice however, these

are increasingly shedding their neutral posture when the state is going openly in favour of

resourceful. The powerful is at the neck of less powerful to gain bigger share in the pound offlesh in the market of butchers, extolling the virtues of competition while at times the deprived

are victims of both. If someone joins the ranks of butchers themselves employing tricks of trade,

the system is happy to welcome. The deprived man winks in awe and thanks his fate for mere

survival in such sordid events. Only with some collective action there remains a possibility to

face the currents firmly.

It is true, such a situation has not come in a day. This is the outcome of a long journey and the

present phase of structural transformation of global economy is a natural culmination of a path

that began its journey some three hundred years ago with the industrial revolution taking shape

for historical reasons first in Britain, followed by other nations in Europe, with a common legacy

of colonial expropriation. Mercantile capital at that stage had pushed them to plunder other lands

with all underhand means at their command that one acquires from professions of ease.

Deceit, treachery, outright murders and armed invasions were their weapons in this trade. This

was done all with single-minded zeal. They continued to flourish at the cost of millions after

millions from subject lands loosing their hearth and homes while drawing upon the tremendous

surpluses extracted heartlessly from colonised nations of the world with a sheer force of a brute

to tell upon their lives. Neither this was necessary, nor inevitable.

Humanity could easily have survived and progressed without this brutal chapter in its history.

But it did not. Reasons were specific. If Indians and Chinese did survive in history without this

ruthlessness laced with treachery on other nations, the Europeans either did not bring anything

extra-ordinary to the richness of humanity, except such brutality and treachery. They brought

perpetual strife, untold humiliation and misery to their own populations along with death to

millions after millions in other lands. Claims apart, bloodshed or violence as a method can never

make one progressive and civilized, better than others. Still, they claimed for both.

However, it is true that European powers did succeed in subjugating the entire African,

Australian, American and South Asian countries for long period by such deceit and repression.

In North America and Australia the whole indigenous populations were ruthlessly exterminated

and thus the foundation for new white nations of European origin was laid. African and Indian

slaves were yoked to produce wealth for these new settlers. Natural resources of the subject

nations were ploughed in to grind the wheels of its industries with a captive market at hand in

these lands of their occupation. They did it with a single-minded dedication.

This way industrialisation became the buzzword all around. It charmed many. It proved an irony

that the new state in Russia after 1917 opted for a mode of development that brewed social strife.It plunged whole hog to transform an agrarian society to an industrial one hurriedly with means

of social production in possession of state, though adopting a low-cost economy. The effort was

led and controlled by the ruling communist party providing a further legitimacy to this

captivating slogan for others also to follow. Industry was placed in the centre of development

and consequently agriculture became subservient to it. Simultaneously, farming also was

transformed from a family-labour based affair to a large-scale industrial concern there.

Let one remember that this was a European model basically that had developed and flourished

on large-scale internal and external expropriation. It could not be otherwise in Soviet Union, as


10/26

10

also in other so-called socialist countries, though direct external expropriation in their case was

not possible. Naturally, these countries, including Soviet Union had to bear the resultant effects

of this model in spite of the fact that means of production were in command of the state, with a

powerful leadership and a vast political army of cadres to direct. At a stage of maturing

contradictions within the womb, the system asserted and threw out the state that was having

alien features like low cost economy and welfare projects to the detriment of full capitalist

growth. Likewise, social welfare projects were thrown out in India when its capitalist growth

reached a stage of relative maturity and joined hands with imperialists abroad for a share in themarket for its finance and commodities. Now, WTO is the common venture of all capitalist-

imperialist countries for these pursuits at the global level.

Industrial mode necessarily produces individualism

The first and foremost result of this industrial mode as a law was the growth of individualism,

free from the will of man. Its growth was found not subject to the form of ownership over its

means. It happened, and in hindsight it can be said, with disastrous effects to the course of

history. Post facto, this conclusion is sharp and explicit.

Secondly, the industrial mode creating over-production and shortage simultaneously creates

material conditions essentially for strife in society; it cannot provide stability either. Instability

and strife are its inherent characteristics, as is the un-even development, notwithstanding the

change of mode in ownership over its means. Let one remember, the industrial mode provides

exponential growth in production, where reversal is dangerous and forward move is disastrous.

In such a scenario a fatal crash is inherent in the circumstances. At a stage, industry essentially

creates over-production in relation to its cost of production even in a low cost economy if run

to capacity, necessitating external market with all evil consequences for tranquillity in trail for

the common man within its own country as well as outside. The need for export-oriented

economy arises out of such a dichotomy even in a state professing socialism as erstwhile USSR

did face.

The element of planning may help keep its edges in check for a while. But the inherent law of

such development resulting in uneven course, also found expression in the history of Soviet

Union with 74 years of strenuous efforts to the contrary, when industrial mode essentially

involves commodity production and capital formation, may be invisibly. On first opportunity in

1991, a well-entrenched group of capitalists-mafiosi, including many Red Army officers of high

ranking with considerable accumulation and clout, emerged as if out of the blue. They led the

political leadership afterwards in decision-making process to their advantage.

The industrial mode is also incapable to satisfy the requirements of a whole society considering

its cost-supply cycle. Wants remain constantly unfulfilled for commoners in spite of hard and

honest physical labour, more so in a high cost economy. The race for gainful employment turns

nightmare for them. It is true even for European countries where density of population in relation

to resources is much less. Industrialisation then is a sheer fantasy for such countries as populous

as China and India.

Here one fact must be underlined that industrial mode is incapable to harness energies of massesto the full for its economic reasons. It essentially resorts then to unproductive activities direct in

proportion to its level of development in order to keep the extra productive population

engaged, without caring a bit for social wastage and the debasing effect involved, such as

tourism to prostitution like services. In case of Soviet Union this tragedy was averted by

resorting to reduction in working days and hours continuously, though pressure of population in

relation to its resources was much less. Still that did not make the society richer in content. May

be the leadership failed here. Nevertheless, society did pay the price.


11/26

11

One can easily understand as to why capitalist class worldwide is so virulent in its campaign to

put industrialisation as a pre-condition for growth and progress while projecting it as pivot of

social development employing every means at its disposal, including education. It could not do

otherwise. This serves its economic, political and social purpose best with a least price tag. It

sets the individual actuated by self-interest in rat race to catch the moon in ones life span is

ready made guarantee for it to keep masses split perpetually and at each others throat.

The full blown exercise by a ruling minority to theorize the market forces in constant

competition as a fulcrum of prosperity, progress and efficiency, in fact is a fine tuned strategy toprop up this rat race while keeping the majority of masses under its sway by such strife.

Nonetheless, it was a tragedy of sorts that proponents of a new society free from exploitation;

wants and strife too should have adopted the same mode of development for a race they could

not have won. The reasons were not compelling either.

Much is made of one argument in favour of capitalism and its industrial mode that this will lead

to the development of productive forces and liquidation of feudal relations. This clearly stems

from their European understanding of history or as Europeans taught about it, that industry with

capital at its base is superior to agriculture in development of productive forces apart from their

skewed understanding what feudal relations denote in history, more so in India.

Here another query now must be raised. What succour such developed productive forces by

industrial mode can provide to ameliorate the condition of pauperised and disinherited people or

inversely help them in struggle to overthrow this exploitative capitalist system? Question arises,

how much these productive forces, so developed during half a century of Independent India have

gone beneficial to these half-fed, half-clad people or helped weakening the grip of capitalism-

cum-feudalism over their lives? Situation in fact is in reverse. These charming productive forces

have served more to strengthen capitalist exploitation of the masses rather than making their

lives easier.

World again is now under the spell of market forces! What are these market forces? It was a

euphemism introduced by the crusaders on behalf of capital for newly recruited disciples in

erstwhile countries of socialist camp who were shy to use the proper, but discredited term

capitalism in initial stage of conversion.

This capitalism was not a new phenomenon in the twentieth century world to adopt a new

phraseology like market forces. Still, these new crusaders had to recount features of its youth to

impress upon the new generation of gullible for acceptance once more a thoroughly rejected

mode of social life that was cast off after a span of painful experience. The past is a mute witness

to the system that thrives on a high cost economic life. The free competition could neither

result in low prices ever to consumers or provide efficiency in production and distribution of

goods for society, nor release forces of uninterrupted growth, even in hay days of its youth.

Then, to expect such high goals in its grey period remains a mystery these crusaders fail to

explain, in their zeal to rejoice with these newfound allies in the loot of common resources for

private gain. It is not that these crusaders or apologists for capitalism are block-headed maggots

who are oblivious of this history. Their fresh effort to refurbish the face of this brutal social forcethen ostensibly seeks to gain another lease of life possible in present circumstances. But the

question remains, how this goes to the benefit of society?

Individualism, the bane of society

The theoretical premise of such a campaign for capital-based market forces to contend is the

virtue these apologists constantly search in individualism. It found a precious base in the earlier

slogan of individual liberty; brewing the two to their great advantage, crafting many mythical

formulations in trail. It is not true that man by nature is motivated to exert best only by selfish

ends, more so by monetary interest. Man by birth is not selfish; he or she is made so. Philosophy


12/26

12

of Individualism worked for three hundred years to make one so. Full-fledged conditioning for

such long has made common man think and behave like a selfish and forget ones own past in

this connection. Likewise de-conditioning is a distinct possibility. History of pre-industrial phase

does not corroborate that self is a guiding attribute of man in general. Barring a few degenerated

lots of feudal kings and nawabs in the later period of feudal autarchy; Indian history does not

provide substance to such illogical formulations to justify.

Social history proves otherwise. Only in social setting man exists as man and blooms. Without

social interaction his or her potent remains stale and sterile. Talent is a product of this socialinteraction and no one has the right to expropriate this social additive. Money is a poor

compensation in exchange for this additive and cannot enrich either in substance. However, in

course of history this philosophy of individualism was brought to fore which cuts at the very

root of this social law by seeking to make man confined to self and weaving relations to serve

the powerful; getting crumbs in exchange as offerings of fate. Man is facing this dualism. This is

thebasic contradictionof social life to resolve today. It cannot be pushed aside any longer, but

at the cost of ruin.

Studies substantiate that it was industrial revolution, which had provided the material ground to

fashion individualism as a systematic philosophy with individual, in contrast to his family and

community as the focal point of interest. Industry needed an independent worker, free from all

social, psychological/emotional affiliations and family encumbrances for a concentratedproduction spiral to his or her best with least possible obligations in exchange. Its basic unit for

production was thus crafted as a free individual, though in a chain combination stills an

individual to contribute.

With industrial mode, individualism is a necessary by-product. This society can hardly afford.

Let us for a moment recollect here that mere stable property in private mode exercised

collectively by family-labour earlier during pre-industrial phase could not give shape to

individualism as a philosophy, different from the importance of individual in a community

setting it had. It is though true that individual interest had started taking shape much earlier in

human history but it could not give birth to individualism prior to the growth of industrial-

commercial nexus.

Neither this individualism withered away substantially in Soviet Union merely with the abolition

of private property, with industrial mode at the centre of social production for long 74 years of

experiment in socialist construction. Rather, individualism worked more perniciously even

within the portals of communist party there and almost in all other so-called socialist countries

without exception. This is emphasized not to plead in any manner for private property but to

clear chaff from the grain and pinpoint the real culprit for this evil of individualism in society.

Individualism as an insidious philosophy, necessarily generated by industrial-commercial

paradigm of development has wrought the very social fabric to ruin. The process of

dehumanisation has brought the society to its knees. Alienation of man has reached a stage of

unbearable proportion to tolerate. In the circumstance, it is nearly impossible for any one to

justify the existence of these evil effects of the present capital-based productive system in the

society. Neither it is possible to bypass these effects in the long run, keeping the system intact.

Role of political parties in history:

There is another important aspect of this industrial-commercial paradigm that requires careful

attention. History testifies that the concept of democracy arose to be a political creed of this new

class at a particular juncture. It needed fair play for different financial groups contending against

each other. It brought in the concept of democracy as its political creed with representative

medium through political parties to operate. The creed later also helped to provide with social

legitimacy to the rule of this minority.


13/26

13

In this industrial dispensation, while the state tends to assume a highly centralized structure day

by day in conformity with its inherent law of political economy, the creed of democracy gave

birth necessarily, as an unwanted corollary, to release energy of the masses and awaken them

afresh to their strength. This undesired by-product, however, is a writ doom for the whole system

of expropriation, if such an eventuality is allowed to materialize unhindered. Here this stratagem

of representative democracy that obviously helped to offset the danger from any released

energy of the masses at large. This insulates the capitalist system from such a collapse, with an

elaborate system of political parties as a fresh interpretation of democracy to serve it as anecessary appendage by keeping the masses in check within a specified frame with no one to

cross.

And, the political parties did the job commendably to prove their worth by wresting the energy

of common mass in keeping their initiative and activism within their own hold. Both ways it

served the industrial-commercial interests best - in economy and political management. As an

institution, the political party everywhere factually served these interests as its faithful product,

in spite of claims to the contrary. So far there has been no exception. In the experiment to build

socialism in erstwhile Soviet Union, with a sole communist party at its helm, the initiative of

people had gone extinguished and their activism flushed out. It is now crystal clear.

Profitably it may be recalled that all rulers in human history fear energies of the masses most.

Soviet rulers fared no better than bourgeois rulers did. Neither Chinese, nor the Vietnamese. Thesame is true of other countries. The small exception seems to be Cuba, gleaned from scanty

reports available. With concentration of authority in the hands of a centralised leadership,

initiative and activism of rank and file in a communist party is extinguished like-wise. In such a

condition, initiative of the people is a far cry to expect.

In addition, the communist party (CPSU) as a sole arbiter of initiative and activism on behalf of

the masses happened to be more dangerous than beneficial in their contest against the state. The

masses totally depended on the wishes of the party machinery there in its contest for resolving

the first principal contradictionbetween people and the state. It proved a historical tragedy of

massive magnitude to the aspiring working population for a new life.

This obstacle has to be met adequately in order to release the initiative and activism of the

masses if the society is to bloom again with youthful energy and fragrance.

Fundamental change is the answer

In the circumstances, society needs a different set of relations and a fresh look on concepts that

were made the basis of the aborted attempt. True, it is not for the first time that someone talks

today about necessity of a basic change in society. The idea had gained ground after reformatory

efforts did not satisfy the social urges of the times long back. Still patchwork mentality has its

own attraction for some people despite recent experiences and lessons in history! Nevertheless,

by now certain parameters are well laid as to concretise what is meant by a fundamental change

in society in this era of capitalist organisation after reformist socialism also could not succeed in

bringing any relief to the distracted humanity.

That the society is suffering from evils of deprivation and alienation under a repressive system ofgovernance in the interest of capital can hardly be contested. Social thinkers in their wisdom

charted a path for abolition of classes and the state. They suggested recourse from each

according to his ability, to each according to his work without expropriation while destroying

the foundation for parasites and leading to the society that will live by the principle, from each

according to his or her ability, to each according to the need.

These thinkers traced the course of history that man had traversed in his march to civilisation

and summarised lessons for charting out his fortune in future for a better and peaceful life. With

primitive accumulation, mercantile capital gave an urge for individual ownership in its wake. It


14/26

14

provided a strong impetus to the system of expropriation necessary for an era of industrial

revolution with capital at its centre and individualism as the philosophy to guide. In this era of

industrial and commercial culture labour-power is replaced with the pernicious instrument of

capital as the focal point of social production. This replacement necessarily dehumanises man in

the process. Another characteristic feature of capital is the rapid alienation of man from means of

social production, leading ultimately to his or her transformation as a commodity. Then, capital

has a tendency to centralise and concentrate in few hands while putting millions after millions to

destitution with an elaborate system of expropriation. It works profitably under a highlycentralised and powerful state structure.

There is hardly anything left to support a system that demolishes the very foundation of a just

society and strikes at its social roots. Expropriation of ones labour for enriching the other or,

say, to rob Peter and benefit Paul, can hardly be defended on any sane account.

The Indian scene

India has suffered humiliation of a colonised land for long. The brute British colonisers not only

plundered its resources to their hearts content; they mauled its spirit also by dubious methods.

The whole Indian social and administrative structure was demolished and fashioned afresh on an

alien model to serve colonial interests of the rulers. The culture and value system of plunderers

was super-imposed on Indian subjects. The whole effort damaged the nation all-around, specially

its will. This cultural-moral and educational intervention sapped its energy to a large extent. It

has still to be revived.

Unfortunately, new set of native rulers, after attaining independence in 1947, adopted not only

the colonial administrative set up, but also saw its future in British model of economic

development through industry, as its pivot with in-built colonial apparatus of expropriation along

with the British model of political structure in democracy.

First for democracy: In the then Constituent Assembly members after member had advocated

abrogation of British hierarchical model for governance, pleading for Gram Swarajya instead.

It could have paved way for Gaon Ganrajyaas an effective mechanism to release mass energy

again for social activism. The new rulers cunningly promised for Gram Panchayats instead, as

mere administrative units in future and dispensed with the autonomous village republics that thecountry had a desire to revert back for enjoying real freedom in democracy. This is part of recent

Indian history. To this day people are aspiring to taste real democracy in their effort for better

life. It remains to be redeemed still. What recently they have done is a gross distortion of the

original concept.

To bypass Gandhi, his disciples both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel proved master tacticians

in matters of governance and grooming the ignorant mass behind these policies of pampering

capital at the cost of labour laced with uncouth repression and deceit even in initial stage of

indigenous rule. The state financed the growth of indigenous private capital with expropriation

of agriculture in deceit, as it lacked strength to stand on its own. Planning route was adopted by

the state to reach the target in hurry as a late entrant in race for capital accumulation.

The slogan that ranted the atmosphere after independence was development so that poverty isattacked at roots with the wealth so created. The much-hyped notion of development as sacred in

itself is a crafty web from pen pushers of status quo with trickle theory in command that did

never bring any succour to the masses so far.

The Nehru edict that development first, just distribution afterwards have proved a much crafty

clich that robbed working people for half a century. It has benefited the expropriators most.

Development must secure equity in process; otherwise it is a cunning game. There is no first or

last in this game. Moreover, development has to provide peace and stability to society.


15/26

15

For such a crafty design, the present is full of a duality. Indignity, injustice, strife and shortages

for the common man are full despite honest labour for hours unnatural for man in a day.

Alienation is complete for them. They are at the receiving end. The beneficiaries of the system

on the other hand are wallowing in wealth and are happy to have learnt the art of manipulating

this system to their advantage. What capitalist system did to others, it did the same in India.

More than half a century has gone by now with policies in practice that brought misery to the

people. The industrial mode has wrought disaster, as it should, with only captains of capital to

thrive. Many versions of reformatory practices have been tried so far in the name of amelioratingconditions and correcting distortions, but to the utter desperation of the toiling masses. They are

worse today. The intensity is higher. The development during these 55 years could add only

around 10 per cent to make it twenty percent of citizens as the beneficiaries who have reaped the

advantage at the cost of millions after millions in toil.

The people are suffering worst type of deprivation all around and groaning under the weight of

ruthless exploitation and social strife. Thus, there is no point in experimenting upon various

versions of reformatory efforts or believing in cosmetic changes the rulers of the day promise

one after the other every alternate day. The long period lost is no less to test their vitality and

relevance. Hence, the need for change in direction.

It is now clear that after Independence, the same industrial mode of development was adopted

here that had dominated the European scene. This was done to serve the capital-based interests.

For financing this project an elaborate system of internal expropriation with neo-colonial

character was brought in place, in addition to the investment from public exchequer for

promoting much needed basic inputs at subsidised costs to private entrepreneurs. Since

agriculture was the only productive field available, it was made to finance it insidiously.

It had a striking difference with the old colonial plunder. This time, the expropriation was purely

internal to start with and worked out surreptitiously despite the country that claimed to be a

democratic one. It had its effect. Independence started loosing its glamour and sheen at a speed

for the majority of population again. The ruthless internal colonial expropriation to make up

capital for rapid industrialisation as its agenda told upon mental and physical health of the entire

working people, except those who could find place or manipulate one in the organised sector,

including its privileged civil and armed services. A bit of explanation will be timely.

It is well recognised that all the wealth of a nation is actualised through labour of its people,

working with bare hands or with tools, while economic system is the totality of production of

goods and services along with their distribution. In distribution, the trick is played while fixing

entitlements of different partners in social production; depriving working people when the idle

class is bestowed with undeserved wealth by powers that be. It is done while computing money-

value to economic goods and services with a definite bias favouring the idle class of people

occupying vantage position in the system and its establishment. Individuals occupying vantage

positions in the system tend to acquire vested interests with facility to stake claims on the

additives by other non-influential elements in production. Thus here they got exorbitant

entitlements in the flow of goods and services or money incomes having no relationship with

their actual contributions to production. The organised sector reaped benefits of such

manipulation. It is the sordid tale of internal colonial expropriation in the country ostensibly to

provide impetus for rapid industrialization. The worst victim has been the unorganised sector of

economy, inhabiting rural India largely.

By sheer manipulation in terms of trade and fiscal policies, including rural debt weighing heavily

against agriculture, in a high-cost economy and the discriminatory methods in determining

entitlements to the farming sector have played havoc with lives of working population that

constitute nearly 73 per cent of the total. Whereas, nearly 7 to10 percent of the deprived

population, living in urban centres, is victim of the same process barely surviving on odd foot--


16/26

16

path jobs that may come their way or on punishing jobs in small scale industries with depressed

wages on degrading terms. Around ten per cent of the total rural population is the beneficiary in

real terms of present development strategy that cultivates linkages with and acts as a subsidiary

of urban sector. This is the section that acts as an active collaborator of the ruling class in both

political and economic fields. All others are gasping for breath.

In a way it is the unorganised rural India that has been made to pay for the riches of the

organised urban sector. If rural India is penury incarnate till today, reason may not be anywhere

else to seek. To sum up, it can be said safely that the contradiction between labour and capitalhere today is reflected through urban organised sector and unorganised rural India. The situation

needs to be changed and this contradiction over-turned resolutely with a viable alternative!

Dispassionate history of the lost opportunity during these last fifty-five years is a sad tale of

deceit and betrayal of the toiling mass in India by the entire political leadership in the country.

There is hardly any exception. Not merely the ruling ones but also those who adorn opposition

benches are happy collaborators in the game of state power to rule over the masses and worst

type of expropriation. Even the part of this leadership belonging to formal mass organizations

can hardly be absolved of this charge. They too tread the same path outlined and drawn by the

ruling class or classes in the interest of governance. So far there is none among them as an

organised entity that stood by the people to face this onslaught of capital as well as state

machinery and remained steadfast with their interests.

At present, both industry and agriculture as forms of development are beset with crisis, but for

different reasons. The crisis in industry is a crisis for speeding up expropriation of labour-power

to a new level of intensity while shifting emphasis on to speculative economy for highest

possible returns in speed for capital. The economy is being given a shift to tide over the in-born

difficulties, after consolidating capitalist mode in the first phase of permit-licenseRaj and duly

buttressed by public sector undertakings at public expense. In its search for new pastures outside,

the country is tagged to WTO directions.

The crisis in agriculture on the other hand is due to over-extraction to finance industrialisation

for over half a century with no sufficient purchasing power left with majority of the population

in the country. The misery of the majority in population is due to this crisis in agriculture for

over-extraction. However, the industrial-financial interests are bent upon converting agriculture

to serve their interests in the new setting of WTO conditionality, with no concern to the future of

millions engaged in farming at present.

Fresh priority needed:

The country needs a change for the better. So far, industrialisation is the buzzword for social

progress and human values, but with disastrous effects for humanity at large, with few gains to

claim. It is time to re-think the priority. We seek to subscribe for re-affirmation of agriculture

coupled with animal husbandry as a viable form for production relations in the country with

community command over natural resources, including water, land. mines and forests. It

challenges the very wisdom of past three hundred years sponsored by interested groups that

ascribe pivotal role to capital-based industry as a development strategy for abundance, whereasnowhere in the world industrialisation could lead the society to abundance and peace without

misery and expropriation, both internal and external. India is no exception. Hence the need for

change in focus.

We feel the time has come to ask for priorities of the nation are fixed afresh. It is a myth that

industry alone develops productive forces and agriculture is synonymous to backwardness. For

social stability and harmonious development speed alone is not a deciding factor to choose

which industry symbolizes. The whole paradigm has to be rethought and overhauled. The


17/26

17

present one has failed to deliver. After achieving independence the new class in power was in a

hurry to reap riches and make up for the lost period during British occupation.

During these fifty-four years since 1947, it is only the industrial and commercial sector with a

supporting service sector that has gained from this course making up hardly 20 per cent of the

population in the country. The remaining 80 per cent have been forced to bear the burden of this

economy at the cost of their lives. The country is now facing same ills of the system what

western nations gathered in more than 300 years.

Nowhere in the world any country could thrive traversing this path of industrialisation merely on

its own volition and resources, without expropriation of others. India can be no exception. Now

the leadership of this country has embarked upon a path to gain access to this expropriation in

other countries with blessings from America, of course, forgetting its own sad experiences in

slavery.

It is difficult to contest on facts a formulation that industry is no way to develop any nation, if

aim is to ameliorate the condition of masses without expropriation and a life in peace without

strife. For over three hundred years, industry and commerce have dominated as a course of

development in the world, giving preference to capital accumulation instead of primacy to

labour-power. But still the world is no better a place to live in peace with human dignity intact.

In India, the leaders had promised honey and heaven to the people in 1947 while choosing thispath of rapid industrialisation. What the people got in bargain is there for all to experience. For

over two thirds of the countrymen it is no better than hell on earth. This gruelling past is a

sufficient ground to search for new path to tread.

Growth Pattern is not uni-linear:

In this connection one fallacy may be fought that growth pattern is uni-linear. It is now well

known fact that there are three generically different patterns of growth: namely Natural curve,

Linear curve and Exponential curve. One German lady has explained that Curve A represents an

idealised form of normal physical growth pattern in nature, which our bodies follow, as well as

those of plants and animals. It continues growth both qualitatively and quantitatively. Curve B

represents a mechanical or linear growth pattern, e.g., more machines produce more goods as

more coal produces more energy that comes to an end when the machines are stopped or coalgets stopped, which normally these do. Curve C represents an exponential growth pattern that is

exact opposite to curve A. Starting slowly in beginning, then rising vertically. Exponential

growth in the physical realm usually ends with the death of the host and the organism on which

it depends.

Thus industry, commerce and service industries, including speculative finance transactions, like

share markets etc. belong to Curve B and Curve C type of growth pattern respectively, while

agriculture, animal husbandry and allied activities belong to Curve A pattern. The experience of

last three hundred years of industrial, commercial and speculative activities worldwide confirms

this pattern of growth with tears and little consolation.

If one is not quite obdurate in approach, the next best pattern to choose for the society, more sofor India, then leads one to agriculture as a natural way of life with supportive industrial

activities under strict neighbour-hood community supervision according to its actual needs and

confirming to its social objectives. The alternative mode in development with agriculture as its

pivot, based on family-labour, have to be fashioned in tune to the present requirements of

society, but not for greed, duly buttressed continuously by scientific advancement. One cannot

accept a notion so assiduously propagated continuously by vested interests for long that

agriculture is a barren pattern to answer the call of society or scientific developments remain

hostile to agricultural way of life. Of late, however the Government is bent upon changing the

face of agriculture completely. Let us examine.


18/26

18

WTO and Indian Agriculture

The future of Indian agriculture is now a subject of heated discussion in the country. The context

is the Agreement on Agriculture as a part of obligation under WTO undertaken by the then

government clandestinely. The official regiment is defending its stance to change the face of

Indian agriculture at the behest of powerful MNCs, while the total political leadership in

opposition is berating the present government over the difficulties farming community is facing

today, without telling the basic reason of this plight. However, one thing is clear that none of

these leaders or organisations in opposition is explicit enough to call for abrogation of thisagreement with WTO on agriculture. The peasantry is in a fix.

The main opposition party in Parliament recently made an explicit statement officially to explain

away the situation again in a diplomatic fashion, which has by now become a trade mark of such

organisations in the country. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, addressing a Kisan rally called to explain away

the stand of Congress party on the emerging situation stated that there is nothing wrong with this

agreement; the fault lies in its implementation by the present rulers. Unfortunately, the

chairperson of congress party in her bid to give a clean chit to its own past through this

statement, provided ready help to the BJP led government for its agriculture reforms in

parliament on WTO lines to take effect. This was a fine game in tandem. Congress is no

different on agriculture policy that brought ruin to peasantry?

The WTO regime seeks to change farming here upside down and with it the lives of peasants for

all times to come. The whole political leadership, on the other hand, is busy in sabre-rattling of

usual fashion to skirt the real issues. The government, including top brass in bureaucracy often

defends the agreement on agriculture for some perceived benefits to the nation, while at times

when cornered, the ruling leadership pleads its helplessness in view of the international

obligations the government has undertaken. It is unfortunate that for the government an

undertaking with WTO is primary while its fidelity to the Indian people is dispensable.

Nevertheless, central government led by BJP, unmindful of the past, is pushing the country to

ruin in its search for new pastures to serve the same section of a class, which has benefited most

during these last fifty-four years. The government is pursuing in zeal the path of total

Americanisation that will strike doom for the country putting even its sovereignty in jeopardy.

In fact, it is on its toes to implement a policy that was initiated by Congress government at thecentre with no feeling of guilt to this day. The fact of the matter is that all governments since

1991 have toed the same line of capitulation before the organised international capital and

defended the interests of this moneyed class in sharp contrast to those of the people. What

Narsimha Rao-Manmohan Singh started in 1991, pushed further with verve by Chidambaram of

the United Front, is now zealously nurtured by Vajpayee-Sinha duo. In consequence, the people

are now left to fend for themselves against the attack of wild sharks basking under protective

wings of the state.

Pushing the country for almost a decade now to globalisation and liberalisation of an American

vintage based on unabashed capital market, the turn has come for agriculture to bear. This is all

in the name of accelerating the pace of industrialisation of the country to serve the interest of

development without caring to tell what industrialisation has done to the people during lastfifty-four years. The nation is deep in quagmire of inflation, high cost economy, unchecked loot

of natural resources, ever rising prices and soaring unemployment, all resulting in pauperisation

of the common people and debilitating corruption all around. Injustice is written all over. Nation

is in the midst of strife and crime. Still, the rulers are hell bent to extol the virtues of capital as a

golden object in the life.

Keeping such a weak reference point as a sacred cow, the rulers have come forward to overhaul

farming in the hot pursuit of this capital - native and foreign. The National Agriculture Policy

released in July last year is an eloquent testimony to the intentions of this government, as well as


19/26

19

the moneyed class worldwide. Their eyes are glued to grab land, water, forests and mines with

unchecked sway over other natural resources to milk unchecked profit, totally unmindful of what

may happen to millions and millions of people in bargain, including simple tribals whom the

constitution offered a protective shield of its schedule five. Neither the hallowed provisions of

constitution nor the verdict of the Supreme Court last year on this schedule in Samata versus

A.P. Government and others seem to worry this government in a hurry to serve international

capital. It seeks to change these provisions flagrantly flexing muscles of parliamentary number at

the cost of Tribals displacement from their lands and hearths forever.It is a tragic story. Indian agriculture is bled white for long. As a strategic move, the rulers have

made it a loosing pursuit deliberately during these fifty years or so by manipulating fiscal and

pricing policies to the disadvantage of the peasants. The trade terms weighed heavily against

them bringing ruin in turn. The simple peasants were fooled around for their ignorance of the

ways this ruling elite excels in debunking. The peasants were branded as unskilled for being

unlettered and they in simplicity believed the rulers to a faith.

The treachery game, however, was played when wage scale for their family-labour was

computed under this lowest category to a miserly low while tabulating cost price of agriculture

produce terming the profession of a peasant as unskilled. It was around 10 rupees a day for 147

days in a year as per data for the year in 1990. It rose to Rs. 15 in 1995 and 17 in 1997. At

present it may be around Rs. 20 at the end of twentieth century, whereas lowest paid unskilledemployee in the organised sector is getting not less than Rs. 250 to Rs.1000 per day, what to say

of bureaucracy, politicians and the capitalists.

The earnings of higher functionaries even in public sector industries and services are mind-

boggling in comparison after the fifth pay commission bonanza, with all other privileges in

addition. The bureaucrats pocket up to Rs.1000 a day while industrialists and commercial

tycoons are unhappy with Rs.2 lakhs a day. Rather, earnings of the favoured rich have no limit

with due government support in fiscal policy year after year. In spite of loud protestations

recorded in the constitution for social justice and equity, rulers are maintaining a highly

discriminatory criterion to fix wages for urban and rural sectors to this day, without any qualms

for justice and fair play.

On this account alone, according to one rough estimate, not less than Rs.3 lakh-crores are

expropriated every year from the farming sector. In addition, artisans, as a part of agriculture

sector are ruined to the benefit of urban industries. The parity in prices of agricultural produce

with industrial goods is still a distant dream. The peasantry at the same time is highly taxed on

the indirect route. The excise duties on tractors, fertilizer and other inputs is much more what is

doled out as subsidies. Rural debt on modern methods of financial management with compound

interest is another route to expropriate this sector to suicide. Small amount of subsidies to

agriculture sector cannot hide this deprivation in spite of sponsored propaganda of vested

interests to the contrary.

In fact the rulers of all hues have debunked the peasantry that is simple in mind and unknown to

the ways of the rulers. Indian peasantry since August 1947 has been ruined by a deliberate

policy. Now it is time to reverse the process. All along, these measures in deceit adopted by them

have brought about a situation where peasants are forced to vacate lands on their own in

desperation so that the moneybags can walk over and occupy it for profit.

National Agriculture Policy - 2000

The National Agricultural Policy 2000 marks the watershed in its history. The intensive use of

capital and technology is pleaded for raising production in agriculture to feed the 'teeming

millions' which Indian farmer does not possess! The NAP declares that even the government has

no wherewithal to provide the same. It is a plea to hand over agriculture to those who have the


20/26

20

money in the interest of agicultural development. It is a plea to replace intensive family-labour as

the basic unit in Indian agriculture and hand it over to Banks and corporate houses for its

intensive capitalisation. The new entrepreneur farmer will pursue agriculture not for subsistence

but for profit as a business. The unstated national agenda thus is corporatisation of Indian

agriculture through intensive capital investment. The credit boom in the wake of NAP is thus a

calculated move. The BJP led government through this agriculture policy have detailed the steps

it intends to take for take over of farming by these sharks - national or international, perhaps in a

phased manner to offset any organised resistance from them in desperation. This emergingsituation is too clear that requires no special calibre to understand. Still the political leadership,

including the opposition is busy in the game of deceit and political jugglery as usual. They are,

for example, playing orchestra in unison for diversification of agriculture for cash crops to

confuse the peasants and muddle the real issue at debate, in the interest of foreign trade with

European countries. Moreover, how big is the market for flowers from such a big population

for instance?

Grow flowers or fruits for America and get food grains from there for subsistence at terms

dictated by her in both the cases. This is the crux of advice by these apologists of globalisation.

Only a mug head will depend on others for food and livelihood security. The tale of misery,

which peasants are suffering in states, including Kerala with cash crops as their main stay, is

easily ignored in zeal to support the government policy. Mostly these were peasants that bankedon cash crops who committed suicide in shame in recent past, including Andhra, Haryana and

Punjab. Unfortunately in this game almost all agriculture experts are also playing the tune

wittingly or otherwise that suits the politicians nicely in service of the capitalist class for

maximum profit.

The concern for peasantry currently being exhibited with gusto by Congress leadership is too

thin a veil. In no case Congress can absolve itself of what peasantry is suffering today. It is the

cumulative effect of the policies pursued with zeal by its government during its rule of almost 45

years in the country turning farming as nonviable pursuit completely. These policies turned

peasants almost paupers. Who else is responsible for adopting the industrial route to

development in the country if not this party in power since 1947 and discriminating against

agriculture in terms of trade and wage structure? The Congress has neither accepted itsresponsibility so far, nor expressed regret for the same. The latest stance by its leader that there

is nothing wrong with the agreement on agriculture under WTO, it is only the faulty

implementation by the BJP led government is nothing short of its faithfulness to the policies

that ruined the peasantry so far. It is like being too clever to put curtain on its crime and a ruse to

absolve itself of the guilt.

Same is the position of Prakash Singh Badal or Kanwaljit Singh or O.P. Chautala while in power

and the like when they express doubts about WTO while pursuing industrial growth strategies as

dictated by World Bank and this organisation with such unconcealed zeal. The whole of

Gurgaon district in Haryana for example, is being placed at the disposal of these sharks at the

cost of its inhabitants, mainly displacing the peasants living there for centuries in exchange for

mere paper money that is depreciating every hour to serve exporters.

Those who reject subservience to WTO and this so-called National Agriculture Policy as ruinous

to peasantry must also reject this capital-based industrial strategy of development itself, if to

remain honest to logic. The central government has opened the gates for capital to take over

Indian agriculture, by courtesy of this policy. It is a blueprint for corporatisation of agriculture

and a sure path to ruin rural India, as America did to its millions on its path to industrial culture

of modernity without any sense of lament and shame.

The position of left political parties is no different. They happily followed the tail of Gowda-

Chidambaram duo during UF regime that pursued the same route with much zeal. Neither they


21/26

21

could save their principles nor BJP could be kept away from power! Their tragedy does not end

here. There is hardly any place for peasantry in their textbooks. Peasantry is to fade away in their

scheme, to give place to the proletariat. The status of an ally for the peasantry is a fine game of

jugglery when agriculture is considered a din of conservatism and backwardness. The theory that

pleads for dissolution of peasantry in service to industrialisation as a course of history is now too

naive to be retained after the sad experiment in erstwhile Soviet Union. Any one subscribing to

scientific reasoning after such a debacle in experimental exercise should have openly discarded

it. None of the kind has come from them so far. For now what they demand tactically is merelysome relief to peasants on this front. It is time they come out of this past.

Today traditional farming is a loosing pursuit for those who depend on family labour as their

main stay in this endeavour. In this high cost economy, being pursued zealously by the

government to serve trade, industry and service sectors, cost of production in agriculture is

constantly on rise while their gain is artificially depressed. One must question these premises of

high cost economy that bring ruin to the masses.

There is hardly any doubt left that what the government has embarked on doing will lead to sure

ruin of the peasantry and conversion of farming into a big business affair where rural India of

today have no place to breath. Paper money now will be the owner of lands instead of the tiller.

Peasants are destined to be converted into bonded labourers and then finally to be pushed into

dustbin of history as was the story of traditional peasant families in America and Australia.

Following this path agriculture production may rise for a while, once farming is taken over by

the moneybags. The government may also earn foreign exchange for the benefit of industrial and

commercial houses to finance their trade and life-style. But at what cost to the 80 per cent of the

population and for how long, one should tell this bare fact also. Capital-intensive agriculture is

no cure of the problem.Agriculture by nature is different from industry.The growth pattern

in agriculture is organic. It is qualitatively different from the exponential growth in commerce

and industry. It cannot be converted into industry for rapid growth without a disaster as erstwhile

Soviet Union experienced while Europe, America pass through periodic

Documents

MR-2004 Workshop on Agriculture