MARGINALISING MARGINALISED FARMING SECTOR

Vipul Divya

India lives in different periods/time zones- ancient, medieval and modern simultaneously. Ironically, India is also one of the largest economies of the world. Presently we are buying onion at 55per Kg and garlic at 260per Kg. Large-scale export of tomato to Pakistan to earn "handsome cash' is a significant reason for the shortage of tomato in domestic market of the national capital. Crop failure due to unseasonal rain is another reason. But, is the benefit of rise in price going to our farmers? This is not the only problem Indian farmers are facing. Displacement, debt, hunger, poverty etc. mars’ Indian farmers.

About 60-65% of India’s population is dependent (direct or indirect) on Agriculture, 52% of the labour force is employed in this sector, 14% in industry and 34% in service sector (as per 2009 data) but the contribution of agriculture in India’s GDP is less than 20% which is about 15% . Agriculture is the primary sector of Indian economy and agriculture along with the ancillary sectors like forestry, horticulture, and fishing employed over 50% of the country's total population. Although in the GDP the share of agriculture is constantly falling, still it remains the largest economic sector and plays a major role in the socio-economic development of India. In India the state governments are responsible for the output of agriculture and the financial policies are formulated by the central government. India is the largest producer in the world of milk, cashew nuts, coconuts, tea, ginger, turmeric and black pepper.

THE CAPITALISTIC AGENDA OF THE MANMOHAN GOVERNMENT AS ALSO OF PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UGLY FACE OF INDIAN MONSOON FAILS. THE CROP FAILS AND SO DOES THE RISE IN GDP. YET SO. THE GOVERNMENT IS AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING ITS CAPITALISTIC AGENDA.

The Finance Minister was disturbed by the fall in the stock exchange and elated when the stock exchange rose. The Reserve Bank, forgetting its responsibility for the agricultural and rural sector, started concentrating on what it considered to be its legitimate concern, namely, monetary policy and sound banking, mainly measured in terms of profit and loss. It is estimated that more than one-and-a-half lakh farmers committed suicide.

The coming years have evidenced widespread occurrence of farmers’ suicides in different parts of the country including not only the drought prone areas of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra but also a State of heavy rainfall like Kerala, as also a State like Punjab with large areas under irrigation. The main causes of suicide by farmers are the policies of the government which has lead to

» (i) growing expenditure, specially on bought inputs

» (ii) low productivity

» (iii) inadequate prices of agriculture produce

» (iv) difficulties in marketing and marketing hazards

 » (v) natural hazards caused by drought

 » (vi) absence of proper crop planning

 » (vii) unsatisfactory agriculture credit

 + (viii) accumulated burden of debt

And ultimately to suicide. It requires large public investment in irrigation and rural infrastructure, rejuvenation of the cooperative credit, marketing and processing system, strengthening of the agricultural extension services and sympathetic administration working closely with the farming community.

 Every time when election nears the ruling party announces to write off the loans of the farmers but it never happens. This year, the Manmohan Government is busy with Ambani’s, Tata’s and so on giving subsidy to them, de-regulating petroleum industry but is unable to give subsidy to the farmers on fertilisers, seeds.

In compare to the percentage of population engaged in agriculture, available land is much less. Even so government has shut his eyes to provide basic infra-structure to the farming sector. Except for a some states as Punjab, the canals available for irrigation is much less. Drip irrigation and other ways of irrigation are out of reach of small farmers. There is widespread unemployment or under-employment in this sector. Even so, the Government is acquiring fertile lands for constructing industries.

The Manmohan Government believes that a faster industrialization of India alone can address its persistent poverty, appears to be exceedingly fascinated by the situation in industrialized countries, particularly the US. The rich countries’ subsidies last year were higher than the previous year. Their total subsidies were equal to 22% of the farmers’ gross receipts. The US is among the biggest subsidizers among the rich nations. In fact, the population dependent on agriculture in the developed world is very small compared with the developing countries.

The land available per capita for farming in India is too low compared with countries like the US. For instance, the average holding of the US is 418 acres where as in India it is just 1.23 acres; 15.8 crore acres of farm land in India is distributed over 12.9 crore holdings. More pertinently, small-holder farmers dominate Indian agriculture before and after Independence we are evidencing fertile land acquisition for the purpose of industries etc. without giving a second thought about the peoples whose livelihood is dependent over it. As per Land Acquisition Act, land can only be acquired for the public purpose by the Government as authorized by law. But a number of projects which has no public purposes in the case of SBZs, usurped land at very cheap rates. The rehabilitation of displaced farmers never took place properly and it is ultimately the poor who pay the price of such development. If not the common people then Who will benefit from the Land Acquisition Act and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act: the people or corporate India? When has ‘land acquisition' ever been a people's agenda?

 The articulation of this problem of displacement, which has now assumed crisis proportion in the country, as merely a dispute between two parties with conflict of interest is flawed. What we are seeing here is systematic, not to mention forced, transfer of land and other resources from farmers, agricultural labourers, fish workers, tenants to profit making entities with the government acting as an intermediary.

 There has to be recognition that there has been historical injustice where millions of people have been displaced without any recognition of their rights and the government must bring out a white paper on the on Land Acquisition, Displacement and Rehabilitation for the last 60 years" said Ashok Chowdhary, leader of the National Forum for Forest People and Workers in his address at the protest meet.

It was in the backdrop of several local and national movements over two decades that a process of consultation began with the National Advisory Council (NAC) of the UPA's last tenure in 2005. The outcome was a comprehensive development policy document that looked at the key issues of displacement and rehabilitation and was to evolve into legislation. The critical elements of the NAC draft included a provision of prior informed consent of the 'gram sabha’ in the land acquisition process; challenging eminent domain and limiting the definition of 'public purpose’; land for land lost; and making rehabilitation available notwithstanding the number of displaced persons. The government however did a u-turn by introducing the National Rehabilitation Policy 2006 drafted by the Ministry of Rural Development which discarded the key principles that existed in the NAC draft. It is this policy that then took form of the R&R Bill 2007 with its twin bill that sought amendment in the LAA of 1894.

Apart from completely negating the consultative process that had taken place earlier these bills contained clauses that were entirely contrary to the objective of protecting the interests of the affected people. The amendment to the LAA 1894 seeks to expand the definition of public purpose' to enable acquisition for private parties for a variety of activities ranging from infrastructure projects to airports, mines or "any other purpose useful". "This is simply unacceptable because it strengthens eminent domain of the state that too for purely private interests and thus undermines the constitutional rights of the people

The most debatable clause of the LAA amendment requires that private entities directly purchase 70% of the land from the owners, after which the government will 'acquire' the rest under the provisions of the two acts. This has been made to sound fair but will create a new set of complications as the provisions, like social impact assessment (SIA) study and eligibility for R%R, ‘would only apply to 30% of the affected population whose land has been acquired by the state. This obviously means that the SIA is not really mandatory for the entire project and public opinion will not be a deciding factor in whether the project is socially feasible or acceptable

The 70:30 provision legitimizes land grab and seriously undermines existing legislations like  those on Land Ceiling or PESA that protect community rights over land.

Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Rural Development reviewed the two bills and presented its reports on both the bills to the Lok Sabha in October 2008 but there was little debate on them and recommendations from the report were not incorporated in the bills that the Lok Sabha passed in its March 2009 session. The bills could not clear the vote at the Rajya Sabha.

The farming sector is receiving step motherly treatment and it is no wonder food crisis in India is increasing and we have to import grains and other essential food items from other countries. India is nation where we cannot afford to neglect agriculture if we have to sustain such a big population and progress.

VIPUL DIVYA

403, Sreelaxmi Tower,

Magistrate Colony,

Doranda, Ranchi-2

Email ID:

vipuldivyal 99@gmail.com