AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF AGRARIAN SECTOR
By Dr. Aravind Sinha.
The agrarian question occupies an important place in the debates
that are going on among the economists, planners, historians and
other sociologists in our country today. The social thinkers and
analysts are expressing different views on the subject from the
angles of their own as ours is, in the main, an agrarian country and
the development of our society and the development of our country
cannot be expected without the development of agrarian sector.
Politically too, the debate and clash of ideas are continuing on
the issue because the political parties are required to clearly spell
out their agrarian policies to the people. There is a serious
controversy among the left parties and communist alliances on this is
issue. All of them placed their views, the agrarian policies before
the people in accordance with their own analysis and thinkings. More
importantly, it is curious to note that the debate among them is
taking place in the name of land reforms. The Communists and the
Socialist Parties had taken up the programmes of land reforms.
Different planners and intellectuals too had taken up and are talking
about the programmes for the development of agriculture and poverty
alleviation. This entire exercise is centered around the question,
what is the extent of surplus land. Similarly, their discussion is
centered around the purpose of Tenancy Act and the Minimum Wages Act
in the agrarian sector. The Land Reform Acts were enacted in many
parts of our country. While the congress had implemented the land
reforms in its own way, the socialist and left parties too had
implemented them in their own way. Even then, the poverty was not
eradicated in the villages. No where the development had reached
closer to the agrarian sector. Of course, there was some development,
indeed. But it was the zamindars and rich peasants who benefited most
from it. Even today, a major part of the people are in the vicious
circle of backwardness and crisis. Therefore, there is every need
today to review the past experiences of land reforms and understand
the reasons for the backwardness of agrarian sector. There is need to
understand why the development of agrarian sector still remains an
unresolved question.
The main reason for the failure of the advocated or implemented
land reforms lie in the fact that the land reform programmes were so
far viewed in total separation from the ruling system and the
socio-economic plans of the country. It is exactly at this point the
limitations of parliamentary left parties too become clear. This is
the point where even the pundits fail in their analyses and attempts.
Any land reform programmes in the present socio-economic and
political system, how so ever revolutionary they might appear to be,
would ultimately be useful only to strengthen the capitalist ruling
system existing today. The big capitalist and imperialist forces
alone are cornering the benefits of agricultural production with the
help of their control over the market system. Together with them, the
corrupt and bribe taking personnel and the anti people officialdom
are looting the common people in the villages by employing various
illegal methods.
The revolutionary land reforms in some areas of the country can
free the land from the land lords and the developed capitalists in
the villages and give the same to the poor peasants. As a result of
this, there would be some growth in the productivity of land. Yet,
the capitalist class and the bureaucracy through their control over
the administration, the political leaders, mafia, contractors who
joined themselves in syndicates are swallowing the loins share of
those products by dint of their control over the market. As a
consequence, no worthwhile change is seen in the conditions of poor
and landless peasants. Therefore, in the face of these conditions, it
is very much necessary to see and understand the land reforms from
the angle of administrative power and from the angle of market
system. In the present system, an all round development of agrarian
sector is not possible. Similarly, improving the lot of toiling
people and poor peasants is not possible. They cannot also get the
rights whatsoever. Therefore, we must the land reforms keeping in
view the comprehensive development of peasants and agricultural
labor, the present system of rule and the control of the general
masses of people over the market.
2. Europe -Centered Analysis – Indian conditions:
In this context, no one has paid attention to one important point.
It is an historic fact that our country was in the enslavement of
British rulers for nearly 200 years. Our analysis was base on the
historic materialist view point developed by Marx in the content of
Europe. The neo Marxist thinkers and the Communist leaders had tried
to see the Indian history from the lenses of European history.
Analyzing the European history, Marx said that the society had
developed in the order of Primitive Communist Society, Slave Society
and the Capitalist Society. He pointed out that these were the stages
of social development. Many mistakes were committed because of the
mechanical application of these historic stages of development of
society to India and the attempt to understand the Indian Society. In
Europe, the capitalist class led the democratic revolution against
the feudal system. As a result, the societies there had transformed
into capitalist societies. In India, the same capitalist class had
defeated the feudal classes and established the British Empire. Since
then, India continue as a colony for nearly 200 years. The need did
not arise in European Society to reach or pass through these stages.
For this reason, there is need for us to look in to the worst
consequences of colonization of our country to understand the present
situation.
3. A Comparative Analysis Of The Indian and European
Societies:
The same capitalist class which crushed the feudal forces in its
own country Britain and developed the productive forces and
production in agricultural and industrial sectors along the
capitalist lines and established the colonial system in India that
suited its exploitation and oppression by colluding itself with the
feudal forces instead of destroying them. For their own interests,
the British capitalist class had linked the international market
system to the feudal system in India and saw to it that the Indian
situation is transformed into semi feudal and semi colonial
relations. Through its colonial policy, it robbed the enormous wealth
in India and took it away to England. It has exercised the monopoly
over the trade here. It caused a serious destruction to the cottage
industry in India. Not only this, it colluded with the feudal classes
in India. It worked with totally destroying the local productive
forces in India rather than developing them. There is no need for us
now to more deeply dwell on these questions. But we must correctly
understand that our society was reduced to the present ugly state as
a consequence of the Colonial exploitation. The Indian society which
had emerged and stands before us since the departure of British is in
no way comparable with any social system in Europe. Not only this,
The Indian Society had taken a form different from what it existed
here earlier. Neither it developed into a capitalist society as was
the case with the capitalist systems in Europe nor the feudal system
here is a adoption of feudal system that existed in the Western
Countries.
There exists no idea of “competition” in the capitalist system
that came into vogue here to speed up the capitalist development.
Similarly, it also does not contain the nature of transforming the
semi feudal relations into capitalist production relations. There is
nothing here like the fast developing productive forces.
On the other side, the landlord classes here could not cherish the
feelings of respect enjoyed by the rulers ( because, the British
Empire had reduced them into their puppets). In the same way, there
existed no enthusiasm and interest among them towards the political,
economic and social factors. The life as the British Slaves for
nearly 200 years and their exploitation and oppression on common
people had turned the mental state of feudal classes here into
parasitic and reactionary one.
In England, the land lord classes gave priority to develop the
market system, and to transform and develop the agriculture and
feudalism into a capitalist system. In this process, it had to
displace the peasantry from the land and compel them to migrate to
the cities as laborers. But this process had played an important
role in the development of capitalism there.
As Mao assessed the Chinese situation, the big capitalists in
China play the role of imperialist compradors. As compared to China,
the big capitalists and the land lord classes in our country had bent
themselves more subserviently many times. The same sorry state
continues even today.
4. Agrarian Problems in India after the 'Independence':
We must understand the agrarian problems today only in this
historical background. Since the Britishers had transferred power in
1947 there are serious controversies on the question of agrarian
policy. The zamindars and other landlord classes (they include the
erstwhile Rajahs too) wished not only to retain their
economic,political and social statues intact, but also to get proper
recognition for the same. The princes and Estates had come only
reluctantly under the control of Indian Govt. The big capitalists –
who were compradors wished the development of capitalism in
agriculture but without hurting their feudal allies. On the other
side, the overwhelming masses of workers and peasants, who had come
from the dalits and backward classes wished a total destruction of
semi feudal production relations. In these conditions the protests of
peasants and agriculture labor had erupted in various areas of the
country. In many areas, they had taken the form of serious movements.
Tebhag, Telangana movements, the peasant revolts in Manipur and
Tripura are some important instances of them. A serious thinking of
leading the society towards socialism was inherent in these peasant
movements.
The
parties such as Swatantra Party, Jana Sang (old name of BJP) and
Congress represented the interests of landlord, bourgeoisie classes.
The Communist, Socialist and Left Parties stood by the working class
and peasants and provided the leadership to the anti feudal
struggles. There is also serious anger at the pseudo democracy and
caste discrimination. It manifested in the streams of thought
represented by Dr. Ambedkar and Ram Manohar Lohia. Zamindari system
was abolished as a result of peasant movements led by the left
forces. The debate on the land reforms gained momentum. In many
areas, right in 1950s, the land reform laws were enacted. Frightened
by the waves of peasant movements that spread like a priare fire
after the 1967 Naxalbari Revolt, the big Bourgeoisie led by Indira
Gandhi had announced several land reforms. Abolition of Privy purses
too was only a part of these moves. The Land Ceiling Acts and Minimum
Wages Acts were promulgated through out the country. Along with them
came Garibi Hatao, socialism and such like slogans. The
Nationalization of Banks and Coal mines were brought. Internally, CPI
and internationally the Soviet Union too lauded these moves of Indira
Gandhi as an advance towards socialism. They had created the illusion
that the dream of toiling people about Socialist system was becoming
a reality before their own eyes by peaceful means. They did not stop
at this. They declared that the semi feudal relations had disappeared
in agriculture. Yet, the protests of peasants and agriculture labor
are continuing even today in the agrarian sector under the leadership
of revolutionary parties and other left parties.
5. A
Trishanku Socio-Economic Planning:
Even after 60 years since the Britishers had left our country we
are faced with the conditions where social classes and political
forces are continuing today. The rulers here are not at all in a
position to claim successes in the implementation of their policies.
We can not also say that the people had achieved the development
aspired by them. The present situation is oscillating somewhere in
the middle. The agrarian sector had not, to any extent, changed into
a capitalist system. The production in the rural areas is not taking
place in big capitalist farms with the use of modern technology and
machines. This is one example for this. The land had not come into
the hands of the tillers in our country as demanded in the slogan,
“land to the tiller”. The agrarian revolution is not yet
powerful. As a result the toiling people did not gain power by the
overthrowing the present system.
The ruling class is not so powerful as to be able to impose a
fascist rule.
5. 1: Petty Mode of Production System:
There is need to carefully and properly analyze and understand the
trishanku socio-economic situation prevailing in the country. This
petty mode of production is one important form of this trishanku
system. Small holdings in the agrarian sector had come into the hands
of small and poor peasants under the pressure of powerful peasant
movements and land reforms. The need of growing population also had
speed ed up the process of decentralization of land. Marx said that
the production even in this system was based on the fragmentation of
land into tiniest holdings. Moreover, he analyzed that the production
even in this system was based on the fragmentation of land into
tiniest holdings. Moreover, he analyzed that the method such as this
will be in vogue only where the old production relations are still in
existence.(Capital. Vol.1, P713)
He pointed out that this production system had continued at a time
when the feudal system was on its death bed in London. In no time,
these production systems which were the remnants of feudal system got
destroyed and the capitalist production system had replaced them. Now
the feudal systems seems to be in a declined and moribund state. At
the same time, a most serious state of struggle between the
capitalist-imperialist forces for economic and social progress is
before us. As a result, the semi feudal production relations continue
to exist even today. But this system in the production is a remnant
of it.
According to the Center of Monitoring Indian Academy, July 1996,
and the statistics of 8
th, 26
th and 37
th
rounds of study conducted by the NSS, there were 51.64 percent of land
holdings of less than 5 acres throughout the country in 1953-54. The
total land under such holdings was 3 crores, 39 lakhs and 56 acres.
This land constituted only 16.71 percent of total agricultural land
in the country. The number of land holdings of this kind had gone up
to 8 crores, 24 lakhs and 68 thousands in 1990-91,i.e., after about
40 years. Their entire land had gone up to 13 crores, 32 lakhs, 92
thousands and 500 acres. This land constituted 32.2 percent in the
entire agricultural land in the country. It means that the number of
holdings of less than 5 acres had phenomenally grown in the course of
time in the last nearly agricultural land in their possession too had
increase more than the double.
In the same way, if we include even those with 10 acres holdings
in small and marginal production system, we find that their number in
1953-54 was 4 crores, 23 lakhs, 59 thousands.(64.57 percent of the
entire number). The agricultural land in their possession was 11
crores, 15 lakhs and 60 thousand acres(this was 36 percent in the
total agricultural land ). These figures had gone up by 1990-91 from
9 crores, 59 lakhs, 81 thousand acres of holdings(91.2 percent) and
the agricultural land was 20 crores, 91 lakhs, 67 thousands and 500
acres(54.5 percent).
5. 2: Three Parts of Small and Marginal Agricultural Production
System:
The state of small production is clear from the above statistics.
India can be divided into three parts on a broader basis in the light
of production systems in agriculture. Part one: The area developed
because of the use of capitalist methods of production. The dominance
of capitalist system in the relations of production can be said to be
the agricultural areas of this type. Part two: The capitalist
methods are used in these areas, but they are still surrounded by the
semi feudal relations of production. Part three: Areas where
different adivasi communities and other adivasis are continuing to
pursue the age old methods of production. But we can notice in most
of these areas can admixture of three methods in varying ratios. At
the same time, we must keep in mind that one or other of these three
methods being dominant in the main. Punjab, Haryana, Western UP,
Gujarat, some developed areas of Maharashtra and coastal areas of AP
come under the areas of first type. Bihar, greater part of land in
UP, MP, Rajastan, etc. , come under the second type of production
method. Bihar, MP, Odisha, WB and Jharkhand areas, forest and tribal
areas of AP Maharashtra, greater part of North East come under the
third type of production method.
After a stage, the Green revolution came to a halt. As a result,
the rate of capitalist mode of production had also slowed down. We
have a criteria to judge whether an area is capitalistically
developed area or a backward one. In the developed areas, it is the
big farmers who take the land from the small and marginal farmers on
lease. But in the areas where the semi feudal relations of production
are in vogue it is the small and marginal farmers who take the land
on lease from the landlords. We can also notice that the labor from
the areas of backward production relations migrating to the developed
areas in search of work. In the academic language, these developed
areas are also called as the areas of 'labor exploitation'. Such a
migration of 'labor exploitation' areas especially for the unskilled
jobs will be taking place in agrarian sector as well as other
unorganized job sectors.
Those who think that the capitalist mode of development is playing
a dominant role in the present agrarian sector argue that the land
less poor labor are in greater number in the villages. Such a thing
happens only when the capitalist production system had developed.
Therefore, they argue that the capitalist production system is
dominant in our country. But here one important point must be taken
note of. In our country, a social system linked with the caste system
is well entrenched in the villages. As a result, since ages, there
existed the landless labor in the villages. They were being used not
only for other services but also, at times, as and when needed for
agricultural work. After the Britishers came to India, the rural
cottage industries faced a closure as a consequence of their colonial
policy. As a result except in agriculture, the number of laboring
people were come down to a great extent in rest of other sectors.
As per the study of Amiyakumar Bagchi, the number of workers
employed in the cottage industries in some districts of Bihar in
1809-1901 had came down from 18.6 percent to 8.5 percent. The
laboring masses who lost work in their own sectors were forcibly
turned into agricultural sector. Similarly, the study made by Dharma
Kumar in in South India point out that the peasants and agricultural
labors who were 15.17 percent of the entire population had grown into
27-27 percent by the end of 19th century. From these facts, we can
realize that it is not correct to say that the number of peasants and
agricultural labor in the villages had grown up only because of
capitalist development in agriculture. Our agrarian sector is not
developing fully from the angle of capitalist production system and
owing to the imperialist loot, these two are at the root of present
situation.
Those who argue that the capitalist method of production had
gained an upper hand in out agricultural production say in support of
their argument that the agricultural production in our is tuned
particularly to the market system. They argue that the production in
accordance with the market means the agriculture had, in the main,
transformed into a capitalist production system. But it must be noted
in this context that except a fistful of capitalists, zamindars,
landlords and rich peasants, rest of the majority of peasants in the
agricultural production, in reality, are producing for the purpose
of their own consumption. But owing to the difference between the
old, nature based economic system and todays economic system, the
peasants who were earlier exchanging the products of their labor with
the locally produced consumer goods (cloth, shoe, medicines etc..)and
thus utilizing the fruits of their labor locally, today, when the
conditions of entire society are linked with the market, the peasants
are forced to sell away a part of the grain produced by them to buy
the goods ( produced by the modern industries ) needed by then. Thus
the present capitalist market system acts like an intermediary in the
distribution and utilization of the agricultural products and the
industrial goods. With the control of this market system and
unevenness in the utilization the big capitalists in the country and
the foreign countries will be subjecting the agrarian sector to
excessive plunder. Therefore, the role of capitalist production
system in the agrarian sector is extremely limited. As a result, this
sector is not yet mechanized. No big capitalist agricultural farms
had developed in the country.
In the agricultural fields of adivasis, the adivasis are required
to sell a part of the crop produced by them in the market to meet
their requirements. They are also required to sell the forest produce
(herbs, plants used in the preparation of medicines, etc) collected
by them in the market. They buy the goods needed by them. Can we say
this that the adivasis are having the capitalist relations of
production?. The global marketing system under the imperialism today
is showing its Vishwaroop by making the undeveloped or just
developing economic systems in all areas an integral part and merging
them in itself. Through the unequal utilization thus emerged, the
world market system is subjecting the various societies and economic
systems to ruthless exploitation. The world market economy is of the
nature of obstructing the economic development of developed
countries. Not only this; it stagnates those countries with in the
frame of their own economic and social backwardness. Therefore, it
will be a grave mistake to say that taking a portion of agricultural
produce to the market is a pointer to the capitalist production
system gaining an upper hand in the agrarian sector. We may also
notice the capitalist mode of development coming up as a small island
in the midst of the undeveloped areas surrounding it as an ocean. But
there is no need to give undue importance to it.
6. Difference Between the European and Indian Feudalism:
In order to understand the Indian situation, especially the
agrarian situation, it is necessary to understand some of the
specific features of Indian feudal system. It is definitely different
from the European feudal system. The feudal system in our country had
been continuing since past in the form of feudal oppression,
collection of Levies from the peasants and in the form of collection
of exorbitant taxes from the landed property. In the period of Mughal
rule, the officials under the king were given the largest areas of
Jagirs. Such officials were called as Jagirdars or Munsabs. The word
Munsab was a pointer to their status in the feudal system. Every
Munsab was being paid a definite amount of salary. It was called
“jath”. Similarly, they were taking the number of horse riders in
the army into consideration. The king was determining their number
and salary. The king was changing the areas under a jagirdar and
Munsab. They had the power only to collect the taxes and maintain the
armies. They had nothing to do with the local administration. The
jurisdictions of local administration are called as Circars and
Paraganas. It was the king who was deciding and appointing both of
them. Thus, in the Mughal darbar, there existed a feudal officialdom
(as in Europe) which had no right whatsoever over the land. They were
getting a share in the taxes and other collections from the peasants
by dint of the position they enjoyed from their post and powers. 445
Munsabs who occupied the highest position in the Mughal darbar wee
getting 61 percent of the total income deposited in the Mughal
treasury. Among them, just 68 princes and other family members were
getting 36.6 percent. 7553 Munsabdars down below taken together were
getting only 25-30 percent from the Govt.s' income. The income of
each one of them was less than 500 Jaths.(Ref: Essays in Indian
History – Irfan Habib, P.97). As DD Kosambi said, the feudalism in
India was imposed from above and established from below.
Those from the influential castes, classes and other prominent
family men in different areas and concerned areas, by consolidating
their own authorities were acquiring the power from the Munsabs to
collect the land revenues and taxes in their areas. This class had
established itself as zamindars. Buying and selling of zamindars was
also taking place in this period. However , it does not mean the
buying and selling the lands. It was only the “power” to collect
taxes on behalf of the king that was open for buying and selling. The
right over the land remained with the peasants alone. Clashes were
taking place between the communities of castes and classes in
accordance with their local influences. The old powerful communities
were being replaced by the powerful communities. This process is
continuing.
The division among the different castes is another special feature
of Indian society. In this system, the work division is based on
castes in the society. As a result, those belonging to the upper
castes are subjecting the toiling people of the backward classes to
economic exploitation. This exploitation of labor was not happening
in accordance with the social religious and Dharma beliefs. As a
consequence, the exploiting system continues intact despite the fall
of Empires and Kingdoms.
The Indian feudalism is undoubtedly different from the European
feudalism. Because, in England and other European countries, the
landlords were cultivating the large areas of lands through the
peasants who were their serfs and enjoying the entire crop they
produced. They alone had the right over the cultivated land. Only a
smallest piece of land which was enough to take their life was being
given to these serf peasants. Through their policy of “permanent
settlement”, the Britishers sought to establish that kind of
feudalism in India. We are still paying the price for this. By dint
of British domination, the sale and purchase, i.e., market system was
imposed on the land.
7. Bihar Situation:
An analysis of Bihar society is enough to understand the situation
of backward areas in our country. Let us examine its nature. Here the
agriculture is in a backward state. The main reason for this, the
cultivation is not due in big agricultural farms. Most of the
peasants are suffering serious losses because of floods and droughts.
Overwhelming masses of peasants and labor are deep in the quagmire of
debts. In a civil society enmeshed in backwardness they are bonded
with the money lenders and other rich in the villages. As a
consequence of the situation created by the combination of all these
conditions, they are locked in the frame of powerful wealthy classes
in the villages and in the semi feudal socio -economic relations. In
their efforts to free themselves from these shackles, more than 50
lakh labor in Bihar left their own areas, migrated to other states to
sell away their labor there and thus turned themselves into migrant
labor. The semi feudal exploitation against the poor and landless
peasants is continuing even now in several forms in the villages. The
tenancy system, low wages, exorbitant rates of exploitation is
continuing against the labor engaged in cultivation in few pockets
where the capitalist methods had developed to an extent. As we
already noted, the capitalists and imperialist forces are subjecting
the peasants engaged in agriculture production to serve exploitation
by using their control over the market system. The same classes are
exercising their control over the consumer goods and the goods that
are used in the agricultural activities(seeds, fertilizers, etc.). A
small portion of wealth thus amassed through the Govt. for the
development of agriculture sector is being used through the Govt. for
the development of agriculture and the improvement of living
conditions of the peasants. But the political leaders, officials,
contractors and mafia who are freely indulging in various scams and
corrupt schemes distributing this money among themselves by
manipulating these schemes. These classes formed a nexus to loot the
Govt. money. Again, it is usual for the same people joining together
to suppress the people who raise their voice against this unbearable
exploitation. The social classes having a hold over the local Govt.
are gobbling a loins share of this loot. It had become quite normal
today for them to mobilize the people from their own castes and
communities, utilize the services of goondas and other anti-social
forces and win the elections. Once elected, they are freely engaging
themselves in looting the Govt.s money with the help of corrupt
officials, contractors and criminal gangs. In Bihar, they had
developed a full-scale exploiting system for themselves. This
exploitation had reached every nook and corner. The exploitation of
this kind is more rampant in Bihar than in all other areas. The
reason for this lies in the backwardness of people of these areas
more than of the people in any other area. Fodder scam is one example
for this. Together with this, a big number of political leaders,
helped by the criminals like the rowdies and goondas are massively
collecting money from the traders, industrialists, peasants,
shopkeepers and persons in different professions (doctor, engineers,
etc.). Kidnapping for money had become a fetching profession today.
These looters are able to do this freely because they are not
required not only to fear about Govt. and police but also are
protected by them. The political leaders and the Govt. officials are
getting their own shares in this loot.
8. State Feudalism
This process which is combined with the exploitation and
oppression is also a form of feudalism. Those belonging to the upper
castes had begun the feudalism of state when they were exercising the
hold. Later, those from backward classes had also further hastened it
when they came to power. The semi feudal process of exploitation can
be called as the state feudalism. But when viewed directly, the
question arises, what is the place of this class in the agricultural
production system? This is the result of viewing the feudalism with
an Eurocentric approach. Basing itself on the caste, the feudal
system is still maintaining its hold in our country. Mao said that
the new form of its continuity, the influence of ideas and culture
also creates the class. It is proved in this case.
Mao said, “the capitalist system had come to an end as a result
of Socialist Revolution in China. But, capitalism still exists in the
society as well as inside the Communist Party in the form of ideas.”
He also said that the contradiction between the proletariat and the
capitalist class is the principal contradiction in China and it
manifests and continues itself inside the party in the form of clash
between the socialist ideas and capitalist ideas. At the time of
Cultural Revolution, Mao also warned that the capitalist system will
be restored in China if the people fail to get rid off the capitalist
system and culture from their ideas. The contemporary history is a
witness to the correctness of what Mao had apprehended. Today, a
powerful capitalist class got itself reestablished in China.
Similarly, a new feudal class had emerged in our country too under
the influence of feudal ideas, culture and caste system. The feudal
system which was pushed out from the land and caste by the Left,
Naxalites and Lohiaites had taken this new form. Ultimately, it is
the peasants and the toiling masses of rural poor who suffer most
from the exploitation and oppression of this new form. Because, the
entire process is only taking place within the frame of capitalist
system. Therefore, it is taking the form of a semi feudal system.
There is need to analyses and understand this process more deeply and
formulate a way to struggle against it. But this way can be found
only when view that agrarian question from the above mentioned
approach.
This Article is Published in All India Workers, Peasants and Agricultural Labor Sammelan Souvenir.
********************************************************************************
