For many decades we haven't witnessed anything like the ongoing farmers struggle, aimed at repeal of the three farm laws enacted by the Union Government. This struggle which originated in Punjab has spread to some other states as well. The massive demonstration staged at several entry-points along the borders of Delhi is now six hundred days old when this goes for publication. In spite of the severe repression of the state including the brutal lathi-charge and use of water cannons, the atrocities of the BJP goons, the designs and arbitrary arrests of Delhi Police in the midst of Delhi's extremely adverse weather- none have been able to reduce or take away the steam of the movement. Also the ploy of the Modi Government to allure some farmers' organisation in order to create rift was not met with success. On the contrary farmers and peasants in several thousands are continuing with their dharnas. Women in huge numbers breaking their domestic shackles are taking part in the movement. Many have laid down their lives. Despite all these, they stand firm on one and only demand - 'We will not return until the laws are repealed' (Kanoon wapas nahi toh ghar wapsi nahi).
The BJP on returning to power in 2019 with absolute majority under the leadership of Modi, has unleashed wanton attack on the people at large in the name of 'Economic Reforms'. These reforms are without doubt in the interest of Imperialist and domestic big capital. Compared to the previous term in office this time it is being done with more intensity and aggression. All the existing labour laws have been revoked in favour of newly enacted four labour laws. This new labour code has curtailed the (whatever little) labour rights that were previously enjoyed by the working class. Unbridled rights including 'Hire and Fire' have been handed over to the capitalists. Many state owned companies barring a handful are being sold to private players. Subsidy on electricity will be reduced and electricity charges will be enhanced. A new bill regarding this is underway. All these only pave the way for handing over different sectors of the economy to Imperialist and monopoly domestic capital. The list is pretty long. Quite a bit has been done. More is in waiting for the future. The imperialist and domestic big bourgeoisie with a constant eye on the list of the 'Job done' till now are exhorting the government to hurry up for completion of what remains.
The opening up of the agricultural sector to these Imperialist and monopoly domestic capital is a very important step in this aggressive mission of the ruling class. Or to be specific - it is actually not merely 'opening up' but 'further opening up' of the agricultural sector. For, during the last three decades, the agricultural sector has already been under the process of gradual opening up. This time it aims to do the job at a pace of a bullet train instead of that of a much slower ox-cart, or utmost a horse driven one. However in its present endeavour it is confronted with stiff resistance hitherto inexperienced and unexpected also. The farmers have undauntedly alighted on the arena to oppose the assault undertaken in the interest of the foreign and domestic big capitalists by the government. As a result this struggle has become a big headache for the government. The BJP, along with the big businesses are deeply concerned that if the present struggle is able to forestall the onslaught then it may inspire the other disgruntled sections of the society as well. In view of this they are hell bent to suppress this movement. The proletariat - confronting the same kind of assault of the central government unleashed in the interest of imperialist and domestic big capital, like the farmers, should definitely stand beside the present struggle of the farmers. But the key questions that have arisen are - what should be the nature of the support of the advanced section of the proletariat and apart from mere solidarity, the necessity of what sort of crucial role of the proletariat is being brought to the forefront by the present farmers' struggle.
What Are The Contents Of These Three Farm Laws?
So much have been discussed about the three farm laws in the recent months, that people are more or less aware of them (in this connection interested reader may go through the article published in The FAPP's website http://www.foraproletarianparty.in/fapp/english/Agricultural_bills_English.jsp under the caption - "Modi Government's New Farm Laws - Whose Interest Will They Serve?". But still in the interest of the present discourse we will briefly go through the main points of the laws in question.
MANDI BYPASS LAW
The law which has created furore and is being resisted to its utmost is related to the marketing of farm products. It goes under the name of 'Farmers' Produce Trade & Commerce Act'. In short this can also be termed as Mandi Bypass Act, because it empowers the capitalists to purchase farm produce from regions, as per their choice & convenience bypassing the existing Government regulated Mandis. In contrast to the rules of Government Mandis the capitalists are not compelled to buy at MSP. In addition they are exempted from paying taxes to the concerned state governments. Over the last two decades there have been several changes concerning this law at state levels conducive to the capitalists. This can be seen with the increasing presence of big houses like ITC, Reliance, Adani, Birlas and other domestic and foreign companies in the farm produce markets. The present law of the Central Government will only speed-up the above trend. The Corporates-big capitalists, by the strength of their monopoly position, will themselves determine the purchase price from farmers, hoard them, and sell them in the domestic or international market to reap huge profit. All intra-state marketing restrictions have been done away with, so as to allow for unhindered trade throughout the entire country. Organisations like 'Farmers Producer Organisations' (FPO) are being built up - who will collect the crops from small peasants in order to hand over to big capitalists. Without any doubt this law has been created to establish the firm and absolute control of the domestic and foreign big capital over the farm produce in the country.
CONTRACT FARMING LAW
Another law concerning contract farming has been passed, which goes under the name of 'Farmers' (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Farm Prices &Farm Services Act'. It is certainly not the first of its kind which provided a scope of contract farming. Several states had some provisions of it within Mandi laws. Probably only one state (Punjab) had a separate law regarding it. While the law described earlier in this writing has provided opportunity to the Corporates to get hold of the agricultural produce and make profit from it, the new law provides them scope to enter into the very heart of agricultural production. Initially, with the help of this law, they will be able to make the peasants cultivate agricultural produce of their choice at prices decided by them. Through this they will bring the farmers under their control. For this also the 'Farmers Producer Organisations' will be utilised by the big Corporates. These organisations are 'Independent farmer co-operatives' merely in name. They will serve the interests of the big capital. Apprehensions are not at all unfounded that though the big capitalists will at first bring together the small peasants under the Contract Farming Law and make them cultivate as per their dictates but eventually they will grab those lands and start organising cultivation by themselves. Probably the peasants, driven by their compulsion to eke out a living, will be converted into farm labourers under their control. Recently some NRIs residing in USA, have conducted extensive studies on the condition of agricultural in the US. Their experiences starkly reveal how the big Corporates have compelled the small peasants to sell-off their plots of land. Most of those peasants are now farm labourers in their own land. In the words of the writer - "Unsurprisingly, Big Ag (Big Agro-businesses) gobbled it up, as landless farmers started toiling under onerous contract farming terms. Giant corporations used financial clout to control the market, depress farm-gate prices, buy infrastructure for a song and raise costs to a point where small farms became unsustainable". (How 'Big Ag' ate up America's small farms, Bedabrata Pain, Times of India, Kolkata Edition, March 8, 2021)
REVISION OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT
This particular act conclusively proves that the government has no intention of improving the conditions of the peasants through these laws. The revisions brought about in this law will not only cause havoc to the poor peasants but the working class and the great majority of the toiling mass will suffer as well. Two revisions have been brought. The first one states that, only under severe or extreme conditions viz drought, war, extreme rise in prices or natural calamity the government will intervene to ensure the supply of essential commodities. This unambiguously confirms that under normal situation government will cease to ensure the supply of essential commodities. What does this signify? Previously the government attempted to regulate prices by ensuring the supply of food grains through increase in imports or plugging exports. Of course, our experiences do testify to the fact that such efforts were not always successful. Sometimes the oil price soars in uncontrolled manner while some other time the price of onions soar high going through the roof. But now the government is categorical - it will not try to regulate prices. The second revision is, the government will not deter the traders anymore to store or hoard agricultural produce. The cap on storage has been removed. The government will only interfere in the market if the prices of perishable food grains increase by 100% and that of non-perishable food crops increase by 50%. When read in combination with the other two acts, there remains hardly any doubt that the government has created a situation whereby the big capital will be able to buy from the farmers at a low price, store them at their will and then releases them in the market when there is scarcity, to fetch huge profits.
The government proclaims these reforms are in the interest of the farmers. Strange enough! Can the poor peasant afford to hold on to their produce for a long time so as to earn fat profits by releasing them at the time of high demand? It is amply clear that the law has been enacted for the big Corporates who have the power to buy the agricultural produce at a low price during harvesting season, store them, and release them during scarcity in the market to reap huge profits. It means from now on, the big Corporates will assume the same role of gambling with crops, which is now being played by the traders and hoarders. To some extent the rich peasants who produce in large amounts and have the capacity of holding on to the produce, can also be benefitted by this law.
Thus it is amply clear that these three laws will only serve the interests of the domestic and imperialist capitalists engaged in the agricultural sector, who will eventually capture the agricultural sector.
A Programme of the Ruling Class, Not Of Modi Government
The protests arising from the opposition parties, bourgeois economists, social workers as also the struggling farmers, are voicing their opposition to the 'Modi government's' agriculture laws! Many are targeting the 'Two Corporate Friends' of Modi, namely Ambani and Adani, which makes it appear that these laws have been done exclusively for their interest only. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is certainly not the agenda of the Modi government itself but of the ruling class. The entire policy is inextricably linked with the Imperialist capital and the domestic big capitalists dependent on them. This is not to serve the interests of Ambani and Adani only. Directly or indirectly, the interests of the whole class of big capitalists are being served with these reforms.
Neither has the plan for such laws been formulated in recent times, nor did it start since Modi came to power in 2014. Rather the plan for it was going on for more than twenty years. Twice Model Acts were rolled out in 2003 and 2017 urging the state governments to reorient their Farm Acts in line with the interests of the big capitals. In this the earlier Congress government at the centre, the earlier BJP government took initiative and several state governments made changes in their state laws. But all these were being implemented at snail's pace and to varied extents in different states. That snail's pace was not at all liked by the big bourgeoisie. The Modi government has done this with a single, decisive blow. They have wrested controls from the states to the Union government and unleashed the assault in its totality in one go, with the sole objective of hastening the capture of the agricultural economy of the country as a 'whole' by the Corporate capital. One will fail to appreciate the significance of these policies when viewed through a narrow lens of just holding the Modi government responsible for all this. Assigning the Modi government responsible solely for this will inevitably make us think that merely removing the Modi government from power will be suffice to get rid of these policies. That will be an utter delusion. Such thinking will lead the dissension and struggle against these reforms to a struggle for mere change of government, which will ultimately strengthen the hands of the ruling classes. As when the masses will get involved in such struggle for change of government the plans of the ruling classes will continue unabated, keeping the governments as a façade in front.
Two Significant Points
It is necessary to understand the entire design of the ruling classes. May be we need a deeper probe. But we will confine our discussion to what is understandable at present. But before going into it we will discuss two important points, briefly.
1) IS THE WORD FARMER SYNONYMOUS WITH PEASANT?
In government laws, documents, press, electronic media and analyses related to this, the word 'farmers' is being used to mean peasants. The question is, does farmer mean peasant? In Marxist literature, a person who tills his own land has always been termed as peasant and not farmer. Even in India till the decades of sixties and seventies of the last century the bourgeois periodicals termed the tiller of the land as peasant. What is the problem in using the term farmer instead of peasant? There exists distinct difference between the two. A farmer is one who owns an agricultural farm. The farmer may work on his farm. At the same time, it may also happen that without engaging themselves in cultivation work they may only engage labourers for cultivation. Can such an owner who recruits labourers for 100% cultivation work without themselves putting in their labour in any way be called a peasant? Definitely not. This is so because the very word peasant means a person who tills the land and thus puts in his labour for cultivation. In fact as long as they worked under the Zamindars or the Jotedars they were called peasants. The word farmer came in vogue from the Seventies of the previous century, a period, marked by the advent of the demands of - raising the price of crops, irrigation facilities etc, replacing the struggle against the exploitation of the Zamindar class. In the present struggle (as in similar movements of the past) there is a section, whatever be their size, represent a powerful group who possess large land holdings. The sheer size of their holding makes it impossible, to cultivate by their own labour. They carry on with the production entirely by employing labourers. They can't be called peasants. Isn't it appropriate to term them as 'capitalist landlords' or 'capitalist farmers'? They are also owners of their farm-produce and they sell their produce in the market. Hence they will also be affected by these laws. Apart from this, there is another powerful section, the section of rich peasants. They also possess large holdings and employ large number of labourers. But they differ from the earlier section by the fact that they are peasants, which means they put in their own labour also in cultivation. Thus it goes without saying, that like the former section the latter also acts as exploiters mainly of the agricultural labourers in the rural regions. To quote Mao-Tse-Tung "The rich peasant generally has rather more and better instruments of production and more liquid capital than the average and engages his own labour, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income." ("How To Differentiate The Classes in the Rural Areas", 1933).
This movement comprises of small peasants (who directly tills the land on their own and are not involved in exploitation of others) as well as rich peasants and 'capitalist landlords/farmers. The latter sections are not merely present; they are also in a very prominent role leading from the front. They are the sellers of major part of their produce in the market and are involved largely in selling their produce to the government at MSP. Hence they are the most vociferous section against the abolition of MSP, demanding increase in MSP. Although they have assembled together with the small/middle peasants in the present movement it must be recognised that their interests are not the same. Otherwise the proper viewpoint or role of the proletariat cannot be determined.
2) WHY THIS MOVEMENT IS RESTRICTED IN SOME OF THE STATES?
The movement against the three farm laws which originated in Punjab has now spread to Haryana, Western UP and parts of Rajasthan. Also representatives from the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are participating. But the movements in these states are not as intense and vast as in Punjab, Haryana or western UP. In some other states the influence of this movement is still less. The government and the pro-government bourgeois economists are of the opinion - that this is a movement of the peasants of Punjab and Haryana alone because these are the states from where a substantial amount of government procurement of crops take place at MSP and for that reason farmers are so much vocal against abolition of Mandis. This is definitely one of the reasons behind the participation of the farmers of Punjab and Haryana but not the only one. Further the involvement of the farmers from other states can hardly account for this reason only.
The states, where the movements are more or less intense, are marked by a common phenomenon. These are the states where there have been comparatively more development of capitalism in agricultural economy. The emergence of a section of capitalist farmers and rich peasants has also taken place. It is in these regions that farm production is taking place mainly with an eye on the market in accordance with the rules of capitalist agriculture. The new farm laws while affecting almost the entire population of all the states will certainly have its greatest impact on the people of those regions where capitalist agricultural methods have developed to a significant extent and productions are increasingly intended for market.
The development of capitalism in agriculture in the country has taken place through reforms from above. Radical land reforms programme i.e. seizing land from the feudal zamindars-jotedars and distributing them among peasants was needed to eradicate the old feudal-landlord system. But the big bourgeoisie in India assumed power in alliance with the big landlords. Hence it was not possible for them to wipe away the feudal landlords. The ruling class pursued the land distribution programme in a very narrow and partial way. Land Ceiling Acts were passed by virtue of which surplus lands were distributed among peasants. This has been done in various extents in various states. Subsequently they attempted to develop capitalism in agriculture through some development in irrigation-system, providing subsidy for fertilisers, supplying HYV seeds at subsidised price, farm loans, declaring MSP, procuring agricultural produce at MSP etc… There was a big role of imperialism in development of agriculture at that time. The interest and role of imperialism was very much there in the programme of enhancing production by using HYV seeds which was adopted in the sixties of the last century and which became famous as Green Revolution. Anyway, quite naturally this development didn't occur at all places uniformly but was confined to a few states. A section of rich peasants and capitalist landlords/farmers emerged where capitalist development took place.
In other states in spite of land reforms the peasants mostly didn't get land and absentee landlordism was preserved to a large extent. In these areas the peasants still now are largely engaged in subsistence cultivation. The produce made by large number of poor peasants does not create sufficient surplus that is marketable. As a result the agricultural market is not yet developed to that extent in these regions as in Punjab and Haryana and the nature of problems faced by the developed regions is not starkly manifested.
It is noticeable that the movement is prominent mainly in those states where capitalist production in agriculture has developed in comparison to others.
Opening up of Agricultural Market to the Multinationals & Domestic Big Capital: Post '91 Period
Now, the question arises - why have the ruling class taken the step of opening up the agriculture sector to the big Corporates at this juncture? On a closer look it will be noticed that from 1991 onwards, the ruling class had started to change their policies in agriculture. Since 1991, to serve the interests of the imperialist and domestic big capital, the policies of liberalisation and globalisation in economy were adopted. A number of steps were taken in agricultural sector also.
SUBSIDY REDUCTION & EXPLOITATION OF IMPERIALIST & DOMESTIC BIG CAPITAL
In accordance with the neo-liberal policies the subsidy on electricity-fertilisers etc were reduced and as a result price of these inputs started to rise. The peasants and farmers were encouraged to use new kind of seeds produced only by the multinationals and on which they have their Intellectual Property Rights. Hence the peasants /farmers were compelled to buy seeds at a much higher price. These types of seeds require large quantities of pesticides and chemical fertilisers. The peasants/farmers were caught in two pronged attack. On one side government reduced the subsidies and on the other, the cost of inputs in agriculture in the form of seeds, fertilisers, pesticides increased heavily. Clearly the cost of production of crops soared increasingly due to the exploitation of the multinationals. Peasants/Farmers across the entire country experienced such increase in cost of production of crops.
The government started to influence the peasants/farmers to shift from cultivating food crops to cash crops such as cotton, soybean, oil seeds, vegetables, floriculture etc. This gained steam in those states particularly where capitalist farming has penetrated more. The peasants who got involved in this kind of cultivation got into more trouble. Since the input costs became high from where could the peasants get more investments? The capitalist farmers or rich peasants own large tracts of land and can afford such investments. They are also able to access bank loans at much lower rates and invest it in agriculture. Many a times due to loan waivers they are also able to pocket that money without any burden. But the lower strata of the peasants who do not own any land and cultivate on land taken on the basis of share-cropping or lease do not have access to such loans. The public sector banks are unwilling to lend money to even poor peasants. They mainly depend for loan on the local money lenders under very high interest rates. Consequently this also adds up to the cost of production.
INTEGRATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET WITH THE GLOBAL MARKET
As the input cost had started swelling the sale prices should be commensurate. Hence the problem of price realisation of output also started to surface. By that time, under pressure from imperialist agencies, the domestic agri-market of India was integrated with the global market. As a result the prices of crops started to fluctuate largely in the line with the global market prices and also due to the inherent laws of the market. The farmers now confronted problems on both counts. When the production suffered due to adverse weather or attack of pests, the farmers suffered losses. On the other hand, when they produced more, the market price dropped due to overproduction and want of demand. The irony is, the consumers do not benefit from the low price of crops. When onions are sold at Rs 50/- per kg in the cities, the peasants are getting meagre Rs 5/- per kg or being frustrated by such low prices are destroying their crops. This boils down to the simple fact that the intermediaries who hold sway over the market compel the poor peasants to sale their produce at paltry prices on the alibi of overproduction. The poor peasants, unable to hold on to their crops for any period of time are compelled to sale them at a price put up by these agri-traders or middlemen. The fact is, ultimately the consumers are not paying anything less as the traders and middle-men extract the honey, making the major share of profits. Moreover the alibi of over-production is in reality not at all over-production. This logic of over-production is with respect to the demand in the market and not with respect to the actual demand of the people. A substantial section of the people is so poor that in spite of their necessity they are unable to purchase. For this very reason the market is shrunk. As a sum total of all these the peasants of those regions where capitalist development occurred got stuck up in new problems---low crop prices, losses, increasing debt, resulting in suicides etc...
PROBLEMS IN AREAS WHERE CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT IN AGRICULTURE HAS BEEN RELATIVELY LESS
In those states where capitalist development in agriculture has been relatively much less although the problems of the peasants aggravated due to these reform policies but it hasn't been to such an extent. The reason for this is not hard to reckon. The peasants here produce more for their own consumption, less with an eye on the market. Owing to this the price fluctuations in the market did not produce so much of an impact on them. The poor peasants of these states were already in harassment due to absentee landlordism and various kinds of exploitation from earlier times. Problems of malnutrition, hunger, starvation have been more severe in these states. The incidence of suicide is much less here. What prevails is a slow, painful journey towards death due to poverty.
Solution of the Ruling Class
The bourgeois economists are presenting a solution to the agrarian crisis which in the interest of the ruling class is the main basis of the government policies. The main contents of the policies are: 1) the agri-market should be fully opened up to the multinational and domestic big Corporates then the peasants will get a profitable price; 2) Ensuring investment by domestic and multinational big capital as without investment modern techniques cannot be implemented and agri-production cannot be enhanced; 3) To reduce the population dependent on agriculture.
OPENING UP OF AGRI-MARKETS TO BIG CAPITAL
The servile economists of the ruling class and the government opine: the peasants/farmers should get profitable price for their produce. Good indeed. But how will that come about? The domestic market is shrunk - this they also know very well. The real solution for that is complete eradication of poverty, the radical land reforms. How can these economists prescribe such a solution? The fear of radical social change prevents them for such prescription. So, they confine their solutions to the following:-
They want to ensure that the farmers/peasants can sell their produce in the domestic markets of the upper middle class and also in the global market. The common rice/wheat produced cannot be sold in these markets. So new kinds of crops, Basmatii rice etc should be encouraged. It goes without saying that the large section of farmers/peasants are unable to carry on such production on their own owing to the absence of capital. Here, steps in the Corporates in the agri-markets. They will invest, purchase crops from the farmers and finally sell them to the domestic and global market fetching handsome prices. The farmers/peasants will obtain better price from the Corporates which at present is denied to them by the local traders and intermediaries.
But, the condition which the multinational and the domestic big capital have put forth is that the price of the farm products should be decided solely by the market. There must be no such measure, which can influence, or, in their terms, distort prices. Nothing can be more ridiculous than this. The monopoly capital which by its very presence doesn't keep the free market free, are themselves talking of not disturbing the 'free market'! This in simple term means - they are the only ones who will enjoy an unhindered, unbridled influence on the market. In India the implications are clear enough - the abolition of government procurement of farm produce and the demise of MSP.
The government is also very enthusiastic about this. Once the government procurement is abolished, government expenses on providing subsidy for the procurement of the food grains as well as expenditure for its storage and preservation that is currently being done by organisations like FCI will no more be required. But what about the distribution of subsidised food grains to the poor people, aimed at mitigating their anger? Has its necessity ended? Or have they thought of some arrangements for it? The poor will no more get food grains directly; rather they will be provided a 'food stamp' by virtue of which they will be entitled to purchase from the open market. But the quantity and the kind of purchase will be predetermined. Also the government will declare a 'floor price' of crops, but will not procure accordingly. If any peasant is forced to sell his/her produce below that 'floor price', the difference in price will be directly transferred to the bank account of the respective peasant. It remains puzzling as to how a huge number of peasants can be compensated by this method. Probably the number of peasants who will be entitled to receive such subsidy as per this new formulation will get gradually reduced to lessen the burden on subsidy. Various such methods are being contemplated, experimented and assessed how to really implement them. In a nut shell - the agri-market will be completely deregulated, opened to the 'free market' entirely controlled by the multinationals and domestic Corporates. MSP will be abolished. With it also, the food security or public distribution system will have its tragic death.
INFUSE BIG CAPITAL IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
According to the bourgeois economists the main problem faced by peasants is that due to the small size of holdings owned by peasantry the developed form of cultivation cannot be attained by applying modern techniques. As a result the yield per unit of land is much low. If at all any improvement in production can be thought out for them, the investment required cannot be made by these owners. So, what is the solution to this problem?
Here also the main ploy is to make way for the entry of the Corporates into agricultural production. For that very reason the law of Contract Farming has been brought about. Armed with the contract farming law the Corporate organisations will be able to make the peasants produce according to their choice. The peasants will increasingly begin to depend on them. Though till date, the contract farming law doesn't have provisions for transfer or lease of the land owned by the peasants, but for some years work is going on for another law aimed at further dilution of prevailing land lease law. The Land Ceiling Act which once declared land-ceilings on owning of huge tracts of land by the zamindars/jotedars and vested the surplus land with the government is being sought to be changed to increase land-ceiling. This being done so that the rich peasants/capitalist landlords can legally be able to own more lands. All these will expedite the process of hand-over of agriculture into the hands of the corporate.
ELIMINATE VAST SECTION OF PEASANTS FROM AGRICULTURE
The bourgeois economists unequivocally are of opinion that the agricultural economy of the country is unable to sustain such huge population. This has to be reduced. But how can this be realised? More industrial employment needs to be generated. How this would be done? They prescribe that the industrial production needs to be linked with global manufacturing chain, which means that the production of the multinationals will be made here. But why will they produce here? For that to happen, the workers will have to work for lower wages. In other words they are advocating for handing over of the surplus population to under the domination of the multinationals so that they can pile up their profits by exploiting them tremendously.
The crux of the 'ruling class' policies concerning development of capitalism in agriculture lies in the fact that earlier a significant part of the investment in agriculture was carried out by the state; from now on the private big capital will invest. Whatever may the government plans be, it remains to be seen, how and to what extent the domestic and multinational Corporates will make entry into the agricultural economy at large. Clearly the first target will be the areas where capitalism has developed in agriculture to a significant extent. The outcome of the government policies in less developed areas will have to be closely studied and comprehended.
Effect of The Ruling Class Plan: On The Peasants
The peasantry does not constitute a homogenous social group. There remain varied economic strata among them. Consequently the implications of these policies will have different bearings on them.
Firstly, what will be the effect on the poor peasants? By poor peasants we mean that stratum of peasants who do not own land or have so little that depending upon it they can't sustain. Besides cultivating their own land they have to work many a times as agricultural labourers also. These poor peasants can sell relatively very small part of their produce, as because they have very miniscule surplus. They are unable to take their produce to the Mandis. As they are forced to sell their produce no sooner than the harvest has been done hence they are compelled to sell at a much lower price. Even if the Corporates purchase from them, then also they will not have a better bargain because the Corporates are entering into agri-business for profits only and not for any benevolent reason. Once they have a hold on the crops the prices of crops will escalate. The revision of Essential Commodities Act has made ample scope for such activity. Hence the small peasants will have to pay much more to the Corporates for purchasing crops from them than whatever little they earn. Another aspect which should be underscored is the poor peasants are already getting evicted from land. The present programme of the ruling class will further accentuate it. Increasingly they will lose land to the big sharks and land will be concentrated in the hands of few big landowners and the Corporates.
Secondly, the conditions of the agricultural labourers would be even worse. As a consequence of eviction of poor peasants the number of agricultural labourers will increase. The introduction of modern technology is already depriving the agricultural labourers of their job. This program will further reduce the scope of work in agriculture and they will be forced to migrate to the cities in search of jobs. They will be forced to work as contract labour at a much reduced wage. Their addition to the reserve army of unemployed urban labourers will further make competition stiff to find jobs thereby reducing the wage rates further. On the other hand the revision of the Essential Commodities Act and the increasing hold of the Corporates on the farm produce will entail sharp price rise, especially of the food grains. Since the better part of the expenditure of the industrial workers goes towards purchasing of food grains hence they and the other sections of the toiling masses will suffer the most.
Effect on the Rich Peasants, Capitalist-Landlords, Farmers
These sections will not be affected to the extent discussed above. Rather they will be benefitted to a certain extent with some of these Acts. These are the sections that produce in bulk quantities and have the capacity to store them. They will be benefitted by the provision of the withdrawal of the limit of hoarding and freedom of selling it at any price, as being provided by the revision of Essential Commodities Act. Competition with the Corporates may put them in a difficult position, but if handsome returns from the domestic/international market become available then they will also get a share of it. One of the leaders of the present farmers' movement, Yogendra Yadav has already vouched for it that the Essential Commodities Act is outdated and they do not oppose the revision of the same--"We need to remove many restrictions on trade in agricultural commodities so as to stabilise food markets and help agricultural growth….The amendment to The Essential Commodities Act does that and should therefore, be welcomed. The restrictions on 'hoarding' were a legacy of the food crisis of the 1950s. We do not need these now, barring a domestic food emergency. Removal of these would help traders and stockists, and may sometimes help crop prices from falling."("MODI GOVT'S THREE RUSHED ORDINANCES CAN HELP AGRICULTURE, BUT NOT FARMERS" -Yogendra Yadav,https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-three-rushed-ordinances-can-help-agriculture-not-farmers/439148/).
These sections will suffer most due to the abolition of MSP. They are the most beneficiaries of the government procurement system at MSP. Hence they are repeatedly vocal about the demand of increasing the MSP. In Punjab and Haryana this system of procurement of paddy and wheat is substantial compared to other states. A large part of the paddy and wheat production in these states is procured by the government through an extensively developed network of Mandi system. Naturally they are more agitated regarding the Mandi Bypass Act fearing end of the benefit they have been getting.
Demand of the Rich Peasants, Capitalist Landlords & Farmers
They are also suffering due to the exploitation of the domestic as well as global capital. Their expenditure on agriculture has increased manifold over the last few decades. However, they are not much interested to resist this exploitation. How can they resist? Exploitation of the agricultural labourers is their main source of income. Further they are also involved in the business of money lending. Even many a times they are involved in the business of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides.
The rich peasants and capitalist landlords and farmers' primary intent is to ensure a handsome price, which guarantees their profit. Their main badge of safety against the Corporates lies in the system of the MSP. For that reason time and again they have raised the issue of increase in MSP. Now they have felt that the government is intending to repeal the MSP system. Hence, they are demanding the legal security of the MSP along with the demand of repealing the three farm laws.
But the question is, can the same demand of legal recognition of MSP also be the demand of the poor peasants? In one word the answer is, no. Why? First of all, the poor peasants can hardly avail the benefit of MSP. Secondly, they need to buy much more crops from the open market than what they sale. Hence, for them this means more loss rather than profit. It is evident that the worst sufferers of the hike in crop prices are the agricultural labourers, workers, and other toiling masses. (This has been dealt in further detail in the article 'The Question of Legal Recognition of MSP - the Working Class Perspective').
Will The Condition Of The Poor Peasants Improve If The Three Farm Laws Are Just Repealed?
We have already discussed the adverse effect of these laws on the poor peasants. Their crises will further deepen by these laws. Hence they are demanding repeal of these. The legal recognition of MSP cannot be part of their demands. But the cardinal question that remains to be addressed amidst all this is-- will the continuing poverty and scarcity of the poor peasants end with the repeal of these laws? Will it be able to eradicate the burning problems of their lives and livelihood?
The answer to this will be a thundering no. It is so because the root cause of the problems of the poor peasants and the rural poor lies in the exploitation of the Imperialists, big capitalists and the presence of the other exploitative classes in agriculture. Let us recall what has been explained earlier.
Let us first consider the problems of comparatively developed areas.
Here as we have seen, the input costs in agriculture are increasing, but the farmers/peasants are not getting enough returns. What is the reason? Costs are escalating, at the one end, to ensure the huge profits of the domestic as well as global big capital; and on the other, due to the massive reduction of the government subsidy, which has also been done to serve the interest of these Corporates. It means that the farmers/peasants are subject to the exploitation of the big capital.
Secondly, even in the state of Punjab it is heard that the absentee landlords make huge profits by leasing their lands. We do not know how far the reports published in the newspaper are authentic, but then some reports claim that the non-cultivating owners, mainly the absentee landlords earn Rs 30,000 to Rs 50,000 as rent per acre of land annually by leasing their land. In some parts the rent is as high as RS 55,000 to Rs 60,000 (The Tribune, June 2017 & Indian Express, 13th March 2020). Hence the farmers who produce for selling in the market have to pay for such rent from the money realised through sale. Thus this also gets included in their cost of production.
Thirdly, the interest burden of the poor, middle peasants and share- croppers on the informal usurious loans obtained from the money lenders should constitute a part of the cost of production. So, we find that, directly and/or indirectly, the costs of production mount due to the exploitations of the Imperialist and domestic big capital, absentee landlords as well as that of the usurious capital. On the other side, why aren't the poor and middle peasants getting a fair price for their produce? The intermediaries and local traders are forcing them to sale at a very low price. Many estimates reveal that the actual producers are getting only 30% of the retail price.
Apart from these, in the event of bumper production, the prices of crops also fall due to a narrow market demand. In such cases also the peasants are incurring huge losses. Why aren't the demands of the market increasing? Why such stagnation? On account of intense exploitation, crores of toiling people are unable to attain a financial position that could have enabled them to possess a requisite purchasing power. And thus, the market for farm products like other consumer goods is also not expanding. The over production which we notice are not really from the stand point of real necessity but over-production with respect to market demand.
The toiling peasantry are mainly the victims of such intense exploitation with the poor peasants being the worst affected.
Along with these, in these developed areas the agricultural labourers are exploited directly by the rich peasants, big capitalist-landlord and farmers. In addition, since these sections are also involved in money lending business and other businesses as well, hence the poor peasants also become a prey to their exploitation. Further as in other sectors of production the agricultural sector is also witnessing modernisation. Consequently, the agricultural labourers are losing their jobs. The situation is aggravated by the compounding crisis of the poor peasants losing their lands and joining the ranks of the agricultural labourers. The industrial sector is unable to absorb such huge unemployed rural labourers. Therefore they are forced to remain in the villages either working at abysmally low wages or surviving somehow in an unemployed semi -starved state.
On the other side, in other parts of the country where capitalist agriculture is less developed, the landowners lend out their lands to the landless peasants on share-cropping or lease and thereby appropriate a large amount of rent.
In these backward regions absentee landlords are the main exploiting sections. Apart from these, exploitation in the form of usury, hoarding, intermediaries or middle-men are also prevalent here. The exploitation of imperialists and domestic big capital is prevalent but in a somewhat indirect way in these regions.
In sum and substance, the overwhelming majority of rural poor of this country i.e. the poor peasants and the agricultural labourers are the victims of exploitations carried on by the integrated network of imperialists and the domestic big capitalists dependent on it, absentee landlords, usurers, and hoarders, arhtiyas, traders. There may be some local variation in its form or type but the crisis of the rural poor is due to these exploitations. The present programme adopted by the ruling class will not bring any major change in this prevailing exploitation; rather it will only intensify the exploitation and dominance of imperialism and domestic big capital.
Then, What Ought To Be the Demand of the Poor Peasants
Clearly, the poor peasants should demand liberation from all sorts of exploitation. The share croppers should demand the abolition of absentee landlordism, so that the parasitic landlords cannot appropriate the major share of crops produced by the share-croppers. The poor peasants should demand an end to the exploitation of usurious and trading capital because these exploiters entice the poor and middle peasants trapping them in debt and compelling the peasants to sale their produce at a much lower price and many a times evicting and snatching away their lands and thus reducing them to the status of agricultural labourers. The poor peasants should also seek an end of the big capital (both imperialist and domestic), since their exploitation and also the taxes imposed by the governments to serve their interests, pauperise them. This is not only the demands of the poor peasants, but of the whole lot of rural poor. In fact these are the common demands of the agricultural labourers, of other toiling sections who are the vast majority of the rural population.
The rich peasants, capitalist-landlord and farmers, themselves do not raise such issues. Neither are they able to raise it. This is so because they are themselves part of the exploiting sections. The truth is, in areas where capitalism has developed in agriculture, there the rich peasants and capitalist farmers represent a very influential section of the exploiters of the rural society. In spite of their contradiction with the big capital, but they maintain a relation of compromise with them. But when they fight against government policies or against the big capital, they drag with them the poor and middle peasants in their interests. In areas where capitalism hasn't penetrated much, there the rich peasants are not that much developed; here, the rich peasants, even though they themselves are exploiters, but at the same time they are exploited by the absentee landlords, the dominating section of this rural society. Hence they also have a contradiction with the absentee landlords.
Then what should be the road to emancipation for the poor peasants and agricultural labourers? All land belonging to the absentee landlords should be confiscated and re-distributed to the peasants and agricultural labourers. There should be abolition of usurious and trading capital. Some may raise the question - with such small holdings how can they get rid of poverty? Such small plots of land forbid the application of modern technology and hence neither can there be an increase in productivity. One thing is to be clearly understood - the fragmentation of land is not the actual cause of their poverty. The main cause is the all pervasive exploitation. Hence an end to this exploitation will surely improve their conditions of life. Secondly, if the small peasants willingly assemble in a cooperative they will be able to resort to modern techniques and increase productivity, and by distribution of their collective production among themselves, they will be elevated from the poverty. This formation of co-operatives will become possible only when they will be emancipated from all forms of exploitation. Even within the present system also the bourgeois states sometimes try to form co-operatives. But the actual control of such co-operatives does not rest with the poor peasants but on the bureaucrats of the bourgeois state, i.e., indirectly in the hands of the big bourgeoisie. Hence the aim of such cooperatives is not to liberate the peasants from the yolk of poverty or to help them stand on their own feet, but to exploit them. A true co-operative of poor peasants can only emerge when the rule of the big bourgeoisie and big landlords will be overthrown from power and the proletariat in alliance with the peasants will be at the helm of power. This is the path of Peoples' Democratic Revolution.
But the poor peasants and the landless labour are unable to go so far on their own. They can definitely struggle with their immediate and partial demands. But to bring an end to all forms of exploitations means to struggle for the establishment of a new society. The poor peasants and agricultural labourers are not capable to lead such a struggle; the proletariat is the only class which can lead such a struggle. In reality both the poor peasants and the agricultural labourers can either participate in this struggle under the leadership of the proletariat for abolition of all exploitation or they can try to improve their condition within this system under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. The true class interest of the poor peasants and agricultural labourers lie in the eradication of all forms of exploitations of the Imperialists, the domestic big capital and that of the absentee landlords under the leadership of the proletariat.
What Should Be the Role of Poor Peasants in the Present Struggle
There is no doubt that the three farm laws will enable the domestic as well as imperialist big capital to have a firmer grip on the agricultural economy and thereby the conditions of the poor and landless peasants will further deteriorate. The poor peasants will be evicted from land, the agricultural labourers will become unemployed and the food prices will soar to new heights. In short their lives will certainly encounter more hardships. For that reason the three new farm laws enacted by Modi government in the interest of the big bourgeois must be opposed and resisted.
One may ask, if the repeal of these laws does not ensure them of eradicating poverty and misery then why should they fight against them? In the first place with the implementation of these laws they will encounter further exploitations and hardships. To resist this they must struggle against these laws. Secondly through this struggle if the poor peasants themselves can be united and organised separately, then this will enable them to earn strength for future struggle to liberate themselves from all forms of exploitations. From this perspective the present struggle is very much important to them. But their interests and that of the rich peasants and capitalist landlords and farmers are not the same. Hence while participating in this struggle they must prepare themselves for the struggle for complete liberation.
The rich peasants, capitalist-landlords and the farmers strive to increase their share of profit within the structure of the present system. On the contrary the poor peasants and agricultural labourers' interest is integrally connected to the overthrow of the present exploitative system. From this stand point, the interests of these two classes are opposed to each other. Does this mean that the poor peasants and the rich peasants cannot come together in a united struggle against this new farm laws? Definitely they can. But the poor peasants must protect their own interest. Hence they must not rally behind any such demand which in essence is detrimental to their interest. For example, they cannot struggle for the demand of legal guarantee of MSP, as it is detrimental to their interest. But what is of more importance to them is that they should organise themselves not only for the struggle for repeal of the farm laws- but at the same time, through this struggle they should acquire the consciousness about their real enemies and the real path of their liberation from exploitation.
Several organisations of the rich peasants and capitalist-landlords are in a prominent and leading position in this struggle. However, the presence of the poor and middle peasants is also in large numbers without which the struggle couldn't have continued so long with strength. Also the slogan 'Kanoon wapas nahi toh, ghar wapsi nahi' would not have gained so much prominence. Further as we know, some organisations consisting primarily of the middle and poor peasants are also an important component of this movement. Hence they are much more militant and firm in their resolve to repeal the laws. Moreover these organisations are under the influence of some revolutionary organisations. Sitting far away from the movement, it would be unfair of us to comment on anything about the role of these organisations. But one thing deserves to be mentioned. If they can truly nurture the embryo of the future struggle against class-exploitation borne within this current struggle and attempt wholeheartedly to develop this embryo, then only they will in true sense represent the role of a revolutionary organisation; will represent the class interest, of the poor peasants.
The role of the peasant/farmers organisations in the present struggle opposing the established political parties and attempting to maintain a distance from these parties is looked upon by many as an important phenomenon. They think that this has created a possibility of the emergence of an independent force outside the fold of these parties. The advanced section of the proletariat cannot afford to ignore the reality that however independent from established political parties the rich peasant, capitalist landlord, farmer leadership movement may seem to be, nevertheless they all are a part of the bourgeois class. In the final analysis they indeed represent bourgeois ideology and politics. They will have no hesitation in siding with or forming coalition with the mainstream bourgeois political parties, if the situation warrants such need. When we speak of independent position of the working class we mean an entirely separate, independent position which is free from bourgeois ideology and politics. Any organisation led by the rich peasants, capitalist landlords, farmers in spite of remaining independent of the mainstream parties, in real analysis cannot really assume an independent standing.
What is the Call that These Struggles are Conveying to the Proletariat
The poor peasants and agricultural labourers are unable to wage the struggle for liberation from exploitation by their own independent struggle and endeavour. Only the working class can lead such struggle. To state clearly - a real working class, an advanced detachment of class conscious workers based on independent class struggle of the working class. It will not be a wrong state that, in absence of such a party, it is impossible for the poor peasants and agricultural labours to be organised on their class interest. This is so because they can either strive to improve their conditions within this system through some reforms under bourgeois leadership or may organise themselves under the leadership of the proletariat for the struggle for the liberation from the exploitation, for their real liberation. There exists no other alternative.
The most unfortunate situation at present is the fact that while the farmers and peasants are putting up a bold resistance against the attacks of the ruling class, the working class has not yet been able to build up any resistance against the similar onslaught going on them. When the pro-capitalist ruling class imposed the new labour code, abolishing all previous labour laws which nevertheless contained merely a few paltry labour rights, the working class stood as a mere helpless spectator. The working class not only failed to stall it, it was even unable to create any furore in the country. The blow of the defeat has brought them to such a point, where they have not yet been able to regain belief on their own strength. They are repeatedly being beaten under the continuing attacks of the imperialist and domestic big capitalists and their governments. But they were not only supposed to resist the attack on them only, but to provide leadership in the fight for all democratic struggles of other sections of the society. They were supposed to combine all these struggles against the imperialist and domestic big capital and landlords under their leadership and advance in the direction of liberation from all sorts of exploitation. Today the peasants are rising against the attacks on them and not only that, they are putting up a firm resistance. But the working class is unable to play its role. In view of the ineptitude of the working class, it is natural that the poor peasants are rallying under the leadership of the rich peasants-capitalist landlords and farmers. Where the working class is absent it is futile to imagine an independent struggle of the poor peasants against the attacks of the ruling class.
In recent times it has been observed that although the working class is absent in the arena of struggle, several sections of the society are fighting for their democratic rights. It is extremely unfortunate that working class is miserably absent in the arena of struggle; it does not have its own party which has the role not only to provide leadership to the working class alone, but to lead all sections of exploited and deprived masses for a radical social change leading to a new society where only the aspirations of all theses masses can be fulfilled. Thus all these struggles are appealing to the working class to rise, get organised as a class, form their independent class party and provide leadership to all oppressed sections of the society. If the revolutionaries intend to perform their historic role they should strive with all strength and vigour for the formation of that true working class party.
Under the present circumstances, the organised advanced section of the proletariat in whatever fragile condition they are, can they afford to rally unconditionally in support of the present farmers and merge with it? If they do so, they will hamper the future possibility of development of class struggle. Hence the task of the advanced section of the working class should be, to stand in support with the farmers struggle to resist the policies of furthering domination of big capital in agriculture. But their task should not be limited to this. They should try and make the struggling sections of the poor peasantry understand that mere repeal of these farm laws will not solve their problems. Their liberation lies in also overthrowing the absentee landlords, money lenders, hoarders and intermediary traders all of whom exploit them. The rich peasants- capitalist landlords, big farm owners will neither stand against them nor will allow the poor peasants to advance their struggle against these exploiters. For achieving this greater goal they will have to be organised separately and independently against class exploitation. This is the real task of preserving the embryo of future struggle and the path of its development.
April 2021
Comments:
No Comments for View