Dr T.K.Das
This article is a sketch of an impact of commercialization of Indian agriculture on the marginal people of this country like the Lepchas. The Left-Front Government (LFG) led by CPI(M) proposed for a new agricultural policy in 2002. This agricultural policy in tune with the McKinsey Report is another dimension of the global pressure on the Indian farmers in general and tribal agriculturists in particular. The basis target of this policy is commercialization of agriculture to the extent to ensure full utilization of land, its products and mainpower for satating global demands. This proposal has an apparent a priori logic that villagers would be benefited, because this policy will ensure employment and income generation for the farmers. At the same time this policy will, on the hand, relieve the cash-trapped Government of its responsibility in safeguarding the interests of the poor farmers of Bengal and, on the other hand, release the same from the pressure of the global business houses and their Indian agents.
This new policy was a prelude to a major shift from agriculture to agribusiness, which ‘is central to West Bengal’s 2010 Agribusiness Vision.’1 This policy was, in fact, a product of McKinsey Report on problems and prospects of agriculture in West Bengal. The McKinsey, an American consultancy firm, was first invited by the LFG in 1993. The McKinsey Report proposed for three fundamental changes in agricultural sector: a) opening of agriculture sector to private companies and multinational corporations (MNCs), b) bringing variation in agricultural products, and2 c) initiating into contract between farmers and corporate (MNCs) for production and selling of particular products. The first draft of the agricultural policy was vehemently criticized by different sections of people and even by the smaller partners of the Left Front. The LFG was forced to replace this policy with two other policy-drafts under the supervision of Nirupam Sen, the Minister of Industry, Government of West Bengal. However, these were fundamentally similar to the former one. Such recalcitrant attitude of the LFG primarily lies embedded in hurriedness of LFG for industrialilzing West Bengal through free hand of private players. It propagandizes agriculture as an unprofitable engagement for livelihood. So, industrialization is the only panacea. To the CPM veterans, farmers should sell his land and deposit the money in the bank and live on interests.3 The urban bhadralok leadership of CPM never likes tilling field and enjoying jatra as, to them, it is meant for churt only. In fact, the ideological base of the dominant section of the LPG also inspires such mode of thinking. It is thought that agriculturists and their ethnic nexus to land are determental to ‘socialist path’ of progress.4 This disdainful attitude to farming naturally propagandizes agriculture as an unprofitable affairs for livelihood.5 So, industrialization is the panacea. However, analysis of the class character of those LFG propagandists reveals that they are urban-centric, none of them are real tillers of land and they have come from upper-middle class or from local elites of any class and caste. Instead of nourshing the agriculture potential of the state, what is long due, they obviously have prescribed shift from farming to multinational contract farming - the McKinscy solution.
Denuding the land is the consequential action of such institutional arrangement. On the one hand LFG lays bar land for physical extortion through hi-tech chemical farming and scrubs of land from the psychosocial heritage on the other. Such aggressive advances need certain legal instruments - acquisition and commercial use of land. In consonance with this purpose and suggestion offered in the McKinsey report, the LFG enacted a new land reform policy: the West Bengal Land Reform (Amendment) Act in August 14,2005. The Section 14(Z) of this new act legalizes entry of FDI in all sectors, like contract farming, tourism, plantation, etc. It further empowers government to change land use pattern at its whim. The results are: a) titak destruction of small and medium business including agriculture, b) total opening of rural areas for FDI, and c) economy, management and administration in rural areas will be controlled by MNCs. On the other side, the LFG puts the British colonial policy of land acquisition of 1894 on use for facilitating industrialization in West Bengal. Such attempt has already gained notoriety, as the clause of “public purpose” of 1894 act becomes handy instrument for serving private purpose of the big business. In any case, agricultural lands are guillotined for non-agricultural use of land.
So, the agriculturists have two options: either giving up land for industrialization or surrender to commercialilzation of agriculture. Commercialilzed agricultural practices do not oppose cultivation of staple food crops but propose for decreasing of cultivation area for food crops. In order to increase production of food crops in decreasing land-yeilding seeds and insecticide. Interestingly, the farmers have to buy all these again from the MNCs. It also needs irrigation system, which West Bengal in general lacks. They also propose for use of land, extracted from land for food crops, for “dream products” such as mango, lichis, pineapple, cashew nut, vanilla, coco, mushroom, spices, potato, tomato, vegetable, aromatic rice, and flowers and ornamental plants, etc. The private players will select the products primarily according to the nature of land. Kalimpong, for example, may be selected for floriculture only. It has further been concluded that the processing of these products and exporting abroad will be handled by eleven native and foreign MNCs. In order to facilitate the whole operation, number of small and big marketing centers will be established in the concerned areas. Hence, according to McKinsey Report, the MNCs a) will decide what to produce, b) will decide what type of seeds and fertilizer and how much of water be used, c) will give loan against fixed rate of interest as primary capital and d) will buy the produces party in fixed rate and partly in market rate.6
II
McKinsey has divided West Bengal into four zones mainly in terms of the nature of lands and other commercial facililties. The second zone of these four zones comprises of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and North and south Dinajpur. It has also earnmarked 15% of total land of this zone now used for paddy cultivation will be used for commercial production of those “dream products”. In order to by pass any sort of wrangling over negligence to food crop production, the McKinsey report tries to compensate with the proposal that production of rice per hectare will be raised from 1.79 ton to 2 tons through high-tech farming as mentioned above. Especilly for Darjeeling, McKinsey often talked about the horticultural potentiality of the hills. In fact, the Indian business houses and MNCs have plans for capturing horticulture business (like cultivatin of orchids, gladioli, etc.), which has already made Kalimpong famous for its contribution.7 It might have been possible that these big players will spread their tentacles through local entrepreneurs. The LFG certainly has accent on such entrepreneurships. Besides, the LFG has exchanged ideas with the McKinsey on the future of Cinchona plantation of Mongpoo. The Media reports reveal that it seeks global buyers for Cinchona plantation of Mangpoo, which covers an area of 8,000 hectares and has work force of 5,000 people, - McKinsey had proposed restricting the plantation area to 2,000 hectares and distributing excess land to workers and providing them with marketing and technical support for the first five years to make them worthy for agribusiness. However, the Standing Committee on Commerce, GOI, rejected the proposal and recommended cultivation of crops like Turmeric and Cardamom and also Sericulture.8 The workers (Members of Hill Employees Association, Cinchona Zonal Plantation Committee & members of the Sanjukta Morcha comprising of five unions) of Cinchona plantation of Mongpoo also opposed the downsizing as suggested by McKinshey.9
So it is found that corporate profiteering motivates the attitude and policy of the policy-makers and business groups regarding the future of India agriculture. A renowned expert on agriculture, Devinder Sharma, has already laid bare the ominous nexus among the trinity: the national and local government, MNCs and Indian business housed. He has observed that the Indian government follows prescription of WTO and business interest groups like, the CII, Assocham, and FICCI and is working to turn Indian agriculture into a “food factory”. In their opinion, shift from agriculture to agribusiness would usher in “rainbow revolution”. Sharma also reported that the Assocham has also prepared a report (“Strategic Plan for Indian Agricultural Sector”) for boosting food crops production to 5,000 million tones and suggested modificatin of land lease norms, transfer of irrigation management contracts to the private sector and removeal of trade barriers all at the cost of government expenditure. After ‘green’ it is the era of ‘rainbow’ where revolution will again be propelled not by tillers of the land but by industrialists. One can see a close entente between those business houses and McKinsey as all their attempts are found laced with prescribed formula of McKinsey. In Sharma’s opinion it is part of the global design as ‘the WTO seeks to liberalize global agriculture trade by increasing market access through their personal agreement on agriculture. It reduces domestic support for farmers and export subsidies and lowers tariff barriers to imports, backed by provisions that limit the role of public stocking of food crops.’10
III
The little bit lengthy but critical introduction about the tole of the trinity in restructuring Indian agriculture is indispensable to analyze the fate of the Indian farmers in general and the Lepcha farmers in particular, suffice it say, farmers in general have been heading towards a bleak future for suclh new agricultural policy. However, farmer-tribes have certain other unique characteristics or so to say in Spencer’s approach, unfitness, which have made them unsuitable for McKinsey prescription.
To begin with the study of effect of such prescription on the Lepchas one should take a look at the Lepcha agriculture. There are few but critical studies on that issue.11 A quick summarization of Roy’s observation, a recent study of the lot, would be a good beginning. To his opinion, the Lepchas 1) are dependent heavily on agriculture, 2) are mostly small landowners, 3) are dependent on household labour, 4) believe in communal ownership not individualistic ownership, 5) follow traditional method of cultivation so they belong non-capitalilst society, or so to say, as ‘tribal peasants’ they practice a pre-capitalist society based agriculture, 6) try to mix capitalist farming with peasant economy of late: especially in case of production and marketing of cash crops, 7) thrive on subsistence economy: grow food mainly to eat, 8) have strong social and kinship obligations and 9) preserve seeds for next year for domestic and communal use. Having these critical features in mind, he further pointed to certain new but disturbing trends have already shaken Lepcha agriculture. For example, more and more lands are being brought under the cultivation of cash crops at the cost of food crops even if such cultivation of cash crops denies traditional communal leanings.12 Young Lepchas have started taking land on lease on contractual basis either by paying cash or kind for cash crops cultivation, which flares up sex and generational differences within the community. Basides, cultivation of cash crops is capital intensive that drives them into trap of money lenders. Moreover, the mono-crops pattern is now replaced by multi-cropping with a typical objective of producing food crops for consumption and cash crops for money. As luck would have it, these new developments certainly create tension within the community as it requires changed mind-set and necessary support base, which they lack in general. On the other, due to pressure of middlemen in marketing of cash crops they cannot get the benefit of hard work. Finally, such developments also destroy the already vulnerable food security of the Lepchas.
So, the Lepcha economy, which is highly contradictory to McKinsey policy, faces new challenges thrown by expansionism of capital over the globle, which can be summarized as a conflict between the Lepcha value system (Like absence of desire of for accumulation) and private initiative of capitalist mode of economy based on commercialization of agriculture (Cash crops in particular instead of food cereals) of late. The agricultural policy of the Government of West Bengal has further endangered the future of small and marginal tribal farmers whose economic interests have already been jeopardized in the face of indifferent attitude of the government and sheer profit-making tendency of the Indian and foreign business houses. In absence of freedom of the farmers scheme of mechanized and commercial farming will reduce the farmers to agricultural workers who will remain indebted to investors forever. All these economic factors have hardly offered a better economy for the Lepchas in place of subsistence economy.
The draft agricultural policy proposes for corporatization of farming under the guidance of the government and private sectors, namely, the district administration, local body and MNCs. All agricultural activities will be controlled by a contact between the small or big farmers and the MNCs. The state,particularly the district administration and local bodies,will play the role of the mediator in case of any crisis grown out of such contract. The farmers’ cooperative is replaced by such joint venture farming. The farmers will be accountable for any loss boern due to ground reality. Landless agricultural laborers are to be employed in the food processing and marketing sectors again controlled by those MNCs. This policy, though wants variety in produces, encourages production of cash crops only rather than food crops.13
IV
To conclude this sketchy write-up one has to give attention to some other alarming issues exhaled out of profiteering venture of the MNCs and its veiled and unveiled supporters. These are as follows:
a) Commercialization of agriculture gives way to massive unemployment by displacing agricultural labourers from their own: since 1950, 50 million evicted for development projects of which 40% are tribes.
b) The big business groups also attempts to capture retail business so that they can destroy any resistance in their way to profiteering. So, the Lepcha cannot produce and sell their own produce.
c) Dominated by small land holdings Indian agriculture, according to the experts, is in no position to adopt the high-tech farm practices expoused by commercial agriculture, which does not take account of the differential needs of small and marginal farmers.
d) This policy opposes three cardinal issues of agriculture: opposes freedom of the agriculturists, opposes sustainability of agriculture as it ignores natural potential of land and opposes production of staple food.
e) The MNCs and their followers want to build ‘food parks’ for ‘food factories’ throuth uprooting the farmers out of their land. The food factory projects have already uprooted millions of subsistence farmers. Not only that, poor man’s food (maize, bajra, millets, potatos, etc.) would become rich man’s edible and drink (beer, whisky) in the near future. The food crop production in India has registered a downward trend due to bad policies of the global and native players and their ‘fatal obsession with intensive agriculture based on chemical fertilizers. Such practices generate ecological imbalances as well. As a consequence, starvation deaths would be natural consequences as land becomes sick and unproductive.’
f) Further, Dr. T.N.Prakash and Dr.Tejaswsini of the University of Agricultural Science, Bangalore, observed that intensive floriculture, which is now becoming popular especially in Karnataka, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhrapradesh and Maharashtra, will certainly ruin the land, rendering it unfit for cultivation on the one hand and pesticides and chemical fertilizers pollute environment and contaminate ground water on the other.
Do marginal Lepchas have spirit and power to fight against corporate gaints with local bureaucracy and political leaders? The answer may not be affirmative but constant vigil and good reason would be an amulet for the Lepcha community or any other affected people.
Note:
1 w.w.w.icici-winfra.com.
2.In policy language it is called “crop diversification”, for example, from rice to aromatic rice. In fact, one MNC of USA, Himalaya Internatinal Ltd. (HILL), has already created a “Darjeeling Rice Brand”.
3.These are the oft-quoted advises offered by Jyoti Basu, Benoy Konar and other recorded in the media.
4.Country to Marxist-Leninist model of industry-centric development, Mao drew an agro-model of development for China indeed but that model was abandoned in the post-Mao era of China.
5.Rather a strong opposite view is prevalent among the sensitive experts. See Noeleen Heyzer, “We need another revolution, focus on agriculture to reduce poverty”, The Times of India, Kolkata, March 31, 2008, Amit Bhadukri, Development with dignity, National Book Trust, India, 2006 & Magdoff, Foster & Buttel eds, Hungry for profit, Cornerstone Publication, Kharagpur, 2008.
6.Rudra, Kalyan ed. Paschimbanger Krishiniti Krishaker Bhabisyat (Bengali), Mreettika, Kolkata, 2003.
7.Himalaya International Ltd. of USA is interested in production of pineapple and orchids in Darjeeling hills.
8.The Telegraph, January 26, 2004 (Internet version)
9.www.accessmylibrary.com
10.Sharma, Devinder, Alarm bells for Indian agriculture, www.icici-winfra.com.
11.Das & Banerjee (1962), Bagchi (1982) and others
12.Since bygone days, the Lepchas have been hiring communal labour for all stages of agricultural practice but now they tend to hire wage laborers from other communities and villages.
13.McKinsey Report & Rudra, Kalyan, ed.: 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment