Contents Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
VI
Rural Stagnation
(i) History
(ii) Globalisation and Agriculture
(iii) Impact of Globalisation on Rural Sector
(a) Flood of Imports
(b) Low Agricultural Investment
(c) Dismantling of The PDS
In semi-feudal India it was imperialism that retarded
progress and the development of a modern economy. Prior to the arrival of the
British, many parts of the country and aspects of its economy, were in the
process of bourgeois transformation. It was the British colonialists who crushed
the nascent transformation, and propped up a new zamindari (forcibly conquering
the Rajas that resisted) servile to its interests.
Though the imperialists can extend their market in backward
countries by ushering in capitalist development in agriculture, they fear the
growth of a nascent bourgeoisie, pitted against them, once the power of the
landlords is destroyed. Caught in this contradiction of its need for a market
and the necessity of maintaining its social prop, in feudal and/or semi-feudal
authority, it initiates some reforms that try to balance both. This results in a
highly distorted, decadent and putrefied agrarian economy, semi-feudal in
character, seeking to maintain feudal authority and relations while developing
the commodity market.
This is seen in India, particularly since 1947. The
imperialists have always shown big interest in the agrarian economy, as it
comprises 70% of the population. Whether it were the early US attempts through
the PL-480, or the later ‘green revolution’ or the present-day vast
foreign-funded NGO network in the countryside, all have been geared in a single
direction — seeking to maintain the status quo, while trying to extend the
commodity market.
Let us briefly look at the history of these policies, before
coming to the globalisation period.
i) History
Nehru, from the very inception, allowed virtual subversion of
the country by US imperialism in supposed ‘assistance’ to the rural economy.
When the Congress saw the British weakening, Nehru established contact with the
US from 1945 itself, through the good offices of none other than Chiang Kai
Sheik, who had visited the country as an American emissary.
In 1948 Nehru allowed the US State Department to establish an
‘Agricultural Mission’ in India. In 1952, the Ford Foundation, one of the
main funding agencies of the US, started a so-called Community Development
Programme in the countryside, to ward off agrarian unrest. And most
notorious of all was the decision to take the PL-480 loans from 1954. These
humiliating ‘food loans’ were virtually blackmail of the country to
accept US policy or starve. The PL-480 was like a ‘food for work’ programme,
where the US dumped its surplus grain in India, which was used to pay labour for
building, roads, canals and other infrastructural development. The bait was that
the PL-480 loans were to be repaid in rupees. In actuality these funds
accumulated in India, and by the early 1960s such vast amounts had accumulated
that the US owned one-fifth of India’s currency. Finally, when there was a
worldwide outburst against these loans, the scheme was scrapped. But the vast
funds accumulated in India were used for ‘education’, buying up bureaucrats and
politicians and various other covert operations including those of the CIA. It
was during this time that Nehru struck a secret deal with the CIA to plant a
nuclear powered ‘SNAP Generator’ in the Himalayas in order to spy on then
Communist China. And with the PL-480 the Indian farmer got an added gift — the
highly destructive ‘Congress Grass’ weed. These weeds came mixed with the PL-480
grains.
But no sooner was the PL-480 stopped that Nehru invited the
Rockfeller Foundation to introduce their newly experimented High Yielding
Variety (HYV) seeds in India. And thereby, in the mid-1960s was launched the
World Bank sponsored ‘Green Revolution’ to pry open the rural markets of
the underdeveloped countries for American agri-business. All these various
American bodies operating in rural India, never once suggested land reforms, and
were in fact totally against it. Even with their ‘green revolution’,
their aim was to penetrate the rural markets, with the least disturbance of the
existing land relations. In order to promote the green revolution the government
gave huge subsidies and cheap credit facilities to the surplus producing
farmers, mostly from among the landlords and rich peasants. With this, pockets
of distorted capitalist development evolved within the overall semi-feudal rural
economy.
The Congress’s much promised ‘land reforms’, ceiling,
etc. was finally introduced, but only sparingly. In fact, till 1977, out of the
total of 360 million acres of cultivable land only four million had been
declared surplus and only 1.3 million (or 0.5% of the total) distributed.
So Nehruvian policy in agriculture was to increase production
through imported technology, rather than through land reforms.
With the introduction of the ‘Green Revolution’, the
areas under HYV seeds quickly increased from 1.2% in 1966-67 to 20% in just ten
years. While ‘self-reliance’ in foodgrains was achieved, dependence on imported
fertiliser, pesticides, etc. increased. But the growth in foodgrain production
was insignificant compared to the growth in consumption of inputs. So, while
foodgrain production increased less than 3 fold from 55 million tons in 1951 to
130 million tons in 1981, the consumption of fertilisers increased by 55,000%
from 29,000 tons in 1951 to 55 lakh tons in 1980-81. In addition the prices of
fertilisers skyrocketed by 150% in the first ten years of the green revolution
giving windfall profits to the fertiliser industry.
Those who gained from the ‘Green Revolution’ were only
the landlords and a section of the rich peasantry. But the green revolution has
not only devastated the poor and middle peasant it has also destroyed our land —
with large areas virtually being desertified. The Congress government could
spend crores on subsidising the imported HYV seeds and fertilisers to please
American agri-business, but they were not willing to spend sufficiently on
irrigation. With the result, till today, only 35% of the cultivable land is
irrigated. The combined effect of poor irrigation and high dose of
fertilizers/pesticides, resulted in a drop in growth rate of agricultural
production after the first two decades of the so-called ‘green revolution’
due to soil degradation.
The full impact of the Green Revolution will be fully
reached when vast tracts of land, millions of acres, will be made useless —
then, of course, the Americans will come with their ‘gene’ revolution.
For the present, the WTO has come with its Agreement on Agriculture (AoA),
which, in essence, allows for the continuation of the massive agricultural
subsidies for the developed countries, while seeking to remove all concessions
and controls on agricultural production in the underdevelopment countries.
ii) Globalisation and Agriculture
Soon after Vajpayee took power the World Bank issued its
directives. It stated:
(1) Those crops that do not give much profit should be
reduced. It is necessary to increase the production of export-oriented crops,
and the import of foodgrains.
(2) Indian agriculture should compete with foreign countries.
(3) Government subsidies should be reduced to a minimum on
fertilisers, water, seeds and in loan allotments; and should be lifted totally
in due course.
(4) There should be no restrictions on indigenous
agricultural exports.
(5) There should be no restrictions on the import of foreign
agricultural products.
(6) Should remove the FCI’s (Food Corporation of India’s)
responsibility in purchasing, transporting and preserving paddy, wheat and rice;
entrusting it to private enterprises.
Fully in line with these directives the government, in 2000,
announced its much-trumpeted National Agricultural Policy (NAP), the
first ever since 1947. The 15-page document promised to usher in a ‘rainbow
revolution’ and to make India the largest exporter of agricultural products.
Some other important aspects of the NAP are:
(1) The agricultural sector to develop at 4% per year.
When in fact its growth rate has dropped from 3.5% annually in the 1980s to a
mere 1.5% in the 1990s, such statements are obviously only for propaganda
purposes. In fact, the aggregate production of foodgrains increased by only 26
million tons (mt) in the 1990s, compared to 52 mt in the 1980s. So, all talk of
a 4% growth is mere kite-flying, and fools no one.
(2) A major aspect of this new policy is to promote private
participation "through contract farming and land leasing arrangements to
allow accelerated technology transfer, capital inflows and assured markets for
crop production, especially oil seeds, cotton and horticultural crops .... Lease
markets will be developed for increasing the size of holdings, and legal
provisions will be made for giving private land on lease for cultivation and
agro-business."
This amounts to nothing but opening out agriculture to
foreign agri-business, either by capturing vast fertile lands or by turning
farmers into agents of TNCs, to produce on their behalf.
(3) "Developing agriculture through effectively using the
resources and technology in accordance with geo-climatic-indigenous
conditions... New plant varieties will be protected through a legislation to
encourage research and breeding of new varieties, particularly in the private
sector."
This clause appears as if it may have been dictated word for
word by Monsanto, which is aggressively pushing its Genetic Engineered (GE)
seeds in India, and conducting research on the same through its Indian agent,
MAHYCO.
This has been followed up by a high profile campaign for GE
foods, which have been banned in the EU countries. In fact, even at the very
88th Indian Science Congress held earlier this year in Delhi, promotion of GE
foods was made the central theme. Vajpayee, who inaugurated the meeting, sounded
more like an agent of the US GE industry, rather than the PM of India, when he
said "formation of Genome Valley, unshackling governance of research and
higher education from bureaucratic controls, enhancing farm research investment
to 2% of GDP," was the government’s goal.
Inspite of vehement opposition to GE foods and Monsanto-MAHYCO
operations in India, it is obvious that the government is all set to push
through the ‘Gene Revolution’ in India. In fact, it had earlier been
shown that GE foods worth $4.5 million had sneaked into the country as ‘aid’ for
the cyclone-affected in Orissa.
(4) Extension of market facilities to counter fluctuations
in prices and calamities. But, everyone knows that by throwing open
agriculture to the vagaries of the market, price fluctuations have devastated
lakhs of peasants.
In addition to the above policies, the Central
Agricultural Reforms Committee proposed that, within three years, all food
subsidies should be removed, minimum remunerative prices should be maintained
and food imports should be increased to substitute food scarcity.
Besides these, the already mentioned changes in the Indian
Patent Act has had a devastating impact of local agriculture, particularly on
the market for seeds (including the transgenic varieties) and the related
impact. A host of TNCs have entered into the seed market in a big way either
directly, or in collaboration with local compradors, like Hindustan Lever
(U.K.), Cargyll (U.S.A.), Hi-bred International (U.S.A.), Seedtech International
(U.S.A.), Sandoz (Switzerland), etc. Seeds are usually sold as part of a package
— together with fertilizers and pesticides. Cargyll has already entered Punjab
in the purchase and sale of wheat. And a number of food-processing units, like
Pepsico, are contracting farmers to grow for them.
In July 2000, the Union environment ministry finally made
public its decision to permit large-scale field trials of transgenic
(genetically engineered) cotton. The decision had been kept secret till then.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), controlled by the giant U.S.
multinational Monsanto, was allowed to carry out field trials of the seed Bt
cotton on 85 hectares of land and seed production on 150 hectares. This despite
the fact that there is still a petition pending in the Supreme Court asking for
intervention to check violation of environmental regulations by such companies.
In its defence, the government has claimed that transgenic crops are
enormously significant" in improving crop productivity, and nutritional quality.
Countries in Europe have banned the use of transgenic seeds.
In a Third World country, where data gathering itself is scanty and
unsystematic, the scope for monitoring ill-effects is less and the potential for
environmental disaster greater. In July itself; seven academies of science
around the world, including five from Third World countries, warned that public
health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country in order to
monitor potential adverse health effects of transgenic plants. This technology
introduces genes from diverse organisms, some of which have little history in
food supply. Antibiotic resistance genes used in such crops could increase the
antibiotic resistance of humans. Transgenic crops carry genes from non-plant
sources as well, and there is little knowledge about their long-term effect. It
should he recalled that BSE, the "mad cow disease", broke out in Britain as a
result of many years of feeding cattle special "nutritionally enhanced" feeds.
Beef from BSE-affected cattle was fatal to humans, and the British government
was compelled to order the mass destruction of cattle. Transgenic crops have
only come into use over the past decade, so there exists no solid base of data
as to their long-term effects even in the imperialist countries, where extensive
monitoring is easier. Europeans have recently resisted the entry of American
food products made from genetically modified crops.
In September 2000, Karnataka gave Mahyco permission to carry
out field trials at 14 places in five districts of the state, Bellary,
Davangere, Koppal, Raichur, and Shimoga. The press reports that "similar field
trials [are] already in progress in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and
Madhya Pradesh."
The Union ministry’s permission for large-scale trials has
been given on the basis of the small-scale trials carried out by Mahyco.
However, the results of the small-scale trials have been kept secret!
The TNCs are not even sparing India’s forests. In the
culmination of an exercise which began in 1989, the Union environment ministry
has finalised a note for the cabinet on amending the 73-year old Indian Forest
Act. First, the new Act would consolidate forest and related laws in various
states, so as to centralise decision-making regarding forests in the hands of an
apex body headed by the Prime Minister. The note goes on to say that tree
plantation on private land will be actively encouraged; a land-owner who carries
out such plantation could register himself as a tree grower, and plantation
forests would -not be included in agricultural land-holding for the purpose of
ceiling laws. Evidently the Government ministry envisions large private holdings
with forest land to be used for commercial plantation State governments will be
empowered to relax curbs, especially on felling and transport of certain species
from private land.
On the other hand, there are increased powers to turn on the
actual rightful owners of the forest, the tribals. It is reported that shifting
cultivation (typically resorted to by tribals) will be checked, and "Protective
measures are to be made more effective and penal provisions uniformly more
stringent. Encroachment would become a non-bailable offence. Forest
officials would be able to confiscate forest produce.
What this portends is (i) intensified plunder of the forests
in the name of private plantation (grabbing the land of adivasis is simple, as
they usually have no pattas); (ii) penal measures against the adivasis
are to be fiercer; and (iii) a small section of adivasis will be corrupted and
co-opted into some village committees whose purported job will be to protect the
forest, and whose actual job will be to ensure commercial loot of the forest. By
generating a small splinter group among the adivasis them-selves whose interests
are closely linked with the loot, the authorities hope to widen their
support-base and split the resistance to the plunder. Such efforts are already
going on in the forest areas in A.P and Orissa. These policies are devised in
close association with the World Bank, and foreign-funded non-governmental
organisations are involved in their actual implementation.
The TNCs are moving in to take control of such innocuous
industries like flourmills, and dairy products — most of which were dominated by
the local bourgeoisie. Cargyll India Ltd has plans to takeover ‘sick’ flourmills
all over the country, with a planned investment of $25 million (Rs 100 crores)
over a four-year period. In Dairy products, the National Dairy Development Board
(NDDB) in its 1996 annual report has castigated the government for dismantling
the integral policy for oil seeds and edible oils.... It also noted that "TNCs
had set up dairy product plants in some of the nation’s best milk sheds, which
had been nurtured by cooperatives under ‘operation flood’...." And in
another case of arm-twisting the government sided with the TNC Tetrapak to buy
out the 80% equity share of NDDB in the joint venture, Hindustan Packaging.
It is a pincer movement by the imperialists to destroy Indian
agriculture. On the one hand they are setting up to control the production and
distribution of agricultural/forest commodities, on the other hand they are
flooding the country with cheap agricultural imports crushing local commodity
prices. With the imperialists giving huge subsidies to their farmers, and with
the Indian government servilely removing all subsidies and benefits to the
peasantry, the local producer is at a major disadvantage and is finding it
difficult to survive the onslaught.
What is more, in the period of globalisation government
emphasis is away from agriculture and totally focused on industry, more
particularly the service sector, adding to rural stagnation.
iii) Impact of Globalisation on Rural Sector
The damage to Indian agriculture is occurring and will deepen
as a result of: (a) a forced opening up of the Indian market to agricultural
imports; (b) a further reduction in the already abysmally low investment in
agriculture; (c) the wrecking of what little ‘food security’ approach in
agricultural production has existed since the seventies, and the dismantling of
public sector procurement and price support operations and public distribution.
These all comprise the chief aspects of globalisation in Indian agriculture.
Let us now look at all these three points separately.
(a) Flood Of Imports
Having removed all QRs and reduced tariffs on all
agricultural imports as per the dictates of the WTO, the flood of imports have
severely hit agricultural commodity prices pushing thousands of peasantry to
suicide.
There are two reasons for the crash in international
agricultural commodity prices, which is pushing the Indian peasant to the wall.
The first is the gigantic subsidies given by the imperialist governments to
their farmers. The second is a major fall in prices due to world recessionary
conditions. A similar fall was witnessed in agricultural commodity prices during
the 1929 stock market crash.
Regarding the subsidies in the imperialist countries, the
OECD countries (i.e. the 24 developed countries taken together) spent a huge
$327 billion on agricultural subsidies in 2001.(Aspects of India’s Economy;
No.32; Jan. 2002) Aspects further states that for a commodity like
rice, the support is 80% of the gross price in the OECD countries. Much is the
same with items like wheat, corn, Soya, sugar, etc. In the USA, the average
subsidy per farmer was $30,655 — per hectare it amounted to $550 (Rs 23,650).
Totally, $97.3 billion or Rs 4,18,400 crores were paid as subsidy. This is well
over the total value of all farm products in India taken together. On top of
this the Bush administration recently further hiked the subsidy by as much as
80% (or an extra $175 billion over the next few years) which will result in a
further downward push in the prices in the international markets.
The recessionary conditions and the crash in world commodity
prices in agriculture, is a reason for the added subsidies. The question of the
trade in agricultural commodities is the single most important sphere of
contention between the US and the EU. It is so intense, that twice it nearly
resulted in the bust up of the WTO. Even at present in the on going discussion
in Japan on the Doha round a stalemate has been reached with neither willing to
give in to the other. The massive drop in world prices, reminiscent of the 1929
crash, is the reason for the intense quarrel, and also the reason for the
imperialists to aggressively push to dump their surplus in the backward
countries like India. A look at only some of these commodities will indicate the
seriousness of the state of affairs.
World Bank data indicate that in several products prices have
declined by half between 1999 and 2001. So, for example, coconut oil prices fell
from $737 per ton in 1999 to $318 per ton in 2001; copra from $462 to $202; palm
oil from $436 to $286; rice from $248 to $173; coffee from $2,2912 to $1,373;
and tea from $2,068 to $1,661. In many cases such falls came after steep
declines during 1997-99. The price of wheat has dropped from $208 per ton in
1996 to $127 per ton in 2001(Aspects of India’s Economy; 32; Jan.2002).
It is within this scenario of falling international prices
coupled with the globalisation of Indian agriculture, that agricultural
commodity prices within the country have collapsed.
There is a strong opinion amongst a section of the middle
classes that such a big drop in the prices of agricultural commodities is good,
as they will be able to get to buy things cheap. Unconcerned about the fact that
this destroys the bulk of India’s population, who reside in the countryside,
such people only take a narrow, selfish view to the situation. But even this is
not true, as retail prices hardly ever drop; the major gains go to the
middle-man, traders and the manufacturers/processors who buy up the product at
throw-away prices. The sufferers are both the peasantry and the consumer. Take
for example the virtual collapse in coffee prices this year. Lakhs of the Indian
peasantry and labour employed on coffee plantations have been devastated by the
glut in world markets, but the price to the consumer remains high. Not only the
Coffee Board (Government) and other traders, but Nestle, Tatas and other such
manufacturers, are set to make windfall profits this year. While the West
subsidises their agriculturists, India and the WTO regime make sure that they
are ruined here. For consumers, prices only rise.
The liberalisation of the edible oils regime, at the dictates
of the WTO has virtually destroyed the agriculturist over the years. Production
of oil seeds has dropped form 24.4 million tons in 1996/97 to 21.7 million tons
in 1998/99 and dropped as low as 19 million tons in 2001. Besides effecting
lakhs of growers, the drop in production has had a disastrous impact on the oil
extraction industry. For example, in Karnataka 60% of the units have closed
down. Thus in 1993/94 while India produced 95.5% of its edible oil consumption,
in 1998/99 it had sunk to 61%. In 1999/2000 it dropped further to just 57%.
India has become the biggest importer of edible oil in the world.
The price of coconut oil has dropped to its lowest ever due
to the flood of imported palmolein. From a price of Rs 6,825 per quintal in
1997, it dropped to a mere Rs 2,825 per quintal in September 2000. The crisis
affects 35 lakh coconut growers in Kerala alone.
With the open import policy and the monopoly held by the big
consortiums and tea estates the small growers (mostly with one to two acres) are
being crushed out of existence. With the market being manipulated by the big
dealers and tea factories, the prices have crashed. The average price of black
tea in the South Indian Auction has dropped from Rs 76.4 per kg in 1998 to Rs
72.8 per kg in 1999. More significantly, the prices have been crashing since
January 2000. By June 2000 the price had fallen to Rs 34.7 per kg. The plight of
the green leaf was even worse. The price paid by a "representative factory" in
the Nilgiris fell from Rs 10.4 per kg in 1998/99 to about Rs 7.7 per kg in
1999-2000. By June last year the price had crashed to Rs 5.1 per kg.
In 1997, the government reduced the duty to zero per cent
and placed SMP (skimmed milk powder) imports on Open General License. The
servility of the Indian rulers can be seen from the fact that the import duty
for SMP in 43 countries is 144%. SMP imports rose from 126 tons in 1997/98 to
over 25,000 tons in 1999/2000. Also, in the same year 40,000 tons of butter-oil
have been imported. This glut has led to a fall in market prices. This is
killing the dairy industry of Punjab affecting the livelihood of over 4 lakh
people. The impact of free imports has led to the crash in the price of desi
ghee from Rs 160 per kg to Rs 100 per kg; and that of milk powder from Rs 100
per kg to Rs 60 per kg, in the last two years. The milk-producers cooperative’s
Milkfed, in Punjab, earnings dropped by Rs 16.5 crores in just the one-year
1998/99.
Now the WTO regime is also destroying the lakhs of sugarcane
growers and the sugar industry. With international prices at just Rs 7.6 per kg
and the government imposing a mere 40% duty on sugar, cheap imports have flooded
the country. India’s sugar season of 2001/02 started with a record carry-forward
stock of 12 million tons and production for that year was 18 million tons. Thus
the supply would amount to 30 million tons — near double the domestic
consumption of 16 million tons. With the low international prices, exports are
impossible. So, with massive stock accumulating the sugar mills have been
refusing to pay the cane farmers, pushing hundreds to suicide. Cane arrears in
U.P. alone were projected to have reached Rs 1,000 crores by Feb. this year.
Neither will they reduce the market price to increase consumption.
Though India (mostly Kerala) is one of the world’s leading
producers of rubber, with the government putting rubber on the OGL (Open General
License) in 1994, imports began to flood the market. This depressed domestic
prices which fell to as low as Rs 25.3 per kg (compared to Rs 52 per kg in
1996). Following protests the government has temporarily curbed imports; but
with QRs on natural rubber imports lifted in April 2001, the flood of imports is
likely to continue. With international prices being the lowest in 25 years ($0.6
per kg) domestic growers can expect to be wiped out. The crash in prices is
destroying the lives of nine lakh farmers in Kerala.
While cotton growers are committing suicide due to big debts
and crop failures, the government is allowing vast imports of cotton. Imports of
cotton have grown sharply from 4.3 lakh bales (one bale=170 kg) in 1998/99 to
22lakh bales in 2000/01. World cotton prices have crashed by 40% in just the one
year from 2000 to 2001, from $1.40 (Rs 67) per kg to 87 cents (Rs 42) per kg.
When, in April 2001 all quantitative restrictions were removed, the govt.
promised to raise tariffs on agricultural commodities to prevent a flood of
imports. But the duty on raw cotton was fixed at just 5%. India’s cotton
production was roughly 16.5 million bales in 2001/02, 2.5 million higher than
the previous year, resulting in a domestic glut. So, in Maharashtra, which has a
monopoly procurement scheme, the government is refusing to pay the growers, as
it already has a stock of 6 lakh bales from the previous year. Under pressure to
clear their debts (at interest rates of upto 10% per month) peasants are
resorting to distress sales to private traders. A minimum of 35 peasants from
Vidarbha committed suicide last year.
In August 1998 the government allowed the Open General
License (OGL) import of wheat directly by the roller flourmills. This was done
inspite of the fact that the government had 3½ million tons (mt) over-and-above
the minimum buffer stock. No sooner was this policy announced, that millers
began importing wheat, which then cost Rs 675 a quintal at southern ports as
against Rs 730 per quintal for FCI wheat. In 1999, even though wheat stocks grew
further to 21.6 mt, wheat imports continued, at an even lower rate of $135 per
ton (compared to the government equivalent rupee rate of $173 per ton). Within
the one-year after wheat was put under OGL, 2.5 million tons of wheat was
imported at a cost of Rs 1,300 crores. Simultaneously, wheat stocks grew even
further to 24.6 mt — i.e., 10 million tons in excess of the buffer stock norms.
Today the stockpile in government godowns is a huge 64 million tons.
The list can go on and on, where nearly all marketed
agricultural commodities have been badly hit. These include tobacco, eggs, fish,
onions, potatoes, silk, amongst others. With the imperialist countries having
bumper harvests and getting increased subsidies, we can expect that in the
coming years they will aggressively dump their agricultural commodities in India
and other backward countries of the world. Indian agriculture is therefore
heading for further disaster.
(b) Low Agricultural Investment
In the period of globalisation agriculture has got the least
priority, with major government attention (and funds) being geared for the
service sector. So, the governments at both the State and Centre, can allocate
huge funds for developing the telecom network or super-highways but has no funds
for irrigation. And private investment goes where returns are the maximum. So we
find a continuous decline in investment in agriculture in the decade of
globalisation.
Investment in agriculture today is nearly half of what it was
in the 1980s. The Table VI.1 gives a picture of the declining trend in
investment in Indian agriculture by both government and private sources:
Table VI.1
Investment in Agriculture as a percentage of GDP
Year
|
Public
|
Private
|
Total
|
1990/91
|
0.6
|
1.6
|
2.2
|
1996/97
|
0.4
|
1.1
|
1.5
|
1997/98
|
0.3
|
1.1
|
1.4
|
1998/99
|
0.3
|
1.1
|
1.4
|
Public capital outlays — in irrigation, agricultural
research, land development, etc. — has fallen as the Centre and States claim
they do not have the funds. While they are able to find endless resources to
assist setting up the infrastructure for the telecom industry, they find nothing
for agriculture.
So, for example, in Rajasthan development expenditure on
agriculture declined 20% between 1995/96 and 1997/98. Neglecting development,
the ruler’s obsession with elitist schemes was reflected in the quixotic
decisions of the Gehlot government last year to build golf courses in each
district, as part of its ‘relief work’. Last year it decided to build airstrips
in each district! Instead of using relief work for water storage schemes, it
plans golf courses, where one course consumes water equivalent to a village of
9,000.
Also, last year the Maharashtra government abandoned 2,600
schemes for water projects due to "inadequate funds". Yet the government
can spend Rs 100 crores each year to supply water by tankers. This satisfies the
powerful tanker mafia, which has links with the top politicians of the state.
Besides, only 15% of the cultivable land in Maharashtra is under irrigation,
which is half the national average, the bulk of which is cornered by the sugar
lobby. So, a state that generates the largest revenues (due to
industrial/finance concentration in the Mumbai-Pune belt) cannot find any funds
for irrigation !!
Regarding private investments, farmers have not been able to
invest more, because credit investment — not to mention working capital — has
dried up. Organised rural credit was in a state of collapse in the 1990s. This
got intensified by: (i) the trend towards privatisation of banking and the
government’s instructions to public sector banks to end special loans to the
primary sector (ii) the lack of surplus generated in agriculture, due to falling
returns.
Finally, if we turn to rural employment, the 1990s witnessed
the lowest rate of growth in post-1947 history. Rural non-farm employment almost
doubled between 1977 to 1989. It has declined since then. In the last seven
years of the 1990s the official growth rate was a mere 0.7%.
Over all we find that both, the rate of growth in production
and yields in agriculture have drastically fallen in the 1990s compared to the
1980s. While the growth of agricultural production of all crops in the 1980s was
3.2% in the 1980s, this fell to 1.7% in the 1990s. Similarly for yield rates the
growth in the 1980s was 2.6 %, while in the 1990s it was a mere 1%.
(c) Dismantling of The PDS
The World Bank has time-and-again stated the need for winding
up the FCI (Food Corporation of India). Once again, in its report titled,
India : Foodgrain Marketing Policies — Reforms to Meet Food Security Needs
(August 99), the Bank maintained that "India’s food grain procurement,
distribution and buffer-stocking policies have repressed the private food grain
marketing, under-cutting its potential contribution to long-term food security."
In another WB report, titled, India: 1998 Macroeconomic
Update, the Bank dictates to the government to "Allow agricultural ...
prices to increase by linking them more closely with world prices by eliminating
controls....".
The essence of all such statements is a clear ultimatum to
the government to wind up public procurement and allow traders to take control
of the market mechanism. But to take such an open step, which would hit at, not
only the farmers and the PDS system, but also the large number of employees of
the FCI, it would result in an upsurge of the masses against the government. So
the BJP-led government devised a two-pronged attack on how to kill the FCI
surreptitiously.
First, it flooded the media with articles, talk-shows etc.,
on the uselessness of the FCI — the corruption, the high salary costs, the
inefficiency, the huge storage costs. Second, it created a crisis within the FCI
itself by a deliberate piling up of stocks.
Over the last two years the government has continuously hiked
procurement prices, ensuring high procurement even in years of relatively poor
crops, while hiking the issue price in ration shops, ensuring low off take. It
is obvious that high procurement plus low off take equals burgeoning stocks.
By January 1999 excess stocks, over the buffer requirements,
already amounted to 7.6 million tons (mt). To dispose of stocks the government
ought to have reduced the PDS rates. But it did not; it in fact increased it in
April ’99. The off take therefore dropped further. The stocks therefore
continued to rise. By January 2000 the excess stock increased to 14.7 million
tons, over the buffer-stock required (of 13 mt) reaching 27 mt.
But, yet again the government raised the PDS prices in the
Budget of the year 2000. This time the hike was substantial and also included
the BPL category. Result : the PDS off take declined even further. By end
September 2000, food grain stocks crossed a gigantic 42 mt. With the FCI having
a capacity to store 27 mt, private storage had to be resorted to at high cost.
Just storage charges were amounting to Rs 14 crore per day.
Though 3.5 mt of grain (worth Rs 1,750) in FCI godowns was
rotting and had been declared as unfit for human consumption (as early as
December ’99) the government was not willing to either reduce PDS rates (it was,
on the contrary hiked in March 2000) nor distribute the grain to the drought
affected which hit crores of people in the summer of 2000; nor introduce
food-for-work schemes.
With such massive stocks, an atmosphere was created through
the media, that it would be impossible for the FCI to intervene in purchases of
the Kharif paddy crop expected in the third week of September 2000. By August
itself the Union Minister of Food, Shanta Kumar, stated that the FCI would
prefer the "levy route" for procurement of rice from the millers, who in
turn "should be forced" to purchase at least 50% of the paddy that
arrives in the grain market. This was an open declaration to hand over
procurement to the private traders. The government, in fact, plans to put a 75%
levy on the rice millers and purchase their entire stock from them.
By September 2000 itself, thousands of tons of paddy began
reaching the grain market in Punjab. But the FCI was not to be seen (in the
previous year they had begun purchases from that date). The FCI began stalling
and issuing contradictory statements. By end September the FCI issued
instructions not to purchase rice with broken quantity above 25%. Farmers at the
mandis became desperate. Many resorted to distress sales as low as Rs 300
per quintal (MSP Rs 540).
Besides Punjab, similar reports of distress sales came in
from all parts of the country where the FCI dragged its feet. For example, in
Karnataka the prices of paddy in 2001 crashed to Rs 400-500 per quintal compared
to Rs 730-800 in 2000. The situation of course grains was even worse: Maize
prices dropped to Rs 300-350 per quintal in 2001 compared to Rs 750-950 in the
previous year and Jowar fell to Rs 350-400 per quintal in 2001 compared to Rs
1200-1300 in 2000.
On the one hand it has thus sought to make the FCI
irrelevant, on the other the government has virtually buried the PDS — i.e. the
only form of a limited food security that existed in this country.
The government first divided the PDS ration cardholders into
two — the BPL (Below Poverty Line) variety and the APL (Above Poverty Line)
variety. It then hiked the prices of APL to above market prices, making
purchases in this category meaningless. As, of the total PDS, roughly 60% went
to the APL category, this meant, defacto, disbanding PDS for the 60% consumers.
As for the balance, BPL category, in most states they have not been, as yet,
properly categorised. Moreover, with the rates being increased to such high
levels in the budget of 2000, the poorest sections could not afford this. In
other words, it also remove this poorest section of the people from the PDS.
Even though stocks were rotting in government godowns, and drought struck large
parts of the country, the government was not prepared to reduce rates, as their
aim was to create such conditions that would lead to the winding up of the PDS
system.
And that was exactly what happened. The off take from PDS
fell drastically. Off take of wheat, for example dropped form 8 million tons in
1998/99 to 5 million tons in 1999/2000. After the March 2000 PDS hike, in the
first quarter of 2000 (April-June), the off take was 70% down from the previous
year. So, the off take in 2001 was minimal.
An example, of the present fate of the PDS can be seen from
what was happening at Delhi, the capital of the country. The city has 36 lakh
ration cardholders; yet the bulk was only lifting sugar. The difference in rates
between APL rates and open market rates will explain why (there is NO BPL
categorisation in Delhi).
Table VI.2
|
PDS Rate
|
Open Market
Rate
|
Rice
|
Rs 11.8 per kg
|
Rs 9.5 per kg
|
Wheat
|
Rs 8.8 per kg
|
Rs 6 per kg
|
Sugar
|
Rs 13 per kg
|
Rs 18 per kg
|
As against the monthly quota of 42,640 tons of wheat, the
Delhi govt. did not lift a single grain. In the case of rice, where the quota
was 13,610 tons, the government lifted only 6 tons. It lifted the entire quota
of sugar. No wonder, the FCI godowns are overflowing with stocks!
Besides, the BPL categorisation, was a brilliant scheme by
which to sabotage the PDS. According to the CAG (Controller and Auditor General)
Report (reported on Jan. 1, 2001), of the 31 states and Union Territories, 18
have not been able to identify the number of people on BPL. Among the 13 states,
which have "identified" the BPL population, several states had failed to
supply ration cards to the BPL families. So, in effect, vast sections of the
population below the poverty line are not categorised thus, and are therefore
forced to buy at APL rates.
Also, there are enormous differences in the method of
identification of the BPL population. The official estimates place it at a mere
15 crores or 17% of the population. But, the Planning Commissions estimates put
the figure at over double that — 32 crore people, which is 36% of the country’s
population (both based on the 1993-94 survey). This variation in the states was
given in Table VI.3
Table VI.3
States
|
BPL Population as per
Official Estimates
|
BPL Population as per
Planning Commission Estimates
|
AP
|
15%
|
22%
|
Gujarat
|
8%
|
24%
|
Bihar
|
29%
|
55%
|
Karnataka
|
17%
|
33%
|
Rajasthan
|
9%
|
27%
|
Maharashtra
|
19%
|
37%
|
Thereby, through statistical manipulation 17 crore people
have been virtually struck off the (BPL) PDS lists, though they live in grinding
poverty.
In other words, with less than half the BPL people being
categorised, and of this, with a small fraction being "identified" as BPL,
barely 10-15% of the actual below poverty line people would be eligible for BPL
grain — i.e., just 3 to 4 crore out of the total 32 crore. Not being categorised
as BPL, they would come under the APL category, thereby, defacto, writing them
off from the PDS system.
Added to all this, are the big frauds in the PDS system. The
CAG Report says that in 1999 as much as 31% of the total PDS foodgrains, and 23%
of the sugar were diverted from the PDS to the open market. Moreover, the CAG
report said that the PDS was "overcharging" consumers defeating the
purpose of providing cheap grains at uniform rates. It said "consumers were
charged Rs 436 crores in excess due to passing on extra expenditure to them
instead of absorbing from state budgets."
So, through fraud, through BPL identification/categorisation
manipulations, and through massive hikes in PDS rates, the government has
already, in essence, killed the PDS system, without saying so. This is exactly
what the imperialists have been demanding.
The situation reached such farcical proportions, that, when
the government was desperate to dispose of stocks, and unable to export wheat
due to lower international prices, it decided to sell 5 million tons of wheat in
the open market. It decided to sell it at Rs 6.5 per kg to the traders while the
PDS rate was Rs 8.3 per kg (the so-called economic cost). In other words, it was
now going to sell to the traders at a rate 38% below what it sells to the poor
in the PDS (APL). In the name of cutting the subsidies, the PDS price was hiked;
now, by selling it at 38% below the ‘economic cost’, the government was defacto
transferring the subsidy from the poor to the traders.Since Nov.2000 the
government has exported a much as 150 lakh (15 million) tons of foodgrains at
such throw-away prices.
Today, with the PDS being virtually dismantled, the stocks
with the FCI have reached the unmanageable amount of approximately 64 mt. This
will give it a strong pretext not to intervene in the purchases of foodgrains.
This will result in the collapse of the MSP (Minimum Support Price) system and
the fleecing of the farmers by the traders. Thereby, both procurement and
distribution will be privatised.
With the privatisation of procurement and public
distribution, the situation is ripe to be handed over to TNCs like Cargyll, who
have been waiting to swoop down on the country. In due course the monopoly of
the public sector will be turned into the monopoly of the TNC. Instead of FCI
there will be Cargyll. Already, in 1999, Cargyll India Pvt. Ltd has now set up
two procurement centers at Sahnewal and Abohar in Punjab, and, in that year
procured 10,000 tons of wheat. In the next year it procured 25,000 tone of wheat
and 20,000 tons of rice for export. In 1998 itself Cargyll entered in to a
3-year extension procurement service agreement with the Punjab Agri Export
Corporation Ltd. (Pagrexco). In consultation with Pagrexco it identified places
where new centers could be set up. Also, in cooperation with Pagrexco it planned
to set up an integrated flourmill in Punjab on the lines of the sick Noida
flourmill bought by Cargyll, which has now expanded its capacity to 500 tons per
day.
It has also begun contracting directly with the farmer.
Cargyll would control seeds and fertilisers, it would provide credit and buy
back the entire produce. The contracts stipulate that the farmer cannot sell
their produce to anyone else. Such bonded systems of farming are the essence of
the ‘contract system’ spoken of in the New Agricultural Policy. Besides
Cargyll, the comprador giant, Reliance, plans to buy 2 lakh acres of
agricultural land in Karnataka. The path for this too is cleared by the NAP’s
corporate farming policy.
The agrarian economy is destroyed; the farmer is devastated;
the poverty stricken are further starved; and the TNCs/compradors enter with
their ‘corporate farming’ and monopoly control over the agrarian market — that
is the essence of the BJP-led government’s New Agricultural Policy.
Globalisation has devastated India’s rural economy!!
|