Agricultural Labourers and Small/Poor/Marginal Peasants

Agricultural Labourers and Small/Poor/Marginal Peasants

(Download Word Version of the File by Clicking Here)

Rural Poor: Agricultural Labourers and Small/Poor/Marginal Peasants

The rural poor is a conglomerate of the poorer classes — landless agricultural labourers, tenants, poor, small or marginal farmers who own uneconomic landholdings and supplement their income by working as wage labourers either in agriculture or informal non-agrarian sectors. Most them belong to low castes — lower backwards and dalits. Unlike the kulaks/middle/rich peasants they face dual problems — social discrimination and economic exploitation. Therefore, while the mobilisation of the better off agrarian classes has mainly been around the economic issue, that of the rural poor has focused both on the social and economic issues. They are sometimes mobilised exclusively on the social and cultural issues, they are also mobilised mainly on the economic issues. Assertion of dalit identity, mainly under the influence of Ambedkarism through different social and cultural organisations of dalits, finding expression in different ways including conversion to another religions are examples of mobilisation on the social and cultural issue. You have read about it in unit 7 which deals with dalit movement in India. This section confines itself to the mobilisation of the rural poor on the economic issues. But as economic problems are intertwined with their social status, their social and economic issues can not be mechanically separated.

The agricultural labourers and poor/small peasants have been mobilised into collective actions through out the post-Independence era in different states of India by different kinds of organisations. The latter included the socialist and communist parties, Gandhians, voluntary groups/NGOs, independent individuals and naxalites. This sub-section discusses some examples of movements of agrarian classes which form the rural poor.

The first two decades following Impendence saw the movements of the rural poor in Uttar Pradesh by the socialists and communists on the one hand and by the naxalites and the Communist Party of India on the other hand. The issues on which they were mobilised in the western Uttar Pradesh included redistribution of the Gaon Samaj land, abolition of begar, giving better wages, lifting of the sanction imposed by the rich classes on the poorer classes for cutting grass needed as fodder from the fields of the former, and protection of the women of the poorer classes from the exploitation of the men belonging to the richer classes. The forms of protest included hunger strike and demonstrations. The 1960s also saw the mobilisation of dalits by Republican Party of India, which unlike the BSP of the later period took up the cultural issues along with the economic problems. Besides, there are innumerable examples of the protest of the agricultural labourers and poor/small peasants in the form of informal group organisations or “every day forms of resistance” (Jagpal Singh, Capitalism and Dependence: Chap.IV “Dependence, Resistence and Sanctions”). In Basti district of eastern Uttar Pradesh, the CPI had organised the Land Grab movement during the 1960s in order to give surplus land to the poorer classes. However, the traditional left and the socialists were unable to mobilise dalits in several parts of the country like some area of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkahnd, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. This was because of their neglect of dalit question; though the socialists showed concern for the caste, their focus were the backward castes, not the dalits. This lacuna of the conventional left was corrected by the naxalites in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa. Their ability to combine the economic issues with the castes disabilities enabled them to mobilise the low caste agricultural labourers and poor peasants. Their resolve to get the land reforms implemented and abolish caste discrimination made them popular among these sections. They are not averse to use violence to eliminate “class enemies”, which include police personals, landlords and some politicians. Till recently all naxalite organisations did not participate in the elections; now some of them do take part in elections. Among the most important naxal outfits are Janashakti and People’s War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar Pradesh Kisan Sabha (BPKS) and Marxist Coordination Committee (MCC) in Bihar.

Recent decades have seen the movement of poor peasants who have been affected by the negative impact of development introduced by the state, especially funded by the World Bank. Taking recourse to Gandhian means of protest these movements emerged have as alternative mode of movements. Concerned individuals, civil society organisations, voluntary organisations and NGOs are playing significant roles in such movements. Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Medha Patkar is one of the most important examples of such movements.

Farmers/Middle Peasants/Kulaks/Rich Peasants/Rural Rich

The two decades of the last century — the sixties and seventies, witnessed the movements of a section, which is known by different names — farmers, middle peasants, kulaks, rich peasants or rural rich. These movements had their own organisations and leadership. These movements were: those of two separate organisations of the same name — the Bharatiya Kisan Unions (BKUs) led by Bhupender Singh Mann in Punjab and by Mahender Singh Tikait in Uttar Pradesh; of Shetkari Sangathan led by Sharad Joshi in Maharashtra; of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha led by Prof. Nanjundaswami; of Khedyut Samaj in Guajarat; of Vivasayigal Sangam led by Narayanaswami Naidu in Tamil Nadu.

Characteristics

These movements shared certain characteristics: they emerged in prosperous regions of the country, which have benefited from the green revolution; they were the movements of rural rich, which included rich peasants, landlords and self-cultivating middle peasants in which the middle peasants had the preponderance; these groups had benefited from the land reforms including the abolition of landlordism; socially the middle or intermediate castes (Jats, Gujars, Yadavs, Muslim high castes in UP; Marathas in Maharashtra; Vokaliggas and Lingayats in Karnataka; Patels in Guajrat) formed the largest composition of them); unlike the peasant movements of the pre-Independence period their issues and demands are related to the market economy like remunerative prices of the agricultural produce, subsidised inputs, reduction in the electricity bills, increase in the time of availability of electricity; their “apolitical” or “non-political” character; claim to represent the rural (bharat) interests against urban (India) on the plea the bharat is exploited by India; they overlook the division in the rural society and project themselves to be representative of entire rural society; they were being led by a new kind of leadership; they raise new types of issue, etc.

Of these three movements — Shetkari Sangathan in Maharashtra, Karnataka Raitha Sangha in Karnataka and BKU movement of UP deserve special discussion for different reasons. It was the “Bharat vs. India” thesis of Sharad Joshi which highlighted the rural-urban divide more prominently. Besides, as you will notice later in this unit, Sharad Joshi is only leader who has supported the liberalisation policy of the state, and who also worked as the advisor to the Government of India during the V. P. Singh’s regime. The Karnataka Rajaya Raiytha Sangha movement in Karnataka occupies special place due to the socialist background of its leader - Prof. Nanjundaswami. The most striking has been the nature of leadership of the BKU in UP and the role of the traditional institution of khap (caste council) in mobilising the farmers.

Genesis of Farmers’ Movements

Since farmers movements are the post- green revolution movements and largely occurred in the green revolution belt, they found the terms of trade against the agricultural sector. The rising cost of input in agriculture could not be met with the returns of the produce. Besides, inability of the system to provide electricity along with the increasing indebtedness to the public institution mainly to meet the input and infrastructural requirement gave birth to the new set of problems of the farmers. Though placed in superior position to the large proportion of the rural poor, this section found itself neglected by the state. Populist promises by the politicians and the hold of this section on the rural vote bank contributed to the feeling of being cheated by the political class. Their expectation from the system further rose with the increasing share of legislators in the centre and state since the era of the Janata Party government in the 1970s. This happened when people in general lost faith in politics, which to them meant formal political institutions — mainly leaders, political parties and elections.

Under these circumstances the farmers responded positively to alternative mode mobilisation, which was marked by the mobilisation on the “apolitical” or “nonpolitical” plank, projected the rural sectors as a homogeneous unit, which was exploited by the urban vested interests. The leadership which not was professional type found it easy to provide leadership to these movements. The example of the BKU movement in UP can be an appropriate example in this context. It was the last of these movements; while other farmers movements took place in the 1970s and the early 1980s, the BKU movement of UP took place mainly in 1988-1989. It was a time when there was complete vacuum of leadership of the farmers caused by the death of Charan Singh on May 29, 1987 and earlier disintegration of the farmers movement in UP following the death of R M Lohia in 1967. This gap was filled up by political party of Charan Singh with frequent changes in its nomenclature. Earlier while in the Congress, Charan Singh was opposed to the agitational politics, though he successfully devised an strategy to create his political constituency among the backward classes and the middle/ rich peasants. But collective mobilisation into political agitation by his party was not as regular or organised as was by the socialists and the communists. The massive political mobilisation by non-party political organisation was by the BKU of Tikait. For the first time the traditional institution of khap (caste council) was active in mobilisation of the farmers. This traditional leadership of khap (caste council), which was headed by the leader of a khap of Jats, Mahender Singh Tikait also included the leaders of khaps of several castes.

Farmers’ Movements before the BKU

Prior to the BKU mobilisation in the 1980s, the farmers of UP were mobilised mainly by the leftist forces which included both the socialists and the communists. But their mobilisation mainly took place in the 1950s and the 1960s. Apart from the socialists and communists, Charan Singh also attempted to mobilise the farmers of UP during this period. But he did not mobilise them into a collective action. He, in fact, was opposed to the agatitions. His mobilisation of farmers was in the form of carving out an electoral base for himself among the middle and backward caste peasants like Jats, Yadavs, Kurmies, Kories, Lodhs, etc of UP. He did so while he was still a member of the Congress. He adopted two-pronged policy for this purpose: first, he articulated the interests of the peasant proprietors; second, he identified himself with the backward caste peasantry. Largely both these groups—backward castes and the peasant proprietors overlapped. This created resentment within the Congress about Charan Singh’s attempt to carve base for himself even while he was its member. At an opportune time, following the defeat of Congress in 1967 election in nine states, Charan Singh came out of Congress to form his own party — the Bharatiya Krnati Dal (BKD). After the decline of the mobilsation by the socialist and the communist, as mentioned earlier unlike when he was in the Congress even Charan Singh’s party mobilised farmers into agititional politics. But it was not as regular and organised as the mobilisation by the socialists and the communists. Having consolidated his base among the middle caste peasants Charan Singh changed his focus to state and nation politics which catapulted him to the post of Prime Minister in 1980.

The principal issue of the mobilisation was related to cane price, though other issues also mattered. Therefore, the peasant movement in UP was basically sugar cane growers’ movements (Jagpal Singh, pp. 87-92). A comparison of these issues with the issues taken up by the farmers movements of the later period shows that were almost same. However, there was a the difference; the socialists and communists took them up before the impact of the green revolution was actually felt, while the BKU took them up after the impact of the green revolution had been realised. Opening up sugar mills in different parts of Uttar Pradesh in the 1930s not only encouraged the commercialisation of cropping pattern, it also gave rise to the new issues like the sugar cane growers problems. The peasant mobilisation on these issues took place during the pre-Independence period also, but it was during the 1950s-1960s that the socialists and the communists mobilised them regularly.

Problems of the sugarcane growers, some of which exist even today, were the following: the sugar cane growers would supply the sugar cane to the sugar mills, payment for which was supposed to made later on; the sugar mills did not mention the price of the sugar cane on the receipt of the sugar cane from the farmers; rampant corruption at the “centres”, the distant places connecting with mills, where sugar cane would be supplied. The problem was compounded by the fact that the price of the sugar cane was not provided to the farmers on time. It was also not paid in full; it was paid in installments. Therefore, the major demands during the peasant movements of the 1950s-1960s included regular, timely and full (not in installments) payment of the price of the sugar cane to the cane growers.

Through out the 1950s and 1960s the sugar cane growers were mobilised by the socialists and communists during the months of December and March - the peak season for sugar cane harvesting under the banners of organisations like Hind Kisan Panchayat and Kisan Sabha. They resorted to organising rallies, dharnas at the mill gates, conferences of the peasants, etc. Apart from the local leaders, the national and state level leaders like Acharaya J. B. Kripali, A. K. Gopalan, E. M. S. Naboodaripad, Z. A. Ahmed, Gainda Singh and Dada Dharamdhikari visited UP in order to mobilise sugar cane growers. Sometimes this resulted in scuffle between the cane growers and “agents” of the mill owners, and arrest of the leaders of the movement and foisting of charges on them. Towards the end of the 1960s, the leaders of these movement either joined Congress, Charan Singh’s party or became inactive and a phase in the peasant movement came to an end. As you noticed in this unit earlier the peasant mobilisation was done in the coming decades by Charan Singh’s party and by the BKU headed by Tiakait.

Globalisation and Farmers’ Movements

Unlike the earlier movements those of the farmers in the era of globalisation have reacted to the issues related to globalisation. The attempt of the western countries, especially to interfere in the agrarian economy of the country, especially through the Dunkel Draft and GATT evoked different reactions from the farmers movement. While Sharad Joshi, the Shetkari Sangathan leader from Maharashtra supported the globalisation, two supported leaders Prof. Nanjudaswami of Karntaka Rajya Rytha Sangha and Mahendra Singh Tikait of BKU in UP opposed it. Sharad Joshi argued that the opening of Indian agriculture to the world competition would benefit Indian farmers. His perspective helped him to become an advisor to the Government of India during the regime of V. P. Singh. The opponents of globalisation Nanjudaswami and Tikait got support of academic activist like Vandana Shiva and a large number of the socialist and Gandhians. They argued that that globalisation would not only expose the Indian farmers to the unequal competition with the European farmers, an attempt to change the patent laws about seeds would deprive them of their traditional rights over the preservation and generation of seeds. They opposed the attempt of the government to change the patent laws, demanded abrogation of the subsidies given by the European governments to their farmers. They also opposed the Multinational Companies which used Indian natural resources like water to manufacture soft drinks. In fact, intellectuals like Vandana Shiva argue that modern technology popularised in green revolution has harmed the fertility of land rather than helping it. The opponents of the globalisation organise rallies, demonstration and seminars to register their protest. Following the death of Prof. Nanjudaswami the farmers protest against globalisation has got weakened.