CNN reports on indebted Indian farmers selling their wives to pay their debts. So much for brand India.
While we might wish to dismiss any unfortunate incidents of this type as propaganda, the reality is that such feudal exploitation is a direct result of the agrarian economy. In the agrarian economy, land ownership is king. If you don't own land, then you get trod upon.
One of the advantages of an industrial economy is that factory workers can earn a higher wage without having to own the factory. And factories themselves don't take up as much land, which is itself a scarce commodity.
Without a transition to a more industrialized economy, India will always face class tensions between the landed and the landless, the haves and the have-nots. Additionally, I think that the collective farming or co-operative farming model might also help to buffer individual families against economic pressures. Better than having to sell your own wife.
24 comments:
It just breaks your heart.
The double tragedy is that the useless, corrupt,spineless, third rate Congress has gained more power recently.
The party that brought the nation to bankruptcy in 1989, ruined any chances of managing the population by its merciless policies during the emergency, compromised every government institution in existence, ruined the armed forces, amended the Constitution umpteen times for it's own purposes, accommodated and empowered the Communists, completely falsified Indian history in conjunction with the Communists, ruined the industrial sector through retrograde labour laws; in short, just about ruined everything in this country, has just been given more power, aided and abetted by a fawning, lopsided and criminally biased English media. The situation will never improve; that is the bitter truth.Whatever improvements exists are inspite of the government.
Such a job these kind hearted westerners have on their hands. Despite bearing the white man's heavy burden for close to three centuries, they were not able to substantiately improve the pathetic conditions of poor indians, as revealed in this 'report'.
It calls for perhaps the recognition that indians, as churchill or somebody said, are absolutely incapable of governing themselves. Maybe it is due to the large area and the large populations. then again there is the all-evil caste 'system' that is inherent to this country.
The solution, it appears, is to divide the nation into many little countries to ease administration. India anyway was not a single country as per 'enlightened indian intellectuals', who have apparently 'discovered' that it was the kind british who consolidated all the smaller kingdoms during their brutish raj to make the india we see today. Naturally, it takes a super capable westerner to administer this country. No 'last englishman to rule india' down to the present dhimmi regent can do that job properly.
The factul nature of the above report and the total objectivity that so apparently pervades it leaves no doubt about its authenticity and applicability all across the 'rural India' as the report is titled. Sara Sidner and CNN rightly deserves to be commended for their large heartedness in 'discovering' the 'many ills' of india and shouldering the white man's burden so resolutely even now. Their great grandfather Lord Macaulay would surely be a happy man today, sitting, no doubt, right next to Lord Jesusu and his kind Farter in Heaven.
Dear San,
You are wrong. The main reason for rural poverty is multi-fold. I will list some of those.
1. Commodotisation of land, which enables people to sell the land they own. This is a problem bcoz, before british property rights came, a family can own a land, but cannot sell it. If they cannot do farming, they have to leave the land and another family will take over it.
Since lands cannot be sold, both the farmers and farm labourers had a share on the land's produce.
But when britishers made land rights, the current owners of land got pattas, and then sold the land to another rich man for some money. The man who buys the land, doesnt have the necessity to employ local farmers, and hence he may use the land for any purpose, thus depriving the local labourers of their share in the land.
2. Confiscation of village powers. When india got the independence alms (we did not win freedom.. rather we begged freedom, and got the alms :) )
the power was transferred to the congress. But instead of returning power to the native people of various regions, the congress had undermined its authority.
Result? The village people could not even repair the pond nearby, as government permission is needed, and local village leader is made powerless.
3. The commodisation of the village produce. The villagers on those days, combined produce food for their survival. But now, each farmer cultivates for selling in market.
In my village, the farmers cultivate paddy, sell it to middle man, and then go to town to purchase polished rice.
SO, when money comes in, the food material is valued in it. Unfortunately, the government steps in and always undervalues the prices.
Thus, the villagers get in to debt trap and finally unable to cultivate their land.
4. The corporate imperialism of the rural villages. In tamilnadu, still the government is not allowing farmers to extract toddy (kall in tamil) from palm and coconut tree, because of the brewers lobby. Some villagers protested and extracted toddy against government order, but was brutally suppressed.
If the government allows this, then numerous coconut farmers will be rich, and also the labourers who extract toddy will earn more money.
Only in india, can the government continuously attempt to break the backbone of our country, and then worry that the backbone has NOT broken yet
I agree San. Rajeev's ideas on agriculture leading India out of 3rd world status are pipe dreams, in my view. You need to create jobs in factories, particularly for women. Once a woman in India's Hindi belt starts to earn Rs 4000-5000 pm it will bring about a social revolution. You will always value-add far more frmo an acre of factory than an acre of farm. even if you resort to horticulture/biotech, whatever.
There are reports of farmers selling their wives, commiting suicide. But, the party in power seem to win no matter what.
Things just don't seem to add up.
Rightangle,
Thank you for your informative post except for the fourth item where you got it wrong.
The reason DMK government won’t allow farmers to set up toddy shop is because the government run shops will lose money. The DMK government is using the money from these government run liquor shops to buy votes thru giving doles such as free TV’s, gas cylinders and what not.
San, you are wrong. Right Angle has the right angle on this issue. Decriminalizing rural vocations that threaten the urban industrial economy is the way to go. And what social revolution is Sangeetha talking about? That financially independent middle class Indian women will be free to pursue exogamous relationships?
/** Once a woman in India's Hindi belt starts to earn Rs 4000-5000 pm it will bring about a social revolution.
**/
I think, sangeetha should explain more on this, on how women earning will bring social revolution?
Next, why is everyone beliefs that revolution will always be good?
The english language is very rich in vocabulary, that every thing can be projected either positive or negative at ease..
For example, bribery is neatly projected as lobby in western countries and done publicly..
Like wise, pushing our women in to the prison of economic labour, is projected in a polished way as revolution or social change..
**For example, bribery is neatly projected as lobby in western countries and done publicly..**
This is not an accurate portrayal of lobbying. Lobbying in its purest form is a legitimate action in which you contact your representative and ask for certain legislation. The representatives exist to pass legislation in favor of people and to call such demands as corruption is wrong.
Why do lobby firms and lobby groups exist, you may ask. Representatives usually meet only their constituents and some enterprising people have set up firms with a reach across the nation and so have the ability to contact multiple politicians.
Note that lobbying does not mean that you ask your representatives to send contracts your way in exchange for kickbacks. If that were the case, you can call it corruption. Sure, that happens in USA, but you cannot call that lobbying.
Also, I am not saying that there is no corruption. It is possible that lobbyists pay politicians in exchange for legislation, but if you believe that this action is legal, you are highly mistaken.
This is not a defense of lobbying. I am just pointing out the errors in a statement that is commonly made. Requesting the change of a law which everyone follows is not the same as breaking the law unless such a request is accompanied by corruption.
Your statement is similar to trashing the free-market by saying that in America, they have legalized the black market.
Arvind,
The very existence of lobby itself is a subversion of democracy.. ie to surround a lawmaker, and insist on a policy for specific group of people, and the achieve their result..
A law maker should be able to represent all people and not just lobby groups, which unfortunately the fact today..
And do you feel, all lobby groups exist for the welfare of the people?
Also, when some one lobbies a law maker, he needs to appease him.. that means, he needs to pacify or lure him.. that will result in wide variety of bribery not just in monetary alone..
Most Lobby groups bribe either directly or indirectly.. and those with money power have greater influence..
The practical reason is that ever law maker needs fund for the election to win.. the more the funds, the more the resources he can use to win..
I am amazed that folks here are arguing against women making money in rural areas. You guys prefer them "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" instead? If rural women have even a semblance of economic power, they will be able to resist atrocities regularly meted out on them. More importantly, they will raise literacy levels of the next generation.
That is the right way to go. No doubt a mumbai slum woman is more empowered than a farmer's wife. Recently one slum(?????) was conferred with power by a well known actor who became horny in his wife's absence
really smart, all you guys mouthing the nehruvian bullshit about factories being the only chance to give people a good life.
you will all agree that china has done exactly that: it has built lots of factories, correct? they have followed your wet-dream of prosperity through industrialization.
pray, then, why:
a) are there an estimated 150 million unemployed and permanently unemployed rural people who are roaming around the countryside? these estimates are not mine, they are from the 'atlanticist'.
b) is china buying up 1 million hectares of agricultural land in africa?
yeah, really smart, guys. let's pave over and pollute india's good agricultural land and build factories. then we can go out and buy land in ... pakistan? to grow crops to feed ourselves.
i have explained this here many times, but there are always new people who come in with shallow prescriptions to 'solve' india's problems! jeez, thanks, geniuses!
we need to ensure that whatever we do we do not destroy our agricultural land. we have a competitive advantage with good land -- look up the theory of comparative advantage as articulated by david ricardo. plenty of other countries have crummy land -- eg china. let *them* build factories. we can always trade food for their goods.
i would have thought this was easy to understand, but no, people have to sell snake-oil!
/** No doubt a mumbai slum woman is more empowered than a farmer's wife.
**/
Nice point.. actually the bogus argument of women empowerment is a cleverly articulated one to subvert the indian minds..
Women had their own role in traditional indian society.. I dont know about brahmin community.. but in farming communities, women are equally employed even now. Since farming in india is a family profession, not just women, but every member of the family works..
Now considering that india was 90% rural at the time of independance, we can say, 90% of the women were employed and had the share of produce too.
But today's feminist will not understand this, with their narrow, short sized brains, which only recognized white collar works as job..
Its only when urbanisation came, the men got the job, and women had to sit in house.. the brahmins first faced this situation, and now all communities face this..
KP11: your logic runs thus: just because one woman was raped all women henceforth should sit at home.
Rajeev: if China has unemployment DESPITE the factories think of what will happen to India without them. Building hospitals does not guarantee health for all, so lets stop building them runs your logic!
Finally, we will have more than ample land to spare even after our food needs are taken care of. Comparative advantage is a wrong concept here. Just look up total global food imports and what a miniscule number that is. Now contrast that with global textile imports. Finally, just because China exported with reckless disdain for the environment does not mean we do so too. Finally, the state of women in China is far better than in India: and largely due to women being economically independent. And on your tirade about the high status that women enjoy in the farms: why don't you let them choose? An overwhelming majority, if not all, will choose to make a decent wage in a factory over slaving it on farms, I guarantee you. And having that view does not make me anti-hindu/socialist. Gee the tolerance levels to alternative view points are astonishingly low here !!
vineet, you are being tolerated here despite being obnoxious and anonymous. but perhaps not for long.
'comparative advantage is a wrong concept here'? oh, really? is this like "the laws of physics are not applicable to china because they are the imperial hans"?
'global food imports are minuscule'? oh, really?
you must be a comrade, making up statistics and assertions out of thin air. exactly which planet are you referring to? this reminds me of musharraf saying "islam is the most tolerant religion." not on this planet.
if all the investment didn't go into those monstrous 'satanic mills' of industry, we wouldn't have dharavi and other urban slums. the breakup of society into atomicized nuclear families would not have happened, and we would have had the social security of families looking after their elderly.
if the investment had gone into setting up check dams, cold storage, rural credit, and markets in rural areas, we would never have had to await american ships delivering rotting PL/480 wheat so we could eat.
today the same nehruvian stalinists are attempting to steal more money in cahoots with NGOs by siphoning funds off from that arch-socialist hoax, NREGA.
instead, give villagers the opportunity to lead lives of some dignity, and give them crop price support (because yanks et al are pouring in $100 billion a year into agricultural subsidies -- and oh, have you wondered why they are doing it? yes, to ensure that their agricultural comparative advantage does not vanish, or do you think they are also dumb?) access to water, and they will produce miracles.
last year's debacle in food prices showed that we can live without oil, but not without food. eventually food will be such a valuable commodity that you can barter a chicken for a barrel of oil.
Nothing anonymous about me Rajeev. And nothing obnoxious either. Comparative advantage that cannot be scaled is irrelavant. Food has poor demand elasticity so the very activity of producing more of it leads to its prices collapsing. As regards global food trade, why don't you get data? Let me throw some numbers at you from FAO and other websites: global food imports in 2007 were USD300bn and the number came down substantially in line with food inflation since. Contrast that with Chinese factories' exports to the US. Chinese elecctronics exports alone are over USD100bn with apparel another 100bn, furniture and shoes another 50bn each and toys, other manufacturing items other substantial numbers.
Disagreeing with you should not label me as obnoxious, communist types, no?
No, friend, I have been hugely supportive of your views in the past, though such disdain for simply expressing a viewpoint contrary to yours comes as a rude shock !
Kind regards,
Vineet.
/**And on your tirade about the high status that women enjoy in the farms: why don't you let them choose? An overwhelming majority, if not all, will choose to make a decent wage in a factory over slaving it on farms, I guarantee you.
**/
WHat a foolish argument it is.. its based entirely on assumptions and idiotism.. Who is forcing the farmers now, for vineet to demand a choice for them..
Are those farmers so far who moved out of farming, didnt have a choice?
A typical marxists subversion, that most hindus become a prey..
I am from farming family, and i would ask vineet to shutup rather than spreading such canards..
If there any enslavement of farmers, it is done by the urbanites (particularly the urban elites), who suck everything out of farmers, making them leave their land, native village and move to cities, either as economic refugees (slum dwellers), or as cultural refugees (those white collar professionals)
I dont know which idiot started this equation.. farming == slavery; labour work == slavery & suppression etc..
Everyone should realise, that by making farming unfeasible, india is heading towards food crisis very soon..
And at that time, let vineet eat his own shit, rather than begging (infact looting) from the remaining farmers..
/** if China has unemployment DESPITE the factories think of what will happen to India without them. Building hospitals does not guarantee health for all, so lets stop building them runs your logic!
**/
Why china sucking here?
Building hospitals will not provide healthcare.. rather creating quality and dedicated medical professionals only provides healthcare..
Please come out of the subverted mindset and start thinking on your own..
/** if all the investment didn't go into those monstrous 'satanic mills' of industry, we wouldn't have dharavi and other urban slums. the breakup of society into atomicized nuclear families would not have happened, and we would have had the social security of families looking after their elderly.
if the investment had gone into setting up check dams, cold storage, rural credit, and markets in rural areas, we would never have had to await american ships delivering rotting PL/480 wheat so we could eat.
**/
Rajeev.. completely agree with you..
Imagine, 10,000 crores spent for metro rain in chennai.. If that 10000 crore is distributed to other regions of tamilnadu, people will not migrate to chennai, and hence no need for metrorail to handle traffic..
But the decision is not taken for the people.. rather for the business.. Pack the people together in one place as much as possible, so that walmark can open big malls to suck money out of these people..
American economy is based just on this principle..
Time has changed a lot from Business for people to now, People for business..
What a degradation and enslavement of the so called modern human race..
This just hit me. Does this article have anything to do with Ekta Kapoor's new TV serial "Bairi Piya", which has elicited protests from the farmers of Vidharba, for portraying exactly what this article has mentioned? Has Ekta Kapoor sponsored this article to support her portrayal of Vidharba farmers or has the reporter decided this was news after watching an episode or two of "Bairi Piya"?
Right Angle: I will not lose any dignity in my response and stick to facts. The challenge is to generate employment for crores of semi-educated Indians. Not all can work on farms. In that context, what CChina has done is admirable and learning from them does not diminish my love for Bharat. In fact, everytime we try to emulate them, their cronies in India create trouble. Our demographic boon could turn to curse if not gainfully employed. Not more than 10-15% of that supply can work on farms. Where will others go?
There are alternatives, like tourism, which can generate a fair bit of blue collar work but not enough. You will have to consider manufacturing. By doing that well, you will also be dealing a blow to the Chinese 'economic miracle' particularly as their population is ageing. Show me one developed country where agriculture accounts for more than single-digit share of GDP. The numbers don't stack up: agriculture can never be the primary driver for pushing Bharat out of the Emerging Markets category. I too come from a farming background, still own acres of farms and have always wondered the disparity in effort between growing a ton of wheat (which fetches you a meagre Rs10,000)and working as a programmer for four hours: your output is the same. That disparity is so large that even if wheat prices increase ten-fold the disparity will remain. Sadly, that is the direction the planet is headed in and we cannot be any different. Hope this helps clarify my stance. And please note that I have/represent no vested interests. I love Bharat as much as any of you.
Vineet,
The fact that you own farm lands and been a farmer, doesnt mean your suggestion are right.. so as for me too..
We need to analyse the problem from our perspective and understanding..
My points below.
/** The challenge is to generate employment for crores of semi-educated Indians. Not all can work on farms
**/
Whos do you mean are semi-educated indians?
/** Not more than 10-15% of that supply can work on farms. Where will others go?
**/
How did you arrive at this statistics that only 10-15% can work in farms?
/** Show me one developed country where agriculture accounts for more than single-digit share of GDP. The numbers don't stack up
**/
This is what we call it western obsession.. Pls come out of the numbers and think in terms of other factors..
Other than china, Show me any one country, which has population the size of india?
Today, more than half of india's population fulfills their own food needs, by cultivating themselves. that means, the government is freed from the burden of ensuring their food supply.. these 60% of rural population adjusts themselves during difficult times, and survives themselves.
Suppose, if we are kicking around half that population out of farming, and moving them to cities..
do we have that much jobs to provide them?
What is the rational approach? Either to empower the current farming people, to overcome the difficulties or break their already overburdened back, by enacting policies against them?
The very approach is wrong and totally negative. We can very well promote manufacturing and services industry, among the rural areas, by providing adequate infrastructure.
If we do that, both agriculture and other industries will thrive, and people will have choice either to do farming or do factory work.
/** I too come from a farming background, still own acres of farms and have always wondered the disparity in effort between growing a ton of wheat (which fetches you a meagre Rs10,000)and working as a programmer for four hours: your output is the same. That disparity is so large that even if wheat prices increase ten-fold the disparity will remain.
**/
When you are obsessed with money, you cannot see other things..
First, have you ever thought, how its possible to earn such big amount with few hours of programming?
The hype around IT, is because of the artificially devalued indian rupees..
With 1 dollar = 45 rs, the salary we get in dollars is very meagre, but it artificially gets converted in to big amount in rupees..
I challenge, whether you can earn the same amount, when 1 dollar = 25rs ?
But irrespective of dollar value, food prices would be the same..
Your comparison itself is wrong, and short sighted..
Its something, narrowminded.. you are thinking, that because you earn so much in IT, you decided to go against your farming community and drive them away..
Imagine.. when you lose your job, you have no means to food, without money..
But in farming, people can put in their hardwork, and cultivate their food..
Its the money, that made the farmer's life miserable..
Provide free education, free medical care, and a considerable autonomy to villages.. you will see, how farming will flourish and how farming can accomodate any number of people..
For god's sake, dont measure farming with money.. that is the most cruel thing that we can do to farmers..
You cannot value the amount of work put to produce one litre of milk, or one kg of rice..
If farmers estimate the food prices based on their work, then the price should be atleast 10 times higher than the present value.
ok guys, i had an offline conversation with vineet, and i realized he's someone i have had a number of good exchanges with. i thought he was anonymous because his blogger id details are masked, and that in effect is anonymous, since you can go create another id any time you want, and i am a little inclined to not take anonymous posters seriously.
anyway, sorry, vineet, if you felt beat up by me: i didn't mean to, but i feel there are a lot of people who mouth the slogan "industry good, agriculture bad" as a version of the nehruvian "mohammedan good, hindu bad" sort of simple-minded idiocy.
also i was struck by deja vu, because we have had this discussion here numerous times before, and positions have hardened. to be honest, i am not entirely anti-industry either, because historically india's core competency was agriculture *and* highly-engineered small-scale products.
it has *never* been in the huge smokestack generic stuff like bulk chemicals or petroleum or iron. (even with steel, we did small-scale highly processed wootz, the best steel in the world).
and i don't think today it is either. yes, we should have some steelmakers and refineries and other big industry for national security reasons but these should be put in the arid wastelands of, say, gujarat or rajasthan or northern karnataka, where we don't grow that much anyway.
yes, a number of countries have prospered with industrialization, but that doesn't mean we have to do the same thing. i mean, nobody thought india would do well with services, either, did they? certainly not nehru and the planning mandarins. they all thought india would go through the soviet-chinese model of heavy industry. i believe in indian expectionalism -- this is a unique country, so the experiences of others need not necessarily be repeated ditto here.
the big problem in industrialization is the poor quality of basic education in india. factory jobs, or value-added agricultural jobs, require basic education. this we had in plenty in the pre-british days (see dharampal) which is why we were able to produce good agriculture and good engineered goods. but we don't have that now, we have semi-illiterates crowding into gigantic urban slums and getting pulled into what semi-literates can do in slums: crime, terrorism, prostitution, etc.
i have to grant vineet the point that several asian countries have improved their wealth through industry, but we haven't seen the last of it. what happens when they run out of the labor arbitrage dividend? what happens when africa finally wakes up? will the thais and vietnamese have gotten so far ahead that if all the factories up and move to africa they'll be all right?
meanwhile why are the chinese and arabs buying up millions of acres of agricultural land? do they know something we don't?
agricultural land, once polluted or paved over, is gone forever. it's goodbye, extinction. given the great lengths the japanese and europeans have gone to sustain their farmers with huge subsidies as a national security matter, do they also know something we don't?
food is not a small sector. the US revenues for 2008 in the food and beverages sector were $1.57 trillion, easily more than 10% of the GDP. and they exported more than $130 billion and imported $85 billion worth of food items. no, not a small sector. i would imagine that total trade in food is over $1 trillion worldwide, which is not trivial. of course, this does not take into account the food consumed locally.
Post a Comment