West Bengal Villages & Panchaetiraj: Noam Chomsky's Illutions Or Aberrations? [Revised & Updated]
["Why drag his name", friends and/or (ex-) students of the much esteemed professor Chomsky may ask, "particularly when Prof Chomsky hasn't written/spoken anything on these subjects either recently, or in last few years?" As an apology, I would like to mention that when I was planning for an article on WB's villages and panchayats a bit in details to present to the FAPP readers the true picture of "Land reform" and "peoples' panchayati raj" of WB, it occurred to me that why not translate a seven years' old article of mine with necessary revision, updating (of data) etc. The title of that old article bore professor Chomsky's name (he visited West Bengal on Jan' 96). The relevance of that article now... well, let it be judged by the readers themselves. — SM]
On 15.01.96 the renowned US linguist and social scientist Prof Noam Chomsky visited some villages in the district of Midnapur. He was accompanied by the finance minister of WB, Prof Ashim Dasgupta, who incidentally is an ex-student of that world famous institute (MIT) where Chomsky teaches. Their visit was reported in the first page of all vernacular dailies the next day.
The CPIM's daily 'Ganashakti' wrote: "Chomsky was overwhelmed visiting panchayats. "The panchayati system, as it is functioning here in West Bengal through de-centralisation of power, is the very model of democracy. I think a truly peoples' administration is operating here..." The famous US linguist and sociologist Prof Noam Chomsky remarked these after visiting the panchayat in Debra, Midnapur... He wanted to know about the class character of the members of the panchayat. He was fascinated knowing that out of 18 members 6 were women, 6 belonged to the SC/ST communities, and no member owned more land than a marginal peasant-owner. When he asked, 'who control the village', the members unanimously answered 'the poor'. Their skill in discussions, their level of consciousness, planning efficiency, connection with the masses and participation — all are remarkable. I strongly believe that they are very much connected with each and every problem [of rural life]. Each one knew the answer to our queries, but before answering they discussed within themselves — this is democracy. You'll feel vibrant life and unity, which one doesn't find everywhere", he later told. ..."
A much more exuberant 'Aajkal' reported: "Debra, 15th Jan. Trained women themselves repairing tube wells. Women and men working jointly in road-building, forming their own 'beneficiary-committee ', or raising fund together with the Govt to construct new school building — world famous social scientist and the genius linguist Noam Chomsky was overwhelmed seeing such initiatives of the simple rural folk. ... Around 11 AM, he was welcomed by conch-shell blowing women of the village. The pradhan of the panchayat and all its members were present there. They are all small peasants, many of whom belonged to the SC/ST communities. Prof. Chomsky asked, "What benefit accrued out of the land reforms and panchayatiraj ? Ashim babu acted as an interpreter. The rural people quickly answered: 'Previously the power was in the hands of the landlords, now it is with the toiling people themselves.' Again Chomsky asked, 'How do the panchayats work?' The assembled women and men replied, 'Listening to the opinion of the people in the open meetings the panchayat decides what to do first, and what later.' Chomsky, in a student-like gesture took note of the conversation. Answering to the question on their conception on health related issues they told the Prof. that each household of that village had sanitary-latrine and this too was achieved at their own initiative. ...Later he told the reporters, 'I've visited many countries of the world. On that basis I can say that the way in which the works are being done here, the way people participate in them, all these may serve as an imitable model of democracy and socialism.'...
Why it bothers us if an US Prof comes to a government-designed visit and tells anything afterwards! Because, this is not the case of just any US professor, he is Noam Chomsky — who belongs to the rare species within the US academicia who dares to oppose and criticise US imperialism (and its pillars the MNC-TNCs, its media, etc) continuously, and through his criticisms taught us many important lessons, since the Vietnam days, while staying himself within the bastion of world imperialism. And thus he earned the friendship of all the fighters against imperialism worldwide. We cannot expect such blunders from such a friend. To show where and why he has mistaken is the purpose of this article.
If Noam Chomsky stands at one extreme of the political spectrum who, we'll see, was 'bewitched' by the concoctions of the CPIM led left Font of W.B., on the other side we'll find Narasimha Rao, V.P.Singh, late Rajiv Gandhi and many union Govt ministers, or stalwarts of the World Bank, etc, who praised the Left Front Govt of W.B. for its 'achievements' in land reforms and panchayati system. Not only that, we do not hear revolutionary criticism about these from the communist revolutionaries (even in their propaganda during last panchayat election of WB held on May'03), and this is painful indeed. So now it became all the more necessary to delve a bit deeper into these subjects.
Land Reform & Agricultural Development — The True Story Of West Bengal
Jyoti Babu (C.M of W.B.'77-'98) and other leaders of the CPIM often cite the results of National Sample Survey ?37th Round (NSS-37) and compares W.B. with other states on its basis to proudly proclaim L.F. Govt's achievements in Land Reform. So let us start from that very NSS-37 to study the rate of progress in the rural life of W.B.
If we term the 'landless' and 'marginal' households as "poor" then: -
In the year '62 they constituted 69% of the total rural households and owned 17.5% of the total agricultural land;
In the year'72 they constituted 77% of the total rural households and owned 27.25% of the land;
In the year'82 they constituted 81.5% of the total rural households and owned 31% of the land;
(Figures above are rounded off for the sake of convenience)
We can look into these figures in a different way. If we give 100 numbers to the (ideally) equalised land holding, then, in the year '62 the 'poor' would score 25, in '72 the score would be 35, and in 82 their score would be 38.
Well, Jyotibabu - then the poor progressed more during the tumultuous sixties (or between '62 and '72) than in the next ten years (in which the first 5 years experienced the reaction-backlash and the next 5 years, the 'peaceful' development led by the Joyti babus) !
Let us interpret the NSS-37 date in yet another way. How much an average well-to-do peasant (let us define that they an those with more than 2 hectares of land) owns with respect to an average holding of a 'poor' (as defined beforehand); we'll find: ?
in '62 the "well to do" owned 15.5 times more land than the "poor";
in '72 the "well to do" owned 12.5 times more land than the poor;
in '82 the "well to do" owned 15.75 times more land than the poor.
In the year '86, the IIT (Kharagpur) and the Jila Parisad (Midnapur, alias Medinipur) (the district tier of the 3 tier panchyati system) surveyed 40 sampled villages of Midnapur in details and published a book titled 'Medinipur Jillar Gramer Manush - 1986' . Using data of this book it can be calculated that:
In '86, the average well to do owned 10.25 times more land then the average poor; rich households (7% of the total) owned more land than the poor 81% of the total number of households. And all these after almost - a decade of "left" rule!
Two very close-to-the-LF ex-top-ranking-officials of the W.B. Govt Mr Nirmal Mukherjee and Mr Debabrata Bandopadhay reviewed, at the request of the Govt, the progress of land reforms during the first 15 years of LEFT FRONT regime ('77-'92). Their review report was published in a very brief form, in the Statesman (Calcutta edition) on 16th and 17th May '93. From that report one can see that: — the Left Front ministry twice amended the land reform act of the state in its first 15 years; in '82 and in '86. But not much land came to the Govt fund after these two amendments. Distribution from the Govt land fund in also very slow; and even if no more land comes to the Govt land fund & the distribution of all residual lands, at this speed, will take 30 more years !!
From other sources (well known to almost everybody) it can safely be said that the Left Front's venture in land reform almost got out of breath since, say, '86. Up to '77 there was, in power, the cong govt which was not keen to land reform, the act was full of loopholes, but still, more than 1 million acres of land come to the 'Sarkari Khaas' (government vest land fund); whereas during the first 17 years of left rule only 0.207 million acres of land came in the Govt fund!! In the case of the much hyped ' bargadar recording' (or, as it is known as the 'Operation Barga') the speed slackened (after '85-'86) almost to stand still. Even Nirmal babu and Debabrata babu admitted that the rural "middle class" and "rich sections" were, by then, at the helm of panchayati affairs (they need not to be so overtly) [and it was beyond their scope to say 'and in the party also']!
All these 'facts' were available much before Chomsky visited WB; he could have (and should have) studied WB before commenting anything, which is wrong and might later serve the cause of the governmental lefts! He behaved most un-Chomsky-like in this respect. Moreover, he knows it that by the term 'land reform' (or 'total land reform', which some people use), what is actually meant is the revolutionary overthrowing of the landlords and other feudal bosses, sequestering their land without compensation and distribution of such land by the revolutionary peasants' committee. What is today termed as 'land reform' by the governmental lefts is nothing of that sort. Rather, that is what in history is described by the term 'Junker reform', which first took effect in Prussia some 150 years ago; then again, as for example, in pre-revolutionary Russia (1860-1917) [a bit vigorously by Stolypin after the 1905-06 revolution], etc. and which is evidently a counter-revolutionary bourgeois-landlord agonizing process carried on by the Govt; the purpose of which is to throttle the revolutionary upsurge by granting some petty reforms. The left front Govt had been carrying on that very Junker reform process, only in a speedier and more determined way than the previous Congress Govt.
Anyway, let us now proceed to the agrarian condition of WB almost during Chomsky's visit and later. To start with, on 25th March '94 The Statesman reported the chief land officer of Burdwan (alias Bardhaman) district saying that out of those landless people who got land recently from the Govt, 60% 'lost' their land in the last 2-3 years. These poor 'peasants' were crushed by the pressure of the old land owning classes and remnants of feudalism from one side and the 'Competition' of the new capitalist 'market economy' (with lots of 'pre-capitalist' 'non-competitive' elements in it) from the other. Chomsky could have easily found such samples had he searched for them in the villages of WB.
Let us now give a look at Table 1 below:
TABLE ? 1, Distribution of Agricultural Land among Rural Households in West Bengal (Ownership Holding)
Year | 1953-54 | 1971-72 | 1982 | |||
Land (acres) | % Household (Hh) | % Land (L) | % Hh | % L | % Hh | % L |
0 | 20.54 | - | 9.78 | - | 17.21 | - |
Less than 2.50 | 59.92 | 15.00 | 67.83 | 27.27 | 64.38 | 30.33 |
2.50-4.99 | 12.61 | 18.60 | 12.65 | 25.69 | 11.50 | 28.77 |
5.00-9.99 | 8.56 | 25.51 | 7.30 | 27.72 | 5.54 | 27.23 |
10.00-14.99 | 2.76 | 13.99 | 1.72 | 11.55 | 1.09 | 9.47 |
15 and above | 2.60 | 26.00 | 0.72 | 7.77 | 0.28 | 4.20 |
Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
Source: Different rounds of NSS as cited in "Tenancy Relation & Agrarian Development: A Study in WB" (1993), By Dr S K Bhowmick p 52
For the year 1992, we have a bit different classification (from Prof. A. N. Basu's Poschimbanger Arthoniti O Raajniti (2002) p-123. Prof. Basu is the executive chief of state planning board): -
TABLE ? 1, Annexe Distribution of Agricultural Land among Different Strata of Peasantry in WB, 1992 (Ownership Holding)
Category | % of households | % of Land |
Landless | 38.2% of households | 0% Land |
Upto 0.2 ha | 17.0% of households | 3.9% Land |
0.21 ? 1 ha | 31.4% of households | 37.2% Land |
>1 ha | 10.2% of households | 58.9% Land |
Source: "Poschimbanger Arthoniti O Raajniti" (2002) By Prof A N Basu
Prof Basu calculated the above from NSS data for 1992 and presented the above 'classification'. Perhaps he did that to emphasise the stark difference between the lowest two and the uppermost strata.
It becomes difficult facing different classifications and ranges, different units, etc. To simplify matters we can calculate the inequality index or Gini Co-efficient [approximately] of the sets of data of different years. Then we'll find Table 2.
TABLE ? 2, Inequality Index of Distribution of Agricultural Land among Rural Households in WB, different years (Ownership Holding)
Year | Inequality Index (approx) |
1952-53 | 0.689 |
1971-72 | 0.572 |
1982 | 0.596 |
1992 | 0.668 |
Inequality index = 0.000 means absolute inequality, and inequality index = 1.000 means absolute equality; calculation was very rough, just done to get a picture.
From Table 2 we can see the progress (and, later, retrogress) in the agrarian scenario of WB.
We still have another set of data, that for the year 1997-98; but this time the NSS round took consideration not of the 'total agricultural land owned', but owned 'area under five major crops' of the peasant, or AFMC.
Table ? 3, Distribution of AFMC Land Ownership among Rural Households, WB, 1997-98
Range of Area (AFMC) in Ha | % of Households | Owning % of Land | Cropping Intensity |
0 | 21.24 | 0 | 1.33 |
Upto 0.02 | 38.87 | 7.01 | 1.40 |
0.20 ? 0.50 | 18.34 | 19.28 | 1.60 |
0.50 ? 1.00 | 13.38 | 29.75 | 1.63 |
1.00 ? 2.00 | 6.12 | 25.56 | 1.58 |
2.00 ? 4.00 | 1.96 | 15.53 | 1.51 |
4.00 ? 10.00 | 0.17 | 2.19 | 1.81 |
> 10.00 | 0.02 | 0.70 | 2.00 |
Source: Data calculate from "Cultivation Practices in India, 1997-98" ? NSS 54th Round
From this Table ? 3 we can calculate roughly that inequality in distribution of AFMC in 1997 ? 98 = almost 0.679.
From the above data (Tables 1,2,3) it is evident that:
1. From '52 to '72 the number of landless household decreased to nearly half in WB (from 20.54% of total to 9.78% of total). But, since '72, it has been increasing. Though the data from Prof. A N Basu's book and that from NSS 54th Round look strikingly different for the first two rows, it is clear that as a tendency , the number of the 'landless' is on the upswing as the years pass.
2. The inequality in distribution of land decreased within 1952 and 1972, but from '72 onwards inequality only increased (with a tendency to reach the level of the year 1952!). Prof Basu (who, as we wrote before, is the executive chief of the government's planning board) maintains: "with respect to the concentration of land ownership, WB's picture is not much different from other states of India" (' Poschim bonger Arthoniti O Raajniti ', 2002, Page 123). And still the Govt of WB boasts about its achievements in land reform!! [Incidentally, through 50 years of land reform in WB, only 8% (or less) amount of land had been transferred from the hands of the "rich" folks to the hands of the "poor". Whereas, under different circumstances (and contexts), but essentially driven by the fear of a Communist-led revolution , such transfer of land through land reform affected 33% of total agricultural land in Japan ('46-'47); 85% in Korea South ('47-'48), and 20% in Philippines ('72-'73), all at the behest of imperialism, and executed by the native ruling classes.
The [approximate] inequality of distribution of (AFMC) land in WB (in '97-'98) was higher than the corresponding figures for Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh etc, and was very near to the figure for Bihar; only states like Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh show more dangerous figures than WB. (But we are to keep in mind that concentration of land ownership, or in other words, inequality in land distribution, may be higher for a more capitalistically developed state, and also for a state with more feudal hangover.)
3. In WB the landless and the poor peasants (who need to work outside their meagre 'owned' plot as labourer to sustain themselves) constitute more than half of the rural household.
* Incidentally, the classification done by the established statisticians- economists, e.g., marginal; small, etc. are very vague and do not give anybody the idea about class position at all ; as for example, a "marginal' owner 'peasant' with 0.95 ha of well irrigated land in some developed part in WB may even be a rich peasant .
4. The land utilisation index is higher (generally; as a tendency) for bigger the area owned. The overall land utilisation index for WB for the year '97-'98 is only 1.6, which is much lower than the corresponding figures for Punjab, Haryana, lower than that of UP , and even Bihar in that year!
Though it may go to some extent out of context (of land reform) we now move to another pet theme of the CPIM (and the L F Govt of WB), that of 'Agricultural Development' of WB, which, as they boast, has put WB in no: 1 position among Indian states in the field of agriculture!
First let us see the case of food grain production in the state. In the first draft Agricultural Policy (Apr 2002) it was mentioned that WB is a food-deficit state (P3 of the 1st draft). In the 2nd draft (Jul-Aug 2002) the objective of maintaining and widening the food security was mentioned (p2, 2nd draft ). Suddenly, just after a couple of months food grain production in WB skyrocketed, and we find in the CPIM WB State Committee's 'Theoretical Journal' Marxbadi Path the veteran leader Benoy Konar mentioning WB as a 'food surplus' state (Marxbadi Path , Sept 2002, p22)! And by the year ending we find Santanu Dey writing in the CPIM daily Ganashakti (on 26.12.2002) that the annual production of rice (not paddy, but rice) has soured up to 15.3 million tons (implying paddy production rising to double of what was produced in the previous year) !! Even if Santanu babu mistook rice for paddy the production had to be increased by 25-30% at least in a single year!! We again have to go to Prof. A.N. Basu to find Table 4.
Table ? 4, Per Capita Food Grain Production in WB and Rest-of-India
Year | Per capita per day net | Difference of WB figure | |
West Bengal | Rest-of-India | ||
1951 | 381 | 334 | +47 |
1956 | 353 | 423 | -70 |
1961 | 407 | 451 | -44 |
1966 | 332 | 355 | -23 |
1971 | 406 | 480 | -74 |
1976 | 419 | 479 | -60 |
1981 | 364 | 462 | -98 |
1986 | 359 | 484 | -125 |
1991 | 397 | 509 | -112 |
1996 | 418 | 468 | -50 |
1997 | 436 | 485 | -59 |
1998 | 451 | 504 | -53 |
1999 | 444 | 502 | -58 |
2000 | 451 | 501 | -50 |
2001 | 413 | 417* | (-04) |
Source: "Poshchimbonger Arthoniti O Rajniti" by Prof A N Basu; * marked datum from "The Indian Economy 2001-02 An Alternate Survey", Delhi Science Forum, p 40 || Readers may note the stagnating-falling tendency of food grain production in India in the New Economic Policy ? Liberalisation ? Globalisation decade. Incidentally, the effects of the new policy were felt with some time lag, e.g., the fertiliser price started escalating sine 1993-94, etc.
So we see WB is lagging far behind the rest of India since decades in terms of food grain production.
Again, "food grain" is a bit vague term. 400 gm of wheat gives at least 360 gm of Atta (flour) whereas 400 gm of paddy gives only about 250 gm of rice. And this paltry per capita per day net production of food grains was described by a veteran CPIM leader as a "food surplus" condition!! "Food surplus" state indeed, if one takes for granted that million will stay at semi-starvation level! If million are compelled to squeeze their 'necessity' down to the level of almost animal like existence! And this condition prevailed even during Chomsky's visit.
If we look into the poverty-statistics of WB, we'll find that in '93-'94, 40.8% of the rural population was under the poverty line (i.e., who can not afford a per capita per day food intake equivalent to 2400 Calories) In the year '98 that figure increased to 58.3%. The governments (both of the state and the union) didn't like these figures. To please them able statisticians changed the way poverty is to be measured, and to their pleasure, found that poverty has decreased suddenly within a year or so, in 1999-2000 the rural poor were only 31.85% . [But the Govt of WB is 'pro-people' and they have benevolently chosen a bit higher a figure (no one exactly knows how much it is, but it can be guessed that it is around 35, or less than 40). Source Prof. Basu's same book p 57).
So as not to burden our readers with 'statistics', we'll end our statistical journey through WB just after mentioning another two aspects of 'Agricultural Development' - (i) 'mechanisation' and (ii) the progress along 'chemical' (or Green Revolution) agriculture.
For 'mechanisation' we, unfortunately, have data only up to 1992, from the "Livestock and agricultural implements in household operational holdings" 1991-92, NSS 48th Round, Report no: 408. From these we can construct two Tables, Table 5 and Table 6.
Table ? 5, Ownership of Agro Implements per 100 rural households in Different States of India (1992)
State | Wooden Plough | Iron Plough | Sprayer | Tractor | Power Tiller | Pump set Electric Diesel | |
Punjab | 10.42 | 17.76 | 8.58 | 11.23 | 6.41 | 21.80 | 29.85 |
Haryana | 37.13 | 26.27 | 12.83 | 7.21 | 5.90 | 17.44 | 14.02 |
Rajasthan | 49.14 | 8.15 | 2.43 | 2.23 | 0.26 | 10.74 | 12.14 |
UP | 44.52 | 23.96 | 0.57 | 1.95 | 0.53 | 2.38 | 11.04 |
Maharashtra | 22.09 | 9.80 | 5.97 | 0.54 | 0.03 | 13.20 | 1.75 |
AP | 35.16 | 4.06 | 4.80 | 0.39 | 0.01 | 11.14 | 1.79 |
MP | 83.47 | 5.48 | 4.07 | 1.36 | 0.22 | 9.25 | 2.53 |
Bihar | 55.39 | 9.91 | 0.59 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.96 | 4.98 |
Assam | 102.79 | 2.34 | 1.52 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.69 |
WB | 42.05 | 2.82 | 7.73 | 0.19 | 0.44 | 0.54 | 5.26 |
All India Av | 45.89 | 11.13 | 3.51 | 1.17 | 0.44 | 6.60 | 5.35 |
Source: "Livestock and Agricultural implements in Household Operational Holdings, 1991-92" NSS 48th Round, Report no: 408
Table ? 6, No: of Tractors, Pump sets and Agricultural Bovines per 10,000 Ha of Agricultural Land in Different States of India (1992)
State | Bovine | Tractor | Power Tiller | Diesel and Electric Pump |
Punjab | 2000 | 1024 | 584 | 4200 |
Haryana | 2200 | 387 | 317 | 1700 |
Rajasthan | 1700 | 91 | 10 | 900 |
UP | 6300 | 215 | 58 | 1600 |
Maharashtra | 3800 | 34 | 2 | 1000 |
AP | 6300 | 48 | 1 | 1600 |
MP | 6700 | 73 | 12 | 600 |
Bihar | 11500 | 59 | 25 | 1000 |
Assam | 15700 | 0 | 23 | 100 |
WB | 11500 | 37 | 86 | 1300 |
All India Av | 5900 | 59 | 41 | 1200 |
Source: "Livestock and Agricultural implements in Household Operational Holdings, 1991-92" NSS 48th Round, Report no: 408
By 2002, if the other states stay at the same level of 1992, and if WB 'develops' by another 50% in 10 years since 1992 , only then can WB move up to the 4th place among Indian Sates in terms of 'mechanisation'! But from the figure of No: of sprayers (in table 5) one can guess WB's march along the course of the 'green revolution', the 'chemical' (and of course 'biological', in terms of HYV seeds,) agriculture, sponsored (in other words, pressurized,) by the imperialists (to the profit of their MNC-TNC-s).
Table ? 7, State-wise Fertiliser and Pesticides Consumption in terms of Gross Cropped Area
State | N+P+K consumption Kg/Ha of Gross Cropped Area | Share of State of All India gross cropped area (%) 2000-01 | Metric Tonnes Of Pesticides consumed, 1999-2000 | Danger Level @ |
Punjab | 163.30 | 4.2 | 6972 | 1660 |
Haryana | 151.40 | 3.2 | 5.25 | 1570 |
Rajasthan | 29.80 | 11.7 | 2547 | 218 |
UP | 115.75 | 13.9 | 7459 | 537 |
Maharashtra | 75.80 | 11.4 | 3614 | 317 |
AP | 179.20 | 6.4 | 4054 | 633 |
MP | 36.90* | 13.7* | 1528 | 112 |
Bihar | 98.70** | 5.2** | 832 | 160 |
Assam | 35.20 | 2.1 | 260 | 124 |
WB | 117.80 | 4.8 | 3370 | 702 |
All India Av | 87.60 (A) | 100.00 (T) | 46195.16 (T) | 462 (A) |
Source: www.indiastat.com || * including Chhattisgarh, ** including Jharkhand, A = average, T = total, @ = Danger Level, an artificial index (presented by me) = tons of pesticides used divided by state share of gross cropped area
If we look no more than the Table 7 we'll find WB has moved to the 3rd position in terms of 'Chemicalisation' of agriculture. The 'green revolution' actually did spread to a large extent, or considerable extent, in WB only in the early period of the Left Front regime (from early '80s); and its effects were very much evident within, say, 15 years — peasants getting caught in the fertilizer-pesticide-insecticide trap (i.e., to maintain and a little bit increase production much more fertilisers and insecticides are needed than before), the slackening of production growth rate, of the sub-soil water level plunging below the danger limit, more imbalance in N:P:K composition and the falling micro-nutrient composition of soil, etc. And within this slope comes some years of "bumper production": which only lead to the crashing down of actual selling prices which only causes debacle to the lives of thousand of middle peasant (and, nowadays, even of some 'well-to-do' and rich peasants also).
We have another set of data, a bit old (of 1992) to show WB's backwardness in mode of payment of rent, see Table 8.
Table ? 8, Mode of Land Rent Payment in Indian States, 1992
State | % of Household who cultivate taking others' land | % of such land out of total | Mode of Rent Payment of % of the rented land | |||
By Fixed Money | By Fixed Amount of Product | By Share of Product | Others | |||
Punjab | 15.9 | 18.8 | 49.2 | 18.2 | 11.3 | 21.3 |
Haryana | 17.1 | 33.7 | 61.4 | 5.2 | 19.9 | 13.5 |
Rajasthan | 6.5 | 5.2 | 15.2 | 19.4 | 23.4 | 42.0 |
UP | 15.5 | 10.5 | 9.2 | 15.2 | 46.5 | 29.1 |
Maharashtra | 6.9 | 5.5 | 36.2 | 6.5 | 20.9 | 36.4 |
AP | 14.1 | 9.6 | 25.9 | 26.8 | 28.9 | 18.4 |
MP | 9.0 | 6.3 | 15.3 | 21.4 | 24.9 | 38.4 |
Bihar | 15.6 | 3.9 | 9.5 | 12.8 | 43.5 | 34.2 |
Assam | 10.0 | 8.9 | 17.0 | 4.0 | 27.8 | 51.2 |
WB | 14.4 | 10.4 | 8.6 | 11.7 | 46.5 | 33.1 |
All India Av | 11.0 | 8.3 | 19.0 | 14.5 | 34.3 | 32.1 |
Source: NSS 48th Round, Operational Holdings, pages 31 ? 34; * a part of "others" is relatives' land, rest unclear
Let as stop here after a tedious journey through the land of 'land-reform' and 'development' statistics which lay bare the concoctions of the CPIM and WB state Govt and move to the what the panchayats are doing to alleviate the have-nots in such a situation as described above.
Impotency of the Panchayats & Delusion of Democracy
Let us suppose of the time being that true or real representatives of the village poor get elected to the panchayat i bodies and they were thus able to throw out the representatives of the vested interests. How much power can these bodies yield - is the question then to be examined.
Can they accelerate the 'land reform' process to justifiable / logical / true and? The WB Govt Panchayat Prashiksahan Sanstha ( panchayat training Organisation) had published a Prashiksahan Granthamala (training book series) in 1993. The first book of the series cannot throw any light on the question put above. The second book says ? if the panchayat finds that finds that somebody has excess land over what is allowed by the ceiling act then it can take it to the notice of higher appropriate authority. Hence we find, at maximum, a panchayat can act as such a supervisor (regarding land reform) who has only the power to complain to higher authorities!
Then, can panchayats exercise their power over the rural rich folks in some other way? Yes, it can exact tax, as the 1st book of the series tells us, it can (and will) put a tax burden of 0.006% on the assets ? which means somebody with a million worth assets with have to pay a tax of 600 per annum!!. A Croropati will have to pay the panchayat an annual tax of Rs 6000 only!
Then, do the panchayats have some other pro-poor powers, like fixing the daily rate of wages to be paid to agricultural labourers? No — fixing daily rate of wages of agricultural is at the jurisdiction of the State Labour Dept, the latter, by its arithmetic, fix the rate; and with an average 100/120 days of employment per annum the agricultural labourers have to stay below the poverty level. Not only that, the Midnapur Report of '86 (by Jilaparisad and I I T Kharghpur) to which the Panchayat minister Dr. Suryakanta Mishra was also a signatory, says that the agricultural labourers, at large, get wages much below the govt declared rate of wage. This is true even today (Even, in this 2003 it holds good). That report also says that the panchayats did not took any initiative to make complaints regarding this to the higher authorities. This is also true even today. And from all these we can gather that the panchayats only have right to complain. But Chomsky didn't try to know it before he praised the panchayats !
Prof. A N Basu have done a laborious and valuable work: he presented, in a tabulated form, the difference between the Govt declared wage and the actual wage; and has shown it by further calculations that the agricultural labourers of WB have to loose totally a huge some of money every year; which is even more than the state government's annual expenditure for rural development .
Not only that: the govt of WB by its peculiar arithmetic did decrease even the nominal wage rate declared by it (even if we leave aside the fall of real wage rate for the moment): Table 9
Table ? 9, Agricultural Labourers' Wage Decrement by Govt of WB during 1999 ? 2003
Period | Govt Declared Rate of Daily Wage, Adult Male Worker |
1999 Oct ? 2000 Sept | Rs 62 & 10 paise |
2000 Oct ? 2001 Sept | Rs 60 & 99 paise |
2001 Oct ? 2002 Sept | Rs 58 & 40 paise |
2002 Oct ? 2003 Sept | Rs 60 & 96 paise |
Source: from different notifications of WB govt regarding wages of agricultural labourers data collected by activists
And as before, neither the panchayats , nor the CPIM party or its peasants' wing took initiative to enforce these decreased rates in this period also. Rather they overtly or covertly did their best to foil the movements of the agricultural labourers whenever and wherever any such movements sparked on. Moreover, even if the labourers actually get the declared wage, and if in a family of 4 there are 2 labourers who would get 120 days of work per year, then also the income of the family would be less than a dollar a day!! It was the case even at the time of Chomsky's visit.
And what about the health-related issues? Does Chomsky know that patients do not get medicine free of cost from "free govt clinics" or hospitals? Does Chomsky know that people get frightened to go to the govt hospitals? Does he know about the spread of cholera, encephalitis, or malaria like infections in WB? Does he know some 40 children had to die in a single month in a single district of WB [May 03], and the bourgeois print-TV media had to raise enough howl on that issue to compel the Govt at least to send ministers there (and then, the great Panchayat cum Health minister issued his sermon: These is no medicine for influenza, ...........)! Besides, when the poor cannot afford enough food (according to health norms), cannot afford safe drinking water, the govt is giving them subsidised sanitary latrines (perhaps that too according to some international aid programme) to help them maintain a good health! It's ridiculous!!
'Poor people are in command over the village' - in a govt fabricated-designed visit some "villagers" told some myths and Chomsky, like a student, took note of the conversation! When the rural rich fellows take the opportunity of unavailability of govt irrigation and sales water for irrigation at an exorbitant rate (which may be as high as 140 ? 250 dollars per hectare per agricultural season i.e. 3 -4 months, at some places.), then the panchayats are impotent. When the middle peasants are compelled in 'distress selling' at an artificially low price at the machinations of the big traders, the panchayats sit blindfolded. And when they get annoyed by insistent demands-criticism from the people, their leaders say, 'Well, the real power is in the hands of Central Govt, so. .............' Such commands the poor people have!!
" The main limitation of this govt is that this Govt doesn't have state power. It only has political power." ? Such gems of Marxism comes out of the CPIM (see Probhat Datta's article in Marxbadi Path p7; Feb 2003) Can Chomsky solve this (pseudo-Marxist) puzzle?
Then what the panchayats do actually? Let us look at a panchayat of Hooghly district, Arambagh subdivision, which is led by the CPIM and the printed report of it is with this author. We can see that in the year '89-90, '90-91 and '91-92 the yearly income-expenditure of the panchayat was around a million rupees per year. Of the income 50-60% come from Jahawar Rojgaar Yojana of the Centre, i.e., Union Govt; 5-10% coming from RLEGP/NREP (also from the Union Govt) and from the fund of literacy programme; 2% is coming from Indira Aabasan fund, and so on. Fund raised by the panchayat through taxes is less than 7% of its total income.
With this fund the panchayat has created at maximum 30,000, at minimum 12,000 man-days of work per year for the agricultural labourers i.e., 4 to 10 days of work per labourer per year!! What else? Panchayat did social forestry (according to some UN/international aided programmes), did some repair works of tube wells, roads etc, made some sanitary latrines, distributed few thousand of Rupees among few people to renovate their houses, distributed 'mini-kits' to some 100 people (by a mini-kit you can start paddy cultivation in nearly 0.07 ha of land) etc., etc, distributed a few hundred saplings (of different fruit trees), gave 24 SC and 9 ST students a scholarship of Rs. twenty per month (yes Rs 20, or approximately 40cents per month) ... and so long so forth. That is the de-centralisation of 'power' indeed! .
But that is not all. More de-centralisation is on the anvil. This time, de-centralised planning ? and we'll come to that later. Only we mention that according to that Provat Dutta's article in CPIM's theoretical journal Marxbadi Path (Feb'03) (p.16) a panchayat will get on an average Rs 2 million (and so each village 'Council' or gram-sabha will get Rs. 80000 per annum) by which they'll themselves do the planning (of the money about a third is "untied", the rest have to be spend on labelled categories of works).
Chomsky heard that the panchayat s conduct open meetings, and listening to the opinions of the people they decide what to do. Before looking at the real picture he would better see what is de-jure. The first book of the Panchayat Granthamala says that a panchayat has to convene such open meetings twice a year . Even if these meetings actually happen what'll be decided? Among whom to distribute 10 tarpaulins, or 17 mini-kits or 7 house repairing aids, 40 saplings .............or, will this patch of the road (non- pucca ) be repaired first, or that tube well be repaired, or... so on so forth. This would have been a show of 'democratic' process, but is that democracy Chomsky?
Was Chomsky elated seeing 6 women, 6 SC/ST members among 18 panchayat members? There is nothing to be delighted about it. The ex-PM late Rajiv Gandhi, seeing the "efficacy" of the panchayats run by the CPIM (that of keeping in 'control' the poor by throwing few petty relief-lollypops to them) took the initiative of making panchayats compulsory according to the Constitution. Ultimately this was done by the Cong govt in the year '92 (73rd Amendment) and it was also enacted that one third of the seats will be 'reserved' for women and some for the SC/ST community. Accordingly, seats are 'marked' at the time of each election by the government officials. By this the Govt could project itself to be a sympathiser of the women, SC/ST sections of the population. Chomsky perhaps has seen it in the US also - though in other forms, isn't it?
[Another thing - a bit out of context - if Chomsky does not mind - say Chomsky goes to a visit to a mediaeval European village riding the time-machine and there he gets welcome with the chimes of church bells, white dress clad belles singing to the praise of him being a crusade winning knight, blessings by the local priest... etc. How much would he enjoy all these! Recently the CPIM has started all such 'fashions'; women clad in scarlet-bordered white sarees blowing conch-shells, showering flowers to welcome leaders/guests/ministers etc. perhaps to portray their "national" (Hindu!) cultural inclination.]. Is it not a typical picture of Hindu upper caste male domination , Chomsky?]
According to newspaper reports Chomsky was surprised seeing trained women repairing their village tube wells. Chomsky could have asked ? why the public works dept. mechanics don't come to do such repair jobs? The governments have almost stopped recruiting; Liberalisation, Globalisation, New Economy are now at work. Employing "volunteers" costs less or nothing. In the villages the panchayats hire 'electric meter readers' at a wage of, as low as, $10 per month, teachers are recruited at a 'salary' of something like $ 20 a month! And no security of jobs they have ? they are totally at the mercy of panchayat babus . Can Chomsky find a similarity between Global HQ N.Y. and the poor little village of Debra! Chomsky should have read the 2nd book of the Panchayat Granthamala series— "Village Based Development Planning". In its appendices he would then find ? "Generally it has been noticed that many administrative problems arise in maintaining govt tube wells. Besides, it becomes difficult for the govt to meet the rising cost of maintenance and operation. So the state govt has planned to pass over to the benefited people, through the panchayats , the responsibility of maintaining and operating the new tube wells". And this is not the voice of the IMF, but the LF Govt of W.B. Two examples were cited along, one happened before , another just after the declaration of New Economic Policy by the Union Govt led by Narasimha Rao. Is the picture of 'women-repairing tube well' clear, Chomsky?
"The declared rate [price] of irrigation benefit was granted by everybody. Even there was no protest when twice that rate was revised upwards. Everybody paid accordingly ............" the annex 3, book 2 continues, "The most interesting thing is that they ..........pay more then the irrigation rate of the govt tube-wells .............". That is 'beneficiary-committee', that is 'peoples' initiative'!! "... ...before each season starts, meeting is convened to decide who will cultivate summer paddy this year and who will do otherwise [i.e., will not cultivate summer paddy - SM]; thus no trouble arises, well balanced distribution of an important wealth 'water' is thus made possible." Well balanced distribution indeed, but not of 'wealth' but of 'scarcity', isn't it Chomsky?
Forming 'beneficiary-committees', to pass on them the burden of expenditures, exacting taxes or tolls for the 'benefit' of roads, bridges etc. ...hope you understand the liberal conspiracy in all these, Chomsky.
Finally, let us examine the latest venture of the LF Govt in this respect, i.e. "De-centralised Planning", or "Village level planning by the villagers themselves" ( Grambaasider dwara gram porikalpana ). This may sound very novel and new, but this has got an official-technical name also in the "inner circle", which is C.C.A. (or Comprehensive Community Action) - a very good 'western' name, isn't it - and, in the 'west' it is already famous, known there as "Participatory Budget ". Not only that, you'll find a separate office of the World Bank in the N.Y. city which monitor the progress of Participatory Budget (and participatory democracy) in some 40 countries worldwide!
And as we have not heard much revolutionary criticism of the "left's" land reformed and their favourite "panchayati" system from the 'communist revolutionary camp'; rather with heard some ex-Naxalite members of the intelligentsia praising the left's programme lauding the 'achievements' of land reform in W.B. (naturally with some criticism, of course) [For example, one can read Prof. Ratan Khasnobish's article on West Bengal's Agrarian Economy in Poschimbanger Krishiniti— an excellent publication of compiled articles by 'Mreettika' (a publication of the N.A.P.M, 2003). Prof. Khasnobish even omitted the Junker reformist nature of WB's land reform. (Incidentally, Prof. Khasnobish is the founder editor of the prestigious monthly Aneek . He teaches at the Department of Business Studies, C.U.) We also found such scholars, who regrets the absence of a real class organisation of the proletariat in WB and in our country (and thus indirectly comments on the class character of the CPIM and all 'left' parties), even they succumbed to the dream of building a real people's movement through the participatory budget process within this panchayati system! With regret we found such a person like Prof. A. N. Basu (who even hinted at the Junker character of the left's land reform in his article in the aforesaid compilation of the N.A.P.M.) writing on this subject in the CPIM W.B. State Committee's theoretical journal Marxbadi Path in its May 2003 issue!
Participatory anything in a system which is essentially a 'delusion of a democratic system' only helps to tie people up with the system, so far as they search salvation through petty reforms and thus narrow down the very meaning of salvation - particularly in a time when there is a very low ebb of people's struggle in a true sense of the term, or when such struggle in absent or almost absent. It cannot be otherwise.
We have the excellent example of this participatory budget, a decade's experiences of Brazil, of President Lula's [Luis Inecio da Silva's] 'policies'. First in the city of Porto Alegre, then in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, "participatory budget" was in practice [led by the PT or Labour Party]. The Z mag has published in its web issues many things on all these Brazilian experience. (Interested readers may search Z net for critical studies; and also may visit worldbank.org to find a lot more treasures about participatory budget in there web library). The World Bank translated, published and distributed a hand book on participatory budget by the Porto Alegre Mayor Mr Tarso Genro and Mr Urbitaran de Souza - "The Participatory Budget: the Porto Alegre Experience". This very act of the World Bank explains so many things, though not overtly. World Bank President J. Wolfenshon, addressing the Board of Governors meeting of the World Bank said (28/7/1999) that due to the policies of WB ? IMF "the number of social conflicts and social explosions is likely to increase, the quality of our environment will be worse and disparities between rich and poor will be wider". Addressing a meeting of the NGO's he insisted that it has become necessary "to give people a voice in development ... This means giving people an opportunity to a participate in the identification, design and implementation of World Bank projects and lending ." [Source: The Trap of Participatory Budget: On Lula's Victory - Joao Penha, 06/02/03, Z net ] Perhaps this is sufficient to understand the real nature of this "participatory budget" procedure that is now in a take-off stage in West Bengal.
Then, Why Chomsky Erred
I mentioned earlier that he did a most un-Chomsky like thing (of course if the newspaper reports quoted in the introduction are not totally fictitious) ? he commented before studying in depth the land reform and the panchayati system of W.B. And it cannot be the case that he doesn't know the difference between land reform through democratic revolution and the Junker reform; or between a Lincoln and a Bismarck. Perhaps he didn't apply his mind (which is also un-Chomsky like), anyway, these are minor reasons.
Not only Chomsky, but many of the radical intelligentsia now display a very naive and incomplete idea about 'democracy', a bit, well, metaphysical idea about 'democracy'. They do not connect the history of the struggles of the working class and all the toiling people with 'democracy'. And these struggles have 'democratised', 'civilised' the so-called democratic civil societies. What such 'democracy' really means for those who earned it (for them and others) through their struggle, through their sweat and blood if they still have to stay in the fetters? Whenever such struggles (which should be, of course, in different forms, in different intensities, etc under different conditions) cease or slowdown or get derailed (in long run, not as a short term oscillation or change) that same democracy, that was previously earned by such struggles, becomes, at best 'nothing', 'ornamental', etc, and at worst, a hoax, a hoodwink, a concoction and deception to hide the 'chains' and 'extraction' of the system (perhaps we need to clear up the idea expressed above later.)
And we should not blame Chomsky or any other friends from the intelligentsia for all-these, because the error is not so much in their 'non understanding' as much it arose out of it ' us '— in the sense that the first great campaign of the international working class (say 1848 onwards, worldwide) has met a crushing defeat, its army is now disarrayed; confusion about almost everything spread out all over the world; and the lessons are yet to be summed up. Under such a situation when Chomsky speaks at a discussion in Calcutta (on 16/1/96, according to vernacular newspapers' reports) that 'Democracy has 3 Enemies: Fascism, Bolshevism and the big monopoly corporate', we see in it a bunch of confusions regarding Democracy and Socialism (as practised by the Bolsheviks). But 'Socialism', well, it'll need some more time to sum up the lessons of our defeat (even to a small extent) and to start discussion on it (though some preliminary discussion with the intention of clearing up basic idea are available). In the meantime we hope Chomsky will rethink democracy—and his learned friends should help him in this— so that he won't have to search for a 'model' of democracy, or socialism in the existing world. To help this process, we'll end this article with a very short theoretical discussion on land reform and panchayati system.
We know that the bourgeoisie had historically two options before them in the agrarian arena: ? (1) of utilising the revolutionary potential of the peasantry uprooting feudalism in a revolutionary way; or (2) of trying to modify, transform feudalism at a slow pace, from above, by legal, administrative way. This second or Junker process of transformation slowly transform agriculture (towards capitalist agriculture); don't give the peasantry the taste of freedom, rather keep them hungry and deprived, fettered in poverty, pauperise them... and hence the peasantry also cannot tolerate this silently for long; times and again flare up their revolts, (with some intervals in between) which manifest the revolutionary potentiality of them (as happened many times in post 1860 Russia), but which can not reach their desired goal till the revolutionary working class lead the peasantry towards democratic revolution and then march together hand in hand towards socialism. In the fist half of the 20th century the Russian and Chinese revolutions are examples of this and these revolutions frightened all the bourgeoisie of the world, and compelled the latter to design newer methods to foil revolutionary movements.
The peasantry of India is no exception. They also showed their revolutionary potentiality time and again; if we consider the first half of the 20th century we have the glorious example of Telengana rising. The tumultuous '40s of India failed to reach its desired goal, but Telengana and other peasants' struggle of India, and Russia & China were enough to frighten the bourgeoisie of India; and after '47 the bourgeois-landlord alliance on the one hand took recourse to Junker reform, plus state repression against peasants' struggles, and on the other hand to device 'traps' and to throw some petty 'relief's. From this design followed the Abolition of Zamindary act, etc., and even the proposal of Panchaeti Raj in the early 50s — the objective of which was to divert the peasants' struggles, to trap the struggles of the village poor towards a low level administrative appendage named 'Panchayat' . As the bourgeoisie compromised with feudalism allied with it, so from land reform to panchayat —- everything was relegated to the 'State List', i.e., under the jurisdiction of the State governments.
As Junker reform process only compels the peasantry to rise up in revolts, there were many revolts in '50s, and '60s; and if we see up to 1970, then the most glaring example was the Naxalbari struggle, which to an extent also acted as a spark in the then India's explosive condition of class struggle, and resonance of Naxalbari were heard from different corners of India. The ruling classes had to act. The meeting of C.M.s convened by the then P.M. Late Ms. Indira Gandhi in the early 70's discussed how to accelerate and spread out the imperialist- backed green revolution and also how to accelerate their (Junker) land reform; and to devise various relief schemes (which ultimately took shape as 'food for work', 'fixing daily wage rate of agriculture labourers' etc) and all such things which were essentially 'plots', 'traps' devised to nip in the bud the red revolution . The Cong Govt of W.B., in the first half of the '70s made ready the draft of a three-tier panchayati system.
In '77 the CPIM led Left front took hold of the governmental power of WB. Those left parties have seen the peasants' struggle form within the struggle as participants as leaders, and also sometimes, as saboteurs. They from the beginning took the policy of strongly adhering to the Junker reform process initiated by the ruling classes, of accelerating it, of distribution of 'petty relief's more effectively and more honestly (than before), and simultaneously they brought down from the shelves the Panchayat draft act, and arranged for the first election for panchayats in 1978; that panchayat which was designed as a mask of democracy hiding the reality that it is nothing but a low level appendage of the state (administrative) machinery.
Seeing the efficacy of these left laid trap the leaders of many big bourgeois-big landlord parties applauded the L.F. government's 'land reform' and 'panchayati system' — W.B. had been 'cooled down' very effectively by the CPIM led left front, how efficiently these people were maintaining 'law & order'...whereas Andhra, Bihar, etc. were still disturbing them............And so the late P.M. Rajiv Gandhi started to try to make Panchayats compulsory for all states. Ultimately in '92 came the 72nd Amendment to the Constitution, and now panchayats are there in all major states in India, though those states may lag behind W.B. in the extent of land reform and the efficiency of the distribution network (and consequently the downward percolation of relief kitties).
It is obvious from the above discussion that their 'land reform', their 'Panchayati Raj' , relief schemes...all these are by-products of the peasants' struggles of the past, some very small, paltry by-products if compared to the goal those struggles were thriving for; and at the same time these are 'traps', 'conspiracies' put by the ruling classes with the aim of deceiving the masses, derailing their movements. Between these two aspects which one will predominate depends on whether the peasantry is in the working class led struggle, is acting consciously—or not. And that again depends on whether the representatives of the proletariat in the rural areas are trying to educate and organise the peasantry in that revolutionary direction or not. It is beyond the scope of this article that who are doing what, and how and at what direction in the vast rural areas of this country, but one thing is certainly true Chomsky ? the CPIM and its allies are acting counter to this direction.
Comments:
No Comments for View