A DISCUSSION ON THE LATEST PEASANT MOVEMENT
While passing the new infamous Farm Laws in haste, first through an ordinance, and then by an overwhelming majority in parliament, little did Modiji anticipate the huge and indomitable resistance against this Act. In fact, after coming to power in 2014, especially after winning seats with a staggering majority in 2019, Modi government, in the interests of big capitalists, had been ushering in one after another unimpeded reforms. Surprisingly, no resistance was observed even when the new Labour Laws were enacted, wiping away whatever little semblance of rights the workers had been enjoying. Under these circumstances, it was undeniably difficult for him to imagine a situation where he would be compelled to repeal the Farm Laws. The truth is, could even we and people like us envisage a scenario where the peasants' resistance movement would take such a form? More than that, could we imagine that this movement would force Modi government to step back? Hopefully, we all would agree that for quite a long period the working class remains scattered and disorganized, and yet to recover from the defeat of the first journey of the world socialist movements, they are passing thru' the general situation of overall absence of struggles throughout the country (at the one end ignoring the routine one or two day strikes of the old communist parties, and at the same time taking into consideration of the scattered, isolated, local spontaneous movements of different sections of the people and the TU level independent struggles of the workers); in this given situation, it is indeed a cardinal question how could a peasant movement of such a magnitude, incorporating both the rich and poor peasants in a single banner, became feasible. Different communist revolutionary organizations and a host of social studies and research centers have analyzed this movement from different perspectives. It is only natural that there are and will be differences in opinions between the Communist Revolutionaries. But, we think, there is a common aspect in the overall position of all of them. Almost all of them wanted to portray this movement as a lighthouse in respect to future direction of the coming peasants' struggles of the country. The question is what they want to exactly signify as the direction here? From some discussions it appears that they believe this movement will act to break the existing shackle in the struggles of the workers-peasants and toiling masses throughout the country. In actual, it is of great importance as to how we view this movement. While there is no question of belittling the significance of this movement in the current struggle-less scenario, it will also not be prudent to enforce undue weightage of this significance. Undoubtedly, this analysis will depend upon the perspective with which we view this movement - from a bourgeois-reformist perspective or from a revolutionary working class perspective, especially in context to the revolutionary alliance of workers and peasants. We shall attempt to present some primary thoughts and discussions in this regard.
We already know that the principle activity of the above mentioned peasant movement was sit-in demonstrations at three places surrounding the borders of Delhi. Thousands of peasants, who participated in the open sit-in demonstrations in three places disregarding the heat, cold and the rains, were mostly from Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. From This aspect, this struggle was primarily the struggles of these three states. At different times, sections of the peasants from different states did come to express their solidarity while the struggle was on, though, strictly speaking, it was chiefly representational in nature. However, we have also noticed comparatively large organised peasant gatherings from the states of Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra. How did this struggle against the three Farm Laws primarily persist on the strength of the peasants of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh? We may infer that a major cause for the peasants' struggle against the farm Laws to remain confined primarily in these three states was embedded in the particular 'form' of the struggle, i.e., in the 'form' of sit-in demonstrations. Objectively, it was almost impossible, for peasants from far-flung states to come in large numbers and participate in these demonstrations, both for geographical and economic reasons. But is this the only reason, or the cause lies elsewhere?
Let us see it from a different perspective. Why did the peasant movement choose this particular form of sit-in demonstration activity? How did these demonstrations originate in the border of Delhi? It does not seem cogent to think that this programe was pre-planned by the leadership. At least, we are not aware of such facts. In fact, the peasants of Punjab had embarked upon struggles as soon as the Farm Laws were passed in parliament. Most probably, after nearly two months of big agitations, road and rail blockade etc. activities, the peasant organizations gave a call for a march to Delhi. Immediately, thousands of peasants set forth on their journey towards Delhi. On the way, peasants from Haryana joined them. No point in reiterating the history of how the peasants ultimately reached Delhi border challenging brutal state terror on their way. Not being allowed to enter into the capital, thousands of peasants occupied the highway at different entry points of Delhi declaring that they will continue occupying the streets unless and until the government revokes the Farm Laws. Thus began the sit-in demonstrations. Peasants from western Uttar Pradesh joined in the protests. From the trail/sequence of events, it can be deducted that the call for gathering and sit-in demonstrations on the borders of Delhi were not decided collectively and well in advance by the peasant organizations from all over India and that the peasants only from the above mentioned states joined these protests. The fact is that the peasants from western Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana had already launched struggles against the Farms Laws which resulted in this sit-in demonstration on the borders of Delhi and this demonstration continued in an indomitable manner for a year. Here the advanced role of the peasants of Punjab must be noted.
On the other hand, when these peasants kept occupying Delhi borders with an obstinate attitude and extreme tenacity, in the other states, apart from some ritual gathering of peasants in support of the resistance, nothing more could be observed. Whatever little did happen, happened with the organized efforts of the peasants' organizations mostly isolated from the mass of the peasant population. This cannot be said that spontaneity of struggles, opposition against the three Farm Laws was absent. The three states of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka need to be studied separately from the general picture of the rest of the states of the country. Here we witnessed large peasant gatherings and agitations. Though there were no waves of sit-in demonstrations, the peasants there came down on the streets to protest. What is the reason for such diversity?
The principal cause is obviously embedded in the overall situation of lack of struggle, organizational weaknesses, the scattered, disorganized conditions of the working class, etc. But then, the peasants from Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh struggled determinedly in this particular condition. What makes them stand apart from the other parts of India? If we dig deeper, we shall see that Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh were the states where most of the expansion, development and success of the project of Green Revolution undertaken by the ruling class of India in the sixties of the last century took place; at that time, it was taken to reduce the deficit of production of crops like paddy, wheat, etc and also for the long term interests of imperialist capital. This did not happen in other states, except to a certain extent in Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra. A discussion on why this happened is unnecessary in the context of the present discussion. The significant point is, through the green revolution, these states witnessed a half-baked capitalist development in agriculture from above, natural in the era of imperialism. More and more land was brought under modern agricultural practices, though not in overnight. Two things happened as a consequence. First - crop production in these states increased multiple times as compared to others. Second - rich peasants had emerged in large numbers. Another change occurred in the natural course. The number of Mandis for buying and selling crops also developed considerably. We cannot find the correct answers to the question of how struggle against the anti-Farm Laws spread its roots so deeply in these three particular states in comparison to agriculturally lesser developed states if we do not keep in mind the difference between these states and the others with respect to the success achieved through the Green Revolution.
Leadership of the Peasant Movement ? Organizational Leadership vs Class Leadership
Apparently we see that the platform or coalition of Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) formed by 38 Peasant Organizations (though, initially, there weren't so many), directly gave leadership and direction to this movement. The unity of these organizations lasted until the last day withstanding all the efforts of the government to break that unity. These organizations, especially, some big organizations from Punjab, surely deserve credit for being able to continue the struggle uniting thousands and thousands of peasants for a long whole year. But only the credibility of these organizations does not comply all the answers. We know that the peasant community is not monolithic. There are small/poor peasants owing 5-7 bighas of land as well as rich peasants owning 100 - 200 bighas of land. Their position, i.e., their problems and interests are not the same, it is different for different stratum. So the moot question is, which particular stratum of the peasant community was represented by which organization within SKM, rather interests of which stratum was represented by whom, and whether there was any reflection of this representation in this movement. The way SKM kept their unity intact for such a long period of time, it may appear that they represented the interests of different stratums of the peasants - from small to rich peasants equally in their united struggles for the repeal of the three Farm Laws. But if we consider the question from class perspective, can it at all be possible to represent the interests of all the different stratum of the participating peasants equally, especially when, if a particular stratum remains socially and economically in a dominant position?
Let us consider this from another aspect. It is not enough to see this only from the stand point of the unity of the leading peasant organizations. The unity that was forged at all levels of the peasant population against the three Farm Laws is more significant. In fact, it can definitely be said that, unless there was no real unity at the ground level amongst the different stratum of the peasants with different interests, it would be impossible to organize them in the same platform only thru' organizational authority and carry out such a struggle for such a long period of time. Had the organizational factor remained the determining one, then according to our knowledge, some leading peasants' organizations of Punjab who have organizations and influence over agricultural laborers and also advocates workers-peasants' unity, would be able to bring forth the agricultural labourers in the sit-in demonstration at Delhi border. Why the agricultural labourers did not take part in the movement? This subject has been dealt with in another article of this issue. Anyway, let's gloss over the questions raised before. Why did the small peasants fight against the Farm Laws together with the rich peasants? And secondly, who were in the leadership and dominant position of this alliance?
Most probably, everyone is aware that these three laws brought about by the Modi government were framed by addressing three aspects. Rather, the overall Farm Laws was directed toward two things; One - to occupy and control the market of agricultural produce; two ? to grab the land of the lower stratum of middle peasants and small peasants under their control. The third law is connected to the first. Speaking grossly, the first Law chiefly spoke about abolishing Mandi & MSP and bringing agricultural produce, especially, paddy and wheat to the open market directly so that the big corporates can control the whole of buying and selling of agricultural produce. Naturally, the rich peasants, the capitalist landlords and the upper section of the middle peasants suffered the biggest blow from this Act. So it can be safely assumed that the cause for the agitation of the rich and upper section of the middle peasants was especially because of the First Act. The poor peasants did not face any crisis due to this Act.
Truth be told, Mandi-MSP is not a problem for the other states of India, not even for the poor peasants of Punjab, farming on 5-7 bighas of land, which does not provide much surplus crops for selling after saving provisions for the year. Poor peasants do not possess the luxury of loading tons and tons of crops in their tractors to sell off at mandis like the rich peasants, capitalist farmers, or the upper crust of the middle peasants. Even at a conservative estimate, this number is not small. An all-India estimate of 2003-04 shows that they comprise 49% of peasant families, i.e., nearly half of the peasant population. In reality, this section of peasants own abominably low percentage of land. This makes them incapable of harvesting sufficient crops for a decent living after paying off dearly for fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, whose prices are being increased continuously by the MNCs. On top of this, they are trapped perennially to the usurers & money lenders. They are not eligible for bank loans like the owners of big land owners. They suffer from privation all the year round and are forced to live off loans, especially, during the season of cultivation. Hence, they are compelled to borrow money at high interest rates, from usurers close to their homes, without which, they cannot begin cultivation. These money lenders are either businessmen or owners of big holdings. The peasants are left with no choice other than selling off their crops at low prices to these money lenders immediately after the harvest to keep a window open for the next season's loan. In short, as mentioned before, Mandi-MSP is not at all a problem or crisis for these poor peasants. Even if we accept that some indirect benefits of MSP trickle down to these poor peasants, it is extremely negligible to be of any serious consideration. They are in no position to bargain with the money-lenders, middlemen and businessmen with prices of crops. It will not be without context to mention that, with this one-year collective struggle and by being able to revoke the three farm laws (especially, the first law), the rich peasants and capitalist zamindars, have been successful in retaining their class privileges and oppressor position; but the small peasants still remain under the centuries old feudal oppression; not to mention the status of the agricultural labourers ? they had nothing to gain from this movement. The question of the struggles of agricultural labourers against the capitalist landlords and rich peasants, the question of struggles of the small, middle peasants and agricultural labourers against the exploitation of money lenders, and the question of expropriating land from non-peasant land owners and its re-distribution all remained untouched just like before.
Let's move on to the three farm laws and the peasant movement. Whereas, the objective of the first Act was to let the corporate grab and control the market of crops, the second Act was targeted at bringing more and more lands under capitalist exploitation system which are not in possession of the rich peasants and capitalist farmers. This act, commonly known as Contract Farming Act, was mainly targeted to the poor peasants and the lower stratum of the middle peasants. We have seen Modiji himself, along with the ministers of state governments, were trying their utmost to persuade poor and middle peasants with sweet talks of how contract farming with the Corporates will help them get rid of the tyranny of middle-men, money lenders and aarthiyas, how their earnings will be double and they will see the light of brighter days. This was obviously a conspiracy to alienate these peasants from the struggle and break their unity. The peasants did not believe in it. In fact, we do not know how much the poor peasants understood or was made to understand the long?term scheme of the ruling class behind the Contract Farming Act (we shall revert to this topic later on), but surely, they must have realized it in the main that in the coming days the fate of their livelihood would be controlled by the Corporates. They realized that Corporates won't free them from the destitution of their lives, rather it would bring further disaster. The little land they have would be snatched away. Perhaps, it is from this perspective the small/poor peasants did not hesitate to participate in the struggles of the rich peasants and big land holders against the Corporates. On the other hand, the interest of the rich peasants and capitalist farmers was to pull the large sections of poor peasants and the lower stratum of the middle peasants. They knew it very well that they might have an influential socio-economic status in rural society, but it was impossible for them to confront Modi government solely on their own strength. They cannot do so without pulling in the majority of the poor peasants and the lower stratum of the middle peasants into the movement. That is why though the three laws were interpreted differently by different sections, it became necessary to struggle collectively & unitedly starting from the capitalist farmers and down to the level of lower stratum of middle and poor peasants from the same platform. This necessity was translated into a reality in an organized form chiefly by the peasant organizations of Punjab by projecting the demand of the repeal of the overall Farm Laws.
Logically speaking, it can be said that this long one-year struggle was a combined struggle of peasants of different stratum with different interests for the abolishment of the three Farm Laws. To be precise, it was a combined struggle of the rich and poor peasants.
Another fact cannot be overlooked. The family labour of the rich peasants who own 10-15 hectares of land is negligible compared to wage labour employed by them for the total farming; and this makes class position more of a bourgeois as oppressors of agricultural labourers, rather peasant bourgeois. Nevertheless, no matter what logic says, objectively was this a united struggle of the poor, middle and rich peasants a struggle in the nature of joint movement? The rich peasants were aware of their class interests and gathered together with the small and middle peasants to safeguard their interests. But were the poor peasants, with respect to their distinctly different interests, in a position to say that 'Our main struggle is the struggle for land and against the oppression of money lenders united with the agricultural labourers. Standing steadfast on these demands, we have collaborated with the big land holders on the agenda of the abolishment of the three Farm Laws only.' But how is this possible during the present phase of retreat of class struggles and particularly on the sole strength of the poor peasants? It would have been possible only if there was an organized struggle of the working class in the whole of society which could attract the majority of peasants and toiling people; as part of this a struggling unity of small/poor peasants and agricultural labourers under the leadership of the working class would have developed; subsequently that would attract at least a section of the middle peasants towards them; had this been happen, the ruling class and their governments would probably not dare to enact such laws serving the interests of national and foreign capital. In this context, though the fear of losing land through contract farming chiefly drew the poor peasants and the lower section of the middle peasants to the movement, we should not deny that their dependence on rich peasants in various ways within the rural life and the complex social relationship that has developed over ages also played an important role. Hence, in the present condition, there can be no doubt that the leadership of any united struggle of the rich- middle and poor peasants in a rural society (at least in the regions of Green Revolution), will imperatively stay in the hands of the rich peasants who are socio- economically in a dominant position.
It is to be noted that The peasants' organizations did not withdraw their agitation even after Modi announced his decision to repeal the three Farm Laws. The peasant movement that originated in Punjab, and then spread to Haryana and later to western Uttar Pradesh, began with the demand of abolishing the three Farm Laws. So it is natural that the peasants will return once their demand was met. But Sanyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) presented a list of six demands announcing that they will not withdraw their agitation unless those demands were met. They withdrew only after extracting a promise from the government.
What were those demands? The demand of withdrawing police cases against the agitators and compensation for those expired during the struggles are very much justified. Without resolving these issues, the movement could not reach to a successful conclusion. Apart from these, there were two more demands which were outside the principle demand of abolishing the three Farm Laws. For example, (i) legal guarantee for M.S.P., i.e., MSP has to be legally enforced, (ii) Price of electricity has to be reduced. It need not be explained that these demands were not the demands of all stratum of peasants, rather, only of the rich and the upper section of the middle peasants (on an average, they own 6-7, even up to 10 hectares of land). They are eyeing to reap more profits from crops and improve and secure their own condition.
It's not that SKM for the first time raised these two demands of rich peasants. In fact, these demands were raised repeatedly during the whole phase of sit-in demonstration. It is altogether a different matter that some organizations of rich peasants used this joint platform to put forth their own demands. But it has been observed that SKM unitedly raised these demands. Apart from the demand of abolishing the three Farm Laws, SKM also voiced these two demands of rich peasants in the meetings with the government at the initial phase of the movement. We are aware of some organizations of Punjab, having a good mass base within SKM, believes that the demand for MSP of the rich peasants itself is against mass interests. In the main, does this fact not show clearly who are in the dominant and leading position (in terms of interest, not numbers) in this movement?
Rich peasants' Movement or Movement under the Leadership of Rich Peasants
Should we then view this movement as movement of the rich peasants or peasant bourgeois movement? Some organizations within Communist Revolutionaries have taken such a position. We don't feel it correct. First, we need to understand the differences between this movement against the three Farm Laws and some previous movements of the rich peasants. Since Eighties of the last century, we have seen many movements for fair prices of crops at different parts of the country, frontline among them were under the leadership of Sharad Joshi, BKU's Mahendra Singh Tikayat etc., in particular in Karnataka-Maharashtra-UP. It would not be wrong to categorize those movements as rich peasants' movements. Same could be said about the present movement, had the struggle been aimed at only about the first Act. But the fight here was against the three Acts as a whole. Perhaps, backwardness was one of the causes for the participation of poor and lower sections of the middle peasants, but it will be a grave error to disregard the fact that, in the main, these peasants understood the implications of Contract Farming and how the Corporates are targeting their land. In short, the struggle against the three Farm Laws was also their struggle. They took part in this movement whole-heartedly and seriously despite economic hardships. Hence, it will be wrong to label this struggle as between the peasant bourgeois and corporate. That would inevitably lead to pushing the poor and middle peasants (particularly, their lower section) more and more under the dominance of the rich peasants, and one very important task of today's communists would be harmed. To state clearly, in the present circumstance, where working class is in disarray, Communist Party & working class leadership is absent, one among the most important tasks of today's communists (besides laying main emphases on the task of organizing the working class) is to make the small and the lower section of middle peasants conscious about their own interests with the objective of freeing themselves from the influence and leadership of rich peasants (the bourgeois and bourgeois parties in general). This very important task will be harmed. The fundamental task of bringing forth the truth to the agricultural labourers and poor peasants of why their basic unity is of utmost important for their emancipation from the pitiful life of exploitation, deprivation and poverty will be deeply hampered.
One step Backward, Two steps Forward.
We can recollect that as soon as the three Farm Laws were repealed, many ministers and BJP leaders had openly declared that they, for the time being, had retreated one step, but will soon advance again. It was not an abrupt announcement. We have already mentioned that the repeal of the Farm Laws for now does not imply that the Modi government has pulled back from the agenda of the Farm Laws. We have to keep in mind that these laws were not a sudden whimsical decision of Modi government. Behind this decision lies the long standing pressure of the ruling class, i.e., of big capital and corporates, to bring about massive reforms in agriculture, dictated and recommended by the imperialist capital, alias IMF ? World Bank. They had already charted out an expansive outline and tasks for agricultural reforms for under developed countries like India way back in 2008. UPA government could not and did not have time to implement this according to their plan. Following Modi government's ascension to power, a more detailed and consolidated draft as model Acts in that line was prepared and presented to the state governments so that concrete State Acts based on this model in the respective states could be promulgated. But this did not materialize at that time. Hence, once Modi won the election again in 2019 with an unprecedented majority, he, as the most trusted and powerful representative of the national and international big capital, did not waste a single moment and passed the three Farm Laws in parliament as Central Acts. If we keep in mind this backdrop of the Farm Laws, then it can unhesitatingly be said that this Act will make a comeback, albeit in a different manner and form. It remains to be seen and understood what tactics will be embraced by Modiji for launching a new attack after learning lessons the hard way from this struggle.
Modi government left no stone unturned to break the struggling unity developed among the majority of the peasant community during the movement, but to no avail. This unity remained intact up until the last day. No pint in wishing that Modi government will want a repeat of history. So, if the World Bank and big corporate recommended Farm Laws has to be brought back in a new form, then perhaps, the axis of the new tactics of Modi government will revolve around cutting off all possibilities of developing unity among the peasant community once again. No doubt, the easiest way for the government to achieve this is to come to an agreement with the rich peasants for the time being and alienate them from the rest of the peasant community. The government had already promised statutory provision for MSP. An organisation of SKM (most probably a rich peasants' organisation) had once announced that it would be okay for them to obtain the price of MSP, whoever be the buyer is. Of course, this was and is not the official view of SKM. However, the mentality and aspirations of rich peasants can be gauged somewhat from the opinion of that organisation of SKM. In fact, if legal protection for selling of crops under MSP is ensured, then it may not be utterly impossible for the rich peasants to come into an agreement with the big corporates. To be more specific, if the government mandis remain operative, legal protection of MSP is ensured, and at the same time open markets are growing at government's initiative, then it may not be disagreeable to the rich peasants to cohabit with the corporates. Now, the problem is, even though there might be a primary consensus with the rich peasants, or rather, with respect to the first Act of the Farm Laws, but what will happen to the content of the second Act - the Contract Farming Act, the main target of which are the small peasants and the lower section of the middle peasants? Is there any room for negotiation here? Will the aggressive Modi government submit to it? We have to keep in mind the two objectives of the corporates behind the Farm Laws - (i) to occupy and control the market of the crops; (ii) to grab and control the land of small and middle peasants and the agricultural sector as a whole.
It needs to be noted that the nearly 400 pages' document published by World Bank with the supposedly hallowed objective of 'resolving' the agricultural crisis of India, actually laid great emphasis on Contract Farming. Come to think of it, this particular Act from the whole of the three Farm Laws, actually holds a great significance for the revolutionary proletariat because agricultural reforms and the question of land is intrinsic to this Act. Either the path of half - hearted reforms from above in the bourgeois path, or complete land reforms thru' peasant revolution path ? in reality this concrete question has actually been put forward objectively thru' the second Act. The way the ruling big capitalists class of India are rushing to expand their empire of oppression, power and influence in the Modi regime, drastic reforms in agriculture has become an eminent necessity for them. And World Bank has become their guiding light. The concept of the whole of three Farm Laws, particularly, Contract Farming Act, which should have been labeled as cooperative Act have emerged from this perspective.
Let us hear World Bank's opinions regarding developing countries like India. "In Those countries, agriculture is in the hands of small holders, continuing demographic process simply rapidly declining farm size, becoming as minute that they can compromise survival if off-farm income opportunities are not available". According to them, a large portion of agricultural land being reduced to very small holdings (nearly 40% as per a government report of 2003- 04) is the core problem of India's agriculture. It is not feasible for millions of peasants stuck in such small holdings to earn as much as the value realization of which will enable them to improve the quality of their lives. Hence the magnificent responsibility of pulling up this huge section of people from their miserable and destitute lives has been shouldered to the corporates who, ironically, understands no language other than capital investment, profits and super profits in reality. Hence the second Act of the three Farm Laws, Contract Farming Act, is actually a play to grab land through the means of cooperatives under the garb of contract farming.
This becomes clearer through another fact. In a Report of a Committee under The department of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Govt of India stated in 2017, "... The core spirit of such an Act should be to enable the small and marginal farmers to mobilize themselves into groups and operate scales of economy in partnership with the industry. The committee, as authorized by the Ministry is already working on the APML market rules and a model Contract Farming Act".
The condition of the small peasants of the minutely small holdings as portrayed by World Bank is not incorrect. But who is responsible for this situation? First of all, land reform has not been completed in our country, land re-distribution after complete overthrowing of feudalism was not made. So, what actually has happened is a slow and half-hearted reforms in agriculture in the direction of capitalist development from above under the leadership of big capital and landlords depending on imperialism; its inevitable result has led, at the one hand, to the growth of a smaller section of upper stratum of peasants, and at the other end, complete destitution of the vast majority of the lower stratum of the peasants ? a life based on inhuman exploitation and extreme poverty. As a continuation of this path of reform programme, implementation of 'green revolution' was started in sixties of last century. The green revolution had opened the door of high yield of agricultural produce for all the stratum of peasants throughout the country with which the interests of imperialist capital was intrinsically connected. For more produce per bigha, high yield seeds-fertilizers and pesticides were necessary and it required mass of the the peasants to be dependent upon the multinational corporations. In this method, peasants of huge tracts of land became richer, but the small peasants and a portion of middle peasants became trapped in the quagmire of high production. The MNCs kept increasing the prices of seeds, fertilizers, etc.; on the other hand, the huge government subsidies provided previously were slowly abolished in the era of liberalization. As a result, not only the small peasants, even a large chunk of the middle peasants became trapped from two corners ? at the one end, the ever increasing prices of materials for farming and on the other hand, oppression of the money lenders. It became more and more difficult for them to earn for subsistence despite laboring day and night in the land. Now the condition is such that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them even to hold on their meagre lands. It has become an unbearable situation for them as they can neither hold on to their land nor abandon their identity as a peasant, not to mention that they don't have another option of a different means of livelihood. The class who could lead them on to the path of real emancipation from this life of destitution, the most advanced class of society ? the working class, are not prepared or organized now. Taking advantage of this situation, the class who pushed the peasants to this edge of the cliff are now jumping on to the band wagon by acting as a Samaritan with the purpose of investing capital in agriculture directly, thus reaping profits from agriculture. Contract Farming Act is the beginning of this process.
Contract farming is not new to India. The trend has been going on for last 10-15 years. If so, what was the need to enforce new Contract Farming Act? Actually, according to previous Act operative till now, it was the contract between individual peasant and the Company, where Company would provide raw materials, and the peasants on their own land would produce crops according to the specifications provided by the Company. The problem lies here ? requirement is contracts with large number of peasants having small holdings ? this practically means lakhs and lakhs of separate contracts. No need to say that this method is really impractical. The solution therefore lies in collective contracts. So, to fulfill this need, an organization, FPO (Farmers Producers Organization) will be created, which perhaps, is the most decisive and significant aspect of Contract Farming Act. These FPOs will primarily gather and bring together the owners of small holdings under the purview of contract farming. It will provide all ingredients for farming, Corporates will enter into contract with these FPOs, and through them the corporates will procure the agriculture produce with the pre-fixed price fixed in the contract. In short, this is the core of the second Act or Contract Farming Act of Modi government. This Act stipulates These FPOs as farmers' co-operatives - in actual co-operatives that will be controlled by the corporates. Even the dumbest person will understand that these so called co-operatives or FPOs will not have the ability to invest the huge amount of capital to provide ingredients required in these large tracts of contract lands. It can only be met by the corporates. In reality, these FPOs will act as agents of the corporate interests in the name of co-operatives.
In reality, these 'co-operatives' might bring in some temporary improvements in the lives of the peasants, most probably this will happen. But one thing will happen for sure. Though the peasants will have legal rights over their lands, they will lose control of it. This will not be the end. The Inevitable conclusion of this will be that ultimately they will lose the ownership of their lands to the corporates, the poor peasants will be landless and finally be totally ruined.
What is the point of discussing this when the three Farm Laws have been abolished? This is because the agenda, objectives and aim of these laws still stands. We have to remember - the crises ridden ruling big capitalists and corporates are greedily eyeing the huge tracts of agricultural land divided into innumerable small holdings throughout the country The repeal of the Farm Laws for now does not mean that they have given up their design. It will also not be prudent to believe that Modiji will suffer the indignation and humiliation of bowing down in silence. Hence, though the three Farm Laws have been revoked for now, there is every possibility that they come to an agreement with the rich peasants. Perhaps they will. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the small and the lower section of middle peasants have been free from the inherent dangers of Contract Farming Act. The revolutionary peasants' organizations must surely be aware of this matter, if not, they should seriously ponder that, nobody knows when and how this danger will befall, but one thing can be said with certainty ? to counter this ensuing danger, the small peasants must have to embark upon new struggles independent of the leadership of rich peasants. This will necessitate a new unity ? unity of agricultural labourers, landless peasants and small peasants. On the basis of this unity, the lower and middle section of the middle peasants have to be drawn into this struggle. Of course, struggle against the corporate policies of Modi government has to be integrated with this main struggle on the basis of demands of confiscation of land from non-peasant land owners and re-distribution of it amongst landless and small peasants and the extermination of the oppressions of money lenders.
Some Relevant Issues
Many CRs are saying that the historical victory of this one-year long struggle of the peasants of Punjab-Haryana will not only encourage the peasants of other states to embark on struggles, it will even inspire workers and toiling people to resist pro-corporate policies and measures of the Modi government. Some are even saying up to the extent that the anger of the masses will now come out like stream of lava. We do not know on what basis or analysis they are saying so. But the idea these sections of CRs are propagating would lead to the conclusion that simply an example of a huge victory of the struggle of a section of the masses was necessary to turn around from the condition of the long period of retreat (continuing for nearly thirty-five years) from the struggle of the working class (except some scattered and isolated TU struggles) and also of the different sections of the masses. Will this not be an over- simplification of an analysis of the present situation? In doing this, shall we not ignore the devastating impact of the defeat of the first forward journey of World Socialist movement, the revisionist-reformist downfall of all the old communist parties, the prolonged history of absence of a true Communist Party & the utterly scattered and disorganized condition of the working class? It needs to be admitted that this one-year long struggle of the peasants of Punjab-Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh on the borders of Delhi had made a strong imprint on the people of the country in general. But the pertinent question is, is leaving its marks or to inspire the masses is equivalent to embarking on struggles in reality? Even if viewed from the angle of success, can the success of a partial struggle (no matter how stirring or inspiring it be) really be able to break the shackle of the strongly embedded 30-35 years of post-defeat frustrations, isolation, mistrust and ultimately the struggle-less stalemate of the working class and toiling people, thus pushing them towards the path of struggles? Have we observed any change in the situation even seven months after completion of the peasants' movement? The most pertinent question is ? do the people embark on struggles when they are certain of a victory or is it because they are compelled to do so? The trend of such thoughts will only help us to make an error of judgment in identifying the principal causes behind the inability of the working class to turn around from the debacles of defeat and the post-defeat scattered, struggle-less condition.
It's not that there are no spontaneous resistance movements in different sections of the masses, especially against displacement from forests and land has been occurring now and then. In some places, there had been powerful TU level struggles of the workers through their independent TUs. Probably, these scattered, isolated struggles will keep on happening even in this generally existing struggle- less situation. But the moot question is growth of class- struggle, its direction, continuity and development. The question is of turning around of workers' struggles from the situation of post-defeat retreat with which the advancement of the struggles of other sections of the masses in the right direction is connected. We have to understand that the revival, expansion and development of class struggles and the advancement and development of the struggles of different sections of the masses in the right direction (in the direction of class struggles) ? ultimately, the revolutionary alliance of working class & peasantry historically pre-supposes some basic conditions. That is the vanguard and leading section of society, the working class itself, needs to be united and organized as a class, formation of their own separate and independent party and to that aim, task of this moment is the advanced section of the workers who remains scattered in different parts of the country, gets organized. The big and inspiring struggles of a section of the society or even their victory cannot be an alternative to this condition. On the contrary, the one-year long peasants' struggles against the three farm laws have vigorously brought forth the huge significance of the need for the organization of the working class.
Regarding the Role of the Peasants' Organizations
It need not be mentioned that there cannot be any organized struggle of the working class or any sections of the masses without a leading organization. It is also a fact that an organization cannot create a struggle from above if there is no spontaneity amongst the struggling masses. It is also true that the presence and active role of an organization kindles and invigorates the spontaneity of the struggles of the masses. By spontaneity, the expression of agitation is meant here. Undoubtedly, the expression of the intense resentment of different sections of the peasants of Punjab in instant reaction against the farm laws, the way they ravaged police resistance on their march towards Delhi and above all, the do-or-die manner in which they persisted with their year long struggle could not happen without the presence of a huge spontaneity amongst the peasants. On the other hand, if the various peasants' organizations had not given leadership and direction to the struggles in a united manner under the banner of SKM, it would have been impossible for the movement to advance and persist from the beginning to the end in the face of extreme adversities. Perhaps, we also cannot deny that if Punjab had not spear headed the struggles from an advanced position, and had not taken the leading role, then we would not have witnessed this glorious struggle. We have seen how Punjab rose to the occasion first, then drew Haryana into its fold and together they brought the peasants of western Uttar Pradesh on to the platform of sit-in demonstration. The advance role of Punjab did not come out of blue. Upon interacting with various leaders and activists during the demonstrations, we came to know that in Punjab, there has been a long history of partial and local struggles of different stratum of the peasant community, even of the landless peasants and agricultural labourers, on different issues, under the leadership of different peasants' organizations; and the peasants' organizations of Punjab are generally very active; particularly, two or three leading organizations have a strong mass base, not common in other parts of India. We have mentioned previously that though there were one or two all-India peasants' organizations in SKM, most of the organizations were from Punjab and some amongst them were seen in a leading role throughout the movement. We don't have a clear explanation for this feature of Punjab. Is it only because of the relative success of Green Revolution or because of some other objective causes or because of the proficiency of the leadership? We do not know if the organizations or leaders of this region have a clear understanding or analysis of this feature. But we are certain that only the process of the proficiency of the leadership cannot fully explain this matter. Anyway, if we do not keep in mind the above background, and claim this movement as an all India movement just because it was against the three farm laws (like one revolutionary organisation has claimed: "the movement had essentially been all India character"), it will not only be erroneous from the perspective of both the struggle and its participants, it will also be a denial of reality. We cannot judge the whole of India with only Punjab-Haryana or even Karnataka-Maharashtra. The principle cause is, as mentioned earlier, the partial and half-hearted capitalist reforms from above in agriculture did not happen evenly throughout India.
In fact, in order to highlight the historical significance of the courageous anti-farm laws peasant movement, if we conclude that based on this movement and following it, peasant movement will spread and develop throughout India, or have to be spread and developed, across the country, i.e., India's peasant movement will develop around the resistance movements against big capital and imperialism, it will simply be a one-sided and wrong evaluation. Feudal oppression is very much a happening thing throughout the country, especially in the vast rural tracts of backward states, oppressions of money lenders and non- peasant ownership of huge tracts of lands are an irrefutable reality. It does not appear to be a correct objective analysis to deem that small and landless peasants' aspirations for land and possibilities for revolutionary struggles on the demand of land stands no more. Again, the struggles of peasants against the capitalist class and corporate is also a reality. So perhaps, we have to realize that unless the working class itself is organized in a party and it advances with the task of a country wide united revolutionary peasant movement combining both the anti- feudal and anti-big capital struggles instead of raising a wall between them, the awakening of peasants struggles will keep manifesting with its own features and diversities in different states and zones, and will finally remain limited to the reforms only.
Any ways, borrowing from a communist revolutionary organisation, we shall end the present discussion, "Movement ... inspire thousands of studies and features". Let the mutual discussions continue.
Comments:
No Comments for View