India’s farmer leaders

Where have India’s farmer leaders gone?

Movements thrive when participants believe their cause is worth fighting for. Agriculture per se is no longer viewed as an avenue for upward mobility.

By Harish Damodaran 

Almost everyone agrees Indian agriculture is in crisis. And while 2014-15 may have produced the “perfect storm” by way of sliding global commodity prices, monsoon failures and untimely rains/hailstorms, this is a crisis that’s been building up for long.

But that raises a question: Given the extended “crisis” in farming, why do we have so few farmer leaders of standing today? This, for a country with a history of agrarian activism going back to Sir Chhotu Ram in undivided Punjab, Sahajanand Saraswati in Bihar, Baldev Ram Mirdha in Rajasthan, Charan Singh in UP, N G Ranga in Andhra — and, more recently, the likes of Mahendra Singh Tikait, M D Nanjundaswamy and Sharad Joshi?

By contrast, one cannot name any notable ground-level mobilisers of farmers now. The influence of Raju Shetti and V M Singh is confined to the sugarcane belts of southern Maharashtra and western UP respectively. Other self-appointed ‘farm leaders’ have no base among those they claim to speak for, and draw sustenance more from agri-business corporates or European aid agencies.

What explains this decline in autonomous, grassroots-based farmers’ movements — remember Tikait’s Boat Club rallies that used to bring Lutyens’ Delhi to a halt in the 80s? Shouldn’t crises be breeding ground for new generations of farmer-activists, rather than creating a vacuum for the Rahul Gandhis and the Arvind Kejriwals to rush into?

Well, the reason this isnt happening is probably because the current “crisis” in agriculture is different from the earlier ones.

In the past, Indian farmers largely saw a future, both for themselves and their children, in agriculture. The increase in crop yields from the Green Revolution and rising disposable incomes made agriculture a worthwhile career option, notwithstanding the occasional crop failure or price slump. Having experienced upward mobility through modern intensive agriculture, they developed a collective consciousness to defend these gains. Movements thrive when participants have a stake in the cause they believe is worth fighting for. When the farm sector was doing reasonably well and options outside of agriculture were limited, it was natural for farmers to assert against any perceived injustices and rally behind leaders from within their own ranks.

That situation has changed. Between 2003-04 and 2013-14, thanks to the global commodity boom, rural incomes went up — but it also fuelled rising aspirations in a context of overall economic growth creating employment opportunities outside of agriculture. A 2003 NSSO situation assessment study revealed that 40% of Indian farmers would rather “take up some other career”. In the following years, they, perhaps for the first time, actually saw exit options open up.

The nature of farmers’ demands, too, has evolved in recent times to reflect their non-agricultural aspirations. Not many now envisage a future for their children or even themselves as agriculturalists. While retaining one foot in farming, the old commitment and motivation — extending to laying siege to the national/state capitals for weeks over power tariffs or minimum support prices — is missing. When agriculture per se is no longer viewed as an avenue for upward mobility, it shouldn’t surprise that even the odd farmer agitation is centered more on issues of land acquisition or job reservations, as against remunerative prices for crops.

The protests against the Land Acquisition Ordinance is precisely because of farmers’ willingness to explore options outside of agriculture, while, at the same time, not forgoing their bargaining power with respect to pricing of land. That power is what the dilution of the “consent clause” in the 2013 Act is seen to be taking away.

The farmer knows his land has value beyond the crops it produces. It is unlocked when put to non-agricultural uses, and the bighas get converted into square feet of real estate. This new value can’t be captured only by a quadrupling of so-called market rates.

Farmers’ movements could yet get a fresh lease of life — even though the issues might not be “agrarian” in the conventional sense. The government is partially right to say that farm suicides or falling crop realisations have little to do with the Land Ordinance. But to the extent it has become a rallying point for “real” farm issues to also emerge, technical distinctions may have only limited relevance.

Smoking kills — in India too

A study shows that Indians are not immune to health consequences of smoking and that smokers have a higher death rate than non-smokers

Recently, a parliamentary committee declined to extend the size of health warnings on cigarette packets due to lack of independent evidence on the health impacts of smoking on the Indian population. A longitudinal study conducted by the National Council of Applied Economics (NCAER) and University of Maryland shows that in India too, smoking kills.

The India Human Development Survey (IHDS) was first conducted in 2004-05. In this survey, 41,554 households were surveyed in both urban and rural areas in all States and Union Territories with the exception of Andaman-Nicobar and Lakshadweep. At this time, extensive information about the lifestyles of over two lakh individuals residing in these households was collected. In 2011-12, these same households were surveyed again. We were able to re-interview about 83 per cent of the original households. 

At the time of the re-interview, information on current location of the individuals from the original household was obtained, including whether they are still alive. Thus, we have access to a prospective data set, which contains both information on smoking tobacco products and whether the individual has died in the seven years between the two interviews. The results unambiguously show that even after we take into account individuals’ age, gender, education and household wealth, those who are reported to be daily smokers are more likely to die.

In the initial interview, 26 per cent men and 1.6 per cent women above the age of 15 smoked. These statistics are very similar to those observed in the Global Adult Tobacco Use Study by Professor Ram and his colleagues at International Institute of Population Sciences, conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2009-10. The GATS study also noted that 24.3 per cent of men and 2.9 per cent of women aged 15 and above smoked.

Categorising smokers

Since smoking is often underestimated for younger people, when smokers tend to hide their habits from the older family members, we focus on individuals who are 30 and above. In this age group, nearly 36 per cent men in the IHDS sample smoke; 29 per cent smoke daily. Among women, only 2.5 per cent smoke. Although men from all walks of life smoke, smoking is disproportionately concentrated among Dalit, Adivasi and Muslim men. Among this group, about 45 per cent men smoke; 37 per cent smoke daily. Lack of education also plays a role. About 46 per cent of illiterate men smoke, while only 16 per cent of the college graduates smoke. Moreover, smoking is concentrated among the lowest income group. 

Nearly 46 per cent of the men in bottom fifth smoke compared to only 20 per cent in the upper fifth. Death rates are higher for daily smokers than for non-smokers or occasional smokers. About 11.3 per cent of men aged 30 and above and who smoke daily died in the seven years following our initial survey; only 10.2 per cent of the non-smokers and occasional smokers died. However, as we noted above, smokers come from lower socio-economic strata. Hence, it is difficult to know if these characteristics, rather than smoking, may be the cause of higher death rates among smokers. So we compare like with like and control for education, marital status, age, caste/religious background, urban/rural residence, state of residence and whether the individual was employed at the first interview. We also control for household wealth. This does not change the relationship observed above.

Even after taking into account all these differences, we find that smokers have a higher death rate than non-smokers. Among men, daily smokers are 1.14 times as likely to die between the two interviews as the non-smokers and occasional smokers. Lest this seem like a small difference, the improvement in survival by giving up smoking would be more than by difference between illiterate and those with eight years of education or between men living in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka. For women, smoking is even more harmful but given the very small number of women who smoke, this impact is not significant.

Delaying anti-smoking campaigns will take a heavy toll on the Indian population, particularly poorer and less educated men. What is disturbing about the current debate is the message that it sends to current and potential smokers. Whether the pictorial warning covers 20 or 30 per cent of the package is less important than the implication that Indian population’s risk profile is somehow different from that of non Indians and that until a study has been conducted in India, we should not believe that smoking increases health risks in India. Nonetheless, the results we show above should lay to rest the argument that Indians are not somehow immune to health consequences of smoking that beset non-Indian populations.

Debate in other countries

This debate is reminiscent of similar battles fought in other countries. In the U.S., for decades cigarette companies tried to throw a smoke screen over research results that unambiguously showed that smoking caused cancer and increased mortality. In France, even in the late 20th century, the legislature argued that controlling public smoking was pitting non-smokers’ rights against smokers’ rights. Financial interests played an important role in the French debate too. Constance Nathanson notes that by 1990, French tobacco market had been captured by multinationals, leading a smoking proponent to grumble that anti-smoking advertising would selectively weaken French tobacco industry and, “there will no less smoking or drinking in sweet France but smoking and drinking will be less French and more American.” These delays in anti-smoking legislations have led to slower decline in smoking in France than in other high income countries; as World Atlas of Smoking shows, today 34 per cent French men smoke compared to 23 per cent in neighbouring Switzerland.

Let us not give mixed messages to our young men and increasingly, young women; smoking is not harmless, smoking is not cool. Smoking kills, even in India.

(Sonalde Desai; Senior Fellow at NCAER and Professor of Sociology at University of Maryland &

Debasis Barik; Associate Fellow at NCAER. Views expressed are personal.)

Delaying anti-smoking campaigns will take a heavy toll on Indians, particularly poorer and less educated men

COURTESY: The HINDU, dtd 4 May, 2015

Nepal Earthquake’s impact on Food Security & Agriculture

Nepal Earthquake’s impact on Food Security & Agriculture

Some $8 million is urgently needed to help disaster-struck Nepalese farmers rapidly recover lost agricultural inputs and resume preparations for the imminent rice sowing season, as per the release of Food & Agriculture Organization(FAO)- UN. 

The impact of the recent major earthquake on food security and agricultural livelihoods expected to be very high. 

Farmers who miss the planting season that is expected to start late May onwards will be unable to harvest rice - the country's staple food -- again until late 2016. This, together with likely losses of food stocks and wheat and maize harvests, would severely limit food supplies and incomes in the South Asian country, where around two-thirds of people rely on agriculture for their livelihood, FAO said. 

Last week, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake - the country's biggest in 80 years - shook Nepal, killing thousands while limiting access to food and leaving some 3.5 million in need of food assistance. 

Agricultural areas among worst hit: 

Millions of people across the country's Western and Central Regions are affected by the disaster, including its largest cities, Kathmandu and Pokhara. 

But some of the country's most vulnerable agricultural areas, particularly the villages in mountain and hilly regions, also bore the brunt. Although damage to the agriculture sector has not yet been assessed, affected families have likely lost livestock, crops, food stocks and valuable agricultural inputs. At the same time, the disaster has destroyed markets and infrastructure, including roads and crucial irrigation and drainage canals. 

As a result, internal trade, including the movement of emergency assistance, is severely constrained. 

Before the earthquake hit, FAO estimated Nepal's wheat production in 2015 at 1.8 million tonnes - some 5% below last year's record harvest. But crop damage and farmer's inability to harvest in earthquake-affected areas are likely to change this forecast.

In addition, disruption of planting operations for rice and maize may severely reduce the planted area for these crops in the most affected areas. 

Critical window of opportunity: 

In addition to distributing crop-production packages to secure this year's harvest, FAO and partners will support the Nepalese government in preventing further loss of livestock by providing animal feed and veterinary supplies that will ensure animals stay healthy and productive for families relying on them for food and income. 

In all, FAO will support 20,000 of the most vulnerable farming households protect and rebuild their livelihoods. Timely agricultural interventions are essential to increase the resilience of affected farming families and greatly reduce the time and cost of recovery. 

"There is a critical window of opportunity to help crop producers plant in time to have a rice harvest this year and regain their self-sufficiency," said Somsak Pipoppinyo, FAO representative in Nepal. 

"At the same time, we need to do all we can to preserve vital livestock assets which provide affected families with much needed income and nutrition," added Pipoppinyo. 

UN agencies and partners launched a $415 million emergency appeal for Nepal to address the most urgent needs. FAO's appeal is part of a larger $128-million request under the Food Security Cluster, led by FAO and the World Food Programme. In addition to emergency agriculture support, the cluster aims to distribute 50,000 tonnes of food to families in need, along with setting up cash-transfer programmes and helping communities rebuild.

Untie the Farmer !

Untie the farmer

Written by Ashutosh Varshney

The debate on the land acquisition bill and the tragic suicide of a farmer in Delhi compel us to reflect on a theme of enduring significance: the role of agriculture and farmers in development. What has the historical experience all over the world been?  How is India’s agrarian narrative different — or identical? What can India learn from international experience?

Many years ago, I wrote a book, Democracy, Development and the Countryside: Urban-Rural Struggles in India. A great deal has changed since then. India has experienced its highest economic growth rate since Independence and an urban acceleration has set in. During 2001-11, for the first time since 1947, the absolute increase in the urban population was greater than the absolute increase in the rural population. Still, two-thirds of the nation continues to live in the countryside. It is impossible to conceptualise the nation’s welfare without rural wellbeing. How should rural welfare be imagined at this stage of Indian development? What policies would be critical?

We should first note that agriculture declines as economic development takes place. Allover Europe and North America, agriculture produces less than 5 per cent of the nation’s GDP. Asia has not escaped this law of development either. In 1990, agriculture accounted for 27 per cent of GDP in China, 19 per cent in Indonesia and 15 per cent in Malaysia. By 2009-10, these shares were down to 11 per cent in China, 13 per cent in Indonesia, 7 per cent in Malaysia. In India, 31 per cent of the nation’s GDP came from agriculture in 1990, declining to 14 per cent by 2011-12.

Whereas annual growth rates of 7-8 per cent in industry are common, agriculture rarely grows at more than 4-5 per cent annually in the medium to long run in developing countries. Over time, this means a steadily declining share of agriculture in GDP. The locus of economic activity shifts towards cities, industries and services. This, of course, does not mean that agriculture can be neglected. Agriculture remains the producer of food, not industry. Moreover, to populate the workforce in industry and services, labour also comes primarily from the countryside. As Nobel laureate W. Arthur Lewis argued, stagnant agriculture can neither produce enough food nor release enough workers, whereas dynamic agriculture can do both. That is why a nation can’t normally durably prosper if agriculture does not do well. Large food imports are not a reliable option.

However, since agriculture cannot generate enough opportunities for rural citizens, it is better to link the countryside to industry and urban services. Cities do have their share of problems: indeed, governance challenges in Indian cities are formidable. But despite such problems, Bangalore and Mysore will grow faster than Karnataka villages, Delhi and Meerut more rapidly than the Uttar Pradesh countryside.

No society has been able to help farmers by keeping them tethered to land. To leave farmers on land and not give them skills for urban and industrial lives is equal to trapping them in misery. Nor do younger rural folk wish to remain in farming.

This leads to two questions. How is politics connected to rural welfare? And how do we make agriculture dynamic in such a way that farmers produce enough as well as get more productively linked to the urban economy?

The first question is easier to answer. India’s democracy has a rural thrust. More voters still live in villages and, of late, villagers have also tended to vote more than the urban folk. As a result, even though India’s urbanisation has gathered speed, its governments are still by and large made or unmade in the countryside. Cities may dominate the economic landscape, but villages are the primary locus of political power. Political parties hurt themselves if they neglect villages.

The second question is more complicated. Rahul Gandhi recently argued in Parliament that the previous government had raised the minimum support prices (MSP) for farmers at a significantly higher rate than the current government, and that is why agriculture did better under the UPA government but is currently suffering. As is well known, the MSP is the guaranteed price at which the government buys foodgrains and some other commodities from farmers.

Gandhi’s argument was right for an earlier era, but is flawed for the present times. Price incentives are certainly a way to help farmers, but agricultural policy always needs a balance between price and non-price measures. The more a government provides price incentives to farmers, the less it has for investments in upgrading the technological base of agriculture (irrigation, agricultural research, electricity), for infrastructure connecting villages to cities (roads, transport) and for rural health and education (which would prepare rural citizens for opportunities in industry and services).

The UPA’s agricultural policy was excessively price-led, both for outputs (crops) and inputs (water, electricity, fertiliser). Wheat and rice were bought from farmers in large quantities at high prices, even though the country did not have enough warehouse capacity for storage, leading to a considerable proportion of the procured wheat and rice rotting. Public investment in agriculture rose inadequately. During 2012-13, more than 85 per cent of investment in agriculture was private. It is well known that most of what lifts the technological base of agriculture and connects it productively to urban opportunities requires public investment — in irrigation, research, seeds, power, transport, schools, skills, etc.

Price incentives were absolutely necessary to raise farm production at the time of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, when India’s food production dropped abysmally. Indiadoes not have a national crisis in food production today, as the high public stocks show. But it has agrarian distress, for agricultural productivity is low and skills for the exploitation of non-agrarian opportunities have not been created. That can only come through a better balancing of price and non-price interventions.

Unless agricultural strategy today is married to a 21st century vision of expansion of opportunities, which requires linking, in a more integrated way, the village to the city and agriculture to industry and services, we will only enhance the misfortune and misery of India’s rural citizens.

The writer is Sol Goldman Professor of International Studies and the Social Sciences at Brown University, where he also directs the India Initiative at the Watson Institute. He is a contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’.

Terror laws compared

Terror laws compared

Gujarat Governor O P Kohli last week sent the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, 2015 for the President’s assent. A Bill with almost similar provisions was earlier blocked by Presidents APJ Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Patil, and Governor Kamla Beniwal, mainly due to provisions for interception.

Comparison of GCTOC — which aims to curb terrorism and organised crime — with two similar acts — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) — that are already in force.

Definition of Terrorist Act

GCTOC: An act “committed with the intention to disturb law and order or public order or threaten the unity, integrity and security of the State or to strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people by doing an act using bombs, dynamite or any other explosive substance or inflammable material or firearms or other lethal weapons or poison or noxious gases or other chemicals or any other substance (whether biological or otherwise) hazardous in nature in such a manner so as to cause or likely to cause death or injury to any public functionary or any person or loss due to damage or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the State Government to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Also covers economic offences like ponzi schemes, multi-level marketing schemes and organised betting; extortion, land-grabbing, contract killing, cyber crimes having severe consequences, largescale gambling, human trafficking.

MCOCA: Is used in terror-related offences, but does not expressly define a ‘terrorist act’. Defines “organised crime” as continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of one, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person promoting insurgency.

UAPA: Similar to GCTOC.

Interception of communication

GCTOC: Evidence collected through interception of wire, electronic or oral communication admissible in court. Requires accused to be furnished with copy of order authorising interception at least 10 days before trial. But the trial judge may waive this “if he comes to the conclusion that it was not possible to furnish the… information ten days before the trial…”

MCOCA: Same provision, but permission process more stringent.

UAPA: Same as GCTOC.

Presumption of guilt

GCTOC: Court to draw adverse inference if arms or explosives recovered from the accused or fingerprints of the accused found at the site of the incident, unless proven otherwise.

MCOCA: Similar to GCTOC.

UAPA: Similar to GCTOC.

Confessions to the police

GCTOC: Admissible as evidence.

MCOCA: Admissible as evidence.

UAPA: No such thing.

Provisions for bail

GCTOC: Only after public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the bail application.

MCOCA: Similar to GCTOC

UAPA: Only after public prosecutor has been heard. Special proviso that foreigners being tried for criminal acts under this Act will not be entitled to bail unless court is satisfied that there are grounds to believe accused is not guilty.

Challenge of Agrarian Distress

Everything else can wait but agriculture cannot, said Jawaharlal Nehru. This should have been the talisman for India’s progress. Yet, successive governments have failed to accord agriculture the priority it deserves. The tragic suicide of a farmer during an Aam Aadmi Party rally in New Delhi has brought to the fore the agrarian crisis facing India. 

Official records reveal that more than 2.96 lakh farmers have ended their lives over the last two decades. This year has been particularly bad because of damage to the rabi crop caused by rain and hailstorms. Extensive damage to cash crops and horticulture has brought even some prosperous farmers to the brink of ruin. 

Despite the adverse impact of climate change, non-remunerative prices, lack of adequate irrigation facilities, absence of assured income and paucity of crop insurance, Indian farmers have brought the country up to the ranks of the top global producers of rice, wheat, vegetables, fruits and milk. Some 85 per cent of India’s farmers are small and marginal, and 65 per cent of farming is rain-fed. 

But high input costs, low returns, the consequent inability to repay farm loans, and general neglect have made agriculture unviable for the small and marginal farmer. Government spending here has dwindled over the years to 14.7 per cent, and the private sector has demurred, citing lack of rural infrastructure and modernisation.

For all its assertions, the Narendra Modi government has yet to come up with a clear strategy on this front. Barely a few months in power, it came up with some controversial amendments to the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, doing away with the provisions for obtaining consent from landowners and for social impact assessment ahead of acquisition. 

The government’s insistence that the changes would facilitate ease of business and speed up its development agenda has not convinced the Opposition parties. Its handling of the impact of unseasonal rain on farmers, slippages in keeping its promise to raise the support price for major crops, and tardy payments to sugarcane growers have given rise to a perception that the government is not farmer-friendly. 

A majority of farmers are in the clutches of private moneylenders who double up as sellers of seeds, fertilizers and other inputs. A failed crop pushes growers into deeper debt, from which it is not easy to escape. The forecast of a deficient southwest monsoon for the second year in a row adds to the worries. 

In such a situation, the Central government must display political will and come up with urgent measures that will bring the promised “achche din” to farmers. Leaving the task to the States won’t help.

The India, that is Bharat

The India, that is Bharat

A Supreme Court bench headed by CJI H L Dattu on Friday sought responses of the Centre and state governments on a PIL by social activist Niranjan Bhatwal seeking a declaration that the official name of this country is Bharat, not India. What does the Constitution say? And the government?

What does the Constitution call this country?

Article 1(1) says, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This is the only provision in the Constitution on how this country be called for official and unofficial purposes.

How did the Constitution come to have this provision?

On September 18, 1949, the Constituent Assembly deliberated upon the ‘namakaran’ or naming ceremony for the newborn nation. Various suggestions were made: Bharat, Hindustan, Hind, Bharatbhumi, Bharatvarsh. In the end, the Assembly resolved as follows: “Article 1. Name and territory of the Union. 1.1. India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”  

Was there any dissent against the passage of Article 1.1?

Yes. Before the Constitution was officially adopted on November 26, 1949, some members of the Constituent Assembly objected to the punctuation marks. H V Kamath moved an amendment saying Article 1.1 should read: “Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.” There were other objections on phraseology, but Article 1.1 ultimately got through in its original form.

What is the basis of moving the PIL in the Supreme Court?

Advocate Ajay G Majithia argued that Article 1.1 must be interpreted keeping in view the Constituent Assembly’s intention, which wanted to name the country ‘Bharat’. According to the PIL, had the makers of our constitution wanted to continue with ‘India’, they would have had no reason to insert ‘Bharat’. ‘India’ was used just for reference, in order to repeal the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Indian Independence Act, 1947, says the petition. It also cites Sanskrit literature and scriptures to argue that this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial.

 

So what has the petition sought?

It wants the Supreme Court to declare that this country will be called ‘Bharat’, not ‘India’, for all official and unofficial purposes of the central and state governments, andall other entities like NGOs, corporates etc.

What has been the stand of the government been?

The Home Ministry has responded to a few RTI applications in the past wherein applicants had sought to know the official name of this country. In one response, the Ministry had said “no information on the subject”. In another, it had reproduced Article 1.1.