Agricultural labourers are difficult to explain. It is not possible for labourers to emerge as a separate class depending on full wages until capitalism develops in agriculture. Agricultural labour enquiry committee 1950-55 defined agricultural labourer as “those people who are engaged in raising crops on payment of wages“. According to the second committee, if 50% or more of wages is received from the agricultural sector, it can be classed to agricultural labour household. The number of agricultural labour has increased to 27.5 million in 1951. In 1981 the total number of agricultural workers has increased to 55.4 million and again in 1991, the total number of agricultural workers has increased to 74.6 million.

From the beginning, the landlords in this country have enslaved and oppressed these labourers for their own benefit and this system has been going generation after generation. After 50 years of independence, the situation has improved but they remain largely unorganized and thus economic exploitation continues.

Conditions and Problems of Agricultural Labour

As we know that 53% of the population in agricultural India is engaged in agriculture. But all these farmers still have to depend on the monsoon for crop production. Agriculture in India falls under the unorganized sector, so their income is not fixed.

• Marginalization of Agricultural Labourers – In 1951 the workforce in agriculture was 97.2 million and in 1991, it increased to 185.2 million. Agricultural labourers increased from 28% in 1951 to 40% in 1991. These facts indicate the first pace of casualization of the workforce in agriculture in India.
• Low wages and income – The daily wage and family income of agricultural labourers in India is very low. Although wage rates have risen since the green revolution, they have fallen far short of rising prices. At present agricultural workers in the rural area are getting around Rs. 150 per day under the MNREGA in rural areas.
• Gender issues in the agricultural sector – Women in agriculture are affected by issues of recognition and in the absence of land rights, female agricultural labourers, farm widows and tenant farmers are left bereft of recognition as farmers and consequent entitlements. They are excluded from their rights. On November 20, 2018, over 40,000 farmers had gathered in Delhi from across India. Chandravati from Ghazipur and 40 others women participated in Kishan Mukti March for their demand of compensation for the paddy crop that got spoilt in 2018, so as to sustain a livelihood. Female agricultural workers are generally forced to work harder and paid less than their male counterparts.
• Employment – Agricultural labourers are unemployed for most of the year and even have no alternative job opportunities.
• Indebtedness – Due to lack of banking system in rural areas, they are forced to take loans from moneylenders at very high rates. As a result, they often become involved in a vicious cycle.

Policy Implementation of Government of India

Indian agricultural policy has long been distinguished by its border and domestic intervention to protect farmers from international price concerns. To achieve this goal the Government of India has implemented a number of policies at various times –

• Land reforms – Government of India undertakes land reform measures for successful abolition of land intermediaries and transfer of land to actual farmers.
• Institutional credit -After the nationalization of banks in 1969, nationalized bank paid extra attention to the needs of the agricultural sector. Regional rural banks are established mainly for agricultural credit requirements. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) was also set up. The importance of moneylenders for the needs of institutional credit to the farmers declined and as a result, their exploitation on the farmers also decreases.
• Procurement and support prices– Another policy measure of significant importance is the announcement of procurement and support prices to ensure fair returns to the farmers that even in a year of surplus, the prices do not tumble down and farmers do not suffer losses.
• Input subsidies to agriculture– The purpose of input subsidization is to use modern input to increase agricultural production. Under this government policy, various inputs are supplied to the farmers below the fixed open market price.
• Passing Minimum Wage Act
• Abolition of bonded labourers
• Providing land to landless labourers
• Provision of housing cities to houseless

Special schemes for providing employment:

• Crash scheme for rural employment (CSRE)
• Pilot intensive Rural Employment Project (PIREP)
• National Rural Employment Programme
• Rural Landless Employment Programme(RLEP)
• Jawahar Rojgar Yojana
• National Scheme of Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment (TRYSM)
• Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)

Another important government schemes in the agricultural sector-

• Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana was launched by the NDA government in 2015 to promote organic farming across India. According to the scheme for farmers will be encouraged to groups or clusters and each cluster or group have 50 farmers willing to take up organic farming under PKVY and they will be provided INR 20,000 per acre by the government over three years’ time.
• Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) is the Government sponsored crop insurance scheme that provides insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases.
• Livestock Insurance Scheme aims to provide a protection mechanism to the farmers and cattle against any eventual loss of their animals due to death.

Government’s Scheme: Myth or Reality?

How the policies adopted by the government has a positive impact on farmers or completely fail to protect the interest of farmers, as an example, farmers from Vimchur, a remote rural area in India’s Maharashtra province planted large quantities of grapes in March and exported them to various parts of India. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the lockdown from midnight of 24th March, he gave India’s 1.3 billion citizens barely for hour notice. It was a cruel joke that had a huge effect on millions of farmers. By that time, a farmer form Vimchur had dispatched 100 quintals of grapes to Bangladesh, but 350 quintals were still on vines in the fields. The Modi government had arranged special jets to bring back all reach people who are stranded abroad. But the train service was completely stopped and the farmers failed to sell their grapes. Even if they arranged a truck, but the permits were not granted despite pleas to the government.

The Indian parliament has passed two primary farm bills in this pandemic year. The upper house passed the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020 and the Price Guarantee and Farm Services Bill Agreement for Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) 2020 that are collectively referred as ‘Farm Bills’. This will assist small and marginal farmers as the law will move from the farmer to the sponsor the risk of market unpredictability. On the other hand, in ‘Mandis’ the laws likely to affect powerful commission agents (known as ‘arhatiyas‘ in Punjab and Haryana), who don’t want to lose their hold on the farmers (Sahoo, 2020). Due to the loss of Mandi tax, the strong source of revenue, the state government of Punjab and Haryana will be affected most, however, it is expected that the loss would be recovered under GST collection. The opposition claims the government wants to ‘enslaved farmers’ to capitalism. In response, the government says that monopoly of APMC Mandis will end but they will not be shut down and will continue to function as normal and that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) will not be scrapped. Thus the complex question remains whether farmers will benefit from the surplus at all if the crop is sold through a mediating private agent?

Farmers from Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh demand repeal of the controversial farm bill by their ‘Dilli Chalo’ campaign on Constitution Day, 26 November 2020. Police fired water cannons and tear gas at the protesting farmers. A large number of the farmer were oppressed by the government with the assistance of the police to disperse them. However, later the government invited them to have a discussion with them on the bill.

According to the World Bank, about 40% of Indians depend on agriculture for their livelihood but this sector has been under pressure for many years due to crop failure and price drop. A 2015 study found that about 40% of farmers committed suicide due to economic pressure for crop failure. Although the Modi government has introduced Minimum Support Prices for crops, few farmers are benefiting. The government is also in the thick of a controversy over the Prime Minister’s Cropping Insurance Scheme. In the other words, all the policies that the government is adopting in the name of security without planning are in fact nothing more than a myth. In fact, the government’s formulation of all these policies is the only way for farmers to be dependent on the private sector.

Conclusion

For the progress of the agrarian country, first of all, the necessary steps should be taken to improve the condition of the farmers because the improvement of their condition can be conducive to the benefit of the whole society. The government needs to focus on better implementation of legislative measures, improvement the bargaining position, resettlement of agricultural workers, creating alternative sources of employment, regulation of hours work, credit at cheaper rates of interest on easy terms of payment for undertaking subsidiary occupation, proper training for improving the skill of farm labourers. Therefore, in the interest of electoral politics, the ruling class must refrain from oppression in the name of protecting the labourers by using them as tools. In this way, a developed society will be built.

Reference(s)

Padhi, K. (2007).Agricultural Labour in India – A Close Look. Orissa Review

Sahoo, S. (2020). Impact of India’s New Farm Act 2020 on Farmers and Markets. Biotica Research Today, 2(10), 986.

Chand, S.”8 important policy measures introduced in the agricultural sector in India”, Your Article Library, (Dec 1, 2020)

The post AGRICULTURAL LABOUR IN INDIA AND THE FARM BILLS appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Green Revolution in India began in 1965 under the leadership of Congress leader Lal Bahadur Shastri, which led to an increase in food grain production, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. This program was introduced as a package since it depended on regular and adequate irrigation, fertilizers, high yielding seed varieties, pesticides, and insecticides. High-yielding varieties of wheat and rust-resistant strains of wheat were the main milestones in this undertaking.

Need for The Revolution

During British rule, the Indian economic condition had been terrible due to exploitation. Thus, after Independence, the weakened country became vulnerable to frequent famines, low productivity and financial instability. In addition, the rapidly increasing population further led to the need to increase agricultural productivity.

Key Aspects of the Revolution

A major aspect of the revolution was in the form of developments particularly in wheat, rice, and maize forms. The foundation is a modern science-based capacity to change the climate so as to establish better conditions for crops and livestock than nature itself can give such as dealing with the dryness, low soil fertility, invasion by pests, and weeds, threats to livestock and many more. It even looked into the energy requirements if more of it is needed to till the land, mechanize and use fossil fuels. The yield increase in the farming systems of the industrialized countries over the last 150 years can be interpreted as the implementation of this paradigm. The green revolution of the 1970s was focused squarely on this, where the improved rice and wheat varieties could benefit from the use of natural inputs that offered good growing conditions. An important part of this transition was the development of socio-economic fostering conditions that opened up for the use of these products and established opportunities to sell the produce.

However, its overall impact remains debatable, as it has been appreciated as well as criticized too by many on various factors. Let us look into the various socio-economic impacts

Regional Disparities

The Green Revolution brought great economic prosperity in its early years. However, this economic prosperity was limited to certain regions such as Punjab, Haryana, and parts of western Uttar Pradesh. The revolution was hence limited to certain parts of India. The reason for the same is the intensive demand for resources required in these modern technologies. Therefore, states which could easily suffice the increased requirement of irrigation systems and other resources were the only ones to benefit from it. This led to regional economic and infrastructural disparities resulting in fast economic development in certain parts while some states show slow agricultural production throughout.

Unequal Distribution of Wealth

The supply and demand mechanisms before the Green Revolution were worrisome as it dealt with two famines in a span of two years which further reduced the supply drastically. Also, the Indian population has been relatively very high which accounted for high demand but very low supply. With the green revolution, the supply took a major increase which reduced agricultural imports. This was due to the new hybrid variety of seeds which could produce more harvest per acre of land. However, this was beneficial for large agronomists who could easily afford these seeds and other mechanization systems along with insecticides and pesticides and soil nutrient requirements.

Small farmers were not able to finance the various seeds and fertilizers and failed to provide the required irrigation levels leading to crop failure or less than optimum produce. Since supply had increased rapidly, the price of crops fell per acre which was beneficial for the large farmers as the quantity sold increased relatively more than the decline in prices. The sufferers were the small farmers who didn’t even have the stock to supply and even the existing prices fell which reduced their incomes.

Moreover, loans were taken for the same but with declining incomes, they fell into a debt trap. This has been significantly responsible for high suicide rates among farmers.

Following the above-mentioned point, it also led to income inequalities, hence widening the gap between the poor and the rich. With income disparities widening, it gave birth to other socio-economic disparities that led to the over-exploitation of the poor

Employment Dynamics

“If the green revolution is regarded as a package consisting of HYV and fertilizers, its contribution to employment has been substantial. Also, tube wells seem to have contributed significantly to the employment of labor….” “The net employment of tractor-use may turn out to be negative when tractorisation of farms is complete. A harvest combine would displace labor on a large scale while its land-augmenting effect would be negligible.”

Billings and Singh, in their studies on the state of Punjab, have found that the use of irrigation increases the demand for labor whereas the use of tractors or wheat reapers reduces the demand for the same.

However, due to inadequate data, it is difficult to assess and analyze the impact of biological-technological innovations on farm labor.

Environmental Harm & Corresponding Consequences

Ecological balance is equally important which was hampered by the introduction of new technologies and methodologies. Loss of soil fertility, erosion of soil, soil toxicity, depleting water resources, pollution, and salinity of underground water, increased occurrence of humanity as well as livestock diseases and global warming are some of the negative impacts of the Green Revolution. Various scientific studies and surveys conducted on fertilizer and pesticide residues over the last 45 years indicate the presence of nitrates, organochlorines, organophosphates, synthetic pyrethroids, and carbamates at a higher level than the permissible limit in milk, dairy products, water, fodder, livestock feeds and other food products.

Moreover, the overuse of urea, a nitrogen-rich fertilizer, has significantly contributed to global warming. These systematic damages could lead to irreversible consequences to the life of people who are benefited just once if timely, adequate, and sustainable measures are not taken up to mitigate the harm done by the Green Revolution. With the implementation of the green revolution policy in the early 1960s, it was hoped that the pattern of rising food grain production would continue. But sharp variations in the production of food grains were observed in later years, causing insecurities for both farmers and consumers.

Nonetheless, it’s not hidden how environmental harm impacts the economic well being of a country in the long run. It might seem productive and lucrative in the short-run however but with its deep-rooted consequences such as acid rain that pose harm to agriculture by altering the acidity of the soil, reduce productivity, and eventually affect overall output. Similarly, other factors too have long term impacts on the economic well being such as added stress on water resources and agricultural production leading to a lack of raw materials for the manufacturing sector.

Conclusion

To conclude, consumers can be considered as the greatest beneficiaries of the Green Revolution. Real prices of the essentials such as rice and wheat reduced significantly in the markets. Food prices throughout Asia declined to owe to the high yielding, cost-reducing technologies built around improved seed-fertilizer-weed control components. This helps to tackle the rising poverty levels since reduced prices benefit the poor more than the rich as a relatively larger portion of income is spent on food by the underprivileged and poor. Also, the rural incomes were seen to improve but for the large farmers only whereas the small and marginalized farmers suffered. The productivity also improved but just for those who were privileged enough to have access to money as well as natural resources. It has also been reported that with the construction of tube-wells, flour mills, and threshers, the drudgery of women had been significantly reduced. Moreover, in many studies, it has been reported that gender-based bias further deepened with the development of the revolution.

ALSO READ: AGRICULTURAL LABOUR IN INDIA AND THE FARM BILLS

The post GREEN REVOLUTION: SUCCESS STORY OF INDIAN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The South Korean economic model, also known as the Miracle of the Han River refers to the rapid economic growth in South Korea after the Korean War. In less than two decades South Korea saw a pragmatic shift in their economy and is currently the 12th largest economy in the world according to its GDP. 

This heightening of South Korea’s economy can be factored by 3 principal factors: 

• Investments in rebuilding an education system and innovations
• Eliminating an agrarian economy
• Withholding dynastical mega corporations 

Prior to the Second World War and the Korean War, South Korea had the foundation laid for a vocational training system. However, this was disrupted by the aftermath of the wars and completely shattered their system. Resultantly, the government started focussing on rebuilding their educational and vocational training system with the sole purpose of increasing employment which would have the dual benefits of eliminating poverty. 

The implementation started with compulsory school attendance from ages 6 to 15 and in the 1970’s South Korea set an equalisation policy which aimed at reducing competition to get into prestigious secondary schools. In “equalisation zones” students were taken into consideration for a prestigious secondary education by a lottery system. Although many parents were opposed to this idea since these students were not admitted on the basis of merit, this policy-induced parents from equalisation zones, which were primarily regions that were less developed, to send their children to school and fulfill the minimum requirements to be eligible for this policy. 

A significant chunk of South Korea’s economic restoration post the war is attributed to the willingness of citizens to enroll themselves into the educational system while also having the flexibility to opt for vocational training after secondary education. This was made possible by the government’s investment in human capital which promoted innovation and developed a good workforce for the nation. 

This brings the model to its second aim of eliminating an agriculture and cultivation based economy. South Korea started focusing on industrialising its rural areas and bringing them out of the realm of subsistence farming. This happened as a result of increased literacy rates and investments in infant industries by the government which led to more job opportunities. Hence, bringing citizens out of villages. 

In addition to investments in building human capital, South Korean ties with the US majorly helped the country in picking up its pace as far as investments in infant industries are concerned. During the Vietnam War, South Korea contributed by providing troops to the US military. In return America harboured trade ties with South Korea which increased the cash flow into the country, hence, increasing the government’s revenue. 

After achieving the first two goals of its plan, the South Korean government was now in a position to carry out mass production, at a globalised level. However, Japan was already a regional supplier of electronics, automobiles and technological gadgets, all of which Korea had expertise in. This initially made it challenging for South Korea to gain an edge over the Japanese suppliers. Gradually, due to Japan’s spurge of development, the costs increased which therefore helped South Korea gain a comparative advantage in the aspect of supplying cheaper produce on a global scale. 

With this plan resulting in continued growth of the South Korean economy, the government now moved to its third aim of the economic model. This aim consisted of sustaining the progress and the firms involved in the growth of the country. The government started backing “Chaebols” which refers to family-run businesses that are passed on and run within the family. In the late ‘70s, the government realised the rate at which these companies were growing and assured support by ensuring a cash flow from the government’s side and urged the firms to focus on growing. Today these family dynasties have become mega-monopolistic corporations, run namely by Samsung, LG and Hyundai. These three companies alone are responsible for 2/3rd’s of the entire Korean economy and produce for the three main industries of the country- ship manufacturing, automobiles and electronics. 

Whilst this strategy to make the economy reliant on just three major corporations has turned out to be extremely lucrative for South Korea but it has now become too big to fail. This essentially means that in case of an economic crash or an obstruction in the mechanism of any of these companies, thousands of people will lose their jobs, stocks will fall and the economy will most likely experience a recession. 

With the COVID-19 pandemic gaining momentum globally, the South Korean economy, like many others, faced a recession and saw a fall in their GDP for the first time in 17 years. Nonetheless, the South Korean Finance Minister is optimistic that the nation will be back on track by the third quarter much like China. Since South Korea does not have a geographical terrain as large as China and the natural resources, the government will have to continue their already undertaken policies of fostering education and innovation to revive its economy once again. 

The post DECODING SOUTH KOREA’S ECONOMY appeared first on WISER WORLD.