Seeds of Colonization: Exploring the roots of agriculture crisis and farmer

suicide in India through a bio-political lens

Introduction:

Often one needs to look deep within to get the bigger picture. In the past few years
the growing number of farmer suicides across India has attracted a lot of attention
from various concerned groups of the society. Although it did not feature as a mast
head in the major mainstream media but it did initiate debates, dialogues and
investigation. Various development organizations, civil society organizations,
peoples group and community based organization brought into limelight the
growing numbers; few documented cases and a few research papers were also
presented which point their fingers towards various macro-level issues such as
Agricultural policy making, growing business of micro finance and the limitations of
the agricultural produce market which in unison seemed to have triggered such a
devastating situation. Although the hue and cry about the growing numbers of
farmer suicide have reached the ears of the administrative bodies through various
reports from certified agencies such as the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
and the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) the records and the alibis of
the administration portray a different picture and it is at this juncture that I wish to
posit myself and study the role of the state and how it attempts to bring such a
crisis under control. I would like to understand the significance of the agricultural
policies being adopted by the government. The study of the significance would be in
terms of the transition of the alignment of the administration (i.e. from a socialist
state to a neo liberal state). I will borrow the theoretical lens from Michel Foucaults
Security, Territory, Population and utilize it to analyze the role of the state and
hence generate a yardstick to develop a realistic understanding of the situation in
the sub continent of India in the present decade.

The theoretical lens:

To study the situation mentioned above I shall fall back into history through the
series of lectures delivered by Michel Foucault titled Security, Territory,
Population. On the 4th lecture delivered on 1st of February 1978 he discussed the
problem of the government in 16th Century Europe. There he elucidated and
pointed out the transition from sovereignty towards governmentality. His
discourse portrayed that the shift from sovereign forms of administration happened
over the ages gradually. What is of significance to us is this slow evolution. The
evolution of the focus of the administrator from territory to population changed
certain approaches towards administration. These changes are important markers
which will help us understand the reality in our country i.e. it will help us to
understand the purpose of the introduction of the various Acts, Policies and
Schemes which have been introduced since India gained its political independence.
To establish the link I will schematically present the reason and the changes brought
about across the ages which will complete the trajectory of the evolution of the art
of administration.

Firstly it is insecurity both internal and external as Foucault explained plagues a

monarchy, principality or any such state being governed by a monarch or an
autocrat. Since his relation with the state is essentially external and his focus is to
safeguard his territory and along with that his subjects he never considers his
subjects as an organic entity attached to the territory for him they are separate
entities.

This externality distances the administrator or the prince of the principality from his
subjects who more often than not question his authority to rule over them and
hence both internal and external forces tries to usurp the administrator. Hence such
a state has very limited stability.

Secondly question about the authority of the administrator also started getting
questioned with the fall of the papal power in Europe and also with the new wave of
thought which came in with the French Revolution which finally paved the way for
the transition or the evolution from the sovereign form of administration towards
governmentality.

By eighteenth century sovereign states in Europe were slowly adopting the art of
government reforms. Shifting from Laws towards policy making trying to consider
(realizing) the significant strength of the population and hence trying to integrate
that population with the state. Administrators realized that in order to hold on to
their territory and along with that all resources contained in it (including human
resource) one has to gain the confidence of the population. This will not only negate
the chances of questioning the authority to rule but will also create an atmosphere
of consent which will automatically work in favor of the administrator to have
authority over the state and the inhabitants of the state as opposed to the territory
and the subjects as separate entities. Such an atmosphere will not only reduce
chances of insecurity but also enhance the stability of the state and hence add to
its productivity.

At this juncture we come to the first of the multiple cruxes of the situation of the
Indian sub continent. At this time India was a colony of the British East India
Company and was about to be integrated as a part of the British Empire (i.e. the
transfer of power to the queen from the company). A cursory study of the Acts and
policies introduced in the colonial era especially after the integration of
subcontinent with the British Empire will portray the evolution of this shift of Focus.
But as Michel Foucault observed and commented that

Rather, I would say that the problem of sovereignty was never more sharply posed
than at this momentprecisely because it was no longer a question as it was in the
16th and the 17th century, of how to deduce an art of government from theories of
sovereignty, but rather, given the existence and deployment of an art of
government, what juridical form, what institutional form and what legal basis could
be given to the sovereignty typical of a state.

To be precise the art of government was efficiently assimilated by the

administrators to justify their position as the rightful administrators. We can observe
that right after that policies to educate and create a class of Browns were adopted
and implemented quickly; institutions such as The Fort William College, The
University of Calcutta and many other government institutions were established to
impart education. This step on one hand established the British government as a
responsible warden and helped them to create the consent on the other hand
through the educational curriculum they ensured that the aspirants learn to accept
that their rulers were indeed the superior ones with great knowledge and hence
further reinforced the consent. As a direct outcome they successfully created the
class of browns who were Indians themselves and they assisted and accepted the
rule of the sovereignty.

The transfer of power in 1947 was a big historical event and the dominion of India
was created. The values of the art of government were assimilated by our
ideologues and the constitution of India was framed. The preamble to the
constitution of India declares India as a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic
republic. Hence the ideologues who framed the constitution subscribed the socialist
ideals along with the concept of the contract with the people whom the
administrators of our Nation are supposed to rule. As a result the Charter of Rights
and the Directive principle of State Policy were constituted.

As per the Constitution of India (Part IV; Directive Principles of The State Policy) it is
the duty of the state to ensure that the citizens can lead a good life. Amongst the
major Directive Principles falls the duty of the state to provide food security,
encourage development of agriculture on modern and scientific lines and provide
aid to the Landless farmers who form the largest chunk of the agricultural economy.
Encouragement of Agriculture was a major agenda of the state as it would push the
surge of financial equality of all its subjects which happens to be one of the major
aspects of the fundamental Rights of the citizens of India (i.e. the Right to equality).
In order to implement such ideals and follow the directives of the constitution the
State implemented a number of Schemes and enacted a number ACTs.

The acts, the plans and the policies:

The autobiography of JL Nehru reveals that millions of landless farmers joined the
civil disobedience as they all were seeking emancipation from the oppression of the
zamindars and talukdars who, Nehru described as the spoilt children of the British
raj. Swami Sahajananda the President of the All India Kisan Congress declared that
No compromise was possible between the peasants and the land lords except for
the dispossession of their lands (Bandopadhya; Land, labor and Governance; World
view; Kolkata 2007, p 102)

As a result radical land reform was accepted as a Post Independence Programme

by the congress socialist group.

Soon after Independence the Kumarappa committee was constituted and as per the
reports prepared the government endorsed the changes suggested. Till about the
seventh five year plan Land reforms were considered as a significant tool in the
process of poverty alleviation, increased productivity, redistribution of wealth and as
a step to prevent monopolization or concentration of wealth and property in one
strata of the society.

Land reforms have been recognized to constitute a vital element both in terms of
the anti-poverty strategy and for modernization and increased productivity in
agriculture. Redistribution of land could provide a permanent asset base for a large
number of rural landless poor for taking up land-based and other supplementary
activities. Similarly, consolidation of holding, tenancy regulation and updating of
land records would widen the access of small and marginal landholders to improved
technology and inputs thereby directly leading to increase in agricultural
production. (7th Five year plan)

During 1978 the Operation Barga was brought into effect in West Bengal it was a
process of legalization through government records of the names of the share
croppers. Such a registration gave them security against eviction by the land owner.
The ultimate aim was to convert landless peasants into land owners in line with the
Directive Principles of the State Policy. It was a successful reform with over 1.5
million bargadars getting registered.

Apart from these land reforms various other reforms were introduced. In 1982 Smt.
Indira Gandhi established the NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development) which was supposed to provide agricultural loans to farmers at low
rates with protection against crop failures or market failure.

The Point of Transition: Towards liberalization

There was wide spread food crisis in early 1960s especially in the eastern block of
the nation. The focus hence shifted from land reforms towards increased
productivity. Synchronously the green revolution was initiated at the Punjab
Agricultural University with American agronomist Dr Norman Borlaug. Along with
HYV seeds (High Yielding Variety) came modern techniques and instruments,
Chemical fertilizers, Pesticides and Machineries.

Agriculture was not the same thing after green revolution. It had become a costly
affair which required investments; investments of the scale which the Indian
farmers never conceived of dreaming. Need for investments led to investors.
Investors looked for higher productivity which in turn also looked for an equally
demanding market.

With such demands and developments agriculture was slowly slipping out of the
hands of the marginalized farmers by 1972 rural unrests had begun in the form of
Naxalism. At this Juncture we heard the then Home minister of the Union of India
saying

we wont let the green evolution turn into a red revolution.

By 1991 the waves of green revolution touched the shores of the neo liberal policies
and the Indian government removed all its International trade restrictions in all
sectors including agriculture. This allowed agro industries of Europe and America to
do direct trade in the Indian markets giving direct competition to Indian farmers who
were already suffering from uneven distribution of land (land reforms were not
implemented in most parts of the country they remained in papers), increased cost
of agriculture (due to introduction of HYV seeds, farming equipments and other
accessories) and added to that was the open competition with the overseas
producers.

The situation worsened as overseas agro products were joined upon by big
corporations who took control over agriculture through seed marketing, pesticide
marketing and then at the end buying major shares of agricultural bonds through
financing. Hence in simple terms the poor farmer take big loans from a corporation,
buys seeds, implements, fertilizers from the same corporation and then sell the
product to the same corporation for a minimum price as he controls the lions share
of the market.

By the year 2006 most of the farmers in India were staring at dooms day. In States
like Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and
Jharkhand most peasant communities were feeling in secured and they started
losing their faith in the government. Naxalism was at its height during this period as
along with agriculture villagers and forest dwellers were slowly losing control over
their resources(water, forests and land; Jal, Jungle aur jamin) through land grabs by
the government to create Industrial corridors, SEZs and to develop Infrastructure to
encourage further FDIs .The erstwhile Prime Minister considered the trend of rising
Naxalism as the

Single biggest internal security threat (Dr. Manmohan Singh)

which must be mercilessly exterminated. By 2013 Dr. Manmohan Singh came up

with a conclusion that the only way to do away with poverty was to do away with
peasantry.
the only way we can raise our heads above poverty is for more people to be taken
out of agriculture. (Siddharth Vardarajan, Order on free grain to poor can't be
executed, says Manmohan Singh, The Hindu 7 Sept 2013.)

This development shows the transition of the nation which started out as a
Sovereign socialist democratic to a completely neo-liberal state.

The Questions:

I shall fall back to Foucaults analyses of the state once just before I frame and
present my questions.

Security, Territory, Population says that the governmentality (i.e The art of
government) is to negate internal security threats through introduction of policies
and strategies which will be for the well being of the inhabitants/ population and will
also encourage them to increase their economic productivity which in turn will
benefit the state and render it as a self sustainable nation.

If in the present or rather post liberalization era India Acts, policies and strategies
are being framed for the well being of the population then the broad question is:

Why India is facing internal security threats, increasing number of farmer suicides
and mass exodus and migration of farmers from villages to cities?

Who is the population for whom the well being is being materialized? and Who is
not benefitting and hence causing to be the greatest internal threat?

What could be the possible means the State is taking to not contradict the Directive
Principles of State Policy at this hour of crisis when the population of the state is
causing to be a threat? Is this transformation of the population from being
productive citizens to counter- productive elements reflecting the failure of the
governments ability to administer or should such counter- productive elements be
wiped out?

What would be the perspective of the state while it evaluates the condition of the
Survivor of such a crisis? i.e. the family of farmer who has committed suicide.

Often the immediate reason for such farmer suicides is a heavy debt situation. Even
with NABARD and many such government run support systems in place farmers
resort to lending money from nexuses of money lenders who provide almost no
security if crops or irrigation plans (bore well investments) fail. What are the real
conditions that force farmers to do so? What would be the perspective of the state
while it evaluates such a condition?

In the introduction I have stated that a few researches have pointed their finger at
the macro- level issues which have influenced and have silently triggered such a
crisis. I strongly feel that an investigation must be initiated to understand the
position of the administrator and anticipate what, and how the state would tackle
the crisis. Such an understanding will definitely pave the way for effective
addressing of the situation if not solving it.

Notes:

1. WHERE HAVE ALL THE SMALL FARMERS GONE!

The Story of Agriculture and the Small Indian Farmer
Author : Vijay Singh Negi (alias Biju Negi)
Published in : March 2014
Edited by : Rimli Borooah
Published by : Focus on the Global South, India
33-D, 3rd Floor, Vijay Mandel Enclave,
DDA SFS Flats, Kalu Sarai, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016. India
Tel: +91-11-26563588; 41049021
www.focusweb.org

2. Competition and Monopoly in Indian Cotton Seed Market

Milind Murugkar, Bharat Ramaswami, Mahesh Shelar

3. Security, Territory, Population Michael Foucault.