IV THE INDIAN REALITY Let us see the Indian situation.

In a specific worldwide context of philosophical contest and intellectual as well as organisational experiences that humanity passed through in the last century, we are facing Indian situation today at the beginning of next. As part of the global web of capitalist-imperialist ambitions, India is no different. Neither it is immune. Rather it is its own volition. It willingly and happily embraced the rotten rag from its tormentors when it had a chance to go in for a fresh path in 1947. It did not. For reasons, the countrymen are kept in dark by the native rulers to this day, except lies. India is a nation that is still licking its wounds from British rule. The old baggage is there on its shoulders. New rulers since 1947 have betrayed its future shamelessly. The toiling masses are being mauled again by them relentlessly and brazenly. With this declaration, two aspects need be underlined here to begin with. First, the choice of direction by the new set of rulers in India after 1947 was conscious and deliberate for a capital-centred industry as a much-touted super-highway to progress based on economic thought that reflected a pattern of development in West Europe for a few centuries. Second, those who made this choice were the products of educational and socioeconomic - cultural milieu that grew in conditions peculiar to Europe and touted well for others to follow. Since Britishers were ruling for long over the sea-waves that touched different continents, this alien milieu caught the fancy of hangers on or the elite in each colonial country and soon became a universal thought representing progress and modernity! That is the tale. The leaders that came to power in India at the departure of British in 1947 were courting this economic thought. They made their natural selection and then raised strenuous efforts from day one to convince the country that this choice is a sure path to delivery. It is history. In their campaign to civilise India, French, Dutch, Portuguese and British imperialists put together had mauled the Indian nation for long. Ultimately, India decided to remain of its own and by August 1947 it recovered its spirit. To put concisely, India has suffered humiliation of a colonised land for long. The brute British colonisers not only plundered its resources to their hearts content; they mauled its spirit also by dubious methods. The whole Indian social and administrative structure was demolished by them and fashioned afresh on an alien mode to serve colonial interests of the rulers. The culture and value system of plunderers was super-imposed on Indian subjects. The whole effort damaged the nation all-around, specially its will. This culturalmoral and educational intervention sapped its energy to a large extent. It has still to be revived. This resume gives a concrete meaning to firm up and accept the challenge for a much needed change in social relations with new vigour. It is essential to shape the effort that aborted last. When India attained political independence in 1947, the country was a badly divided house with lacerating wounds all around on the body and soul, mostly afflicted by the departing marauders to keep their economic interests in perspective with the active help of native collaborators, divided into two parts as India and Pakistan. Political power was transferred to the native rulers with covert and overt conditions attached.

Indias Independent Act of 1947, enacted by British parliament transferring power to the native class of rulers as also the new constitution for the country adopted hurriedly in 1949, are clearly indicative of these conditions. Perhaps India is the only exception whose republican constitution is made to guarantee retention of the old structure in essence, providing security of service to the old guard. Even Judiciary of independent India was asked to interpret its laws in light of imperial India, including the British Privy Council. The country had a choice. It was squandered. A handful of leaders struck a deal to follow a path that was hardly different from what the country was ruled with by Britishers. The economics came from Adam Smith and Ricardo while the administrative structure was adopted intact from colonial legacy. Even the voice of their political mentor from days of independence struggle was kept unheard. Followers marginalised Gandhi Just after attaining state power, Gandhian principles were discarded by his disciples, while he was on the scene. The frame of the new Constitution for the country, settled while he was alive is an eloquent testimony to this tragedy for his ideas. Instead, clever clichs were resorted to. Despite strong protests by some disciples of Gandhi in the then Constituent Assembly, the British legacy was there to stay till date despite all protests from the loyalists. It is said that Gandhi was restless in his last days over the betrayal of his principles. However, he did nothing or could not do anything apparently against such blatant departure by them. May be, his disciples could ignore him so clearly because Gandhi neither held any power in the government, nor he was holding any commanding position in the ruling party. His followers like Nehru and Patel were having keen eyes for grabbing power. They were careful enough to walk in line with Britishers and later, with bureaucrats trained in British methods. This is another type of tragedy for social activists that power and position alone has become a criterion for being effective in any organisation. It could not be otherwise when grabbing of power is adorned as a single point object of every social movement. Merit of principles or person has lost relevance generally when worship of power is the cherished game. M.K Gandhi had advocated abrogation of British hierarchical model in administering the country. But, his disciples opted for old structure with no remorse and with flimsy excuses! The Constituent Assembly adopted the same model of governance which British colonialists had devised here for their loot and oppression. This was contrary to the views held by Gandhi. In his scheme of things, the country was to become a federation of little village republics for governance at the village level and cottage industries were to serve the cause of economic development. His disciples on the other hand fashioned their economic policy based on heavy industries with a highly centralised state structure, fully armed to support it. In a way, old British administrative structure came handy to govern the economics of this native capitalist class. And they were happy with it. It may be useful to recollect here that the institution of state, with Gram Swaraj as its basic unit remained article of faith with Gandhian philosophy while Marx decried the state altogether. Marx remained faithful to industry while Gandhi, in Indian condition opted for its lowest rung i.e. cottage industry. Gandhi lacked precision on his blue print for countrys development as an alternate paradigm in place of industry. Cottage industries had tied the people to their thatched huts for centuries shying away from every technological innovation. This technological backwardness was forced on them by British colonists with ulterior motives after establishing their sway.

Following a trail, Gandhi symbolised his economic thought with Charkha and advanced the concept of cottage industries to be the fulcrum of development in the country after independence. It did not satisfy the aspirations of Indian capitalists. This blueprint did not bring enthusiasm to the common masses either. They saw in Charkha the creeping misery of their cottage, as it hardly answered their requirements for a happy life. People at large could hardly understand what British had done on this account. Congress leadership, on the other hand deliberately shied away from this consciousness. People took Gandhian concept as mere replica of this backwardness and penury. They could hardly distinguish Charkha and cottage of the future from their present state of misery and hardship. There was another fallacy in this concept of cottage industries lying deep in its womb. The fact remains that cottage or for that matter small scale industries will necessarily lead to concentration of capital in course of its natural growth trajectory. Checking its growth forcefully with the help of state power can merely prolong the process thereby providing relief to the rulers for a while, but with distortions no one can check for long. This fact of economic history was kept away from the people deliberately while pleading for cottage form of industries as a paradigm of development so projected as a model by Gandhi for the country after independence! People, on the other hand, had a dream for a better life, free from wants and penury. With such a background the new ruling elite could bypass Gandhi with ease taking the people on wild path of industrialisation weaving dreams of abundance citing countries of Europe and USSR as ready examples! In the circumstances people believed this cock and bull story of industrial path as alluring. They could hardly realise that the path suggested by the government is not alternate to cottage industries as suggested by Gandhi. It is merely a course in hurry, but to fatten the capitalist. This was no solution of their problems. And it proved to be so. Thus the new rulers in India also opted for western mode of industrial development as a vehicle of affluence with inherent internal expropriation to finance this devil while denying a natural right to its people. The colonial legacy based on the principle of plunder should have been erased at the first opportunity. They did not Another important point of betrayal related to the command over natural resources in the country. The people had a dream to regain control over these resources that they were habitual to exercise before the advent of British rule. Independence for them had a concrete meaning in regaining these resources. While the colonial structure was shaped to exercise sovereign rights over natural resources to extract wealth, Gandhi could do little when his disciples retained the this colonial legacy by the Principle of Eminent Domain over natural resources with the state instead. The need of the hour was to revert back to community command over means of productions and natural resources, more so on land, forest, mines, water that was reclaimed by their joint labour through centuries. It was not done. To bypass Gandhi, his disciples, both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel proved master tacticians in matters of governance. They could feel the pulse of the people for a better life and exploit it. They left Charkha behind and groomed the ignorant mass for these policies with socialist slogans instead, to pamper capital at the cost of labour laced with uncouth repression and deceit even in initial stage of indigenous rule. It is another matter that the new rulers needed an icon to swear by. They adore Gandhi in public like anything till today, perhaps, because of his appeal as a leader with frugal habits and simplicity. This ruse of constant praise suited the rulers

nicely, while his views were brushed aside on vital issues that were dear to him. His early death perhaps facilitated this to work effectively in their scheme of things without much exposure. The country has traversed a path, so opted by the ruling elite in 1947, for more than half a century. This is not a small period even in the life of a country to look back what it has gained or lost and to evaluate its fundamentals. If the balance goes against, no one can claim clemency for playing with lives involved and the enormity of crime would be stupendous. To sit back in complacency and close eyes to the problem also may not be less offensive to the fate of a country. The fact sheet When this span of journey commenced, India was in throes of a divided house. The British had left it virtually bleeding on both sides of the divide. But the mood of countrymen was upbeat, though in pain. Despite discontented voices here and there, people reposed faith in the wisdom of leadership that had inherited the Raj, largely because its leading lights were participants in the freedom struggle. The faithfuls of Royalty till then, also stood behind this elite, assured of their place in the sun. The new constitution for the country was utilised to convince them of fidelity. The communal hysteria that arose with partition of the country, along-with Kashmir flare up between India and Pakistan proved a boon for respective leadership to harness support at a critical juncture. In addition, the new Indian ruling elite inherited an infrastructure, including a well-groomed bureaucracy with military and police combine, originally crafted to work for intense expropriation in the interest of British rulers. In consonance, a workable network of Railways, ports, roads and irrigation system was available. Except the communal holocaust and large-scale transfer of population of the divided provinces, the change in power structure worked smooth that helped to strengthen its grip hurriedly over the contending forces. There was no serious challenge to its authority. The socio-economic situation was however, desperate. The Birlas and Tatas, were upbeat over their kill during Second World War, courtesy British rule; though their class was gasping. Economic situation in the country was in shambles. A neat division was visible. Around ninety percent of the then population, having served the Raj through a long period of expropriation to finance industrialisation of Britain and tide over the pangs of two world wars, with entitlements on starvation level with a deep sense of injury from slavery were penury incarnate. The foreign rule had disinherited this lot to a state of misery. The rest were the beneficiary of leftovers as also doles from the Raj, including the bureaucracy and servicemen for being loyal to it, having a good life to dream moon in future. The disinherited lot on the other hand, making nearly 90 % of the population had put faith on the fruits of freedom for a better life against their labour in dignity, justice and fair play. This was the section with whom a surge in emotions against imperialist plunders and strife was high with a deep sense of injury in slavery. The leadership, however, soon started fooling around and kidding with promises for the well being of common man year after year that were never kept. Wealth continued to concentrate at a remarkable speed in few hands of the rich, policemilitary-administration combine gained muscles to centralise on a frightening scale with one pretext or the other. Five-Year Plans did not help to smooth over ruffled feathers or lessen regional disparities either. Nonetheless, these plans proved a boon to keep fledgling hope survive year after year among the people, while providing solid infra-structural

support for an orderly growth and consolidation of capitalism here in a period of anarchy worldwide, limping on Keynesian economics after Second World War. The democracy proved spurious in the new independent country. Bureaucracy ruled as ever. People stood forsaken. Decisions were made over their head, but in their name. The family and its neighbourhood community are not restored to their rightful place in the scheme of things. People soon started feeling disgusted with one set of leaders after another. First for democracy: In the then Constituent Assembly member after member had advocated abrogation of British hierarchical model for governance, pleading for Gram Swarajya. It could have paved way for Gaon Ganrajya as an effective mechanism to release mass energy again for social activism. Sensing this perhaps, the new rulers cunningly promised for Gram Panchayats instead, as mere grass root level administrative units in distant future and dispensed with the autonomous village republics that the country had aspired to revert back for enjoying real freedom in democracy. To this day people of India are waiting to taste real democracy in their quest for better life. It remains to be redeemed still. What recently they have done is a gross distortion of the original concept. The slogan that ranted the atmosphere from the rulers after independence was development instead, so that they could attack poverty at roots with the wealth so created, the argument ran! The much-hyped notion of development as sacred in itself is a crafty web from pen pushers of status quo with trickle theory in command that did not bring change for the masses as yet. The Nehru edict that development first, just distribution afterwards, have proved a much crafty clich that robbed working people for half a century. It has benefited the expropriators most. Development must secure equity in process; otherwise it is a cunning ruse. There is no first or last in this game. Development in a just society has to ensure peace and stability. However, the present is full of a duality. Indignity, injustice, strife and shortages are in store for common man despite honest labour for long hours in a day. Alienation is complete. People are at the receiving end. Beneficiaries of the system on the other hand are wallowing in wealth and are happy to have learned the art of manipulating this system to their advantage. What capitalist system did to others, it did the same in India. More than half a century has gone by now with policies that brought misery to the people. The industrial mode wrought disaster, as it should, with only owners of capital to thrive. Many versions of reformatory practices have been tried so far in the name of ameliorating conditions and correcting distortions, but to the utter desperation of the toiling masses. The development during these 58 years could add only around 10 per cent to make it twenty percent of citizens as the beneficiaries who have reaped advantage at the cost of millions after millions in toil. Reformatory efforts however, kept the people waiting! It is now clear that after Independence, the same industrial mode of development was adopted here that had dominated the European scene. This was done to serve the capital-based interests. For financing this project an elaborate system of internal expropriation with neo-colonial character was brought in place, in addition to the investment from public exchequer for promoting much needed basic inputs at subsidised costs to private entrepreneurs. Since agriculture was the only productive field available at that time, it was made to finance, but without telling the peasants who were affected.

It had a striking difference with the old colonial plunder. This time, the expropriation was purely internal to start with and worked out surreptitiously despite the country that claimed to be a democratic one. It was done by manipulating the entitlements in favour of the idle class. It had its effect. Independence started loosing its glamour and sheen for majority of population The ruthless internal colonial expropriation to make up capital for rapid industrialisation as its agenda told upon mental and physical health of the entire working people, except those who could find place or manipulate one in the organised sector, including its privileged civil and armed services. Indian state is a highly centralised and brutally armed entity today standing solidly behind this naked exploitative system against the masses. Today it has the guts to brazenly shed off the people in favour of the rich and get away with it. So it did. Since 1947, it is only the industrial and commercial sector with a supporting service sector that has gained from this course making up hardly 20 per cent of the population as the Disposable Income Group in the country. The remaining 80 per cent have been forced to bear the burden of this economy at the cost of their lives. The country is now facing same ills of the system what western nations gathered in more than 300 years. It is maintaining well the colonial character it inherited to fulfil its neo-colonial task of internal expropriation, shedding its progressive role in fighting the so-called feudalism and colonialism, in service of capitalist class and is now engrossed to help it for external jaunts. These attributes are oiled to act against the people at need and in the interest of capital like imperialists. Indian capitalism is happy to have such a capable and well-groomed political leadership in democratic double -speak, fit for the job of political management. This leadership served its capitalist masters admirably during the last half a century and befool the toiling people. Not merely the ruling ones but also those who adorn opposition benches are happy collaborators in this game of state power to rule over the masses with Machiavellian methods. Even the part of this leadership belonging to formal mass organisations can hardly be absolved of this charge. They too tread the same path outlined and drawn by the ruling class or classes in the interest of governance. So far there is none among them as an organised entity that stood by the people to face this dubious onslaught of capital as well as state machinery and remained steadfast with the people. These policies in practice have wreathed disaster with only captains of capital to thrive. Many versions of reformatory practices have been tried for ameliorating conditions in between, but to the utter desperation of the toiling masses. Only upper twenty percent of citizens have reaped the advantage, though not uniformly, but at the cost of millions in toil. The people at large are suffering deprivation and alienation all around today. They are living under the weight of ruthless exploitation and social strife. With a rising graph of unemployment and a corresponding increase in social-economic crimes is a sure indication of the malady at the base. That the society is under a regressive system of governance in the interest of capital can hardly be contested. There is hardly anything left to support a system that demolishes the very foundation of a just society and strikes at its social roots. Expropriation of ones labour for enriching the other or, say, to rob Peter and benefit Paul, can hardly be defended.

Entitlements - Producers of wealth are in ruin It is well recognised that all the wealth of a nation is actualised through labour of its people, working with bare hands or with tools, while economic system is the totality of production of goods and services along with their distribution. In distribution, the trick is played while fixing entitlements of different partners in social production. Illustrating this, one of the prominent academicians narrate that production constitute of four basic elements i.e. nature, labour, technology and organisation. On this account the legitimate entitlement of an individual is related only to additive by ones own labour input, while natures contribution and additives due to other two non-labour elements are the common heritage of mankind that no individual is entitled to expropriate. The tragedy is that in a bourgeois world, fruits of non-labour additives are taken away by owners of capital i.e., the idlers due to their vantage position in the power structure. The national pie or the Gross National Product (GNP) comprises a variety of economic goods and services. It is the availability of wage goods and essential services and their distribution, which determine the living condition of the masses. At present, the state regulates this availability. The problem arises in distribution when distortions creep in on three counts. Firstly, the distortion or deprivation takes place when valuation of additives due to labour input is highly biased and ethnocentric favouring the idle class. Secondly, distortions creep when individuals and groups make exclusive claims on Natures contribution and additives due to non-labour input by virtue of their vantage position in the system depriving others of their legitimate share. Thirdly, it happens when people are deprived of even a part of due returns for their labour input. This is what happened in India. Resorting to all three counts, working people here are deprived and the idle class is bestowed with undeserved wealth by the powers that be. It is done while computing money-value to economic goods and services with a definite bias favouring this class of idlers, who occupy vantage position in the system. It is known that individuals occupying such positions get transformed into numerous interest groups to stake claim on the additives due to other elements and manipulate the flow of goods and services. While contribution to production of goods and services through nature, sciencetechnology and organisation is, in fact, the result of a common heritage belonging to entire community, an individuals contribution in production is really limited to his or her effort in the form of physical or intellectual labour. All other claims by individuals, by virtue of their skill endowment or organisational affiliation, etc., are really claims on the contribution due to other three elements which are the common heritage of mankind or specific community. However, individuals occupying vantage positions in the system staked claims on the additives by other non-influential elements in production. They got exorbitant entitlements in the flow of goods and services or money incomes having no relationship with their actual contributions to production. The organised sector was the real beneficiary through such manipulation. Crisis in Economy At present, both industry and agriculture as forms of development are beset with crisis, but for different reasons. The crisis in industry is a crisis for speeding up expropriation of labour-power to a new level of intensity and for limitations of

internal market. Shifting emphasis to speculative professions and increasing dependence on foreign trade for returns in speed for capital are eloquent exercises to show this crisis. The crisis in Indian agriculture on the other hand is due to over-extraction to finance industrialisation for over half a century with no sufficient purchasing power left with majority of the population in the country. The misery of the majority in population is due to this crisis in agriculture for over-extraction. However, the industrial-financial interests are bent upon converting agriculture to serve their interests in the new setting of WTO conditionality, with no concern to the future of millions engaged in farming at present.

WTO and Indian Agriculture

The future of Indian agriculture is now a subject of heated discussion in the country. The context is the Agreement on Agriculture as a part of obligation under WTO undertaken by the then government clandestinely and being followed now with gusto. The official regiment is defending its stance to change the face of Indian agriculture at the behest of powerful MNCs, while the total political leadership in opposition is berating the present government over the difficulties farming community is facing today, of course, without telling the basic reason of this plight. However, one thing is clear that none of these leaders or organisations in opposition is explicit enough to call for abrogation of this agreement with WTO on agriculture, while the future of the peasantry is at stake. Let us illustrate: When Indian National Congress was the main opposition party in Indian Parliament made an explicit statement officially to explain away the situation again in a diplomatic fashion, which has by now become a trade mark of all such organisations in the country. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, addressing a Kisan rally called in Delhi at that time to explain the stand of Congress party on the plight of Indian peasantry and emerging situation in agriculture, stated that there is nothing wrong with this agreement with WTO; the fault lies in its implementation by the NDA rulers. This was to score a point in competitive politics. Unfortunately, the chairperson of congress party in her bid to give a clean chit through this statement to its own party who was in power when this agreement was signed, provided ready help to the BJP led government for its agriculture reforms in parliament on WTO lines to take effect. This was a fine game in tandem. Both favoured New Agriculture Policy-2000! The tragedy is compounded. WTO regime under this agreement seeks to change farming in India upside down and with it the lives of peasants for all times to come. The whole political leadership, on the other hand, is busy in sabre-rattling of usual fashion to skirt the real issues. The government, including top brass in bureaucracy often defends the agreement on agriculture for some perceived benefits to the nation (read capitalists), while at times when cornered; the ruling leadership pleads its helplessness in view of the international obligations the government has undertaken! It is unfortunate that for the government an undertaking with WTO is primary while its fidelity to the Indian people has become dispensable. The government is pursuing in zeal the path of total Americanisation that will strike doom for the country putting even its sovereignty in jeopardy. In fact, it is on its toes to implement an economic policy that was initiated by the Congress government at centre with no feeling of guilt to this day. The fact is that all

governments since 1991 have toed the same line of capitulation before the organised international capital and defended the interests of this moneyed class in sharp contrast to those of Indian people. The former NDA government led by Vajpayee zealously nurtured what Narsimha Rao-Manmohan Singh started in 1991, pushed further with verve by Chidambaram of the United Front till 1998. Later governments followed it religiously! In consequence, the people are now left to fend for themselves against the attack of wild sharks basking under protective wings of the Indian state. Pushing the country for over a decade and half now to globalisation and liberalisation of an American style based on unabashed capital market, the turn has come for agriculture to bear. This is all in the name of accelerating the pace of capitalisation of the country to serve the interest of development without caring to tell what this capitalisation or industrialisation has done to the people during long last fifty-eight years. The nation is deep in quagmire of high cost economy, unchecked loot of natural resources, ever rising prices, soaring unemployment and debilitating corruption all around, all resulting in pauperisation of the common mass. Injustice is written all over. Nation is in the midst of strife and crime. Still, the rulers are hell bent to extol the virtues of capital and capitalisation of agriculture as a golden object in national life. Keeping such a weak reference point as this new sacred cow, the rulers have come forward to overhaul farming in the hot pursuit of this capital native and foreign. The National Agriculture Policy released in July 2000 is an eloquent testimony to the intentions of this government, as well as the moneyed class worldwide. The eyes of capitalists are now glued to grab land, water, forests and mines with unchecked sway over other natural resources to milk unchecked profit, totally unmindful of what may happen to millions after millions of people in bargain, including simple tribals whom the constitution offered a protective shield under its schedule five. Neither the hallowed provisions of constitution nor the verdict of the Supreme Court on this schedule in Samata versus A.P. Government and others seem to worry the successive governments in hurry to serve international capital. These seek to change these provisions flagrantly flexing muscles of parliamentary number at the cost of Tribals displacement from their lands and hearths forever. For this, it is out to change all protective legislations of the past, so that there remains no legal hurdle to speed up the loot. Farming labour is fleeced It is a tragic story by now. Indian agriculture is bled white for long. As a strategic move, the rulers have made it a loosing pursuit deliberately during these fifty years and more by manipulating fiscal, trade and pricing policies to the disadvantage of the peasants. The trade terms weighed heavily against agriculture bringing ruin in turn. The simple peasants were fooled around for their ignorance of ways this ruling elite excels in debunking. Mark the methods: The peasants are branded as unskilled for being unlettered and they in simplicity believed the rulers to a faith. The trick was played in the early phase of independence to suppress their entitlements. The treachery game, however, was played when wage scale for their family-labour was computed under this lowest category to a miserly low while tabulating cost price of agriculture produce terming the profession of a peasant as unskilled. It was around 10 rupees a day for 147 days in a year as per data for the year in 1990. It rose to Rs. 15 in 1995 and 17 in 1997. At present it may be around Rs. 30 at the end of twentieth century,

whereas lowest paid unskilled employee in the organised sector is getting not less than Rs. 250 to Rs.500 per day, what to say of bureaucracy, politicians and the capitalists themselves. The earnings of higher functionaries even in public sector industries and services are mind boggling in comparison after the fifth pay commission bonanza, with all other privileges in addition. The bureaucrats pocket up to Rs.1000 a day, while industrialists and commercial tycoons are unhappy with Rs.2 lakhs a day. Rather, earnings of the favoured rich have no limit with due government support in fiscal policy year after year. In spite of loud protestations in the constitution for social justice and equity, rulers are maintaining a highly discriminatory criterion to fix entitlements and wages for urban and rural sectors to this day, without any qualms for justice and fair play. On this account alone, according to one rough estimate, not less than Rs.5 lakh crores are expropriated every year from the farming sector to finance the organised sector. In addition, artisans, as a part of agriculture sector are ruined to the benefit of urban industries. The parity in prices of agricultural produce with industrial goods is still a distant dream. The peasantry at the same time is highly taxed on the indirect route. The excise duties on tractors, fertilizer and other inputs are much more what is doled out as subsidies. Rural debt on modern methods of financial management with compound interest is another route to expropriate this sector to suicide. Small amount of subsidies to agriculture sector cannot hide this deprivation in spite of sponsored propaganda to the contrary. By sheer manipulation in terms of trade and fiscal policies, including rural debt weighing heavily against agriculture, in a high-cost economy and the discriminatory methods in determining entitlements to the farming sector have played havoc with the lives of working population that constitute nearly 73 per cent of the total. Around 7 to 10 percent of the deprived population, living in urban centres, is victim of the same process barely surviving on odd footpath jobs that may come their way or on punishing jobs in small scale industries with depressed wages on degrading terms, while around ten per cent of the total rural population is the beneficiary in real terms of present development strategy that cultivates linkages with and acts as a subsidiary of urban sector. This is the section that acts as an active collaborator of the ruling class in both political and economic fields. All others are gasping for breath. This is the sordid tale of internal expropriation to provide impetus for rapid industrialisation. The worst victim has been the unorganised sector, mostly inhabiting rural India. It is clear that those working in modern sector cannot be allowed to acquire the entire benefit due to other elements in the national economy, which they are doing today. In a way it is the unorganised rural India that has been made to pay for the riches of the organised urban sector. If rural India is penury incarnate till today, reason may not be anywhere else to seek. It can be said safely that the contradiction between labour and capital here today is reflected through urban organised sector and unorganised rural India. The situation needs to be changed and this contradiction overturned resolutely with a viable alternative! There is no other way. National Agriculture Policy - 2000 The then BJP led government through new agriculture policy in 2000 had detailed the steps it took for handing over of farming to these sharks - national or international, perhaps in a phased manner to offset any organised resistance from

them in desperation. This emerging situation is too clear that requires no special calibre to understand. The political leadership, including the opposition remained busy in the game of deceit and political jugglery as usual. They are, for example, playing orchestra in unison for diversification of agriculture for cash crops to confuse the peasants and muddle the real issue at debate, in the interest of foreign trade. Moreover, how big is the market for flowers from such a big population for instance? They are silent on such questions. Grow flowers or fruits for America and get food grains from there for subsistence at terms dictated by her in both the cases, this is the sum total of this advice by these apologists of globalisation with a neat division of labour that tilts the balance in favour of America and other imperialist counties. Only a mug head will depend on others for food and livelihood security. In addition the tale of misery, which peasants are suffering in states, including Kerala with cash crops as their main stay, is easily ignored in zeal to support the government policy. Mostly these were peasants that banked on cash crops who committed suicide in shame in recent past, including Andhra, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Haryana and Punjab. Unfortunately in this game almost all agriculture experts are also playing the tune wittingly or otherwise that suits the politicians nicely in service of the capitalist class for maximum profit or personal gain. The concern for peasantry currently being exhibited with gusto by Congress leadership is too thin a veil. In no case Congress can absolve itself of what peasantry is suffering today. It is the cumulative effect of policies pursued with zeal by government during its rule of almost 47 years in the country turning farming as nonviable pursuit and now as the leading party in rule. These policies pursued by Congress turned peasants almost paupers. Who else is responsible for adopting the industrial route to development in the country if not this party in power since 1947 and discriminating against agriculture in terms of trade and wage structure? The Congress has neither accepted its responsibility so far, nor expressed regret for the same. The latest stance by its leader that there is nothing wrong with the agreement on agriculture under WTO, it is only the faulty implementation by the then BJP led government is nothing short of its faithfulness to the policies that ruined the peasantry so far. It is like being too clever to put curtain on its crime and a ruse to absolve itself of the guilt. It is the position of all those who, while in power express doubts about WTO while pursuing industrial growth strategies as dictated by World Bank. The whole of Gurgaon district in Haryana for example, is being placed at the disposal of these sharks at the cost of its inhabitants, mainly displacing the peasants living there for centuries in exchange for mere paper money that is depreciating every hour to serve exporters. Those who reject subservience to WTO and this so-called National Agriculture Policy as ruinous to peasantry must also reject this capital-based industrial strategy of development itself, if to remain honest to logic. The central government has opened the gates for capital to take over Indian agriculture by courtesy of this policy. It is a blueprint for corporatisation through capitalisation of agriculture and a sure path to ruin rural India, as America did to its millions on its path to industrial culture of modernity without any sense of lament and shame in early twentieth century. The position of left political parties is no different. They happily followed the tail of Gowda-Chidambaram duo during UF regime that pursued the same route with much zeal. Neither they could save their principles nor BJP could be kept away

from power, which was their pet slogan to align with secular Chidambaram or Deva Gowda and now Congress! The tragedy of the lefts does not end here. There is hardly any place for peasantry in their textbooks. Let them admit it. Peasantry is to fade away in their scheme, to give place to the industrial proletariat. The status of an ally for the peasantry is a fine game of jugglery when agriculture is considered a din of conservatism and backwardness to fade away through industrialisation! The theory that pleads for dissolution of peasantry in service to industrialisation as a course of history is now too naive to be retained after the sad experiment in erstwhile Soviet Union. Any one subscribing to scientific reasoning after such a debacle in experimental exercise should have openly discarded it. None of the kind has come from them so far. For now what they demand tactically is merely some relief to peasants on this front. It is time they come out of this past honestly. Today traditional farming is a loosing pursuit for those who depend on honest family labour as their main stay in this endeavour. In this high cost economy, being pursued zealously by the government to serve trade, industry and service sectors the cost of production in agriculture is constantly on rise while their gain is artificially depressed. One must question these premises of high cost economy that bring ruin to the masses, including the peasantry. There is hardly any doubt left that what the government has embarked upon doing will lead to sure ruin of the peasantry and conversion of farming into a big business affair where rural India of today have no place to breath. Paper money now will be the owner of lands instead of the tiller. Peasants are destined to be converted into bonded labourers and then finally to be pushed into dustpan of history as was the story of traditional peasant families in America and Australia, after they had uprooted Red Indians and aborigines from their hearth and homes earlier. Following this charted path, agriculture production may rise for a while, once farming is taken over by the moneybags. The government may also earn foreign exchange for the benefit of industrial and commercial houses to finance their trade and life-style. But at what cost to the 80 per cent of the population and for how long, one should answer this question. But none is coming straight on this account, not even the intellectuals so far. Capital-intensive agriculture is no cure of the problem. Agriculture by nature is different from industry. It cannot be converted into industry for rapid growth without a disaster as erstwhile Soviet Union experienced. Industry is exponential while agriculture is linear in nature. Indian peasantry since August 1947 has been ruined by a deliberate policy. It is time to reverse the process. The measures adopted in deceit have brought about a situation where peasants are forced to vacate lands on their own in desperation so that the moneybags can walk over and occupy it for profit. The country at present has gathered much moss and what it needs is a leap forward from the present dispensation. While maintaining status quo, the reformatory patchwork tried so far to tide over difficulties or cosmetic changes did not help in lessening the burden of a sick society for the common mass. Now is the time for a push to the new course. In the circumstances, the need for a fundamental change in Indian society on matters of governance and socio-economic reconstruction based on a different mode of production with a corresponding cultural, moral regeneration can hardly be contested on saner grounds.

The situation is such that on three fundamental accounts, namely, Principal contradiction between people and the state as also Basic contradiction between collective way of life and individualism, as also when capital has replaced man as the focal point, the peoples face the same fate universally. The status quo is a slow death, but death nevertheless. They need challenge the present dispensation. There is no point in experimenting upon various versions of reformatory efforts or believing in cosmetic changes the rulers promise one after the other every alternate day. Fifty-eight years are no less a period for a nation to test their vitality and relevance. True, it is not for the first time that someone talks today about necessity of a basic change in society. The idea had gained ground after reformatory efforts did not satisfy the social urges of the times long back. Still patchwork mentality has its own attraction for some people despite recent experiences and lessons in history! Nevertheless, by now certain parameters are well laid as to concretise what is meant by a fundamental change in society in this era of capitalist organisation after reformist socialism also could not succeed in bringing any relief to the distracted humanity. The present and the future The fact sheet is explicit on what our country gained or lost on balance. Some conclusions can be easily arrived at, how so unsavoury these may look to the powers that be. By now, situation has reached when the sense of equity and justice has taken a strong beating while administration, legislature and even judiciary have lost their sheen for common Indian people. Feeling has grown among them that the media too has proved a happy collaborator in main with the establishment for privileges and economic reasons. Malpractices of the system and institutionalised corruption have left them bewildered over decline all around. This has not come in a day; neither it is a temporary symptom from an isolated disease. The political leadership, more so from opposition have failed the people. They became happy collaborators of the establishment. True, the pressure of democratic movement in pre-independence and as well in the early phase of post-independence period gave a situation of relative freedom in political and social actions. The state had to adopt a position not to take that despotic position straight away. Somewhat looseness in administrative machinery of a leviathan also creates another helpful opening available to breathe. This provides a little leeway, valuable though in comparison to many despotic countries of the third world. The present in fact is the sin we, the peoples are reaping for not taking steps in defence of our natural rights against the state for these years in time; when Britishers struck with the Principle of Eminent Domain at the beginning of their rule or when new rulers decided to continue. The pain of the present is likely to be prolonged further if people keep sitting back. The future of young generations to come will be shaped by the action people start taking now to assert their natural rights seriously in their own hands without waiting further for others to ameliorate conditions for them.