Part II of sainath's speech on The farm crisis: whyhave over one lakh farmers killed themselves in thepast decade?
PART II of Sainath's speech:
Right now, as I speak to you, there is a second sadpart ?V we are in the spraying season. There arethree seasons when suicides shoot up. It is notcommon across the year. In some months it is verylow. In the spike seasons they are very high. Thefirst spike comes in the credit season when the farmergoes out in April-May, looking for the money to buy their inputs for the new season, trying to get thatRs. 8,000/- or whatever amount it is. I have coveredfarmers who have committed suicides because they couldnot get Rs. 8,000/- at a decent rate of interest in2003 and in early 2004. Then, I have gone back to myhouse as an urban middle class professional and got aletter from a bank, offering me a loan to buy aMercedes Benz at six per cent rate of interest with nocollateral required. What kind of justice is there inthat society? Where is the humanity, where is thecompassion and, above all, where is our sense ofoutrage? Where is the outrage about this, that I can buy a Mercedes Benz for six per cent rate of interestwithout collateral whereas a farmer who could buy aproductive investment like a tractor is bankrupted bythe terms of loan? There is no fairness in the systemat all.
Credit expansion -- to whose benefit?
The indebtedness of Indian peasants, as I said, hasdoubled and I gave you the figures from some of themajor States. We have been told repeatedly that thereis a massive credit expansion and indeed there is. Ican assure you that it is not going to the farmer. Some of you know very well as to which cooperatives itgoes to and who runs what. All these things are verywell known. What has happened to the creditexpansion? How do you expand credit when you haveclosed 3,500 banks in the rural areas? Rural areashave witnessed the closure of over 3,000 banks between1993 and 2002. And more since then. Private banks areonly now beginning to come in. It was only thenationalised banks which worked in the rural areas. There expansion of food production associated with the'Green Revolution' would actually not have taken placewithout the banks being there and providing the creditfor the farmer to do that. Banks have systemically withdrawn from credit and bank branches have closed down in thousands.
There has been a diversion of credit to the uppermiddle classes, the consumption of all of us in thecities indeed. The so-called Gramina Banks areplaying with tens of crores of rupees in the MumbaiStock Exchange! The undermining and re-defining ofwhat we call priority sector lending has a lot to dowith it. We redefine it. Under agricultural loan, you can buy a Qualis or Tavera or Scorpio or other luxuryvehicle -- as an agricultural loan! Whilenon-agricultural loans go to farmers who paynon-agricultural rates of interest, non-farmers arebuying Taveras or Hero Hondas and Qualis with'agricultural loans' and this at reduced rates ofinterest. This is a very widely documented thing andI could place everything before you. It is also veryimportant in the whole crisis. Agriculture is not an island: Do not disconnectfarming from the rest of what is happening. The cost of living expenses have simply exploded across thisnation. Today, health is the second fastest growingcomponent of rural family debt. Health is the secondfastest growing component because we have the sixthmost privatised health system in the world. If you look at the NSS data, it suggests that nearly one inevery five Indians, nearly two hundred million humanbeings, no longer seek medical attention of any kindbecause they cannot afford it. This is not because of accessibility or distance. It is because they cannot afford it. The same nation boasts of boosting'medical tourism.' But that is the situation.
The farmer is hit on all fronts. The situation offarm labour is even worse. The landless labourers'plight is even worse, but he is not tied to the land(except where bonded). So, the entire series ofprocesses is buffeting the farmers in every case. Last year, Andhra Pradesh started jailing elderlyfarmers who were unable to ay their debts. Now, the APGovernment has called a halt to it. They were put injails for debt. Seventy-four- years orseventy-five- year-old farmers were put in jails, butthat is now being stopped.
India pioneered the concept of 'social banking.' Itwas a Gandhian idea. It was recognised that therewere some operations, some classes of people, who youadvanced loans without expectations of huge profits.Like marginal or subsistence farmers. We havewithdrawn from that idea of social banking. We alltalk about moneylenders. One of the things which I want to tell you is that the face of the moneylenderhas completely changed.
The new moneylenders of the countryside:
Please do not focus too much on your village sahucar. Sure, he is an exploitative creature. He is also avery pathetic creature in the new dispensation. Awhole new class of moneylenders have come to thecountryside. The village sahucar, the small sahucaris committing suicide because his clients arebankrupt. Some clients have migrated and they haverun away and nobody is repaying his debt. Who thenare the new moneylenders? They are input dealers, thepeople who sell seeds and who sell pesticides, fertiliser and other inputs to the farmer.
The people who own the shops that are selling the seeds are millionaires now. When you come topesticides, input costs have simply exploded. Let megive you an idea to prove how major it is. When wespoke about interest waiver, I begged at that time:"Do not do the interest waiver. It will be thecooperative banks that will benefit. If you want to doa waiver, do a loan waiver." After all, we havewaived loans of thousands of crores of rupees for ahandful of industrialists.
A non-performing Who's Who:
Look at your Non-performing assets (NPA) list. It isa "Who's Who" of the Indian industry. Running to tensof thousands of crores. But we could not waive theloan of Rs.25,000 per Vidharbha farmer which wouldhave wiped out 80 per cent of their bank debt. Ibegged at that time when the 'relief package' wasbeing formulated. I said: "It is more packing thanpackage." I said that the cooperative banks wouldtake the money. Indeed, the cooperative banks are, forthe first time in 10 years, on a hiring spree becausethey have so much money. They have got a Rs.712 croregift!
We also gave a moratorium of two years instead ofgiving a loan waiver. What is the result? The two-yearmoratorium comes to an end in March 2008. With theexisting loan plus the pending loan plus the currentloan, the farmer is in for a gigantic shock in March2008. There is no chance of repaying. But we did notdo that. Only in the case of Tamil Nadu, there was amajor waiver. You can reason out why Tamil Nadu wasgiven that privilege. I am very happy that they weregiven that privilege and I just hope that thatprivilege would be extended to all the others and theother Governments do the same.
Input costs now killing:
Input costs have gone up to a point where there is noreturn. If you look at cash crops, you can find it. Iwill just take input cost in respect of seeds. Takethe case of di-ammonia phosphate (DAP). One bag of DAPcost Rs.120 in 1991. It costs four times as much now. Seeds were available at Rs.7 a kilogram of localvariety. I mean, in Vidharbha, local cotton seeds wereavailable for Rs.7 per kilo. You could get the bill(for transactions of that time) even now. Just Rs. 7for a whole kilo. It was Rs.1800 for the BT cotton seed (per 450 gram packet) in 2004 before the AndhraPradesh Government took Monsanto to court. It got theprice dropped down to Rs.725. I give full credit tothe Government of Andhra Pradesh for having taken thataction. Today, the utility prices have gone up;electricity prices have gone up and the farmer isbuffeted by the entire series of price shocks. At thesame time, the output prices have crashed. The littledistrict of Wayanad in Kerala lost Rs.6,000 crore on two products of coffee and pepperwhich are not doing that badly at the global level. Injust four or five years, they lost that much.Somebody else is making the money because they havebeen locked into a trade where the Spices Board, allour institutions, are operating on behalf of theprivate corporations and not on behalf of the farmers.
When I went to the Coffee Board in Wayanad, Kerala,they were very nice to me. The moment I entered theiroffice, the Coffee Board people offered me a cup oftea! That is how they promote coffee. The farmers inthis part of Kerala are growing the coffee. Coffeedoes not grow in most Western climates. Your farmer isgrowing coffee and he gets pathetically less than 10per cent of the turnover of what goes on at the globallevel. In 2001-02, thousands of people were beguiledinto growing Vanilla. Why? It fetched Rs.4300 akilogram at the time - at the start. This is alsoone of the tricks of the corporate farming andcontract farming. It fetched Rs.4300, per kg meaningthereby $100 per kg of Vanilla. That was the price thefarmer got. I do not know what is the exact pricetoday. I think it is around Rs.86 a kg. It is not afluctuation. That is an annihilation. This volatilityhas killed them. However, we have chained our farmersto all these things. Are there solutions tothese problems? Yes, I have not covered a lot ofissues. I can take the questions from you on that.
We can turn it around:
For one thing, I would appeal to you to read thereports of the National Commission on Farmers. Thereis something very important about the reports of theNCF. They have wide acceptance. Almost every majorfarm union in this country has supported it regardlessof party ?V whether it is the Congress or theCommunist or the BJP or the Dravidian parties. Acrossthe political spectrum, people have supported therecommendations of the NCF. Then, what prevents usfrom moving ahead on at least the majorrecommendations? What prevents us from creating aPrice Stabilisation Fund for important agriculturalcommodities the way we have it for petroleum. We do have a Price Stabilisation Fund in the case ofpetroleum. The State kicks in when the price becomesunbearable and withdraws when it stabilises. Whatstops us from using social banking techniques?
There is a rule, a law in this country that 1 per centof all loans (at 4 per cent interest only) has to goto the poorest of the poor. Over the last 10 years, wehave not even fulfilled that one per cent, accordingto the bank unions of this country. The industrywideaverage is 0.25 per cent! We have given no protectionto the farmers against dumping and the Westernsubsidies. We have not sought the revival of theagricultural universities as the National Commissionhas appealed for. We could do a five-year creditcycle. You can give the farmer a loan over afive-year cycle instead of making him go back on hisknees to the corrupt bank manager every six months, every season. In five years, you will have two goodyears, two bad years and one neutral year. So you might manage.
There are many such recommendations which we coulduse. They are really very sincere ones. As I said, itis not politically difficult to get them accepted.They have been accepted across the farming politicalspectrum. You are talking about 600 million peoplehere. There are three broad principles which are onthe larger canvass.
?? First, do not treat agriculture as a headacheor a cancer. It is not. It is central to thelivelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Wehave to approach it with reverence for what itrepresents.
?? Second, declare agriculture as a publicservice and treat it as such. Those who work inagriculture, they lose out a lot. Average incomes inagriculture are much lower than any other sector. Letthem be compensated for the food they put on ourtable. They lose out a lot. Those remaining in thesector should be compensated by society.
?? Third, let us end the hypocrisy of subsidies.There is no part on the globe where agriculture existswithout State subsidies, without State intervention. In fact, the richer the country, the greater the subsidies -- but they are not going to the farmers -- they are going to the corporations. What we give our farmers does not even qualify for subsidy but aspathetic life supports. Let us not remove them. Let us honour those who put food on our table.
I just want to tell you one thing. Many causes have been advanced why farmers are killing themselves. One is, they are killing themselves to get compensation. This disgusting explanation is in voguein Maharashtra. I do not know what to say about it. What do you do with Rs. one lakh? Do you have a wildparty when you are dead? Another thing is they are called mentally unstable. Well, I might be mentallyunstable and depressed if three people in my familyhave killed themselves and one is starving. However,the Government in its wisdom last year constituted amano vaigyanik dal ( A team of medical experts).Psychiatrists, psychologists, some very good people,very fine people, highly qualified intellectuals, weresent to the villages to find out why the farmers arekilling themselves. They did a lot of research andstudies. Finally, one old farmer got up and addressedthese top doctors from top institutions. He saidtypically in the Indian fashion: "Such an honour to have such big people come to my small village. I honour you. I touch your feet. You have asked us so many questions. You have given us such good advice. You have asked us this question: Do you drink too much? Doyou fight with your wife? You have given us goodadvice. You have said: Do not drink too much. Do not fight with your wife. Do yoga. Remove your stress." He said: "Ask us one more question. Ask us why the farmers of this country, who place the nation's foodon its table, are starving?" There was total silence.One of the doctors told a journalist much later: "Weshut up. There was nothing to say. We had all theanswers but he had the right question."
By P. Sainath
ENDS
Showing posts with label Matters of Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matters of Agriculture. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
Thursday, 10 January 2008
The farm crisis: why have over one lakh farmers killed themselves in the past decade?
Ist Part
We, as a nation, are in the worst agrarian crisis infour decades. It is impossible to cover such a largeissue in full. So I am going to be dealing with it infragments today. I would like to stress that thecrisis is so deep, so advanced that: firstly, no State, nobody, is exempt from this and it is not tobe seen as the crisis of one State or one Governmentor one Party. It is a national crisis and we need torespond to it as such. It is a huge thing. In thatcrisis, the suicides are merely, however tragic, justa symptom and not the disease. They are aconsequence, not the process.
Millions of livelihoods have been damaged ordestroyed in the last 15 years as a result of thiscrisis. But you will know, if you look at your media,that it is only in the last three or four years thatwe widely used the word 'farm crisis' or the 'agrariancrisis.' Earlier, there was a complete denial of anycrisis. At least today it is established that there is one.
We can sum it up in one sentence -- the processdriving this crisis: the predatory commercialisationof the countryside (int he words of Prof. K. Nagaraj of the Madras Institute of Development Studies –MIDS). The reduction of all human values to exchangevalue. As this process unleashes itself across agrarian India, millions of livelihoods have collapsed. Lakhs of people are migrating towardscities and towns in search of jobs that are not there. They move towards a status which is neither `worker'nor `farmer.' Many will end up as domestic labour, like over a lakh girls from Jharkhand in this city of Delhi working as domestic servants.
World-wide crisis of small-holder farms:
However, having said that, I want to say that thecrisis is by no means restricted to India. It is aworld-wide crisis of small holder farming. Small,family farms are getting wiped out across the planetand it has been happening for 20-30 years. It is justthat this has been very intense in India in the last15 years. Otherwise, the farm suicides have causedmajor concern in Korea. Nepal and Sri Lanka have highrates of farm suicides. In Africa, Burkina Faso, Malietc. have had high rates of farmers' suicides as thecotton product there gets wiped out by the UnitedStates and EU subsidies.
Incidentally, suicide rates among farmers in theUnited States Midwest and other rural regions havealso been extremely high from time to time. In fact,in the eighties, suicide rates amongst farmers inOklahoma, for instance, were more than twice thenational suicide rate for men in the United States --and it is rare that rural suicides are higher thanurban. I spent time last year on American farms andcould see how they're going down.
We are witnessing in many ways the decline and deathof the small holder farm. It is very important thatwe do something about it because we are the largestnation of small holder farms where the farmer ownsthat land. We are also probably the largest body offarm labourers and landless workers. If you look,there is a lesson to be learnt as to what has gone on in the United States.
In the 1930s, there were six million family farms inthe United States. At that time when India was just adecade or so away from gaining Independence, over aquarter of the American population lived and worked onthose six million farms. Today, the US has morepeople in prison than on farms. It has 2.1 millionpeople in prison and less than that on its 700,000 family farms.
We are being pushed towards corporate farming:
So what is this process driving towards? In two words:It is driving us towards corporate farming. That isthe big coming picture of agriculture in India andacross the planet. We have been pushed towardscorporate farming, a process by which farming is takenout of the hands of the farmers and positioned in thehands of the corporates. That is exactly whathappened in the United States and that is what exactlyhappened in a large number of other countries. Thisprocess is not being achieved with guns, tanks,bulldozers and lathis. It is done by making farmingunviable for the millions of small family farmholders, by just making it so impossible for you tosurvive in the structures that exist. But there is acontext to this that I am absolutely going to insiston framing that context. All these unfold in thecontext of the fastest growing inequality that Indiahas seen in her history as an independent nation. Andunderstand this, when inequality deepens in society,the farm sector takes the biggest hit.
In any case,it is a disadvantaged sector. So when inequalitywidens, the farm sector takes a hit. Devastating growth of inequality in India:
Ø Fourth rank in Dollar Billionaires: In Indiain 2007, I am sure you all will be very thrilled toknow, we have the fourth highest number of dollar-billionaires in the planet. We are ahead of allcountries in the number of billionaires except theUnited States, Germany and Russia. Incidentally, ourbillionaires are richer than those of Germany andRussia in terms of net asset worth. You can look upall these numbers on The World's Billionaires atwww.forbes.com – the Oracle of global billionaires.
Ø 126 th in Human Development: We have thesecond richest billionaires in the world in dollarsand we have the fourth largest number of billionairesin the planet. But we are 126 th in humandevelopment. The same nation that has ranks fourth inbillionaires is 126th in human development. What doesit mean to be 126th ? It means that it is better tobe a poor person in Bolivia (the poorest nation inSouth America) or Guatemala or Gabon. They are aheadof us in the UN's Human Development Index. You canget all these figures in the Parliament Library fromthe United Nations Human Development Reports of thelast 10 or 15 years.
Ø 836 million live on less than Rs. 20 a day: Weare the emerging 'tiger economy.' But life expectancyin our nation is lower than it is in Bolivia,Kazakhstan and Mongolia. We have 100,000 dollarmillionaires, out of whom 25,000 reside in my city ofMumbai, I am proud to say. Yet, 836 million people inour nation exist on less than Rs. 20/- a day accordingto the Government of India. There is no such thing asIndian reality. There are Indian realities . Thereis a multiplicity of realities.
Ø Slowing down of infant death rate decline: Thegrowth rate of our country is indeed the envy of many.But the rate of decline of infant mortality actuallyslowed down in this country in the last 15 years. Thelargest number of infant deaths 2.5 million takesplace in this country, followed by China.
Ø CEO's salaries set all time records: ChiefExecutive Officer 'packages' grew like never before inthe last ten years. Indeed, the Prime Minister ofthis country felt constrained to make some remarksabout the salaries of CEOs. You can remember the kindof pasting he came in for in the media as a result ofhaving dared to question that maybe a CEO could liveon a million less a year, or whatever it was. Butwhile CEOs salaries have gone through the roof, farmincomes have collapsed.
Ø Appalling MPCE of farm households: Accordingto the National Sample Survey, the average monthly percapita expenditure (MPCE) of the Indian farm household(across zamindars and your half acre wallas), is Rs.503.
Ø Miserable expenditure patterns: Out of thatRs. 503, 55 per cent or more is spent on food, 18 percent on fuel, clothing and footwear leaving preciouslittle to be spent on education and health. What isspent on health is twice that of what is spent oneducation because we now have the 6 th most privatisedhealth system in the world. Therefore, the MPCE showsRs.34 as expenditure on health as against Rs.17 oneducation. Rs.17 a month on education means 50 paisea day on education. That is the spending of the Indianfarm household. That is the national average. I willcome to state-wise figures a little later.
Ø Incidentally, we are very proud to tell youthat labour productivity in the decade of the reformswent up to 84 per cent according to the ILO. The sameILO report informs me that while labour productivity went up to 84 per cent, the real wages of labour inmanufacturing declined by 22 per cent (at a time whenCEO salaries were going through the roof). So, in thelast 15 years, we have seen the unprecedentedprosperity of the top of our population. And at thesame time, the net per capita availability offoodgrain actually declined for over a decade. Ø Rising hunger at the bottom: The State of foodinsecurity in the world report of the FAO of theUnited Nations shows us that from 1995-97 to1999-2001, India added more newly hungry millions thanthe rest of the world taken together. Hunger grew at atime when it declined in Ethiopia. A new restaurantopens everyday in some city of this country but asProf Utsa Patnaik, our leading agricultural economistpoints out, the average rural family is consuming 100kgs less than it did 10 years ago. The availabilitysituation figure is one placed every year inParliament in the Economic Survey which gives the netper capita availability (NPCA) of foodgrain containedin Table 1.17 (S-21). You get the numbers all the wayfrom 1951. You can see how it has declined in thelast 15 years. The NPCA was 510 in 1991, on the cuspof the reforms. That fell to 437 grams by 2003. The2005 provisional figure was 422 grams. There may be aslight rise in one or another year, but the overalltrend has been that of a clear decline over 15 years. A fall of 70-80 grams sounds trivial -- until youmultiply it by 365 days and then again by one billionIndians. Then you can see how gigantic the decline is. Since those at the top are eating much better thanever before, it raises the question of what on earththe bottom 40 per cent are eating?
Ø Two-nation theory passé. Its Two Planets now: Today, for the top 5 per cent of the Indianpopulation, the benchmarks are Western Europe, theUSA, Japan and Australia. For the bottom 40 per cent,the benchmarks are the Sub-Saharan Africa (some ofwhose nations) are ahead of us in literacy.
Ø Indebtedness has doubled in the past decade:The NSSO's 59th round tells us that while 26 per centof farm households were in debt in 1991, that figurewent up to over 48 per cent – almost double by 2003. There have been huge migrations, as I said, as aresult of this chaos and collapse of incomes,explosions of cost of living. Why is this framework ofinequality so important to our understanding? We aregetting further and further into the divide. What do Imean by predatory commercialisation of thecountryside? I will come to that soon. But manythings have happened. Policy-driven devastation of agriculture: One is that as every Minister and every PrimeMinister admits, public investment in agriculture hasdeclined very sharply to the point of collapse over aperiod of 10-15 years. It is one of the things thatthe Government now feels that it is trying to reverse. Our foremost agricultural economist, Dr. Utsa Patnaik shows us that while total development expenditure as ashare of GDP was fourteen and a half per cent in1989-90, it was 5.9 per cent by 2005. That is acollapse of Rs.30,000 crore per year or an incomeloss of Rs.120,000 crore. I have often felt it'ssimpler to send out the Air Force and bomb thevillages It would probably cause less lasting damagethan that withdrawal of investment costs us! There has been a crash in employment. Only the requirement of the last year and a half hassomewhat (but far from adequately) been met by theNREGP, a programme which I am very supportive of. Thathas not opened up anywhere as much as it should. I hope it deepens and grows because it is a vital programme for the crisis in the countryside. It is oneof the great things that we have done in the last two years. But very far from enough.
SEZs but no land reforms:
Another problem is the rack renting of tenants. Inthe Andhra Pradesh suicides, you will find that manyof those (in some regions) who have committed suicidewere actually tenant farmers. Out of the 28 bags ofpaddy they harvested, they parted with 25 bags as thetenancy or lease rate. If there is a cyclone or damageor anything else, incidentally, the reparations andthe compensation go to the absentee landlords. We haveno tenancy reforms. It seems appalling to me that wecan clear an SEZ in six months but we cannot do landreforms in 60 years across this country! Except inthree states.
Rigging costs in agriculture:
Another issue is the exploding cost of agriculture, aprocess quite heavily controlled and rigged. Yetanother one is the exploitative internationalagreements that we have entered into that areseverely damaging to the interests of our farmers.Yet another aspect is the crashing output prices asglobal corporations have taken control of trade inagriculture commodities and rig prices. Even whenWhile the coffee prices boom in the West, the men andwomen who grow coffee in Kerala commit suicide,especially between 2000 and 2003. The suicides are appalling. How many suicides havebeen there? I do not want to get into the numbersgame. We are coming with a very major story on thatin The Hindu in a while. I won't pre-empt it. However,you were given last year, I believe, a figure ofover one lakh suicides since 1993. That is ahorrifying figure in 10 years. Yet, you will find itwrong. It is not true. For several reasons. I found that four years have been included in the number forwhich firm data on farm suicides do not exist. Youbring down the average by bringing farm suicides inyears which are irrelevant! We only started collecting farm suicide data from 1995in the National Crime Records Bureau. Any new systemof reporting takes time. Most States do not reportproperly for the first two years. It takes time forthe States to get into the mode of reporting data.Real or stable data started from around 1997. So, theover one lakh suicides that you are looking at are notfrom 1993 to 2003 but they are from 1997 to 2003. Thatis an appalling figure. It is still a hugeunder-estimate for a variety of reasons which I willcome to. Suicide figures misleading and confusing: But what is important is that the numbers are not thecrucial issue . I think even the figure of over onelakh is appalling enough. What is frightening isthat if you look at the data, two-thirds of thesuicides are occurring in half-a-dozen States thataccount for just about one-third of the country'spopulation . Most of the suicides are occurring incash-crop areas. The number of food crop farmerscommitting suicide is less as compared to those incash crops. For the last 15 years, we have drivenpeople towards cash crops. We have told them toexport. Exports lead to growth. Regardless of the factwho is in power, we have pushed them towards cash cropand now we are paying the price of that movement. Wehave locked them into volatility of global pricescontrolled by rapacious corporations. It is often doneby corporations whom your farmers cannot see, who arenot accountable to your people. The other frightening thing is that thefive or six States are also, in a sense, contiguous.There are other States which are pretty bad. These arethe worst states. Maharashtra is the worst. Some ofthese States are showing an ascending trend. Someshow a descending trend. What is frightening is thatin some of the States showing an ascending trend,their numbers might double in six years. Zero farm suicides in Vidharbha? Farmer suicides in Vidharbha stopped entirely inAugust because the news came in July that the PrimeMinister was to visit them. So, people thoughtfullystopped committing suicide. There was not a singlesuicide in Vidharbha in August. In official count, atleast. They knew the Prime Minister was coming.Everybody said: "We will not commit suicide till heleaves." This is a nation deluding itself. It does nothelp you. I am not trying to point at one ChiefMinister or one party Government. It is a nationalcrisis. The more honest we are with ourselves, thebetter positioned we are to sort it out. What do the figures actually suggest? If we projectfurther the figures of the National Crimes RecordBureau, it is closer to about one-and-a-half lakh suicides in the 1997-2005 period. And that excludeseight categories of people because, for instance, inthis country whatever you do, whatever laws you pass,our machinery will not accept women as farmersbecause there is no land in their name, there are noproperty rights for them. Many suicides not recorded as farm suicides : In Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh, 45 per centof farm suicides in 2001-02 were women farmers. Manyof the households in Anantapur rural areas arewomen-headed since the men have migrated. There aremuch larger numbers. Even nationally, 19 per cent ornearly one-fifth households in this country arewomen-headed. But we do not count women as farmers. Wecount them as the wives of farmers. So, it iscounted as a suicide but not as a farmer's suicide. Of course, farm labourer suicides will never becounted in the list of farm suicides, so that bringsit down further. Incidentally, countless eldest sons have not beencounted as farmers committing suicide because, in ourtraditional society, the land remains in the name ofthe aged-old father, who may be 75-80, until he dies.So, the elder son may be 50 or 51. He is running thefarm. He faces the pressure. He cracks and killshimself. The tehsildar says that this man is not afarmer because there is no farm in his name. InYavatmal district last month, every single claim ofsuicide was rejected by a six-member 'independent'Committee consisting of top Government officers in thedistrict plus two non-officials chosen by thegovernment! Many of these cases were rejected on the basis thatthere is no land in those names. The guy was theeldest son, he was running it and looking afterperhaps even three family units. But the land was notin his name. How do we accept him as a farmer? Thatis the criteria. I could go on about that. If youdie and if you are found to be in debt, that debt hasto be a bank debt. If it is a private money lenderdebt, it is not accepted. The Committee in Yavatmalwill not accept it. They will ask: what is therecord on that? There is no document to show it. Inthis way, thousands of people have been kept on thelist of suicides but not in the list of farmerssuicides. There is also misclassification. There are migrantfarmers who are not counted in it. People leave theplace and kill themselves in the city. I do not evenwant to conjecture what the real figure would be. Itis impossible physically. Secondly, I think thenumber (the official count, however flawed) isappalling enough to move this nation. It should movethis nation. If we have only these Governmentnumbers, I will accept them at face value. If you canaccept that it is a horrible figure, we should movethe nation forward. Common factors across regions: What is common in these areas where the crisis istaking place? Cash crop, high water stress, hugeindebtedness way above the national average. If youmake a map of indebtedness of India and the map of allsuicides, they will converge very neatly. Thehighest number of indebted households in the countryis in Andhra Pradesh which is at 82 per cent, Keralahas 64 per cent and Karnataka has 62 per cent of allfarm households in debt. The list is endless. You cansee how the suicide map matches that of indebtednesswhich is one of the important single major causes. I would like to say that almost every suicide has amultiplicity of causes, not just one. What we do inrecording them, though, is to record the last cause. I am indebted. My son drops out of college. I amunable to get my daughter married and I am humiliatedby the money lender every day when I go to the market.My crop collapses and the bank refuses to give me aloan. I go home getting drunk. I fight with my wifeand then commit suicide. The next day, it isrecorded that the reason for the suicide is that hehad a fight with his wife and, so, he killed himself. The last cause gets recorded. That is natural and thatis how it is structured. But it conceals more than ittells. The other common thing in the suicide-hit regions iswithdrawal of bank credit. Agriculture tends to bemore deregulated in these areas as in parts ofVidharbha and Maharashtra. You have a very highcultivation cost. That too, is common in these areas. Extremely high cultivation costs. In Vidharbha,in 1991, it cost Rs. 2500 to cultivate an acre ofcotton. Today it costs over Rs. 13,000 per acre usingthe new BT brand. You are talking about a 500 percent increase in the cultivation cost per acre. It iskilling. It cannot be borne. If you want to understand how gigantic input costsare, if you want to understand how massive is theindustry for seeds which we have left open to ahandful of corporations to control and loot, see whatis happening in Andhra Pradesh. You would understandhow major a cost it is. Andhra Pradesh, my own home State, is so proud of itssoftware exports. But, the seed and other input industry of Andhra Pradesh is worth more than AP'ssoftware exports. That is how big, how huge, the seedindustry is. People in this country spend more onseed than AP earns exporting software. We are running after software markets overseas,which is fine, but while allowing the seed market tobe taken away absolutely by a bunch of corporations.Which is not fine at all. That is how I said that weare moving already, at this level, towards corporatefarming. Farm incomes have collapsed: Look at income. Income collapse was a major part ofthe crisis. In several regions, farm incomes havesimply collapsed. The national average monthly percapita expenditure (MPCE) of the Indian farmhousehold, as I told you, was Rs. 503. It is prettyclose to the below poverty figure of Rs. 425 or so ofrural India. Six States on an average have been belowthe poverty line It is below Rs. 425 figure. Five orsix States exist in the country like that. There are many households existing on a monthly percapita expenditure of Rs. 225. This is according tothe National Sample Survey Organisation. The percapita monthly expenditure is Rs. 225 which translatesinto Rs. 8 a day. In that, you are going to manageyour food, clothing, footwear, education, health andtransport. What does it leave for any kind of life? You are always in debt. 55 per cent has gone tofood, 18 per cent to fuel, footwear and clothing. Inall these areas, you will find a very high proportionof school and college dropouts. People with B.Sc.degrees have dropped out to work as farm labourers onthe family farm in order to get it somehow going,while our Agricultural Universities have simply takenup the job of doing research for other parties likeprivate corporations but not for our farmers anymore. Elite view of the rural crisis: How do the elites look at the crisis at the bottom? Let me quote from a leading economic newspaper of ourcountry. One of its commentators says this with somedisappointment. "The bottom 400 million are adisappointment. " Why? They do not buy enough. I donot know what they will buy with Rs. 8 as per capitaexpenditure. She says that they do not buy enough. But they have a responsibility. "It is a difficultmarket to tap," the commentator concludes. The Vidharbha crisis: What about Vidharbha from where so much of reportinghas been done on the suicides in the last few years? As Mrs. Alva has said, what you see in the media isvery little. Dozens of local journalists have keptthis issue alive. They have to be given credit forit. How many suicides have there been in Vidharbha? Have they declined? According to one section of themedia, they have stopped. The government has in factput out several sets of figures over time which arequite contradictory. The Government has not put itsname or signature to any figure of decline at thehighest level. Why? It is because the Governmentwill be in serious trouble. There is an order from the Nagpur Bench of the HighCourt that the State Government must maintain awebsite with all the figures. It is in response to apublic interest litigation. If you look at theGovernment website, you do not need to read any of thereports. The figures in the website are so obsceneand what do they do to bring a decline? Let me tellyou the actual number from the Commissioner ofAmravati's own report and how these are thenpresented. In Vidharbha, the number of total suicides , not thefarming suicides , in six districts was not 1500. Since 2001, in the crisis years, it was not 2000, itwas not 1300 and it was not 1700. The police stationsrecord it as 15,980 for the six districts. Not allof these are farm suicides . But here is the fun. From 15,980, they will bring it down to 578 orwhatever figure is finally arrived at. We can bringthis down. Incidentally, these are 100 per cent ruraldistricts. But the final tabulation shows that lessthan 20 per cent of these 15,000 suicides werefarmers -- in 100 per cent rural districts! It isa mystery then, who those committing suicide were andare. These were not industrial districts. If just2939 were farmers, that is less than 20 per cent of15,980, then who were they? It almost as if onlyfarmers were doing well! Indeed, very well. Everybodyelse is committing suicide. Largest state distress survey ever: I give full credit to the Maharashtra Government forone thing. They did the biggest study on farminghouseholds in the state. It is only that peopleshould take some time to read that study. It willjust chill you to the marrow of your bones. Thanks tothe Prime Minister's visit due to which everybody gotbusy. They surveyed every one of the 17.64 lakhhouseholds (nearly ten million human beings). Everysingle farm household was surveyed in the sixdistricts of Vidharbha the government believes areaffected. (In all, Vidharbha has 11 districts.) Whatdoes that figure show? These are figures based on thesurvey which appear in the report of the Commissionerof Amravati (which document I have promised to giveyou.) Five of the six affected districts come underthe Commissioner of Amravati. But the data he isciting includes even the sixth, that is Wardhadistrict. It (Amravati Commissioner' s report) says that: Ø close to 75 per cent of the farm households inthese nearly two million households (17.64 lakh) arein distress.Ø It says that 4,31,000 households, if you takethe rural households having five to six people in eachhousehold, are in "maximum distress." That is theword of the Government. The other category is "mediumdistress." I have no idea what that means. But itadmits 75 per cent of the households are in distressof one kind or the other. Ø Astonishingly, over three lakh families arehaving severe problems on the marriage of daughterswhich is a big cause in several suicides. Over threelakh farmers are not able to get one or more daughtersmarried. This is an explosive situation. Ø The Government's own study shows thatindebtedness was also a factor in 93 per cent of thesuicides that it looked at. Ø Last year suicides were supposed to havedeclined after the package. Last year the policestation records show 2,832 suicides as against 2,425in 2005. It is an increase of 407, which is a verysignificant increase. Because that's an increase ofover 60 suicides per district in each of the sixdistricts in just one year. And there's a lot more in similar vein. How do they then make out a 'decline'? I think it isthe Indian national genius of handling numbers. Ijust love numbers. The first category (police stationrecords) states 2,832 suicides last year. The secondcolumn says, out of these "farmers' suicides" from2,832 it falls to 800-odd. The third column sayssuicides by "farmers' relatives" as if others on farmare not farmers. That becomes 1600. So, suicide byfarmers is different from suicides in farminghouseholds!. Then comes "cases under inquiry." Then, other tables which list cases due to "agrariandistress." With each column the number comes down. The final column is the masterpiece. It does notexist anywhere in the planet. We have a column called"eligible suicides", like eligible bachelors orbrides, etc. It means those suicides where thefamilies are deemed by government to be eligible forcompensation. So, from 2,832 it comes down to 578 inthe last column. It is this last figure of 'eligible'suicides that is put out by officials as the suicidesfigure! This month (August was the month just concluded) we donot have suicides at all because if you let ourmathematicians pursue it further, they will redefinesuicides out of existence. But the total number keepsincreasing. You can see it. This year when therewere no suicides, or suicides were in steep decline,there were 700 plus suicides according to theGovernment of Maharashtra website. Why does not theGovernment put its signature to the number? It isbecause that website is maintained under the courtorder. Then you are running into serious problems ifyou contradict your own data. We can play games withthat endlessly. Misery in the households: I'd like to narrate three personal episodes from theaffected households. For me the most painful thing isthat second and third suicides are happening in thesame households. In the 700 (suicide-hit) householdsthat I have gone to and seen over the years, the mosthurting thing is that when you are leaving thehousehold, when you make eye contact with the lady ofthe house or the eldest daughter, you know – do notask me how I know – that she is also planning to takeher life. You know that for all your boastfulnessabout the might of the Press and the power of the pen,I cannot do a damn thing to stop them because that ishow we are today as a society. That is the mostpainful thing for me. I've started avoiding that eyecontact because I do not want to see in the person'seyes that she is also going to take her life. When ayoung widow takes her life, she might kill her girlchild also because she does not want that child forcedinto prostitution. Last year, when Prime Minister came, there was totalchaos because everybody was kept on notice, becausethe Prime Minister was really worried about what wasgoing on. He took a trip which was not reallyscheduled. One month before he came there, I was inthe house of Gosavi Pawar. This was a very differentkind of Pawar, a less privileged Pawar, an adivasiPawar and not to be confused with more the illustriousPawars. Gosavi Pawar was from a Banjara family. Theclan is so poor. Incidentally, that day I was sitting in his house Ihad also read about the wedding of daughter of India'srichest man, Lakshmi Mittal at a cost of 60 milliondollars or pounds. It is obscene in whichevercurrency it is translated. Poor man, Mr. Mittal, hecould not get a wedding hall in Paris! It is verydifficult to get one there in that season. So, hehired the Palace of Versailles and held the weddingthere. But in the house of Gosavi Pawar, the clan isso very poor. They had come all over the country forthe wedding and decided to have three weddings at thesame time in order to afford them. They decided tohave three weddings at the same time because peoplehad come from different regions and states. They hadall gathered there. Gosavi Pawar, the patriarch ofthat clan, was unable to raise the money required forthe sarees for those weddings. Humiliated by themoneylender, by the bank manager, and others, GosaviPawar took his life. I saw two things. One that depressed me enormouslyand one that inspired me about the poor people of thiscountry. One that depressed me enormously is the poorhousehold had three weddings and a funeral on the sameday, because they could not cancel the wedding. Itwould have bankrupted the clan had they gone back toRajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka or wherever and comeagain. So, they held the weddings. The brides andbridegrooms wept. The most heart- breaking moment waswhen the wedding procession went out and on thehighway met the funeral procession. Dr. Swaminathanwould remember that when he came to Yavatmal heencountered a similar situation, when suicides werebeing brought to the hospitals even as the NationalCommission on Farmers (NCF) team were holdingdiscussions with the Government officials. So, thewedding procession ran into the funeral procession ofGosavi Pawar. Then, people who were carrying his bodyran into the fields and hid so that they would notcast a bad omen on the wedding. But there was also something very inspiring. Some ofthe poorest people on planet Earth made those weddingshappen. Everybody contributed Rs. 5, quarter kilo of wheat, half a kilo of rice, one sheaf of banana, acoconut, whatever they could. They held thoseweddings. They did not have the resources to do it, Iam afraid, in the Palace of Versailles. But they heldthose weddings by community action, by public action. I felt so proud at that moment that our people showedthe decency and dignity that the elite have socompletely forgotten. When governments cheat on poll promises: Coming back to 'eligible suicides' in Vidharbha, thereis nothing that prevents the Government of Maharashtrafrom implementing its poll promise of Rs. 2700 perquintal of cotton. What did they do after coming topower? I am not singling out one Government. Let memake it very clear agriculture is in desperate shapeacross the country. All Governments are culpable. Everybody is fragile. No State is exempt. But inthis particular case, they made a promise of Rs. 2700rupees, but they lowered it by Rs. 500. They withdrewRs. 500 of the so-called 'advance bonus' payment. With that, it removed Rs. 1200 crores from thefarmers. After removing Rs. 1200 crores from thefarmers, the Chief Minister announced a package of Rs.1,075 crores. A package of Rs. 1,075 crore is beinggiven to people from whom you have taken away Rs. 1200crore! US-EU subsidies destroy cotton prices: At the same time, the US, the European Union weredrowning their cotton growers in subsidies. Cottongrowers of the US are not small farmers, they arecorporations. How many cotton growers do we have inMaharashtra? It is in millions. How many cottongrowers are there in US? It is 20,000. When weremoved Rs. 1200 crore from our farmers, how much didthe US give to its corporations? On a crop value of 3.9 billion dollars, the UnitedStates gave its cotton growers a subsidy of 4.7billion dollars. It destroyed the bottom of theinternational cotton market. The cotton price at theNew York exchange ruled at 90 to 100 cents in 1994-95fell to around 40 cents and from that date suicidesbegan all over the world as prices crashed and farmersran up horrible losses. In Burkina Faso, hundreds of cotton farmers killedthemselves. In July 2003, the Presidents of BurkinaFaso and Mali wrote an article in New York Times,"Your Farm Subsidies are Strangling Us". We were notable to take action against such subsidies, them. While our duties on cotton are 10 per cent, if youare a Mumbai textile magnate, then you do not pay eventhat ten per cent. You get it waived in lieu ofexport of garments. Incidentally, if I am a Mumbaitextile magnate, I can even get the cotton freebecause private corporations dumping cotton in India would give me six months' credit. In six monthscredit, I can run the entire cycle from cotton tocotton garment. So, I am essentially getting an interest-free loanfrom you which I return in six months and I have madehuge profits. All these games are played around thelives of millions of people. Role of the media: For me the saddest thing is your (Mrs. Alva's) commenton the media. As a journalist, I totally endorse this.The saddest thing last year that happened was whenless than six 'national' journalists were covering thesuicides in Vidharbha. Five hundred and twelveaccredited journalists were fighting for space tocover the Lakme India Fashion Week. In that FashionWeek programme, the models were displaying cottongarments while the men and women who grew the cottonwere killing themselves at a distance of one hour'sflight from Nagpur in the Vidharbha region. The ironyof it should have been a news story, but nobody didthat story except one or two journalists locally. We withdrew the money of the advance bonus of Rs. 500a quintal at the time when the US and EU wereincreasing their subsidies. I went last year to US andvisited American farms. Including corporate styledairies. The subsidy per cow every day is twice yourNational Rural Employment Guarantee Programme minimumwage. It is around three dollars per cow which is Rs.120. Double your National Rural Employment GuaranteeProgramme wage which is Rs. 60. That is why myfriend, Vijay Jawandia from Wardha, put it sobeautifully in a television interview. He was asked –Jawandia saab what is the dream of the Indian farmer?He said the dream of the Indian farmer is to be bornas an American cow because they are getting threetimes the support that we do. We have locked thefarmer into global price shocks while removingwhatever safety nets they had. We have not been ableto fight the EU-US cotton subsidies. Seed companies are being allowed to run riot: We have deregulated agriculture to an extent where thequality of seed has now been graded much lower. Inthe sense, when you bought a bag of seed, on the backof seed, it will be stamped – 85 per cent germinationrate guaranteed. That is now 60 per cent. It meansif a village buys 10,000 bags of seed, they are payingfor 10,000 bags, but they are getting 6,000 bagsbecause we have lowered the standards through MOUswith companies. The seed industry, as I said earlier,is bigger than software exports. The agriculturaluniversities have collapsed. The extension machinery,as the Government of India itself says, is in a stateof complete disrepair. At the time the advance bonuswas withdrawn, we begged the government: Please do notdo this as suicides could double. We were wrong. Insome places, they tripled. We begged - do not dothis, do not do this, do not remove this, it willreally kill these people who are in a very precariousstage. Vidharbha Vs. Mumbai: Incidentally, by the end of 2005, there was a uniqueG.O. in Maharashtra. I do not know if you are aware ofit. In Maharashtra, it has 14 hours' or 15 hours'power cut whereas the best localities of Mumbai havenever a problem of power cut, not even for one minute.The beautiful people cannot be subjected to powercuts. Incidentally, a 15-minute power cut in Mumbaiwould give two hours of power to all the 11 districtsof Vidharbha, but the children of Vidharbha were notgiven that concession even during the exams. That iswhy Vidharbha's performance in HSC exams will alwaysbe worse, though the topper is from Vidharbha. Soalongside the withdrawal of the bonus, a new G.O.came. We have exemptions for power cuts. Do you knowwhat was exempted in the new GO of 2005? Post-mortemcentres were exempted from power cuts because so manypeople were being wielded in for post-mortem. Theyexempted post mortem centres from power cuts alongwith Armed Forces, Police Stations, Fire Brigade etc.
By P. Sainath
Rural Affairs Editor,
The Hindu
We, as a nation, are in the worst agrarian crisis infour decades. It is impossible to cover such a largeissue in full. So I am going to be dealing with it infragments today. I would like to stress that thecrisis is so deep, so advanced that: firstly, no State, nobody, is exempt from this and it is not tobe seen as the crisis of one State or one Governmentor one Party. It is a national crisis and we need torespond to it as such. It is a huge thing. In thatcrisis, the suicides are merely, however tragic, justa symptom and not the disease. They are aconsequence, not the process.
Millions of livelihoods have been damaged ordestroyed in the last 15 years as a result of thiscrisis. But you will know, if you look at your media,that it is only in the last three or four years thatwe widely used the word 'farm crisis' or the 'agrariancrisis.' Earlier, there was a complete denial of anycrisis. At least today it is established that there is one.
We can sum it up in one sentence -- the processdriving this crisis: the predatory commercialisationof the countryside (int he words of Prof. K. Nagaraj of the Madras Institute of Development Studies –MIDS). The reduction of all human values to exchangevalue. As this process unleashes itself across agrarian India, millions of livelihoods have collapsed. Lakhs of people are migrating towardscities and towns in search of jobs that are not there. They move towards a status which is neither `worker'nor `farmer.' Many will end up as domestic labour, like over a lakh girls from Jharkhand in this city of Delhi working as domestic servants.
World-wide crisis of small-holder farms:
However, having said that, I want to say that thecrisis is by no means restricted to India. It is aworld-wide crisis of small holder farming. Small,family farms are getting wiped out across the planetand it has been happening for 20-30 years. It is justthat this has been very intense in India in the last15 years. Otherwise, the farm suicides have causedmajor concern in Korea. Nepal and Sri Lanka have highrates of farm suicides. In Africa, Burkina Faso, Malietc. have had high rates of farmers' suicides as thecotton product there gets wiped out by the UnitedStates and EU subsidies.
Incidentally, suicide rates among farmers in theUnited States Midwest and other rural regions havealso been extremely high from time to time. In fact,in the eighties, suicide rates amongst farmers inOklahoma, for instance, were more than twice thenational suicide rate for men in the United States --and it is rare that rural suicides are higher thanurban. I spent time last year on American farms andcould see how they're going down.
We are witnessing in many ways the decline and deathof the small holder farm. It is very important thatwe do something about it because we are the largestnation of small holder farms where the farmer ownsthat land. We are also probably the largest body offarm labourers and landless workers. If you look,there is a lesson to be learnt as to what has gone on in the United States.
In the 1930s, there were six million family farms inthe United States. At that time when India was just adecade or so away from gaining Independence, over aquarter of the American population lived and worked onthose six million farms. Today, the US has morepeople in prison than on farms. It has 2.1 millionpeople in prison and less than that on its 700,000 family farms.
We are being pushed towards corporate farming:
So what is this process driving towards? In two words:It is driving us towards corporate farming. That isthe big coming picture of agriculture in India andacross the planet. We have been pushed towardscorporate farming, a process by which farming is takenout of the hands of the farmers and positioned in thehands of the corporates. That is exactly whathappened in the United States and that is what exactlyhappened in a large number of other countries. Thisprocess is not being achieved with guns, tanks,bulldozers and lathis. It is done by making farmingunviable for the millions of small family farmholders, by just making it so impossible for you tosurvive in the structures that exist. But there is acontext to this that I am absolutely going to insiston framing that context. All these unfold in thecontext of the fastest growing inequality that Indiahas seen in her history as an independent nation. Andunderstand this, when inequality deepens in society,the farm sector takes the biggest hit.
In any case,it is a disadvantaged sector. So when inequalitywidens, the farm sector takes a hit. Devastating growth of inequality in India:
Ø Fourth rank in Dollar Billionaires: In Indiain 2007, I am sure you all will be very thrilled toknow, we have the fourth highest number of dollar-billionaires in the planet. We are ahead of allcountries in the number of billionaires except theUnited States, Germany and Russia. Incidentally, ourbillionaires are richer than those of Germany andRussia in terms of net asset worth. You can look upall these numbers on The World's Billionaires atwww.forbes.com – the Oracle of global billionaires.
Ø 126 th in Human Development: We have thesecond richest billionaires in the world in dollarsand we have the fourth largest number of billionairesin the planet. But we are 126 th in humandevelopment. The same nation that has ranks fourth inbillionaires is 126th in human development. What doesit mean to be 126th ? It means that it is better tobe a poor person in Bolivia (the poorest nation inSouth America) or Guatemala or Gabon. They are aheadof us in the UN's Human Development Index. You canget all these figures in the Parliament Library fromthe United Nations Human Development Reports of thelast 10 or 15 years.
Ø 836 million live on less than Rs. 20 a day: Weare the emerging 'tiger economy.' But life expectancyin our nation is lower than it is in Bolivia,Kazakhstan and Mongolia. We have 100,000 dollarmillionaires, out of whom 25,000 reside in my city ofMumbai, I am proud to say. Yet, 836 million people inour nation exist on less than Rs. 20/- a day accordingto the Government of India. There is no such thing asIndian reality. There are Indian realities . Thereis a multiplicity of realities.
Ø Slowing down of infant death rate decline: Thegrowth rate of our country is indeed the envy of many.But the rate of decline of infant mortality actuallyslowed down in this country in the last 15 years. Thelargest number of infant deaths 2.5 million takesplace in this country, followed by China.
Ø CEO's salaries set all time records: ChiefExecutive Officer 'packages' grew like never before inthe last ten years. Indeed, the Prime Minister ofthis country felt constrained to make some remarksabout the salaries of CEOs. You can remember the kindof pasting he came in for in the media as a result ofhaving dared to question that maybe a CEO could liveon a million less a year, or whatever it was. Butwhile CEOs salaries have gone through the roof, farmincomes have collapsed.
Ø Appalling MPCE of farm households: Accordingto the National Sample Survey, the average monthly percapita expenditure (MPCE) of the Indian farm household(across zamindars and your half acre wallas), is Rs.503.
Ø Miserable expenditure patterns: Out of thatRs. 503, 55 per cent or more is spent on food, 18 percent on fuel, clothing and footwear leaving preciouslittle to be spent on education and health. What isspent on health is twice that of what is spent oneducation because we now have the 6 th most privatisedhealth system in the world. Therefore, the MPCE showsRs.34 as expenditure on health as against Rs.17 oneducation. Rs.17 a month on education means 50 paisea day on education. That is the spending of the Indianfarm household. That is the national average. I willcome to state-wise figures a little later.
Ø Incidentally, we are very proud to tell youthat labour productivity in the decade of the reformswent up to 84 per cent according to the ILO. The sameILO report informs me that while labour productivity went up to 84 per cent, the real wages of labour inmanufacturing declined by 22 per cent (at a time whenCEO salaries were going through the roof). So, in thelast 15 years, we have seen the unprecedentedprosperity of the top of our population. And at thesame time, the net per capita availability offoodgrain actually declined for over a decade. Ø Rising hunger at the bottom: The State of foodinsecurity in the world report of the FAO of theUnited Nations shows us that from 1995-97 to1999-2001, India added more newly hungry millions thanthe rest of the world taken together. Hunger grew at atime when it declined in Ethiopia. A new restaurantopens everyday in some city of this country but asProf Utsa Patnaik, our leading agricultural economistpoints out, the average rural family is consuming 100kgs less than it did 10 years ago. The availabilitysituation figure is one placed every year inParliament in the Economic Survey which gives the netper capita availability (NPCA) of foodgrain containedin Table 1.17 (S-21). You get the numbers all the wayfrom 1951. You can see how it has declined in thelast 15 years. The NPCA was 510 in 1991, on the cuspof the reforms. That fell to 437 grams by 2003. The2005 provisional figure was 422 grams. There may be aslight rise in one or another year, but the overalltrend has been that of a clear decline over 15 years. A fall of 70-80 grams sounds trivial -- until youmultiply it by 365 days and then again by one billionIndians. Then you can see how gigantic the decline is. Since those at the top are eating much better thanever before, it raises the question of what on earththe bottom 40 per cent are eating?
Ø Two-nation theory passé. Its Two Planets now: Today, for the top 5 per cent of the Indianpopulation, the benchmarks are Western Europe, theUSA, Japan and Australia. For the bottom 40 per cent,the benchmarks are the Sub-Saharan Africa (some ofwhose nations) are ahead of us in literacy.
Ø Indebtedness has doubled in the past decade:The NSSO's 59th round tells us that while 26 per centof farm households were in debt in 1991, that figurewent up to over 48 per cent – almost double by 2003. There have been huge migrations, as I said, as aresult of this chaos and collapse of incomes,explosions of cost of living. Why is this framework ofinequality so important to our understanding? We aregetting further and further into the divide. What do Imean by predatory commercialisation of thecountryside? I will come to that soon. But manythings have happened. Policy-driven devastation of agriculture: One is that as every Minister and every PrimeMinister admits, public investment in agriculture hasdeclined very sharply to the point of collapse over aperiod of 10-15 years. It is one of the things thatthe Government now feels that it is trying to reverse. Our foremost agricultural economist, Dr. Utsa Patnaik shows us that while total development expenditure as ashare of GDP was fourteen and a half per cent in1989-90, it was 5.9 per cent by 2005. That is acollapse of Rs.30,000 crore per year or an incomeloss of Rs.120,000 crore. I have often felt it'ssimpler to send out the Air Force and bomb thevillages It would probably cause less lasting damagethan that withdrawal of investment costs us! There has been a crash in employment. Only the requirement of the last year and a half hassomewhat (but far from adequately) been met by theNREGP, a programme which I am very supportive of. Thathas not opened up anywhere as much as it should. I hope it deepens and grows because it is a vital programme for the crisis in the countryside. It is oneof the great things that we have done in the last two years. But very far from enough.
SEZs but no land reforms:
Another problem is the rack renting of tenants. Inthe Andhra Pradesh suicides, you will find that manyof those (in some regions) who have committed suicidewere actually tenant farmers. Out of the 28 bags ofpaddy they harvested, they parted with 25 bags as thetenancy or lease rate. If there is a cyclone or damageor anything else, incidentally, the reparations andthe compensation go to the absentee landlords. We haveno tenancy reforms. It seems appalling to me that wecan clear an SEZ in six months but we cannot do landreforms in 60 years across this country! Except inthree states.
Rigging costs in agriculture:
Another issue is the exploding cost of agriculture, aprocess quite heavily controlled and rigged. Yetanother one is the exploitative internationalagreements that we have entered into that areseverely damaging to the interests of our farmers.Yet another aspect is the crashing output prices asglobal corporations have taken control of trade inagriculture commodities and rig prices. Even whenWhile the coffee prices boom in the West, the men andwomen who grow coffee in Kerala commit suicide,especially between 2000 and 2003. The suicides are appalling. How many suicides havebeen there? I do not want to get into the numbersgame. We are coming with a very major story on thatin The Hindu in a while. I won't pre-empt it. However,you were given last year, I believe, a figure ofover one lakh suicides since 1993. That is ahorrifying figure in 10 years. Yet, you will find itwrong. It is not true. For several reasons. I found that four years have been included in the number forwhich firm data on farm suicides do not exist. Youbring down the average by bringing farm suicides inyears which are irrelevant! We only started collecting farm suicide data from 1995in the National Crime Records Bureau. Any new systemof reporting takes time. Most States do not reportproperly for the first two years. It takes time forthe States to get into the mode of reporting data.Real or stable data started from around 1997. So, theover one lakh suicides that you are looking at are notfrom 1993 to 2003 but they are from 1997 to 2003. Thatis an appalling figure. It is still a hugeunder-estimate for a variety of reasons which I willcome to. Suicide figures misleading and confusing: But what is important is that the numbers are not thecrucial issue . I think even the figure of over onelakh is appalling enough. What is frightening isthat if you look at the data, two-thirds of thesuicides are occurring in half-a-dozen States thataccount for just about one-third of the country'spopulation . Most of the suicides are occurring incash-crop areas. The number of food crop farmerscommitting suicide is less as compared to those incash crops. For the last 15 years, we have drivenpeople towards cash crops. We have told them toexport. Exports lead to growth. Regardless of the factwho is in power, we have pushed them towards cash cropand now we are paying the price of that movement. Wehave locked them into volatility of global pricescontrolled by rapacious corporations. It is often doneby corporations whom your farmers cannot see, who arenot accountable to your people. The other frightening thing is that thefive or six States are also, in a sense, contiguous.There are other States which are pretty bad. These arethe worst states. Maharashtra is the worst. Some ofthese States are showing an ascending trend. Someshow a descending trend. What is frightening is thatin some of the States showing an ascending trend,their numbers might double in six years. Zero farm suicides in Vidharbha? Farmer suicides in Vidharbha stopped entirely inAugust because the news came in July that the PrimeMinister was to visit them. So, people thoughtfullystopped committing suicide. There was not a singlesuicide in Vidharbha in August. In official count, atleast. They knew the Prime Minister was coming.Everybody said: "We will not commit suicide till heleaves." This is a nation deluding itself. It does nothelp you. I am not trying to point at one ChiefMinister or one party Government. It is a nationalcrisis. The more honest we are with ourselves, thebetter positioned we are to sort it out. What do the figures actually suggest? If we projectfurther the figures of the National Crimes RecordBureau, it is closer to about one-and-a-half lakh suicides in the 1997-2005 period. And that excludeseight categories of people because, for instance, inthis country whatever you do, whatever laws you pass,our machinery will not accept women as farmersbecause there is no land in their name, there are noproperty rights for them. Many suicides not recorded as farm suicides : In Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh, 45 per centof farm suicides in 2001-02 were women farmers. Manyof the households in Anantapur rural areas arewomen-headed since the men have migrated. There aremuch larger numbers. Even nationally, 19 per cent ornearly one-fifth households in this country arewomen-headed. But we do not count women as farmers. Wecount them as the wives of farmers. So, it iscounted as a suicide but not as a farmer's suicide. Of course, farm labourer suicides will never becounted in the list of farm suicides, so that bringsit down further. Incidentally, countless eldest sons have not beencounted as farmers committing suicide because, in ourtraditional society, the land remains in the name ofthe aged-old father, who may be 75-80, until he dies.So, the elder son may be 50 or 51. He is running thefarm. He faces the pressure. He cracks and killshimself. The tehsildar says that this man is not afarmer because there is no farm in his name. InYavatmal district last month, every single claim ofsuicide was rejected by a six-member 'independent'Committee consisting of top Government officers in thedistrict plus two non-officials chosen by thegovernment! Many of these cases were rejected on the basis thatthere is no land in those names. The guy was theeldest son, he was running it and looking afterperhaps even three family units. But the land was notin his name. How do we accept him as a farmer? Thatis the criteria. I could go on about that. If youdie and if you are found to be in debt, that debt hasto be a bank debt. If it is a private money lenderdebt, it is not accepted. The Committee in Yavatmalwill not accept it. They will ask: what is therecord on that? There is no document to show it. Inthis way, thousands of people have been kept on thelist of suicides but not in the list of farmerssuicides. There is also misclassification. There are migrantfarmers who are not counted in it. People leave theplace and kill themselves in the city. I do not evenwant to conjecture what the real figure would be. Itis impossible physically. Secondly, I think thenumber (the official count, however flawed) isappalling enough to move this nation. It should movethis nation. If we have only these Governmentnumbers, I will accept them at face value. If you canaccept that it is a horrible figure, we should movethe nation forward. Common factors across regions: What is common in these areas where the crisis istaking place? Cash crop, high water stress, hugeindebtedness way above the national average. If youmake a map of indebtedness of India and the map of allsuicides, they will converge very neatly. Thehighest number of indebted households in the countryis in Andhra Pradesh which is at 82 per cent, Keralahas 64 per cent and Karnataka has 62 per cent of allfarm households in debt. The list is endless. You cansee how the suicide map matches that of indebtednesswhich is one of the important single major causes. I would like to say that almost every suicide has amultiplicity of causes, not just one. What we do inrecording them, though, is to record the last cause. I am indebted. My son drops out of college. I amunable to get my daughter married and I am humiliatedby the money lender every day when I go to the market.My crop collapses and the bank refuses to give me aloan. I go home getting drunk. I fight with my wifeand then commit suicide. The next day, it isrecorded that the reason for the suicide is that hehad a fight with his wife and, so, he killed himself. The last cause gets recorded. That is natural and thatis how it is structured. But it conceals more than ittells. The other common thing in the suicide-hit regions iswithdrawal of bank credit. Agriculture tends to bemore deregulated in these areas as in parts ofVidharbha and Maharashtra. You have a very highcultivation cost. That too, is common in these areas. Extremely high cultivation costs. In Vidharbha,in 1991, it cost Rs. 2500 to cultivate an acre ofcotton. Today it costs over Rs. 13,000 per acre usingthe new BT brand. You are talking about a 500 percent increase in the cultivation cost per acre. It iskilling. It cannot be borne. If you want to understand how gigantic input costsare, if you want to understand how massive is theindustry for seeds which we have left open to ahandful of corporations to control and loot, see whatis happening in Andhra Pradesh. You would understandhow major a cost it is. Andhra Pradesh, my own home State, is so proud of itssoftware exports. But, the seed and other input industry of Andhra Pradesh is worth more than AP'ssoftware exports. That is how big, how huge, the seedindustry is. People in this country spend more onseed than AP earns exporting software. We are running after software markets overseas,which is fine, but while allowing the seed market tobe taken away absolutely by a bunch of corporations.Which is not fine at all. That is how I said that weare moving already, at this level, towards corporatefarming. Farm incomes have collapsed: Look at income. Income collapse was a major part ofthe crisis. In several regions, farm incomes havesimply collapsed. The national average monthly percapita expenditure (MPCE) of the Indian farmhousehold, as I told you, was Rs. 503. It is prettyclose to the below poverty figure of Rs. 425 or so ofrural India. Six States on an average have been belowthe poverty line It is below Rs. 425 figure. Five orsix States exist in the country like that. There are many households existing on a monthly percapita expenditure of Rs. 225. This is according tothe National Sample Survey Organisation. The percapita monthly expenditure is Rs. 225 which translatesinto Rs. 8 a day. In that, you are going to manageyour food, clothing, footwear, education, health andtransport. What does it leave for any kind of life? You are always in debt. 55 per cent has gone tofood, 18 per cent to fuel, footwear and clothing. Inall these areas, you will find a very high proportionof school and college dropouts. People with B.Sc.degrees have dropped out to work as farm labourers onthe family farm in order to get it somehow going,while our Agricultural Universities have simply takenup the job of doing research for other parties likeprivate corporations but not for our farmers anymore. Elite view of the rural crisis: How do the elites look at the crisis at the bottom? Let me quote from a leading economic newspaper of ourcountry. One of its commentators says this with somedisappointment. "The bottom 400 million are adisappointment. " Why? They do not buy enough. I donot know what they will buy with Rs. 8 as per capitaexpenditure. She says that they do not buy enough. But they have a responsibility. "It is a difficultmarket to tap," the commentator concludes. The Vidharbha crisis: What about Vidharbha from where so much of reportinghas been done on the suicides in the last few years? As Mrs. Alva has said, what you see in the media isvery little. Dozens of local journalists have keptthis issue alive. They have to be given credit forit. How many suicides have there been in Vidharbha? Have they declined? According to one section of themedia, they have stopped. The government has in factput out several sets of figures over time which arequite contradictory. The Government has not put itsname or signature to any figure of decline at thehighest level. Why? It is because the Governmentwill be in serious trouble. There is an order from the Nagpur Bench of the HighCourt that the State Government must maintain awebsite with all the figures. It is in response to apublic interest litigation. If you look at theGovernment website, you do not need to read any of thereports. The figures in the website are so obsceneand what do they do to bring a decline? Let me tellyou the actual number from the Commissioner ofAmravati's own report and how these are thenpresented. In Vidharbha, the number of total suicides , not thefarming suicides , in six districts was not 1500. Since 2001, in the crisis years, it was not 2000, itwas not 1300 and it was not 1700. The police stationsrecord it as 15,980 for the six districts. Not allof these are farm suicides . But here is the fun. From 15,980, they will bring it down to 578 orwhatever figure is finally arrived at. We can bringthis down. Incidentally, these are 100 per cent ruraldistricts. But the final tabulation shows that lessthan 20 per cent of these 15,000 suicides werefarmers -- in 100 per cent rural districts! It isa mystery then, who those committing suicide were andare. These were not industrial districts. If just2939 were farmers, that is less than 20 per cent of15,980, then who were they? It almost as if onlyfarmers were doing well! Indeed, very well. Everybodyelse is committing suicide. Largest state distress survey ever: I give full credit to the Maharashtra Government forone thing. They did the biggest study on farminghouseholds in the state. It is only that peopleshould take some time to read that study. It willjust chill you to the marrow of your bones. Thanks tothe Prime Minister's visit due to which everybody gotbusy. They surveyed every one of the 17.64 lakhhouseholds (nearly ten million human beings). Everysingle farm household was surveyed in the sixdistricts of Vidharbha the government believes areaffected. (In all, Vidharbha has 11 districts.) Whatdoes that figure show? These are figures based on thesurvey which appear in the report of the Commissionerof Amravati (which document I have promised to giveyou.) Five of the six affected districts come underthe Commissioner of Amravati. But the data he isciting includes even the sixth, that is Wardhadistrict. It (Amravati Commissioner' s report) says that: Ø close to 75 per cent of the farm households inthese nearly two million households (17.64 lakh) arein distress.Ø It says that 4,31,000 households, if you takethe rural households having five to six people in eachhousehold, are in "maximum distress." That is theword of the Government. The other category is "mediumdistress." I have no idea what that means. But itadmits 75 per cent of the households are in distressof one kind or the other. Ø Astonishingly, over three lakh families arehaving severe problems on the marriage of daughterswhich is a big cause in several suicides. Over threelakh farmers are not able to get one or more daughtersmarried. This is an explosive situation. Ø The Government's own study shows thatindebtedness was also a factor in 93 per cent of thesuicides that it looked at. Ø Last year suicides were supposed to havedeclined after the package. Last year the policestation records show 2,832 suicides as against 2,425in 2005. It is an increase of 407, which is a verysignificant increase. Because that's an increase ofover 60 suicides per district in each of the sixdistricts in just one year. And there's a lot more in similar vein. How do they then make out a 'decline'? I think it isthe Indian national genius of handling numbers. Ijust love numbers. The first category (police stationrecords) states 2,832 suicides last year. The secondcolumn says, out of these "farmers' suicides" from2,832 it falls to 800-odd. The third column sayssuicides by "farmers' relatives" as if others on farmare not farmers. That becomes 1600. So, suicide byfarmers is different from suicides in farminghouseholds!. Then comes "cases under inquiry." Then, other tables which list cases due to "agrariandistress." With each column the number comes down. The final column is the masterpiece. It does notexist anywhere in the planet. We have a column called"eligible suicides", like eligible bachelors orbrides, etc. It means those suicides where thefamilies are deemed by government to be eligible forcompensation. So, from 2,832 it comes down to 578 inthe last column. It is this last figure of 'eligible'suicides that is put out by officials as the suicidesfigure! This month (August was the month just concluded) we donot have suicides at all because if you let ourmathematicians pursue it further, they will redefinesuicides out of existence. But the total number keepsincreasing. You can see it. This year when therewere no suicides, or suicides were in steep decline,there were 700 plus suicides according to theGovernment of Maharashtra website. Why does not theGovernment put its signature to the number? It isbecause that website is maintained under the courtorder. Then you are running into serious problems ifyou contradict your own data. We can play games withthat endlessly. Misery in the households: I'd like to narrate three personal episodes from theaffected households. For me the most painful thing isthat second and third suicides are happening in thesame households. In the 700 (suicide-hit) householdsthat I have gone to and seen over the years, the mosthurting thing is that when you are leaving thehousehold, when you make eye contact with the lady ofthe house or the eldest daughter, you know – do notask me how I know – that she is also planning to takeher life. You know that for all your boastfulnessabout the might of the Press and the power of the pen,I cannot do a damn thing to stop them because that ishow we are today as a society. That is the mostpainful thing for me. I've started avoiding that eyecontact because I do not want to see in the person'seyes that she is also going to take her life. When ayoung widow takes her life, she might kill her girlchild also because she does not want that child forcedinto prostitution. Last year, when Prime Minister came, there was totalchaos because everybody was kept on notice, becausethe Prime Minister was really worried about what wasgoing on. He took a trip which was not reallyscheduled. One month before he came there, I was inthe house of Gosavi Pawar. This was a very differentkind of Pawar, a less privileged Pawar, an adivasiPawar and not to be confused with more the illustriousPawars. Gosavi Pawar was from a Banjara family. Theclan is so poor. Incidentally, that day I was sitting in his house Ihad also read about the wedding of daughter of India'srichest man, Lakshmi Mittal at a cost of 60 milliondollars or pounds. It is obscene in whichevercurrency it is translated. Poor man, Mr. Mittal, hecould not get a wedding hall in Paris! It is verydifficult to get one there in that season. So, hehired the Palace of Versailles and held the weddingthere. But in the house of Gosavi Pawar, the clan isso very poor. They had come all over the country forthe wedding and decided to have three weddings at thesame time in order to afford them. They decided tohave three weddings at the same time because peoplehad come from different regions and states. They hadall gathered there. Gosavi Pawar, the patriarch ofthat clan, was unable to raise the money required forthe sarees for those weddings. Humiliated by themoneylender, by the bank manager, and others, GosaviPawar took his life. I saw two things. One that depressed me enormouslyand one that inspired me about the poor people of thiscountry. One that depressed me enormously is the poorhousehold had three weddings and a funeral on the sameday, because they could not cancel the wedding. Itwould have bankrupted the clan had they gone back toRajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka or wherever and comeagain. So, they held the weddings. The brides andbridegrooms wept. The most heart- breaking moment waswhen the wedding procession went out and on thehighway met the funeral procession. Dr. Swaminathanwould remember that when he came to Yavatmal heencountered a similar situation, when suicides werebeing brought to the hospitals even as the NationalCommission on Farmers (NCF) team were holdingdiscussions with the Government officials. So, thewedding procession ran into the funeral procession ofGosavi Pawar. Then, people who were carrying his bodyran into the fields and hid so that they would notcast a bad omen on the wedding. But there was also something very inspiring. Some ofthe poorest people on planet Earth made those weddingshappen. Everybody contributed Rs. 5, quarter kilo of wheat, half a kilo of rice, one sheaf of banana, acoconut, whatever they could. They held thoseweddings. They did not have the resources to do it, Iam afraid, in the Palace of Versailles. But they heldthose weddings by community action, by public action. I felt so proud at that moment that our people showedthe decency and dignity that the elite have socompletely forgotten. When governments cheat on poll promises: Coming back to 'eligible suicides' in Vidharbha, thereis nothing that prevents the Government of Maharashtrafrom implementing its poll promise of Rs. 2700 perquintal of cotton. What did they do after coming topower? I am not singling out one Government. Let memake it very clear agriculture is in desperate shapeacross the country. All Governments are culpable. Everybody is fragile. No State is exempt. But inthis particular case, they made a promise of Rs. 2700rupees, but they lowered it by Rs. 500. They withdrewRs. 500 of the so-called 'advance bonus' payment. With that, it removed Rs. 1200 crores from thefarmers. After removing Rs. 1200 crores from thefarmers, the Chief Minister announced a package of Rs.1,075 crores. A package of Rs. 1,075 crore is beinggiven to people from whom you have taken away Rs. 1200crore! US-EU subsidies destroy cotton prices: At the same time, the US, the European Union weredrowning their cotton growers in subsidies. Cottongrowers of the US are not small farmers, they arecorporations. How many cotton growers do we have inMaharashtra? It is in millions. How many cottongrowers are there in US? It is 20,000. When weremoved Rs. 1200 crore from our farmers, how much didthe US give to its corporations? On a crop value of 3.9 billion dollars, the UnitedStates gave its cotton growers a subsidy of 4.7billion dollars. It destroyed the bottom of theinternational cotton market. The cotton price at theNew York exchange ruled at 90 to 100 cents in 1994-95fell to around 40 cents and from that date suicidesbegan all over the world as prices crashed and farmersran up horrible losses. In Burkina Faso, hundreds of cotton farmers killedthemselves. In July 2003, the Presidents of BurkinaFaso and Mali wrote an article in New York Times,"Your Farm Subsidies are Strangling Us". We were notable to take action against such subsidies, them. While our duties on cotton are 10 per cent, if youare a Mumbai textile magnate, then you do not pay eventhat ten per cent. You get it waived in lieu ofexport of garments. Incidentally, if I am a Mumbaitextile magnate, I can even get the cotton freebecause private corporations dumping cotton in India would give me six months' credit. In six monthscredit, I can run the entire cycle from cotton tocotton garment. So, I am essentially getting an interest-free loanfrom you which I return in six months and I have madehuge profits. All these games are played around thelives of millions of people. Role of the media: For me the saddest thing is your (Mrs. Alva's) commenton the media. As a journalist, I totally endorse this.The saddest thing last year that happened was whenless than six 'national' journalists were covering thesuicides in Vidharbha. Five hundred and twelveaccredited journalists were fighting for space tocover the Lakme India Fashion Week. In that FashionWeek programme, the models were displaying cottongarments while the men and women who grew the cottonwere killing themselves at a distance of one hour'sflight from Nagpur in the Vidharbha region. The ironyof it should have been a news story, but nobody didthat story except one or two journalists locally. We withdrew the money of the advance bonus of Rs. 500a quintal at the time when the US and EU wereincreasing their subsidies. I went last year to US andvisited American farms. Including corporate styledairies. The subsidy per cow every day is twice yourNational Rural Employment Guarantee Programme minimumwage. It is around three dollars per cow which is Rs.120. Double your National Rural Employment GuaranteeProgramme wage which is Rs. 60. That is why myfriend, Vijay Jawandia from Wardha, put it sobeautifully in a television interview. He was asked –Jawandia saab what is the dream of the Indian farmer?He said the dream of the Indian farmer is to be bornas an American cow because they are getting threetimes the support that we do. We have locked thefarmer into global price shocks while removingwhatever safety nets they had. We have not been ableto fight the EU-US cotton subsidies. Seed companies are being allowed to run riot: We have deregulated agriculture to an extent where thequality of seed has now been graded much lower. Inthe sense, when you bought a bag of seed, on the backof seed, it will be stamped – 85 per cent germinationrate guaranteed. That is now 60 per cent. It meansif a village buys 10,000 bags of seed, they are payingfor 10,000 bags, but they are getting 6,000 bagsbecause we have lowered the standards through MOUswith companies. The seed industry, as I said earlier,is bigger than software exports. The agriculturaluniversities have collapsed. The extension machinery,as the Government of India itself says, is in a stateof complete disrepair. At the time the advance bonuswas withdrawn, we begged the government: Please do notdo this as suicides could double. We were wrong. Insome places, they tripled. We begged - do not dothis, do not do this, do not remove this, it willreally kill these people who are in a very precariousstage. Vidharbha Vs. Mumbai: Incidentally, by the end of 2005, there was a uniqueG.O. in Maharashtra. I do not know if you are aware ofit. In Maharashtra, it has 14 hours' or 15 hours'power cut whereas the best localities of Mumbai havenever a problem of power cut, not even for one minute.The beautiful people cannot be subjected to powercuts. Incidentally, a 15-minute power cut in Mumbaiwould give two hours of power to all the 11 districtsof Vidharbha, but the children of Vidharbha were notgiven that concession even during the exams. That iswhy Vidharbha's performance in HSC exams will alwaysbe worse, though the topper is from Vidharbha. Soalongside the withdrawal of the bonus, a new G.O.came. We have exemptions for power cuts. Do you knowwhat was exempted in the new GO of 2005? Post-mortemcentres were exempted from power cuts because so manypeople were being wielded in for post-mortem. Theyexempted post mortem centres from power cuts alongwith Armed Forces, Police Stations, Fire Brigade etc.
By P. Sainath
Rural Affairs Editor,
The Hindu
Sunday, 23 September 2007
Seeds Of Distress: Story Of Cotton Seed Growers In AP
Distress in Cotton cultivation is extended its boundaries and reached to Cotton seed production. The area under Cotton seed production is on a shrinking trend. This can be attributed to the exploitive nature of companies. Farmer both as a consumer and producer of seed is exploited by the seed companies. Farmer as a consumer of seed has to pay more price and inturn he is getting less price for his seeds. To get maximum yields companies promoting input intensive methods in seed production. These methods increases cost of cultivation and made seed production labor intensive activity. After a tedious work cotton growers getting very little profits which lead the farmers into distress.
Hybrid cottonseed production is concentrated in Andhra Pradesh which alone account for 62% of the total seed production in India. Within AP, nearly 90% of seed production is concentrated in Mahaboobnagar and Kurnool districts. Area under cotton seed production in these two districts is around 14,000 acres. Though seed production is carried out in most of the mandals in these districts there is high concentration of seed production in Gadwal, Dharur, Maldakal, Gattu, Iza, Atmakur, Jadcharla in Mahaboobnagar and Allagadda, Nandhyala, Sanjamala, Koillkuntla, banaganapalli, Uyyalawada, Emmiganur, Mantralayam, Kodumur mandals in Kurnool districts.
The other districts where cottonseed production is carried out are Randareddy in Telangana and West Godavary, Krishna, and Vijayanagaram in Coastal Andhra region and Kadapa in Rayalaseema. The basic reason for concentration of seed production in this region is availability of cheap labour and also suitability of climatic conditions.
Monsanto, JK seeds, Rasi seeds, Krishidhan, Ankur, Nandi, Nuzuveedu seeds etc are the major players in Cotton seed production. According to one seed organiser (middleman between Seed Company and farmer) there are around 10 companies involved in Cotton seed production. Companies develop their seed programmes prior to the season based on their market analysis. These seed companies work with seed organizers for implementing their seed programme. There is no direct link between seed companies and farmers, but the companies will make an agreement with farmer for supply of the predetermined quantity of seed. This agreement is made between company, seed organiser and seed grower.
Seed production activities broadly can be divided into three stages. Farmer's responsibility is to submit the seeds which are passed all the GOT tests. The first stage includes production at farmer's field, second stage includes the processing at ginning mills and the third stage includes seed treatment with chemicals and packing. Farmer is involved up-to the second stage and third stage will be done by the companies themselves. All the costs involved up-to second stage will be bared by the farmers.
In many places seed production activities begin in the month of April and ends in December. These activities will be beginning with making a contract with the seed organizer for producing certain quantity of seed of a particular company. Farmers are generally not aware of the variety of seed which he is going to produce and even he is not aware whether it is a breeder seed or foundation seed or it is Bt or Non-Bt seed. This contact is made between the farmer, seed organizer and the company. Usually after signing the contract seed organizer will supply the money to the farmer as advance (credit @2% interest) for inputs. This advance will vary from Rs.20, 000/- to Rs.40, 000/- depend on the trust between farmer and seed organizer. There are no formal bond papers etc for this credit. This system is entirely depending on faith.
Seeds will be supplied by the seed organizer on cost basis to the farmer. Cost of a packet of foundation seed of 450grs packet is around Rs.2000/-. Seed rate is 900grs (two packets). Male lines and female lines were sown separately. In case of Bt certain companies are keeping male lines as Bt and female lines as Non-Bt and others are using vice versa.
In the entire seed production "seed organiser" plays a vital role. The basic qualification to become a seed organiser is to supply the required credit to the farmers. This amount ranges from Rs.20, 000/- to Rs 40, 000/- . Some times, small companies will supply the money to seed organizers. The interest rates are fixed and from the company to seed organiser and it is 1% and from seed organiser to seed grower it is 2%.
The entire credit system runs on the basis of trust. There are no bond papers between any one of them. The amount of credit is depends on the trust between the seed organiser and seed grower. Each seed grower has dealings with 4-5 companies. There are around 200-250 seed organizers in both these districts. Most of the time seed organisers are not disclosing any details of the seed to the growers.
In addition to the credit supply, seed organisers also give extension support to the growers. Under each organizer there are 3-4 people for monitoring the fields. Companies pay the organisers for monitoring; this payment varies from company to company and ranges from Rs.1/- to Rs. 5/- per packet of seed produced. This means on average he will get around Rs.400/- to Rs.2000/- per acre (by assuming average yield is 400packets/acre). In addition to the supervision costs he will also get Rs.20/packet as commission.
Extension support provided by the seed organizer is basically about spraying of pesticides and fertilizers. They always suggest farmer to use more and more fertilizers and pesticides. Interestingly most of the seed organizers also have fertilizer and pesticide shops. This extension support increases the cost of cultivation and ultimately pushes the farmer into distress.
In addition to the seed organisers extension support, some companies also organizing trainings for farmers to get maximum yields and in all these trainings they advocate dumping of fertilizers and pesticides. One example for this is Monsanto's -Target 400. Farmers who followed these practices and using more and more inputs to get higher yields, ends at higher cost of cultivation and distress among the seed growers.
The entire seed production activities are labor and input intensive. It needs around 620 labor days spread across 120 days of seed production. Out of this 620 labor days 300 are for crossing. Labor costs accounts for Rs.50, 000/- per acre. To achieve higher yields farmers usually apply more fertilizers than commercial Cotton cultivation. Around 15- 20 bags of fertilizers, which includes Urea, DAP, Potash and other fertilizers are also applied. Proportion of DAP and Potash is more when compared to Urea. These costs accounts for Rs.7, 000/- per acre. Farmers use more pesticides to avoid any damage to the bolls and seeds. They use all kinds of pesticides and all most all stages of crop growth. The cost of pesticides accounts for Rs.10, 000/-. The total cost of seed production varies between Rs.80, 000/- to Rs.85, 000/-.
Scarcity of labor, increased labor costs and child labor are the major concerns in cotton seed production. Migrations of labor to work at constructions of irrigation projects and to urban areas are the major factor for scarcity of labor. Due to NREGP and the intense agriculture activities, as a result of timely rains are responsible for increased labor costs. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "farmers don't have any other option but to withdraw from seed production as the cost of seed production increased tremendously due to labor costs".
Engaging child labor is still continuing even though companies are giving incentives for the farmers who avoid child labor in their fields. Companies paying only Rs.15/- per packet in the name of incentive, which is insufficient to meet the additional costs bared by the farmer for hiring adult labor. This incentive accounts for Rs.6000/ - (if the farmer gets a yield of 400 packets) but the additional cost incurred by the farmer for hiring adult labor for crossing is around Rs.21, 000/-. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "companies are forcing farmer to use adult labor by sending NGO people and police, but they are not paying the required amounts for hiring adult labor, this effort is pushing the farmers into more troubles rather than resolving the issue".
After harvesting, farmers dry the fiber for one week to ten days. Farmers are allotted specific dates by the organizer to take their produce to the ginning mills. Few companies have their own ginning mills but most of the companies depend on the private ginning mills. In ginning mills processing is done by ginning, delinting, cleaning, GOT and treatment. The entire cost incurred at this stage will bared by the farmer. Farmer presence is must for the entire process. Farmer has to pay Rs750/- per quintal as the service charge to ginning mill, Rs 400/- as wages. The total costs accounts for Rs. 1150/- per quintal. If farmer has a yield of 8quintols he has to pay Rs.9, 200/- .Companies will pay the amount to the farmer only after passing all the tests and it will take two to three months time. Up-to this time farmer has to pay the interest to the seed organizer. The interest amount may reach a minimum of Rs.4, 000/- per acre.
Farmers who are producing cotton seeds are spending around Rs. 85,000/- per acre and in turn they are getting Rs.96, 000/- (if they get 400 packets per acre) which mans a net income of Rs.11, 000/-. If we look at the total economics of seed production it is clearly visible that companies exploiting the farmer at all the stages. Companies supply the foundation seed not only at a higher rate but also at low quantity packets. Farmer has to supply 750gr packets at a cost of Rs.240/- but the companies will sold the seeds at Rs. 800/- per packet of 450grs. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "there is not much change in the price paid by the companies to the farmers in last ten years, but the selling price of companies was hiked many times".
The economics of Bt Cotton seed production is also the same as Non Bt cotton seed production even though companies promoting Bt Cotton is more profitable. According to the seed growers even though Boll worm incidence was reduced, other minor pests particularly sucking pests incidence was increased and the costs was increased at the same proportion.
The more dangerous trend in Cotton seed production is the encroachment of Bt seed production, which leads to termination of the farmer's rights on seed. One can visualize easily that with in a very short span of time extinction of all other varieties and hybrids. In the entire Cotton seed production belt of Andhra Pradesh, not even a single acre is under hybrids or verities other than Bt Cotton. This has serious implications on erosion of varieties, farmer's knowledge on breeding methods and economics. Loss of rights on seed means loss of Rs.11, 00 crores (share of cotton seed industry in India).
In these two districts we met many farmers and all of them explained their problems in detail. All of them expressed their desire to withdraw from the seed production. Some farmers are not able to with draw from seed production due to their debt trap. It is very clear from the study that there is an urgent need for shift to farmer centric seed production from company centric seed production.
By K. Jayaram
(K.Jayaram, is an agriculture economist working with Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad based NGO, working for sustainable agriculture. The author can be contacted at jayaramcsa@gmail.com)
Hybrid cottonseed production is concentrated in Andhra Pradesh which alone account for 62% of the total seed production in India. Within AP, nearly 90% of seed production is concentrated in Mahaboobnagar and Kurnool districts. Area under cotton seed production in these two districts is around 14,000 acres. Though seed production is carried out in most of the mandals in these districts there is high concentration of seed production in Gadwal, Dharur, Maldakal, Gattu, Iza, Atmakur, Jadcharla in Mahaboobnagar and Allagadda, Nandhyala, Sanjamala, Koillkuntla, banaganapalli, Uyyalawada, Emmiganur, Mantralayam, Kodumur mandals in Kurnool districts.
The other districts where cottonseed production is carried out are Randareddy in Telangana and West Godavary, Krishna, and Vijayanagaram in Coastal Andhra region and Kadapa in Rayalaseema. The basic reason for concentration of seed production in this region is availability of cheap labour and also suitability of climatic conditions.
Monsanto, JK seeds, Rasi seeds, Krishidhan, Ankur, Nandi, Nuzuveedu seeds etc are the major players in Cotton seed production. According to one seed organiser (middleman between Seed Company and farmer) there are around 10 companies involved in Cotton seed production. Companies develop their seed programmes prior to the season based on their market analysis. These seed companies work with seed organizers for implementing their seed programme. There is no direct link between seed companies and farmers, but the companies will make an agreement with farmer for supply of the predetermined quantity of seed. This agreement is made between company, seed organiser and seed grower.
Seed production activities broadly can be divided into three stages. Farmer's responsibility is to submit the seeds which are passed all the GOT tests. The first stage includes production at farmer's field, second stage includes the processing at ginning mills and the third stage includes seed treatment with chemicals and packing. Farmer is involved up-to the second stage and third stage will be done by the companies themselves. All the costs involved up-to second stage will be bared by the farmers.
In many places seed production activities begin in the month of April and ends in December. These activities will be beginning with making a contract with the seed organizer for producing certain quantity of seed of a particular company. Farmers are generally not aware of the variety of seed which he is going to produce and even he is not aware whether it is a breeder seed or foundation seed or it is Bt or Non-Bt seed. This contact is made between the farmer, seed organizer and the company. Usually after signing the contract seed organizer will supply the money to the farmer as advance (credit @2% interest) for inputs. This advance will vary from Rs.20, 000/- to Rs.40, 000/- depend on the trust between farmer and seed organizer. There are no formal bond papers etc for this credit. This system is entirely depending on faith.
Seeds will be supplied by the seed organizer on cost basis to the farmer. Cost of a packet of foundation seed of 450grs packet is around Rs.2000/-. Seed rate is 900grs (two packets). Male lines and female lines were sown separately. In case of Bt certain companies are keeping male lines as Bt and female lines as Non-Bt and others are using vice versa.
In the entire seed production "seed organiser" plays a vital role. The basic qualification to become a seed organiser is to supply the required credit to the farmers. This amount ranges from Rs.20, 000/- to Rs 40, 000/- . Some times, small companies will supply the money to seed organizers. The interest rates are fixed and from the company to seed organiser and it is 1% and from seed organiser to seed grower it is 2%.
The entire credit system runs on the basis of trust. There are no bond papers between any one of them. The amount of credit is depends on the trust between the seed organiser and seed grower. Each seed grower has dealings with 4-5 companies. There are around 200-250 seed organizers in both these districts. Most of the time seed organisers are not disclosing any details of the seed to the growers.
In addition to the credit supply, seed organisers also give extension support to the growers. Under each organizer there are 3-4 people for monitoring the fields. Companies pay the organisers for monitoring; this payment varies from company to company and ranges from Rs.1/- to Rs. 5/- per packet of seed produced. This means on average he will get around Rs.400/- to Rs.2000/- per acre (by assuming average yield is 400packets/acre). In addition to the supervision costs he will also get Rs.20/packet as commission.
Extension support provided by the seed organizer is basically about spraying of pesticides and fertilizers. They always suggest farmer to use more and more fertilizers and pesticides. Interestingly most of the seed organizers also have fertilizer and pesticide shops. This extension support increases the cost of cultivation and ultimately pushes the farmer into distress.
In addition to the seed organisers extension support, some companies also organizing trainings for farmers to get maximum yields and in all these trainings they advocate dumping of fertilizers and pesticides. One example for this is Monsanto's -Target 400. Farmers who followed these practices and using more and more inputs to get higher yields, ends at higher cost of cultivation and distress among the seed growers.
The entire seed production activities are labor and input intensive. It needs around 620 labor days spread across 120 days of seed production. Out of this 620 labor days 300 are for crossing. Labor costs accounts for Rs.50, 000/- per acre. To achieve higher yields farmers usually apply more fertilizers than commercial Cotton cultivation. Around 15- 20 bags of fertilizers, which includes Urea, DAP, Potash and other fertilizers are also applied. Proportion of DAP and Potash is more when compared to Urea. These costs accounts for Rs.7, 000/- per acre. Farmers use more pesticides to avoid any damage to the bolls and seeds. They use all kinds of pesticides and all most all stages of crop growth. The cost of pesticides accounts for Rs.10, 000/-. The total cost of seed production varies between Rs.80, 000/- to Rs.85, 000/-.
Scarcity of labor, increased labor costs and child labor are the major concerns in cotton seed production. Migrations of labor to work at constructions of irrigation projects and to urban areas are the major factor for scarcity of labor. Due to NREGP and the intense agriculture activities, as a result of timely rains are responsible for increased labor costs. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "farmers don't have any other option but to withdraw from seed production as the cost of seed production increased tremendously due to labor costs".
Engaging child labor is still continuing even though companies are giving incentives for the farmers who avoid child labor in their fields. Companies paying only Rs.15/- per packet in the name of incentive, which is insufficient to meet the additional costs bared by the farmer for hiring adult labor. This incentive accounts for Rs.6000/ - (if the farmer gets a yield of 400 packets) but the additional cost incurred by the farmer for hiring adult labor for crossing is around Rs.21, 000/-. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "companies are forcing farmer to use adult labor by sending NGO people and police, but they are not paying the required amounts for hiring adult labor, this effort is pushing the farmers into more troubles rather than resolving the issue".
After harvesting, farmers dry the fiber for one week to ten days. Farmers are allotted specific dates by the organizer to take their produce to the ginning mills. Few companies have their own ginning mills but most of the companies depend on the private ginning mills. In ginning mills processing is done by ginning, delinting, cleaning, GOT and treatment. The entire cost incurred at this stage will bared by the farmer. Farmer presence is must for the entire process. Farmer has to pay Rs750/- per quintal as the service charge to ginning mill, Rs 400/- as wages. The total costs accounts for Rs. 1150/- per quintal. If farmer has a yield of 8quintols he has to pay Rs.9, 200/- .Companies will pay the amount to the farmer only after passing all the tests and it will take two to three months time. Up-to this time farmer has to pay the interest to the seed organizer. The interest amount may reach a minimum of Rs.4, 000/- per acre.
Farmers who are producing cotton seeds are spending around Rs. 85,000/- per acre and in turn they are getting Rs.96, 000/- (if they get 400 packets per acre) which mans a net income of Rs.11, 000/-. If we look at the total economics of seed production it is clearly visible that companies exploiting the farmer at all the stages. Companies supply the foundation seed not only at a higher rate but also at low quantity packets. Farmer has to supply 750gr packets at a cost of Rs.240/- but the companies will sold the seeds at Rs. 800/- per packet of 450grs. According to U.Venkatesh of Bingidoddi "there is not much change in the price paid by the companies to the farmers in last ten years, but the selling price of companies was hiked many times".
The economics of Bt Cotton seed production is also the same as Non Bt cotton seed production even though companies promoting Bt Cotton is more profitable. According to the seed growers even though Boll worm incidence was reduced, other minor pests particularly sucking pests incidence was increased and the costs was increased at the same proportion.
The more dangerous trend in Cotton seed production is the encroachment of Bt seed production, which leads to termination of the farmer's rights on seed. One can visualize easily that with in a very short span of time extinction of all other varieties and hybrids. In the entire Cotton seed production belt of Andhra Pradesh, not even a single acre is under hybrids or verities other than Bt Cotton. This has serious implications on erosion of varieties, farmer's knowledge on breeding methods and economics. Loss of rights on seed means loss of Rs.11, 00 crores (share of cotton seed industry in India).
In these two districts we met many farmers and all of them explained their problems in detail. All of them expressed their desire to withdraw from the seed production. Some farmers are not able to with draw from seed production due to their debt trap. It is very clear from the study that there is an urgent need for shift to farmer centric seed production from company centric seed production.
By K. Jayaram
(K.Jayaram, is an agriculture economist working with Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad based NGO, working for sustainable agriculture. The author can be contacted at jayaramcsa@gmail.com)
Monday, 10 September 2007
UN Warns of Unrest as Food Prices Soar
Copied below is an article of why "development" is death. Development means losing the ability to produce food and other necessities locally. Even if they develop agriculturally, they turn from producing food forthemselves to producing food for export. Consider, for example thatduring the so-called Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s, England wasimporting food from Ireland. England had gained control over Ireland such that Ireland had been turned into an export economy, and even ifmillions starved, England could demand, through law and through force,that Ireland export food.
When a people must import food from around the world, those in control of the system will always be able to starve people into compliance. Theprice of Wheat in Chicago will starve the people of India. That isinsanity.
When growth occurs such that populations rise beyond the ability of the local environment to support them without either outside food orwithout chemicals and technology, then those people can be controlled. Those people are also disposable.
Read the article below, and then think about the perspective from which it is written. The article contains two stories, one overt, manifest,the other covert, latent. The overt message is about how food shortagescould be a problem. The latent message is about the developed world's risk of "unrest." The article is NOT about food shortages. It is aboutpoor people rising up because the system would just as soon they starveas live, and the risk that entails for the rich. The article is written to an audience of those in power, a warning to them to prepare fordanger from the poor, for the rich to be prepared to kill.
Buried in the article is the word "warning." Take it seriously.
Those of us lucky enough to have the opportunity need to teach, educate, inform about principles of social justice and human rights. Asa so-called educated person, I am obliged as a person of conscience tohelp use my skills to transform. So, I choose to work in education, and help others also develop this type of skill and knowledge so they canwork in their own domains. To transform the world, we need peopleworking together with a wide variety of skills and talents.
Kind Regards
Daniel Jordan,
------------------------
UN warns of unrest as food price inflation hits developing countries
Developing countries face serious social unrest as they struggle to cope with soaring food prices, the United Nations' top agriculture official has warned.
Jacques Diouf, director-general of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, said surging prices for basic food imports such as wheat, corn and milk had the "potential for social tension, leading to social reactions and eventually even political problems".
Mr Diouf said food prices would continue to increase because of a mix of strong demand from developing countries; a rising global population, more frequent floods and droughts caused by climate change; and the biofuel industry's appetite for grains. "
That combination of factors would most likely lead to increases in food prices," Mr Diouf told the Financial Times.
Signs were seen in Mexico this year where mass protests were triggered by rising corn prices. Mr Diouf said food represented about 10-20 per cent of consumer spending in industrialised countries, but up to 65 percent in developing nations. "
If we continue to see an increase in their [food] prices and in their import bill for food, there is a serious potential situation," Mr Diouf said.
The warning comes as wheat prices are at a high, forcing developing countries such as India and Egypt to pay record prices for imports in what cereal traders described as "panic buying" to beef up reserves.
Wheat prices this week rose to a record $8.86 a bushel in Chicago, up about 60 per cent since January. Dairy product prices have also set records, while other commodities, such as corn and soyabeans, are trading well above historical averages.
Mr Diouf said although the biofuel industry directly increased the consumption of only a handful of agricultural commodities, such as corn and rapeseed, its effect spread to other food products because less acreage was devoted to non-biofuel crops and the cost of feeding livestock with grain was pushed up. "
The biofuel industry is a new factor creating demand for food for a non-food use," he said.
Fears about the inflationary impact of biofuels on global food prices have prompted Cargill, the world's largest agricultural company by revenues, to question the White House-led push for an increase in ethanol production through tax subsidies.
By Javier Blas in Rome
Additional reporting by Eoin Callan in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
When a people must import food from around the world, those in control of the system will always be able to starve people into compliance. Theprice of Wheat in Chicago will starve the people of India. That isinsanity.
When growth occurs such that populations rise beyond the ability of the local environment to support them without either outside food orwithout chemicals and technology, then those people can be controlled. Those people are also disposable.
Read the article below, and then think about the perspective from which it is written. The article contains two stories, one overt, manifest,the other covert, latent. The overt message is about how food shortagescould be a problem. The latent message is about the developed world's risk of "unrest." The article is NOT about food shortages. It is aboutpoor people rising up because the system would just as soon they starveas live, and the risk that entails for the rich. The article is written to an audience of those in power, a warning to them to prepare fordanger from the poor, for the rich to be prepared to kill.
Buried in the article is the word "warning." Take it seriously.
Those of us lucky enough to have the opportunity need to teach, educate, inform about principles of social justice and human rights. Asa so-called educated person, I am obliged as a person of conscience tohelp use my skills to transform. So, I choose to work in education, and help others also develop this type of skill and knowledge so they canwork in their own domains. To transform the world, we need peopleworking together with a wide variety of skills and talents.
Kind Regards
Daniel Jordan,
------------------------
UN warns of unrest as food price inflation hits developing countries
Developing countries face serious social unrest as they struggle to cope with soaring food prices, the United Nations' top agriculture official has warned.
Jacques Diouf, director-general of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, said surging prices for basic food imports such as wheat, corn and milk had the "potential for social tension, leading to social reactions and eventually even political problems".
Mr Diouf said food prices would continue to increase because of a mix of strong demand from developing countries; a rising global population, more frequent floods and droughts caused by climate change; and the biofuel industry's appetite for grains. "
That combination of factors would most likely lead to increases in food prices," Mr Diouf told the Financial Times.
Signs were seen in Mexico this year where mass protests were triggered by rising corn prices. Mr Diouf said food represented about 10-20 per cent of consumer spending in industrialised countries, but up to 65 percent in developing nations. "
If we continue to see an increase in their [food] prices and in their import bill for food, there is a serious potential situation," Mr Diouf said.
The warning comes as wheat prices are at a high, forcing developing countries such as India and Egypt to pay record prices for imports in what cereal traders described as "panic buying" to beef up reserves.
Wheat prices this week rose to a record $8.86 a bushel in Chicago, up about 60 per cent since January. Dairy product prices have also set records, while other commodities, such as corn and soyabeans, are trading well above historical averages.
Mr Diouf said although the biofuel industry directly increased the consumption of only a handful of agricultural commodities, such as corn and rapeseed, its effect spread to other food products because less acreage was devoted to non-biofuel crops and the cost of feeding livestock with grain was pushed up. "
The biofuel industry is a new factor creating demand for food for a non-food use," he said.
Fears about the inflationary impact of biofuels on global food prices have prompted Cargill, the world's largest agricultural company by revenues, to question the White House-led push for an increase in ethanol production through tax subsidies.
By Javier Blas in Rome
Additional reporting by Eoin Callan in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India on the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA or AKI)
Dear Friends,
Greetings! Pasted below (and attached too) is an Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India on the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA or AKI), which was signed at the same time as the 123 Nuclear Deal. However, as we can see, the nation (political parties, individuals and media institutions) has chosen to express loud concerns on the nuclear deal, ignoring that the KIA also has serious ramifications for this country. We cannot afford to remain invisible or silent on this front.
Given the whole interest generated with regard to the nuclear deal, this is the right time to express our concerns yet again on the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture too and to not let it be implemented in a business-as-usual attitude, without the many serious concerns being addressed. This letter draws from the discussions that happened during a national workshop organised in Hyderabad in December on this bilateral agreement. This open letter to the PM also draws some of its demands from the nuclear deal experience - of stalling implementation until concerns are taken on board seriously and addressed.
We hope that you all join us in endorsing this letter which we intend to put out in a week's time or so. It would be great if agricultural scientists too, in addition to any elected people's representatives that you can all individually draw into endorsing this, would sign up.
Do send me your consent on my email address above with the required details against your name and please do circulate this widely to collect more endorsements and pass them on to me. Thanks.
Kavitha Kuruganti
=================================================================================================
To
September 4, 2007
Dr Manmohan Singh,
Hon'ble Prime Minister,
Government of India.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services and Commercial Linkages – Demand for an immediate hold on implementation
Respected Sir, this letter is being written to you after looking at the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services & Commercial Linkages (being referred to as the KIA or AKI) in close detail, after extensive discussions held amongst agriculture scientists, farmers' leaders, civil society representatives, science policy experts and others on the implications of KIA on Indian farmers, especially small and marginal farmers. Through this letter, we would like to convey our deep concerns related to this bilateral deal that you had signed with the US President.
The current agrarian crisis and farmers' livelihoods:
The KIA hardly makes a mention of the deep agrarian crisis present all over rural India today. In fact, there is very little mention of farmers in the KIA proposals. Where the current problems in Indian agriculture are mentioned, they are described as "exciting challenges and opportunities" – we wonder for whom? How can a high-profile bilateral agreement coming at a juncture of such a crisis ignore the crisis and fundamental ways of addressing it?
The agrarian crisis in India is to be seen as a livelihoods crisis – the government has to answer why agri-business corporations are not in a crisis while farmers are attempting to commit suicides in thousands, if it is truly a farming crisis? The agri-industry is in fact posting growth figures that are impressive.
Increased production and productivity from farmers will not come if the State takes away their very dignity, their resources, their interest in their occupation, erodes all support systems and leaves them only with heavy debt burdens. Productivity cannot just be a factor of a miracle technology that someone introduces but a factor that is closely related to farmers' self-worth, dignity and morale.
The Indian economy (which is seen as the only domain of development) is appearing to declare its independence from Indian farming and the distress of farmers because the contribution of agriculture to the GDP is going down and your government measures development only in economic growth and GDP terms. We need to get out of this framework to understand farming better and the sustenance it provides to millions of lives.
What farmers need is income security, especially given that the liberalized trade policies that subsequent governments have pursued have pushed them into unfair disadvantage from all sides, even as technologies promoted by the NARS and agri-corporations are unsustainable.
Our analysis also shows that the KIA proposals are certainly not in tandem with other dominant policy discourse related to agriculture in India now, be it the Planning Commission's approach paper to the 11 th Plan or the draft Kisan Policy drafted by the National Commission on Farmers [NCF]. The Planning Commission and the NCF have at least run a semblance of consultative processes while drawing up their recommendations and while adopting a particular discourse. The KIA, however, is at contrast to these other policy articulations.
It is apparent that the National Agricultural Research System [NARS] had never done any deep-thinking workshops institutionally about its role in the entire crisis being experienced by farmers today and about unsustainable and unsuitable technologies foisted upon farmers. Since no such analysis exists, the crisis does not inform decisions on any front, including the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative.
India 's Green Revolution & the 'Second Green Revolution':
Numerous studies and papers have brought out the ecological, socio-cultural and other fall-outs from the Green Revolution. The Planning Commission chose to portray the repercussions in terms of 'technology fatigue' and the 'ecological disaster'. While the Green Revolution at least had a stated thrust on improving national food security (that concept of food security is questioned by numerous experts now) and ran on a principle of social contract, it seems that the Second Green Revolution is meant only for agri-corporations.
Before making plans for a Second Green Revolution, the country should have first drawn up a comprehensive balance sheet on the first Green Revolution. Learnings should have been picked up from such an analysis and critique of the earlier Green Revolution. Such learnings should have been internalized and incorporated into all your pronouncements on the second Green Revolution and into the KIA.
Our analysis says that while the country might have obtained self reliance on the food front (that too based on two grains which don't assure nutrition security and are known to have caused other adverse impacts), Green Revolution has completely eroded farmers' self-reliance. Farmers' natural resource base has been degraded almost irrevocably. Our bio-diversity has been eroded irreversibly along with farmers' knowledge about management, creation and conservation of such resources. While food security is touted to have been achieved, quality of food in terms of safety and nutrition has been badly affected. A diverse variety of foods that used to be accessible and affordable have been lost to the millions of poor in the country. Bio-mass has disappeared on a large scale and organic cycles of crop-livestock-tree-living soil resources have been broken through reductionist science. Local economies have only pumped out their wealth with very little coming back into the villages. In recent decades, any public support system that used to exist for even that kind of intensive agriculture that GR ushered in, is being systematically dismantled, leaving farmers to the mercy of greedy markets of agri-corporations.
We find that the agri-research establishment has been indoctrinated into thinking that "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) to intensive farming using ever-increasing quantities and varieties of external inputs. This TINA syndrome runs deep in the entire NARS to the extent that they cannot even start looking at ecological alternatives with any amount of objectivity or scientificity. The Green Revolution did not happen overnight on the strength of the science behind it but because of massive public investments in creating huge support systems to address pre-production, production and post-production issues. Ecological agriculture however has received no such support in the country and without such public investments going into this paradigm, will not start appealing to our scientists either. When the GR began, no one wondered about where we will get the tonnes of chemical fertilizers/pesticides and HYV seeds that were to drive the GR – the country just set about arranging these through a variety of policy and public investment measures. However, whenever there is a discussion on alternative paradigms, the first question that is asked preposterously is, where will we find so much of organic inputs?
Now, with the Second Green Revolution that you are shaping, there is a formal institutionalization of American corporate interests driving our research agendas and public policy frameworks. This will further indoctrinate the NARS and other systems into the industrial/intensive model of agriculture. You have chosen to give the Monsantos of the US, documented earlier for their anti-farmer policies and known for their lawlessness, a formal place to guide the future of Indian agriculture as suits them, through the KIA. Why did your government not think of placing some key farmers' organizations and other civil society representatives in the country on the Board on this side?
The Second Green Revolution in the form of the KIA has no mention of farmers, leave alone farming livelihoods or national food security. Who then is this Second Green Revolution for, at the expense of public funds, we wonder.
Finally, why do your government and the NARS shy away from understanding, supporting and promoting an ecological agriculture paradigm – can your scientists compete with some of the best natural and organic farmers in this country on a variety of parameters related to production, productivity, economic viability, sustainability, social benefits and so on, before promoting any other paradigms [given that we have already seen the results of your paradigms]?
India & the USA :
The socio-economic and agro-ecological situations with regard to Indian and American farming are vastly different. In their model of agriculture, less than 2% of the American population depends on farming whereas in India, around 65% of our population continue to depend on farming and allied activities for their very survival.
In India, agriculture is a way of life connected closely with knowledge evolved over centuries of experiential learning from Nature, connected deeply with the culture of our peoples and their livelihoods. On the other hand, in the USA, agriculture is an industry, driven mostly by big agri-business corporations. Even though they claim that it is an efficient model of agriculture to be emulated here in India to attain higher productivity levels and so on, it is a farming model that is constantly propped up by ever-increasing amounts of subsidies. The true efficiency of that model will be clear only when the subsidies are removed. On the other hand, Indian farmers, with very little support from the government and in the face of highly adverse conditions created by the government, have proven that theirs is a more efficient system of farming by feeding millions of Indians and also showing steady increases in production and productivity.
Also important is the fact that the USA has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] or the Kyoto Protocol or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. What is interesting to note is that the main themes of these protocols to which India subscribes to through ratification and which USA discounts or fights in the international arena – biological resources including biodiversity, climate change and safety with regard to living modified organisms - are also key parts of the KIA.
These protocols enshrine some principles – for instance, biological resources are sovereign resources of nation-states (CBD), climate change is a big threat to the planet and immediate interventions are needed to reverse it and stop it (Kyoto) and living modified organisms need careful impact assessment and handling and prior informed consent for transboundary movement (Cartagena) which are not respected at all in the KIA or by the USA. Why is India partnering the USA in such an agreement then?
The USA, to this day, has not allocated any resources for the KIA whereas India is paying the USA for unneeded and hazardous technologies from the taxpayers' money. Ironically, the deal is all set to ultimately benefit American corporations than Indian farmers. Is this kind of unequal partnership what one could call as a bilateral agreement?
Why did you not think of having such a bilateral agreement with Cuba, which has shown the world how to produce more through organic methods even with economic sanctions imposed upon it – is there any reason why India should not learn from such a model of agriculture, to drive its next Revolution in agriculture?
On many of the themes included in the KIA where Indians are supposed to learn from the USA, there is no dearth of knowledge, skills and capabilities within the country. It is not clear why we need to learn from the USA on water management, drought proofing, food processing etc., when some of the best models on these themes are right here in the country within the people's knowledge domain. While the agriculture research model pursued by the country constantly erodes such rich knowledge right here, you would like to learn from distant USA at a charge, that too technologies that do not suit our needs nor address the present agrarian crisis!
The Americans are clearly proposing through the KIA, and in Board Meetings after Board Meetings, that they would like to use the bilateral deal to make changes in our regulatory regimes related to IPRs or particular technologies like Genetic Engineering. These changes are to suit their interests and not to ensure the basic rights of Indian farmers and consumers. In return, what are you planning to suggest as changes at their end through this bilateral deal? Can you bring down the huge subsidies that American farming is propped up with, to protect Indian farmers' interests from your side?
Coming to the comparative picture between India and USA again, the Indian IPR regime related to agriculture is very different from the American regime. Whose regime will be applied in this collaborative research? Who will have patents and what will be the implications for Indian farmers and their apriori rights on many resources and technologies?
In the USA, patents are possible on everything from a plant to a gene. As you know, all the notorious cases of bio-piracy from this country involved American scientists and corporations. What guarantees are you providing to the citizens of this country that the collective heritage of this country in the form of its biological resources and knowledge will be protected and given legitimately back to the communities without American bio-piracy now acquiring a legitimate passage you gave them?
The Biological Diversity Act of India, flowing out of the CBD, requires that permission be obtained from the National Biodiversity Authority before any biological resource is accessed by any foreigner. The KIA is not fulfilling any such obligations (Annexure 1). From all accounts, not even Material Transfer Agreements are in place while valuable genetic resources are already being taken to the US laboratories by Indian public sector scientists visiting the USA under exchange programmes or fellowships and so on under the KIA.
India 's Science & Technology and Development framework:
Our development framework focuses only on national economic growth rates and forgets the livelihoods of millions of Indians eking out a living through farming. As a polity, we seem to be feeding the endless lifestyle aspirations of millions of urban, middle class Indians who only want to emulate the Americans and others. This is obviously extremely destructive in an ecological sense – the ecological foot print that we would be leaving as a country would be far higher than the developed countries', if this development model is pursued mindlessly.
At another level, the S & T framework adopted in the case of agriculture was always one that sought to gain control over nature, rather than working in cooperation with/tandem with nature. The latter, as thousands of years of Indian farming has shown, is the one that ensures sustainable resource use – it took only 4 to 5 decades of intensive farming to erode and degrade our resources to the present situation whereas our forefathers did farming for thousands of years without leaving the future generations gasping for life.
The S & T framework governing Indian agriculture has been one that requires intensive use of external inputs which has its own ecological, economic and political ramifications. Commodification of all inputs has only meant that local economies got drained to fill the coffers of agri-business companies whose sole aim is to seek more and more markets for their products.
Our S & T frameworks should have been reviewed as a response to the farming crisis all around. This did not happen; through the KIA we want to further accelerate adoption of the same S & T approaches in agriculture as in the case of Green Revolution. Those approaches have already been proven as unsustainable and destructive of our natural resources.
This is in fact a destruction of democracy itself. Electoral democracy, as you are aware, is only a narrow understanding of democracy. Participation, public debate, accountability, referendum & recall systems are glaringly absent in our democracy in the context of agriculture. We actually need a Constitution that respects plurality of knowledges, not just what passes off officially as "Science & Technology". We need a Constitution that is ecologically embedded. We need a Directive Principle of State policy that orders protection of Indian agriculture and the diversity that exists there.
S & T policy makers sitting in the Ministry of Science & Technology or Department of Agriculture Research & Education or in the Planning Commission have not learnt anything from other countries about incorporating alternative paradigms and knowledge systems into the making of an S & T policy. There is ample positive experience to learn from, elsewhere.
National Agricultural Research System [NARS] in India and its orientation:
The NARS is supposed to have been designed along the Land Grant College system in the USA. However, the accountability mechanisms that are apparent in the Land Grant system there are completely missing here. It is a top-down model of institution building that has gone into our NARS, with no accountability at all towards the clientele – the predominantly poor, small and marginal farmers of this country.
The scientific orientation of the NARS is reductionist, piece-meal and fragmented – agriculture being a complex process of synergies and interactions amongst various factors, such a reductionist approach will not solve the real life problems of the farmers. This has been proven again and again – the scientific experiments and their results in a controlled setting in the agriculture research stations are not replicable in real life conditions of farmers.
There should be an inter-disciplinary, dialectical and holistic scientific approach that should be adopted by agriculture scientists. Such an inter-disciplinary approach should encompass other scientific spheres like anthropology, sociology, political science etc. in addition to different specializations within agriculture science. Synergies between crop-livestock and crop-tree husbandry have been completely ignored by the agri-research system, for instance. The sociological ramifications of a particular technology on different kinds of farmers in different locations are not worked out before large scale promotion of a technology. Another example of the narrow orientation of the agri-research establishment is the neglect that dryland farming suffers in the country today.
Even the research agenda of the NARS is not driven by the real life conditions of the farmers. It is a top-down, linear, lab-to-land model that is adopted in almost all research projects. There is no participation apparent from the side of the farmers in individual research projects, leave alone whole institutions and their overall directions of work.
The NARS do not recognize any other knowledge domain other than what gets classified officially as "scientific". It is this blind approach that had resulted in the erosion of precious knowledge and natural resources amongst farming communities in India. The largest knowledge bank is with the smallholding farmers of India which consists of knowledge of centuries of experiential learning. This technological arrogance is also ignoring larger experiences evolving across the country to sustain farming concurrently with initiatives of farmers, individuals and organizations. Such ready knowledge is constantly being discounted and actively eroded by the NARS in a variety of ways. Today NARS suffers more from 'Innovation fatigue' than 'Technology fatigue'.
There is nothing in the KIA that promises any changes in the existing deep-rooted maladies of the NARS. In fact, the technologies chosen by the KIA will push agriculture scientists farther away from the fields of farmers, deeper into their laboratories (and laboratories in the USA). Agriculture research orientation is now going to be shifted from applied and adaptive research to basic and strategic research, as per the KIA. When it is clear that applied research itself had failed in the Indian agriculture research establishment, what is the rationale behind moving to basic research? How will they then translate it to farmers' real needs and conditions on the ground?
Worse, the agriculture education and extension models are also being re-cast to shift these services away from farmers.
Historically, there has been an excessive orientation of these NARS institutions to gear their research towards only production and productivity questions rather than looking at farmers' livelihoods. There are many others, however, in the UN system and elsewhere, who are changing their S & T institutions, curricula, research design and frameworks and so on to meet the Millenium Development Goals. Does the Indian NARS have nothing to learn from them, other than learning from the USA about orienting agriculture research for improving the commercial potential of agri-corporations?
As mentioned before, the so-called modern technologies in agriculture have only proven to be a drain on the local economies of farmers rather than improving their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. It is imperative that any research and extension intervention from the NARS should only be defined and achieved in a livelihoods context and no other context.
The NARS should realize that in today's complex world, reductionist techno-centricity will not solve any problems. The new mandate of the NARS has to be evolved out of the failure of the earlier mandate and it does not help to continue in the same technological determinism framework. That is the key cornerstone of post-modern agriculture.
It is also important to re-cast completely the reward and incentive system that drives the agriculture scientists today. It is not publication of papers or number of patents that should be the driving parameters of assessing the fulfillment of the mandate of NARS. It is possible for knowledge flows to occur in a manner that farmers derive benefits, without going through the formal, expensive, discriminatory and exclusive intellectual property regime – this has been the experience of civil society work time and again. Agriculture scientists' reward system should be linked to the quality and effective time spent with farming communities in drawing the research agenda from the farmers, by developing technologies in a participatory manner and by using an interdisciplinary and "expert & non-expert co-inquiry" approach.
At present, the NARS is only turning itself into an outsourcing agency for private corporations. Private corporations want to use the public sector institutions for their own research needs and profit-seeking mandates with the lure of some money put into PPP research collaborations and the agriculture research establishment is ready to forget the needs of their primary clientele. The foundations for this are already laid out in the form a parallel initiative 'National Agriculture Innovation Project' supported by the World Bank.
Specific KIA proposals:
· Re-orienting Indian agriculture research to basic and strategic research will mean further cutting off of farmers from these institutions, when the current farming crisis calls for the reverse – of all public sector institutions related to agriculture having to move closer to farmers and work along with them.
· Transgenic agriculture has been given a prominent place in the whole deal, under the theme of Emerging Technologies. It is not clear how this decision has been taken since the debate is unresolved about the very need for such technologies and the various implications from the deployment of such technologies in farming. What is the basis for decisions related to transgenics by the government, given the ever-emerging evidence on the lack of predictability and scientificity in this technology and the hazards that the technology poses? There is no evidence that GM crops increase productivity of crops or can withstand climate change vagaries (In fact, there is USDA data that shows that GM crops might actually mean lowered yields compared to their non-GM counterparts – if the USA is teaching us through the KIA, it is hoped that they are teaching us such facts too). There is clear evidence that such crops are stress-intolerant which means that our national food security itself could be jeopardized by adopting such technologies in the era of climate change.
· Transgenics by the public sector, without MNC presence, is being projected as being farmer-friendly reducing the whole discussion to pricing and IPRs. The reality however is that there are very few farmers who actually demand for and are able to access such public-sector bred seeds in crops like cotton. Further, experience in collaborative research from the University of Agricultural Sciences , Dharwar and CICR, Nagpur shows that our IPR literacy is very poor and we more or less get cheated during the R & D process in these collaborative projects involving proprietary technologies. Patents and royalties are brought into the picture preventing the institution from actually releasing seeds to farmers. What lessons are we learning from such experiences?
· When it comes to proposals related to food processing technologies, they all seem to favour American capital investments more than the needs of Indian farmers or consumers. Such technologies have to be assessed for their employment potential to begin with, since the food processing sector is being projected as the one that will absorb rural population displaced from agriculture.
· There is also clear evidence of using the KIA for the entry of big (food) retail chains into India, at the front-end too. It is very unclear what share of the retail price will actually reach the farmers of the country.
· The government has to decide whether we as a country should focus on food security and sovereignty of the nation or food processing and value addition meant for export markets. The KIA certainly gives importance to the latter but is that what the country needs?
· On themes like bio-fuels too, there is an urgent need for careful thinking regarding alternate use scenarios for precious resources like land and biomass. The KIA proposals seem to be in contradiction to the dominant discourse with regard to bio-fuels in this country – so far, we have talked about bio-diesels on wastelands in this country. The KIA talks about ethanol-based bio-fuels. The KIA has no mention about such technologies which will assist in backyard production of bio-diesels for community level energy needs by integrating native, hardy bio-diesel crop species into farming, through cooperative institutional structures. The KIA proposals are meant to create technologies that will essentially result in a competition between urban (fuel) and rural (food) needs.
· The KIA has water management as one of its themes of collaboration. India, which is famous for being a 'hydrological society' and for the organic socio-cultural links between communities and water resources, would have nothing to learn from a country like the USA on water management and drought-proofing. There is ample experience within this country for the NARS to learn from. No amount of techno-centric solutions will take care of water resources – their conservation or preserving the quality. No remediation of contaminated waters can take place through the NARS especially given the impunity with which contamination from industrial effluents takes place. Only a radically different view and value system associated with water as a basic resource of life will change things.
· As mentioned earlier, the IPR regimes in India and the USA are vastly different and this is an area of great concern with relation to the KIA. Precious germplasm is already moving out of the country in the name of collaborative research and it is not clear what IPR arrangements are in place. There do not seem to be any material transfer agreements in place either. We seem to be legitimizing bio-piracy as never before. On the other hand, communities who are original contributors to our germplasm collections in various NARS centres are being denied access to what is legitimately theirs!
The process of formulating the KIA:
This deal has been projected by you as the harbinger of the Second Green Revolution, which means that it has great significance attached to it. Yet, you chose not to debate it with our elected representatives or with state governments. From all accounts, it did not even get discussed properly within the NARS. This is completely unacceptable.
Further, it is not clear what accountability mechanisms exist in the case of KIA – what reviews, what monitoring, who will be accountable and how. What needs to be done in case an American party needs to be made liable for a particular project, for instance?
OUR DEMANDS:
We invite you to reverse the possibilities with the KIA by rescuing America from itself, its farming and its agri-corporations. Please get into a bilateral deal that teaches Americans alternative paradigms in agriculture and rescues America from the 'monoculture of mind' that has evolved there. We want you to understand and make the Americans understand that democracy is not just liberty, equality and fraternity but also sustainability, plurality and generosity.
Given that Indian agriculture does not have anything in common with American farming, given that we have vast amounts of experience, knowledge and capabilities on a variety of subjects within the country, given that the KIA does not seem to have any benefits for farmers but only negative implications, given that the Second Green Revolution if any has to be launched in the country only after due deliberative and democratic processes, given that the IPR implications from the deal are stacked against Indian interests and given that the current agrarian crisis facing Indian farmers needs other fundamentally different solutions, we demand that your government :
· Put the implementation of the KIA on hold immediately. Review the whole deal with credible agricultural, political and social scientists along with farmers' union and civil society representatives, like you are ready to do with the 123 Nuclear Deal, after pressure from other political parties. Further, debate the agreement within the Parliament and state Assemblies and discuss it with state governments.
· Draw up a fresh research agenda for the Indian NARS and its different local institutions after a broad based consultative process with farmers all over the country.
· Provide income security to all farmers in the country by providing them an assured monthly salary from any special financial mechanism that you evolve for the purpose.
· Allocate all the funds meant for agriculture extension in the hands of the targeted clientele after organizing the farmers for better accountability.
· Allow immediate access to indigenous germplasm collections to communities who wish to access such resources for conservation and use, through legislative and administrative means.
Requesting you to intervene in this matter immediately and take all our concerns on board,
Signed & endorsed by:
1. Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
2. Kavitha Kuruganti
Researcher & campaigner
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
Greetings! Pasted below (and attached too) is an Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India on the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA or AKI), which was signed at the same time as the 123 Nuclear Deal. However, as we can see, the nation (political parties, individuals and media institutions) has chosen to express loud concerns on the nuclear deal, ignoring that the KIA also has serious ramifications for this country. We cannot afford to remain invisible or silent on this front.
Given the whole interest generated with regard to the nuclear deal, this is the right time to express our concerns yet again on the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture too and to not let it be implemented in a business-as-usual attitude, without the many serious concerns being addressed. This letter draws from the discussions that happened during a national workshop organised in Hyderabad in December on this bilateral agreement. This open letter to the PM also draws some of its demands from the nuclear deal experience - of stalling implementation until concerns are taken on board seriously and addressed.
We hope that you all join us in endorsing this letter which we intend to put out in a week's time or so. It would be great if agricultural scientists too, in addition to any elected people's representatives that you can all individually draw into endorsing this, would sign up.
Do send me your consent on my email address above with the required details against your name and please do circulate this widely to collect more endorsements and pass them on to me. Thanks.
Kavitha Kuruganti
=================================================================================================
To
September 4, 2007
Dr Manmohan Singh,
Hon'ble Prime Minister,
Government of India.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services and Commercial Linkages – Demand for an immediate hold on implementation
Respected Sir, this letter is being written to you after looking at the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services & Commercial Linkages (being referred to as the KIA or AKI) in close detail, after extensive discussions held amongst agriculture scientists, farmers' leaders, civil society representatives, science policy experts and others on the implications of KIA on Indian farmers, especially small and marginal farmers. Through this letter, we would like to convey our deep concerns related to this bilateral deal that you had signed with the US President.
The current agrarian crisis and farmers' livelihoods:
The KIA hardly makes a mention of the deep agrarian crisis present all over rural India today. In fact, there is very little mention of farmers in the KIA proposals. Where the current problems in Indian agriculture are mentioned, they are described as "exciting challenges and opportunities" – we wonder for whom? How can a high-profile bilateral agreement coming at a juncture of such a crisis ignore the crisis and fundamental ways of addressing it?
The agrarian crisis in India is to be seen as a livelihoods crisis – the government has to answer why agri-business corporations are not in a crisis while farmers are attempting to commit suicides in thousands, if it is truly a farming crisis? The agri-industry is in fact posting growth figures that are impressive.
Increased production and productivity from farmers will not come if the State takes away their very dignity, their resources, their interest in their occupation, erodes all support systems and leaves them only with heavy debt burdens. Productivity cannot just be a factor of a miracle technology that someone introduces but a factor that is closely related to farmers' self-worth, dignity and morale.
The Indian economy (which is seen as the only domain of development) is appearing to declare its independence from Indian farming and the distress of farmers because the contribution of agriculture to the GDP is going down and your government measures development only in economic growth and GDP terms. We need to get out of this framework to understand farming better and the sustenance it provides to millions of lives.
What farmers need is income security, especially given that the liberalized trade policies that subsequent governments have pursued have pushed them into unfair disadvantage from all sides, even as technologies promoted by the NARS and agri-corporations are unsustainable.
Our analysis also shows that the KIA proposals are certainly not in tandem with other dominant policy discourse related to agriculture in India now, be it the Planning Commission's approach paper to the 11 th Plan or the draft Kisan Policy drafted by the National Commission on Farmers [NCF]. The Planning Commission and the NCF have at least run a semblance of consultative processes while drawing up their recommendations and while adopting a particular discourse. The KIA, however, is at contrast to these other policy articulations.
It is apparent that the National Agricultural Research System [NARS] had never done any deep-thinking workshops institutionally about its role in the entire crisis being experienced by farmers today and about unsustainable and unsuitable technologies foisted upon farmers. Since no such analysis exists, the crisis does not inform decisions on any front, including the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative.
India 's Green Revolution & the 'Second Green Revolution':
Numerous studies and papers have brought out the ecological, socio-cultural and other fall-outs from the Green Revolution. The Planning Commission chose to portray the repercussions in terms of 'technology fatigue' and the 'ecological disaster'. While the Green Revolution at least had a stated thrust on improving national food security (that concept of food security is questioned by numerous experts now) and ran on a principle of social contract, it seems that the Second Green Revolution is meant only for agri-corporations.
Before making plans for a Second Green Revolution, the country should have first drawn up a comprehensive balance sheet on the first Green Revolution. Learnings should have been picked up from such an analysis and critique of the earlier Green Revolution. Such learnings should have been internalized and incorporated into all your pronouncements on the second Green Revolution and into the KIA.
Our analysis says that while the country might have obtained self reliance on the food front (that too based on two grains which don't assure nutrition security and are known to have caused other adverse impacts), Green Revolution has completely eroded farmers' self-reliance. Farmers' natural resource base has been degraded almost irrevocably. Our bio-diversity has been eroded irreversibly along with farmers' knowledge about management, creation and conservation of such resources. While food security is touted to have been achieved, quality of food in terms of safety and nutrition has been badly affected. A diverse variety of foods that used to be accessible and affordable have been lost to the millions of poor in the country. Bio-mass has disappeared on a large scale and organic cycles of crop-livestock-tree-living soil resources have been broken through reductionist science. Local economies have only pumped out their wealth with very little coming back into the villages. In recent decades, any public support system that used to exist for even that kind of intensive agriculture that GR ushered in, is being systematically dismantled, leaving farmers to the mercy of greedy markets of agri-corporations.
We find that the agri-research establishment has been indoctrinated into thinking that "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) to intensive farming using ever-increasing quantities and varieties of external inputs. This TINA syndrome runs deep in the entire NARS to the extent that they cannot even start looking at ecological alternatives with any amount of objectivity or scientificity. The Green Revolution did not happen overnight on the strength of the science behind it but because of massive public investments in creating huge support systems to address pre-production, production and post-production issues. Ecological agriculture however has received no such support in the country and without such public investments going into this paradigm, will not start appealing to our scientists either. When the GR began, no one wondered about where we will get the tonnes of chemical fertilizers/pesticides and HYV seeds that were to drive the GR – the country just set about arranging these through a variety of policy and public investment measures. However, whenever there is a discussion on alternative paradigms, the first question that is asked preposterously is, where will we find so much of organic inputs?
Now, with the Second Green Revolution that you are shaping, there is a formal institutionalization of American corporate interests driving our research agendas and public policy frameworks. This will further indoctrinate the NARS and other systems into the industrial/intensive model of agriculture. You have chosen to give the Monsantos of the US, documented earlier for their anti-farmer policies and known for their lawlessness, a formal place to guide the future of Indian agriculture as suits them, through the KIA. Why did your government not think of placing some key farmers' organizations and other civil society representatives in the country on the Board on this side?
The Second Green Revolution in the form of the KIA has no mention of farmers, leave alone farming livelihoods or national food security. Who then is this Second Green Revolution for, at the expense of public funds, we wonder.
Finally, why do your government and the NARS shy away from understanding, supporting and promoting an ecological agriculture paradigm – can your scientists compete with some of the best natural and organic farmers in this country on a variety of parameters related to production, productivity, economic viability, sustainability, social benefits and so on, before promoting any other paradigms [given that we have already seen the results of your paradigms]?
India & the USA :
The socio-economic and agro-ecological situations with regard to Indian and American farming are vastly different. In their model of agriculture, less than 2% of the American population depends on farming whereas in India, around 65% of our population continue to depend on farming and allied activities for their very survival.
In India, agriculture is a way of life connected closely with knowledge evolved over centuries of experiential learning from Nature, connected deeply with the culture of our peoples and their livelihoods. On the other hand, in the USA, agriculture is an industry, driven mostly by big agri-business corporations. Even though they claim that it is an efficient model of agriculture to be emulated here in India to attain higher productivity levels and so on, it is a farming model that is constantly propped up by ever-increasing amounts of subsidies. The true efficiency of that model will be clear only when the subsidies are removed. On the other hand, Indian farmers, with very little support from the government and in the face of highly adverse conditions created by the government, have proven that theirs is a more efficient system of farming by feeding millions of Indians and also showing steady increases in production and productivity.
Also important is the fact that the USA has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] or the Kyoto Protocol or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. What is interesting to note is that the main themes of these protocols to which India subscribes to through ratification and which USA discounts or fights in the international arena – biological resources including biodiversity, climate change and safety with regard to living modified organisms - are also key parts of the KIA.
These protocols enshrine some principles – for instance, biological resources are sovereign resources of nation-states (CBD), climate change is a big threat to the planet and immediate interventions are needed to reverse it and stop it (Kyoto) and living modified organisms need careful impact assessment and handling and prior informed consent for transboundary movement (Cartagena) which are not respected at all in the KIA or by the USA. Why is India partnering the USA in such an agreement then?
The USA, to this day, has not allocated any resources for the KIA whereas India is paying the USA for unneeded and hazardous technologies from the taxpayers' money. Ironically, the deal is all set to ultimately benefit American corporations than Indian farmers. Is this kind of unequal partnership what one could call as a bilateral agreement?
Why did you not think of having such a bilateral agreement with Cuba, which has shown the world how to produce more through organic methods even with economic sanctions imposed upon it – is there any reason why India should not learn from such a model of agriculture, to drive its next Revolution in agriculture?
On many of the themes included in the KIA where Indians are supposed to learn from the USA, there is no dearth of knowledge, skills and capabilities within the country. It is not clear why we need to learn from the USA on water management, drought proofing, food processing etc., when some of the best models on these themes are right here in the country within the people's knowledge domain. While the agriculture research model pursued by the country constantly erodes such rich knowledge right here, you would like to learn from distant USA at a charge, that too technologies that do not suit our needs nor address the present agrarian crisis!
The Americans are clearly proposing through the KIA, and in Board Meetings after Board Meetings, that they would like to use the bilateral deal to make changes in our regulatory regimes related to IPRs or particular technologies like Genetic Engineering. These changes are to suit their interests and not to ensure the basic rights of Indian farmers and consumers. In return, what are you planning to suggest as changes at their end through this bilateral deal? Can you bring down the huge subsidies that American farming is propped up with, to protect Indian farmers' interests from your side?
Coming to the comparative picture between India and USA again, the Indian IPR regime related to agriculture is very different from the American regime. Whose regime will be applied in this collaborative research? Who will have patents and what will be the implications for Indian farmers and their apriori rights on many resources and technologies?
In the USA, patents are possible on everything from a plant to a gene. As you know, all the notorious cases of bio-piracy from this country involved American scientists and corporations. What guarantees are you providing to the citizens of this country that the collective heritage of this country in the form of its biological resources and knowledge will be protected and given legitimately back to the communities without American bio-piracy now acquiring a legitimate passage you gave them?
The Biological Diversity Act of India, flowing out of the CBD, requires that permission be obtained from the National Biodiversity Authority before any biological resource is accessed by any foreigner. The KIA is not fulfilling any such obligations (Annexure 1). From all accounts, not even Material Transfer Agreements are in place while valuable genetic resources are already being taken to the US laboratories by Indian public sector scientists visiting the USA under exchange programmes or fellowships and so on under the KIA.
India 's Science & Technology and Development framework:
Our development framework focuses only on national economic growth rates and forgets the livelihoods of millions of Indians eking out a living through farming. As a polity, we seem to be feeding the endless lifestyle aspirations of millions of urban, middle class Indians who only want to emulate the Americans and others. This is obviously extremely destructive in an ecological sense – the ecological foot print that we would be leaving as a country would be far higher than the developed countries', if this development model is pursued mindlessly.
At another level, the S & T framework adopted in the case of agriculture was always one that sought to gain control over nature, rather than working in cooperation with/tandem with nature. The latter, as thousands of years of Indian farming has shown, is the one that ensures sustainable resource use – it took only 4 to 5 decades of intensive farming to erode and degrade our resources to the present situation whereas our forefathers did farming for thousands of years without leaving the future generations gasping for life.
The S & T framework governing Indian agriculture has been one that requires intensive use of external inputs which has its own ecological, economic and political ramifications. Commodification of all inputs has only meant that local economies got drained to fill the coffers of agri-business companies whose sole aim is to seek more and more markets for their products.
Our S & T frameworks should have been reviewed as a response to the farming crisis all around. This did not happen; through the KIA we want to further accelerate adoption of the same S & T approaches in agriculture as in the case of Green Revolution. Those approaches have already been proven as unsustainable and destructive of our natural resources.
This is in fact a destruction of democracy itself. Electoral democracy, as you are aware, is only a narrow understanding of democracy. Participation, public debate, accountability, referendum & recall systems are glaringly absent in our democracy in the context of agriculture. We actually need a Constitution that respects plurality of knowledges, not just what passes off officially as "Science & Technology". We need a Constitution that is ecologically embedded. We need a Directive Principle of State policy that orders protection of Indian agriculture and the diversity that exists there.
S & T policy makers sitting in the Ministry of Science & Technology or Department of Agriculture Research & Education or in the Planning Commission have not learnt anything from other countries about incorporating alternative paradigms and knowledge systems into the making of an S & T policy. There is ample positive experience to learn from, elsewhere.
National Agricultural Research System [NARS] in India and its orientation:
The NARS is supposed to have been designed along the Land Grant College system in the USA. However, the accountability mechanisms that are apparent in the Land Grant system there are completely missing here. It is a top-down model of institution building that has gone into our NARS, with no accountability at all towards the clientele – the predominantly poor, small and marginal farmers of this country.
The scientific orientation of the NARS is reductionist, piece-meal and fragmented – agriculture being a complex process of synergies and interactions amongst various factors, such a reductionist approach will not solve the real life problems of the farmers. This has been proven again and again – the scientific experiments and their results in a controlled setting in the agriculture research stations are not replicable in real life conditions of farmers.
There should be an inter-disciplinary, dialectical and holistic scientific approach that should be adopted by agriculture scientists. Such an inter-disciplinary approach should encompass other scientific spheres like anthropology, sociology, political science etc. in addition to different specializations within agriculture science. Synergies between crop-livestock and crop-tree husbandry have been completely ignored by the agri-research system, for instance. The sociological ramifications of a particular technology on different kinds of farmers in different locations are not worked out before large scale promotion of a technology. Another example of the narrow orientation of the agri-research establishment is the neglect that dryland farming suffers in the country today.
Even the research agenda of the NARS is not driven by the real life conditions of the farmers. It is a top-down, linear, lab-to-land model that is adopted in almost all research projects. There is no participation apparent from the side of the farmers in individual research projects, leave alone whole institutions and their overall directions of work.
The NARS do not recognize any other knowledge domain other than what gets classified officially as "scientific". It is this blind approach that had resulted in the erosion of precious knowledge and natural resources amongst farming communities in India. The largest knowledge bank is with the smallholding farmers of India which consists of knowledge of centuries of experiential learning. This technological arrogance is also ignoring larger experiences evolving across the country to sustain farming concurrently with initiatives of farmers, individuals and organizations. Such ready knowledge is constantly being discounted and actively eroded by the NARS in a variety of ways. Today NARS suffers more from 'Innovation fatigue' than 'Technology fatigue'.
There is nothing in the KIA that promises any changes in the existing deep-rooted maladies of the NARS. In fact, the technologies chosen by the KIA will push agriculture scientists farther away from the fields of farmers, deeper into their laboratories (and laboratories in the USA). Agriculture research orientation is now going to be shifted from applied and adaptive research to basic and strategic research, as per the KIA. When it is clear that applied research itself had failed in the Indian agriculture research establishment, what is the rationale behind moving to basic research? How will they then translate it to farmers' real needs and conditions on the ground?
Worse, the agriculture education and extension models are also being re-cast to shift these services away from farmers.
Historically, there has been an excessive orientation of these NARS institutions to gear their research towards only production and productivity questions rather than looking at farmers' livelihoods. There are many others, however, in the UN system and elsewhere, who are changing their S & T institutions, curricula, research design and frameworks and so on to meet the Millenium Development Goals. Does the Indian NARS have nothing to learn from them, other than learning from the USA about orienting agriculture research for improving the commercial potential of agri-corporations?
As mentioned before, the so-called modern technologies in agriculture have only proven to be a drain on the local economies of farmers rather than improving their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. It is imperative that any research and extension intervention from the NARS should only be defined and achieved in a livelihoods context and no other context.
The NARS should realize that in today's complex world, reductionist techno-centricity will not solve any problems. The new mandate of the NARS has to be evolved out of the failure of the earlier mandate and it does not help to continue in the same technological determinism framework. That is the key cornerstone of post-modern agriculture.
It is also important to re-cast completely the reward and incentive system that drives the agriculture scientists today. It is not publication of papers or number of patents that should be the driving parameters of assessing the fulfillment of the mandate of NARS. It is possible for knowledge flows to occur in a manner that farmers derive benefits, without going through the formal, expensive, discriminatory and exclusive intellectual property regime – this has been the experience of civil society work time and again. Agriculture scientists' reward system should be linked to the quality and effective time spent with farming communities in drawing the research agenda from the farmers, by developing technologies in a participatory manner and by using an interdisciplinary and "expert & non-expert co-inquiry" approach.
At present, the NARS is only turning itself into an outsourcing agency for private corporations. Private corporations want to use the public sector institutions for their own research needs and profit-seeking mandates with the lure of some money put into PPP research collaborations and the agriculture research establishment is ready to forget the needs of their primary clientele. The foundations for this are already laid out in the form a parallel initiative 'National Agriculture Innovation Project' supported by the World Bank.
Specific KIA proposals:
· Re-orienting Indian agriculture research to basic and strategic research will mean further cutting off of farmers from these institutions, when the current farming crisis calls for the reverse – of all public sector institutions related to agriculture having to move closer to farmers and work along with them.
· Transgenic agriculture has been given a prominent place in the whole deal, under the theme of Emerging Technologies. It is not clear how this decision has been taken since the debate is unresolved about the very need for such technologies and the various implications from the deployment of such technologies in farming. What is the basis for decisions related to transgenics by the government, given the ever-emerging evidence on the lack of predictability and scientificity in this technology and the hazards that the technology poses? There is no evidence that GM crops increase productivity of crops or can withstand climate change vagaries (In fact, there is USDA data that shows that GM crops might actually mean lowered yields compared to their non-GM counterparts – if the USA is teaching us through the KIA, it is hoped that they are teaching us such facts too). There is clear evidence that such crops are stress-intolerant which means that our national food security itself could be jeopardized by adopting such technologies in the era of climate change.
· Transgenics by the public sector, without MNC presence, is being projected as being farmer-friendly reducing the whole discussion to pricing and IPRs. The reality however is that there are very few farmers who actually demand for and are able to access such public-sector bred seeds in crops like cotton. Further, experience in collaborative research from the University of Agricultural Sciences , Dharwar and CICR, Nagpur shows that our IPR literacy is very poor and we more or less get cheated during the R & D process in these collaborative projects involving proprietary technologies. Patents and royalties are brought into the picture preventing the institution from actually releasing seeds to farmers. What lessons are we learning from such experiences?
· When it comes to proposals related to food processing technologies, they all seem to favour American capital investments more than the needs of Indian farmers or consumers. Such technologies have to be assessed for their employment potential to begin with, since the food processing sector is being projected as the one that will absorb rural population displaced from agriculture.
· There is also clear evidence of using the KIA for the entry of big (food) retail chains into India, at the front-end too. It is very unclear what share of the retail price will actually reach the farmers of the country.
· The government has to decide whether we as a country should focus on food security and sovereignty of the nation or food processing and value addition meant for export markets. The KIA certainly gives importance to the latter but is that what the country needs?
· On themes like bio-fuels too, there is an urgent need for careful thinking regarding alternate use scenarios for precious resources like land and biomass. The KIA proposals seem to be in contradiction to the dominant discourse with regard to bio-fuels in this country – so far, we have talked about bio-diesels on wastelands in this country. The KIA talks about ethanol-based bio-fuels. The KIA has no mention about such technologies which will assist in backyard production of bio-diesels for community level energy needs by integrating native, hardy bio-diesel crop species into farming, through cooperative institutional structures. The KIA proposals are meant to create technologies that will essentially result in a competition between urban (fuel) and rural (food) needs.
· The KIA has water management as one of its themes of collaboration. India, which is famous for being a 'hydrological society' and for the organic socio-cultural links between communities and water resources, would have nothing to learn from a country like the USA on water management and drought-proofing. There is ample experience within this country for the NARS to learn from. No amount of techno-centric solutions will take care of water resources – their conservation or preserving the quality. No remediation of contaminated waters can take place through the NARS especially given the impunity with which contamination from industrial effluents takes place. Only a radically different view and value system associated with water as a basic resource of life will change things.
· As mentioned earlier, the IPR regimes in India and the USA are vastly different and this is an area of great concern with relation to the KIA. Precious germplasm is already moving out of the country in the name of collaborative research and it is not clear what IPR arrangements are in place. There do not seem to be any material transfer agreements in place either. We seem to be legitimizing bio-piracy as never before. On the other hand, communities who are original contributors to our germplasm collections in various NARS centres are being denied access to what is legitimately theirs!
The process of formulating the KIA:
This deal has been projected by you as the harbinger of the Second Green Revolution, which means that it has great significance attached to it. Yet, you chose not to debate it with our elected representatives or with state governments. From all accounts, it did not even get discussed properly within the NARS. This is completely unacceptable.
Further, it is not clear what accountability mechanisms exist in the case of KIA – what reviews, what monitoring, who will be accountable and how. What needs to be done in case an American party needs to be made liable for a particular project, for instance?
OUR DEMANDS:
We invite you to reverse the possibilities with the KIA by rescuing America from itself, its farming and its agri-corporations. Please get into a bilateral deal that teaches Americans alternative paradigms in agriculture and rescues America from the 'monoculture of mind' that has evolved there. We want you to understand and make the Americans understand that democracy is not just liberty, equality and fraternity but also sustainability, plurality and generosity.
Given that Indian agriculture does not have anything in common with American farming, given that we have vast amounts of experience, knowledge and capabilities on a variety of subjects within the country, given that the KIA does not seem to have any benefits for farmers but only negative implications, given that the Second Green Revolution if any has to be launched in the country only after due deliberative and democratic processes, given that the IPR implications from the deal are stacked against Indian interests and given that the current agrarian crisis facing Indian farmers needs other fundamentally different solutions, we demand that your government :
· Put the implementation of the KIA on hold immediately. Review the whole deal with credible agricultural, political and social scientists along with farmers' union and civil society representatives, like you are ready to do with the 123 Nuclear Deal, after pressure from other political parties. Further, debate the agreement within the Parliament and state Assemblies and discuss it with state governments.
· Draw up a fresh research agenda for the Indian NARS and its different local institutions after a broad based consultative process with farmers all over the country.
· Provide income security to all farmers in the country by providing them an assured monthly salary from any special financial mechanism that you evolve for the purpose.
· Allocate all the funds meant for agriculture extension in the hands of the targeted clientele after organizing the farmers for better accountability.
· Allow immediate access to indigenous germplasm collections to communities who wish to access such resources for conservation and use, through legislative and administrative means.
Requesting you to intervene in this matter immediately and take all our concerns on board,
Signed & endorsed by:
1. Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu
Agriculture Scientist
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
2. Kavitha Kuruganti
Researcher & campaigner
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Hyderabad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
