Modi is in the same field where Nehru was on agricultural reforms

text size:
a-
A+

FThe Arms Movement has concluded with the repeal of three agricultural reform laws – the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Compromise of Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Price Assurance and Agricultural Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act. Apart from this, the Narendra Modi government has also given written assurance Constitution of a committee to look into the matter of legal guarantee of minimum support price. The Modi government has also mainly agreed to withdraw the cases registered against the agitating farmers.

multiple interpretations Modi government has emerged after the move, but none bears a resemblance to a similar situation that Jawaharlal Nehru faced in 1959 when the prime minister attempted to bring about a radical change in India’s agriculture. Nehru also had to retreat.

Read also: ‘Leaving my share behind’ – Farmers start vacating Delhi’s borders as soon as the year-long protest ends

Cooperative farming…

In the 1950s, the Jawaharlal Nehru government envisioned a radical change in India’s agricultural system through the twin policies of land reform and cooperative farming. The former was somehow implemented after judicial hurdles, but the latter never materialised.

In those days, all major policy decisions were placed in the annual session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) before going to Parliament. When Nehru 64. Introduced a proposal to implement cooperative farming in^th At the annual session of the AICC in 1959, in Nagpur, his proposal was strongly opposed by Chaudhary Charan Singh, who had implemented a policy of land reforms in Uttar Pradesh. Along with Charan Singh, other regional leaders of the Congress party also joined the protest against Nehru. Thus, permanently suppressing the idea of ​​cooperative farming, the proposal was thwarted.

Burying the idea of ​​cooperative farming has had a long-lasting effect on the development of the current system of poverty and farming practices in India. The land reforms did not provide for redistribution of land to the landless farmers. Instead, it was envisioned that the government would cultivate the surplus land available after the reforms and practice cooperative farming. Its aim was to involve the landless people in agricultural activities, in which the government was investing loans and other inputs. After this food grains will be distributed among the families of the laborers concerned. This idea also gets a special mention in BR Ambedkar’s book. State and MinoritiesWhat are they in the Constitution of Independent India and how to protect them?,

Read also: Lessons from year-long protests: No government, not even Modi-led BJP, can harass farmers

…and the arguments against this model

The main argument against cooperative farming was that this policy would pave the way for industrialization of agriculture as it would result in the creation of two types of agriculture – one supported by the government, the other by medium and small farmers. Critics said that the government supported agriculture, eventually eliminating farming by medium and small farmers as the latter would be farmed with the help of the government. Opponents argued that the government should support medium and small farmers through infrastructure, credit and other protective measures, instead of taking direct steps to take up farming through the cooperative model.

Nehru’s response to the agricultural question

Faced with opposition, Nehru looked to the technological route to boost productivity in the agricultural sector so that surplus food grains could be procured, and distributed among the poor through the Public Distribution System (PDS). Successive governments worked to implement the idea, which eventually resulted in the Green Revolution. But at the same time, the government also took protective measures to control agricultural prices. The peasantry then started demanding higher prices for their produce. So the result of government policy’politicization of farmers‘, made them the voting block. The end result was the rise of political opposition outside the Congress party under the leadership of Chaudhary Charan Singh.

ghost of competition

The three agricultural laws introduced by the Narendra Modi government brought back the spirit of competition that Nehru faced in the 1950s. At the time, the argument against Nehru’s policy was that medium and small farmers would not be able to compete with state-supported cooperative farming. The argument today is that farmers will not be able to compete with the ‘contract farming’ of big business houses. The fear is that big business houses will get bank loans easily, something that medium and small farmers cannot do as the government will withdraw from the agriculture sector. There are also fears that big business houses stocking food grains in their mega-stores and gradually slash prices to exclude medium and small farmers, such as in the telecom sector where Jio decimated smaller players. Is.

Read also: How the farmers’ protest at Delhi’s borders ended: 5 demands the government agreed to, and 1 did not

Modi’s Nehruvian dilemma

In his attempt to introduce cooperative farming, Nehru was faced with the dilemma of choosing between supporting medium and small farmers and feeding the poor. Nehru was accused of harming the interests of the farmers. However, he tried to address this dilemma by taking a third route – adopting a technological route to increase productivity and distribution of food grains through PDS.

Narendra Modi is also facing a similar dilemma – supporting middle and small farmers or meeting the demands of the urban middle class. The cost of food items, especially perishables, has been one of the concerns of the urban middle class. Lack of good storage facilities is considered as one of the major reasons for increase in prices time and again. One of the proposed agricultural laws was to give private players the opportunity to build storage infrastructure for food items, which would ultimately drive down prices. But the claim that building such an infrastructure will inevitably keep prices under control is deeply disputed because wisdom suggests that prices remain stable throughout the year, rather than lower. When prices do not fluctuate, it creates the illusion that inflation is not high. For example, the price of apples does not fluctuate very rapidly throughout the year even though they are grown in India. The main reason is contract farming of apples where private companies procure and store the fruits for the next season as well. Similar is the case in European countries where prices do not fluctuate rapidly due to the control of the supply chain by mega corporations like Tesco, Lidl etc.

For the growing urban middle class, a strong support base of Modi, food inflation is a major concern. By bowing to the demands of the farmers, PM Modi has gone against the concern of this vote base. How this will unfold electorally, we need to wait and see.

Arvind Kumar (@arvind_kumar__), PhD Scholar, Department of Politics and IR, Royal Holloway, University of London. Thoughts are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Choubey)

subscribe our channel youtube And Wire