PLA Second Artillery Corps (r)

 SOURCE : http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Second-Artillery-Corps.html

A Google Earth file containing the placemarks used in the generation of this article can be downloaded here. This file contains every identified facility associated with the units and locations described above. BEFORE YOU CLICK ENSURE "GOOGLE EARTH "IS DOWN LAODED ON YOUR COMPUTER ======================= PLA Second Artillery Corps

Technical Report APA-TR-2009-1204 Sean O'Connor, BA, MS (AMU) December 2009 Updated April, 2012 Text © 2009 Sean O'Connor Layout, Line Artwork © 2009 Carlo Kopp

Second Artillery  Corps DF-21C TEL during rehearsals for the 60th Anniversary PLA parade.

Background - China's Missile Force Second Artillery Corps - General Deployment 51ST BASE 52ND BASE 53RD BASE 54TH BASE 55TH BASE 56TH BASE Training Facilities Test Facilities Development and Production Nuclear Weapons Industry Operational Employment Future Force Development Conclusion References and Notes

Background - China's Missile Force China possesses one of the largest land-based missile forces in the world. While intercontinental ballistic missile parity with the US or the USSR was never one of the goals of the PLA during the Cold War, a rapidly modernizing 2nd Artillery Corps is becoming a far more viable international deterrent force in the current world. Capable of inundating the region surrounding China with hundreds, if not thousands, of conventional and nuclear armed missiles, the PLA's 2nd Artillery Corps deserves credit and recognition as one of the most devastating military branches found in any military worldwide. The Chinese land-based ballistic and cruise missile force comprises 38 operational missile units spread throughout the nation. The force is heavily oriented towards mobile short and theater range systems, with only eight facilities supporting ICBMs. The locations of the PLA's operational missile units can be seen in the image below:

Second Artillery Corps - General Deployment The 2nd Artillery Corps of the People's Liberation Army controls China's land-based missile forces. The 2nd Artillery Corps is responsible for both ballistic and cruise missiles, with varying ranges and differing payloads. With the introduction of new conventionally armed ballistic missiles and the new CJ-10 GLCM, the 2nd Artillery Corps should not merely be considered a nuclear missile force. The 2nd Artillery Corps headquarters is located north of Beijing, directly south of the 2nd Artillery Corp's research and development complex, as seen in the image below. An alternate HQ is likely found in the hardened underground launch control facility located beneath  Yuquanshan Mountain to the west. Second Artillery Corps missile units are organized into what the PLA refers to as “bases”. There are six bases, each located in a different geographical area. Described in the terms used by the Russian military, these bases are analogous to Russia's “Missile Armies”. Each base has numerous subordinate missile brigades, with each brigade maintaining one or more garrisons, various underground facilities (UGFs), rail transfer points, and field launch positions. Missile garrisons are not difficult to identify once their location can be narrowed to a certain geographical area. These facilities will typically contain administrative and support infrastructure for assigned personnel, and various garages for housing missile TELs and support equipment. Garrisons supporting field deployable systems such as the DF-21 or DF-31 will typically possess high-bay garages or other similar structures used for the assembly and checkout of system components. Rail transfer points are not typically easy to identify with any certainty, unless missile equipment is visible at the railyard. However, the likely rail transfer points are those railyards in closest proximity via roadway or connecting railspur to the missile garrisons. Ergo, these facilities have been marked as the likely rail transfer points. Identifying field launch sites for the 2nd Artillery Corps' missile force can be a difficult proposition, and there are likely hundreds of such locations as yet unlocated. Careful analysis can be used to identify likely locations, however. The majority of these positions will contain a hardened concrete pad where the associated missile will be erected for launch. Certain missile systems will typically have very similar or even identical launch positions. Usually, it appears that most units within a given base will adopt a similar launch site design for a given missile type, although this is not uniform. Typical launch site dimensions for common used systems are as follows: DF-11: 15 meters in length DF-15: 26 meters in length DF-21: 45 meters in length As a comparison, consider the following image. DF-21 launch positions from the 51st and 56th Bases are depicted. Note the similarity to the Datong and Delingha sites. The Huanglong and Liuqingkao examples depict identical dimensions but different, more concealed configurations. Such concealment efforts can make launch sites difficult to identify without considerable examination and are often employed by units in areas which are more likely to be potentially engaged. Knowing the dimensions or configuration of a given launch site for a specific missile type allows analysts to determine which sites in a mixed garrison are employed by which missile systems. Shangrao's 815th Brigade, for example, employs both the DF-11 and DF-15. Given that both missiles utilize dimensionally different launch positions due to the different size of the launch vehicles, an examination of the launch sites near Shangrao will provide an indication of which sites will be used by which missile system. Once this is determined, a more accurate assessment of the strength of the unit may also be made. These are standard practices when analyzing missile units through overhead imagery. Nearly every missile brigade is located in close proximity to one or more hardened UGFs. It is thought that these facilities may provide staging areas for missile systems which have left garrison. Alternatively, they could provide storage for missiles and/or warheads, as these are not likely to be kept on TELs in-garrison indefinitely. These facilities may also serve a purpose unrelated to the 2nd Artillery Corps, but are included nonetheless as their true purpose cannot be accurately determined. It is known that UGFs support aspects of the 2nd Artillery Corps, and the included facilities represent the most likely locations operating in support of nearby missile units. For a representative brigade layout, consider again the 815th Brigade at Shangrao. The following image depicts the locations of the garrison, three identified UGFs, and twelve identified launch sites for the assigned DF-11 and DF-15 missiles. Note the relatively linear progression from garrison to UGF to launch site. A TEL could leave the garrison during hostilities and travel to a UGF for either arming or to await a launch order. Once ordered, the TEL could then proceed to a launch point, all with a minimum of exposure. The icons used above are used throughout this article and are present in the associated downloadable file. The only alteration is that ICBM units are marked on the images of each Base's associated sites with blue flags instead of red flags. This allows the reader to differentiate between theater and intercontinental assets with ease.

51ST BASE The 51st Base consists of six missile units in northeastern China. These units are as follows: 806th Brigade, DF-21, Huanglong/Hancheng 810th Brigade, DF-3A and DF-21, Dengshahe 816th Brigade, DF-15, Tonghua ( Some sources claim that the 816th Brigade is equipped with the DF-21.) 822nd Brigade, DF-21, Laiwu U/I Brigade, U/I missile, Fengrun U/I Brigade, U/I missile, Jingyu The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: Some sources claim that the 816th Brigade is equipped with the DF-21. 52ND BASE The 52nd Base consists of twelve missile units in southeastern China. These units are as follows: 807th and 811th Brigades, DF-3A and DF-15, Lianxiwang/Jingdezhen 815th Brigade, DF-15C, Leping 815th Brigade, DF-11 and DF-15, Shangrao 815th Brigade, DF-15, Xindian 817th Brigade, DF-11A, Yong An 818th Brigade, DF-15, Meizhou 819th Brigade, DF-15, Gangzhou 820th Brigade, DF-15, Jinhua U/I Brigade, DF-11 and DF-15, Jiangshan U/I Brigade, DF-15, Nanping U/I Brigade, DF-11A, Xianyou U/I Brigade, U/I missile, Ningbo The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: Note : The 807th Brigade, reportedly located at Chizhou, is likely co-located with the 811th Brigade at Lianxiwang/Jingdezhen. DF-3A missiles associated with these units may have been replaced by DF-21s, according to some sources. 53RD BASE The 53rd Base consists of four missile units in southern China. These units are as follows: 802nd Brigade, DF-21, Jianshui 802nd Brigade, DF-21, Kunming 808th Brigade, DF-21, Chuxiong 821st Brigade, CJ-10, Luorong The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: 54TH BASE The 54th Base consists of six missile units in eastern China. These units are as follows: 801st Brigade, DF-5A, Lushi 804th Brigade, DF-5A, Luoning/Luoyang 813th Brigade, DF-31, Nanyang U/I Brigade, DF-4, Sundian U/I Brigade, DF-31, Xixia U/I Brigade, U/I missile, Sanmenxia The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: Launch sites located near Xixia, once thought to serve the 813th Brigade at Nanyang, may support a separate DF-31 or DF-31A unit. Garrison facilities have not been identified, but the different launch site style may be indicative of a separate unit. 55TH BASE The 55th Base consists of two missile units in southern China. These units are as follows: 803rd and 814th Brigades, DF-5A, Jingxian 805th Brigade, DF-4, Tongdao The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: The 803rd and 814th Brigades are both found in close proximity and may share some of the garrison and support facilities located nearby. Dongkou, often claimed to be home to the 55th Base's 824th Brigade, is in actuality a training facility and is not included as part of the 55th Base. 56TH BASE The 56th Base consists of eight missile units in northern China. These units are as follows: 809th Brigade, DF-21, Datong 812th Brigade, DF-31A, Beidao/Tawanli 823rd Brigade, DF-21, Korla U/I Brigade, DF-11 and DF-15, Da Qaidam U/I Brigade, DF-4, DF-11, DF-15, DF-21, and DF-31, Delingha U/I Brigade, DF-21, Liuqingkou U/I Brigade, DF-11 and DF-15, Mahai U/I Brigade, DF-21 and DF-31, Xining The locations of these units can be seen in the following image: The Delingha brigade is often referred to as a training unit. This may be the case, but it is included here as it is far more expansive than typical ballistic missile training fields. It is likely home to operational units, even if the facilities are also employed for training purposes. The 812th Brigade is often erroneously referred to as being based at Tianshui when in actuality the main garrison facilities are located east of Tianshui at Beidao.

Training Facilities Seven facilities provide classroom and field training for 2nd Artillery Corps personnel. Six facilities are garrisons or launch areas providing hands-on training and missile launch capabilities. The seventh facility is the 2nd Artillery Corps Engineering School in Xian. The locations and identifications of the 2nd Artillery Corps' training facilities can be seen in the image below: Many of the training facilities do not provide significant garrison areas, implying that they are manned by deployed units who arrive with their own equipment. This does not imply that crew training is not conducted at home garrison, but rather that a capability to field deploy and conduct training launches is available within the 2nd Artillery Corps. This is similar to the presence of dedicated training facilities for PLAAF SAM units. Such a layout also allows locations to be identified as training rather than operational garrisons. A representative training facility can be found at Linyi. This facility houses numerous training launch pads and minimal support facilities. It can be seen in the image below: Two of the training facilities provide crew training on the DF-5A missile system. These two facilities, at Dongkou and Luoyang, are fitted with missile silos to provide a realistic training environment. Not only are crews theoretically able to undergo certification or training on launch procedures, but the presence of realistic silos allows maintenance personnel to effectively train on operational tasks such as silo reloading and in-silo missile servicing. This is a significant training capability to possess; with DF-5A ICBM silos in relatively short supply, training can be conducted without affecting the operational status of the primary Chinese strategic deterrent force.

Test Facilities Seven test facilities support the development and testing of ballistic missiles in China. Six of these locations are equipped with facilities to launch various types of ballistic missiles. The seventh facility is an impact range equipped with mock targets used to assess missile accuracy. The locations and identifications of the 2nd Artillery Corps' test facilities can be seen in the image below: The two primary ballistic missile test facilities are at Wuzhai and Shuangchengzi. These facilities contain multiple launch positions and support facilities, allowing for large-scale development programs to be conducted at each site. Wuzhai is considerably larger and is likely the primary ICBM test facility. It is the only test facility to be outfitted with a DF-5 series silo for trials launches, and has been cited in the open press as the launch site for DF-31 and DF-31A trials. Shuangchengzi, therefore, is likely primarily tasked with supporting SRBM/MRBM/IRBM development programs, although there is no reason why any type of missile could not be fired from either location. Four other facilities, located at Bayan Hot, Huludao, Jinzhou, and Songlin, are also available for test launches. The Songlin site is noteworthy as it supports the development of China's ASAT missile. This location fired the SC-19 ASAT weapon used to destroy an orbiting satellite in January of 2007. Apart from the six launch facilities supporting missile testing, an impact zone located 100km northwest of Dunhuang provides targets for weapons fired in test and training launches. Close examination of this facility proves to be very revealing. The facility consists of five primary targets, seen in the image below. These targets consist of three mock airstrips and two concrete pads. The concrete pads provide a great deal of insight into Chinese warhead development. Both the small western pad, measuring 115 meters by 115 meters, and the large eastern pad, measuring 250 meters by 250 meters, show considerable evidence of submunitions impacts, implying that submunitions warheads have been actively tested. The eastern pad was untouched as of May 2005, but began to show evidence of submunitions impacts in September 2006 imagery. By March of 2007 the eastern pad showed evidence of large HE warhead strikes. The eastern pad is significant as it is divided into four 150 meter by 150 meter sections, allowing for missile accuracy to be measured accurately. All of the HE warhead impacts are contained within the northeastern section. The characteristics of the impacts themselves suggests that they were all made by the same type of warhead. While it is possible that this represents evidence of an MRV-equipped missile test, possibly that of the DF-21C, it cannot be conclusively determined if the impacts were made during the same test using the available imagery. As the weapons all impacted in the same segment of the pad, it does allow for an assessment of the accuracy of the launch platform to be made. Details of the eastern impact pad can be seen in the image below: All of the impacts can be contained within a circle having a 100 meter radius. This indicates that the CEP of the weapon is approximately 50 meters. Given the fact that the target site is 580 kilometers from Shuangchengzi, it is possible that a DF-15C test series resulted in the HE impacts on the pad. The DF-15C is reported to have a 600 kilometer range and terminal homing. The inclusion of a dual GPS and active radar terminal homing system on the DF-15C allows for an accuracy reportedly between 30 and 50 meters CEP, matching what is visible at the impact site. The integration of terminal homing with conventional warheads of high accuracy provides more credibility to the Chinese ASBM threat as well as indicating that accuracte, conventionally armed ballistic missiles may be more likely to be employed in a conflict than previous nuclear-only weapons. In a conventional conflict this could result in a significant increase in the number of ballistic missiles fired at targets, potentially allowing any ATBM or ABM systems in the area to be oversaturated.

Development and Production The development and production of ballistic and cruise missiles in China involves numerous different facilities throughout the nation. These facilities can be seen in the image below: Missile final assembly is conducted at one of the missile plants or assembly facilities. Solid propellant motors are produced by the facilities near Xian, with the Lantian Solid Rocket Motor Academy being responsible for their design and development. The Chinese Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology is responsible for liquid propellant motors, and the marked “Ballistic Missile Development Facility” may be CALT's main test facility, although this has yet to be verified. TELs are produced by three factories, and may be produced at the Beijing Nanyuan facility as well.

Nuclear Weapons Industry Little is known about the actual design and production of Chinese nuclear weapons. Five facilities have been identified that have a known nuclear-related purpose. They are as follows: CIAE Nuclear Research Complex, Tuoli 404 Plutonium Production Plant, Jiuquan 504 Uranium Gasseous Diffusion Plant, Lanzhou 821 Plutonium Production Plant, Guangyuan Lop Nur Nuclear Test Site These facilities are annotated on the image below: While these facilities may have civillian nuclear power and research purposes, their nature indicates that they may also serve the Chinese nuclear weapons industry. Lop Nur is well known as the test site for Chinese nuclear weapons, and the three plants annotated above could be used to produce weapons-grade fissile material.

Operational Employment During wartime, control over the 2nd Artillery Corps' missile brigades differs depending on their payload. Units fielding nuclear armed weapons, most notably the ICBM brigades, report directly to the Chinese national command center west of Beijing. Conventionally armed brigades are treated differently. A regional command cell, called a “war front” command, would assume control of relevant conventionally-armed ballistic missile units as part of a conventional missile corps. This missile corps would be subordinate to the war front command, acting as part of a total force package consisting of air, land, sea, and missile elements. Beijing's leadership and 2nd Artillery Corps commanders would be able to communicate directly with the war front command, and would retain the ability to directly control assigned missile brigades should the need arise or the situation warrant it. At the brigade level, individual firing battalions would be assigned operating areas consisting of presurveyed and/or prepared launch positions. As previously mentioned, it is likely that the garrisoned TELs are not kept uploaded with missiles and armed with warheads. Inside a missile brigade's force structure, there are six departments: headquarters, political, logistics, technical and equipment, missile storage, and launch battalions. These are present in both conventional and nuclear missile brigades. The missile storage department consists of a central depot, and a missile/warhead transfer section. This implies that there is a storage facility for the missiles and warheads, or perhaps separate facilities for each. No garrison facility possesses the secure, hardened facilities needed to adequately store and protect these assets, so it must be assumed that they are located off-site. The logical assumption is that the vast network of UGFs located near the missile garrisons and launch sites are used to protect, store, and transfer these items. Storing warheads and missiles in UGFs allows TELs to be loaded and armed under protected cover, and away from the prying eyes of intelligence satellites attempting to gauge force readiness. This also allows the garrisons themselves to be situated in or near large population centers, as most of them are, without fear of any accident or incident leading to a catastrophe. Apart from the ICBM force, which at present only provides a token deterrent lacking in any sort of credible counterforce or counterstrike capability, the 2nd Artillery Corps is equipped primarily for a regional mission. The most significant unit is the 52nd Base, controlling the weapons directed across the strait at the Taiwan Authority on the island of Taiwan. The twelve units of the 52nd Base control a large number of DF-3A, DF-11, DF-11A, DF-15, and DF-15C ballistic missiles. Apart from the DF-3A which can range far out into the Pacific Ocean, the remaining missile forces have sufficient range to blanket the island of Taiwan without venturing far from their garrisons. The following image depicts 2nd Artillery Corps ballistic missile coverage of the island of Taiwan. DF-11 range rings are orange, DF-11A range rings are yellow, and DF-15/DF-15C range rings are red. With a limited ATBM capability provided by Tien Kung II, Tien Kung III, and PATRIOT PAC-2 SAM batteries, the island of Taiwan could easily be overwhelmed by incoming weapons, even considering the October 2008 approval by the United States Congress of a PAC-3 sale to the Taiwan Authority. The deployment of accurate, conventionally-armed ballistic and cruise missiles makes the missile threat to the island of Taiwan far more likely to become part of a military option. In short, a determined missile strike on the island of Taiwan could be carried out in a manner guaranteeing its success, should the Chinese government wish to expend the number of weapons necessary to oversaturate the ATBM capable systems. Given the number of missiles deployed by the 52nd Base, it would appear that at least part of that equation has already been satisfied. The most important feature of the 2nd Artillery Corps is mobility. A great deal of effort was made during the 1970s and 1980s to improve mobility and reduce the readiness time of deployed systems. Developmental systems which reached maturity in the 1990s and 2000s were all designed to be highly mobile; a great deal of the successes in this regard have stemmed from the maturation of the solid rocket motor industry. Mobility enhances the survivability of deployed assets, making it harder to accurately target them due to a potential lack of consistently accurate positioning data. The only issue with mobile systems is the need for accurate pretargeting position data to prepare the onboard guidance systems. Using presurveyed and prepared launch sites alleviates a portion of this problem, but provides enemy forces with locations to monitor for deployed missile systems. Adequate intelligence and indications and warning information must also be possessed in order to ensure that missiles are field deployed prior to the outbreak of armed conflict, lest the launchers be destroyed in-garrison before they have a chance to be loaded and deployed.

Future Force Development The current ICBM force in China represents a token strategic deterrent incapable of waging a nuclear counterforce or counterstrike campaign. While silo-based DF-5A missiles are survivable to a degree, silo positions can be located and targeted for preemptive strike should the need arise. China has taken measures to conceal these positions, but they can still be located through thorough imagery analysis. To increase survivability and reduce launch preparation time, the solid propellant DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile ICBMs have been developed and are being fielded. Liquid-fueled DF-5A missiles may not employ storable liquid fuel propellant, possibly requiring a lengthy fueling process before firing. The DF-31 appears to have been superceded by the longer-ranged DF-31A capable of reaching the entire United States, with only the 813th Brigade at Nanyang and possibly the unidentified brigade at Xixia definitely operating the system. The main drawback of the DF-31, apart from the shorter range when compared to the DF-31A, is the lack of an off-road capability. It is believed that a new off-road capable TEL is being developed for the DF-31A, allowing the weapons to be deployed further afield from garrisons in areas where launch positions would be much harder to identify. The deployment of increased numbers of DF-31 and DF-31A systems will finally allow China to obtain a survivable, credible counterforce and counterstrike capability. The presence of UGFs supporting these systems allows them to remain hidden prior to launch, perhaps deploying after an initial nuclear attack to perform a counterstrike mission. MIRVing these weapons would increase the effectiveness of each launcher, and when combined with the PLAN's evolving SSBN fleet would allow a smaller number of launch platforms to serve as a counterforce option and credible deterrent to any nuclear strike, should a “launch on warning” posture be adopted with sufficient support assets. One mission being developed for the 2nd Artillery Corps is that of anti-carrier strike using precision-guided conventionally armed ballistic missiles.

Conclusion While the 2nd Artillery Corps does not currently represent a significant nuclear deterrent force against either the United States or Russia, it represents a very substantial risk to  lesser regional nations, due to the large number of SRBM, MRBM, and IRBM assets currently deployed. As ICBMs with higher mobility are deployed and more accurate conventional theater weapons enter service, the 2nd Artillery Corps will evolve into a true strategic deterrent and even more devastating regional military force.  The ground launched CJ-10 Long Sword is a strategic cruise missile modelled on the United States BGM-109G GLCM and Soviet RK-55 Relief, the latter both scrapped under treaty obligations. Chinese sources credit this missile with a range of up to  1,100 nautical miles. It carries a range of different 770 lb or 1,100 lb warheads. The PLA Second Artillery Force has currently up to 30 deployed TELs (Chinese internet).

References and Notes A Google Earth file containing the placemarks used in the generation of this article can be downloaded here. This file contains every identified facility associated with the units and locations described above. Satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth The Chinese Second Artillery Corps: Transition To Credible Deterrence; Bates Gill, James Mulvenon, and Mark Stokes DoD Annual Report To Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2008 and 2009 reports) The DH-10 Reaches IOC Chinese Strategic Missiles 2nd Artillery Units & Inventory Chinese Missile Facilities Chinese Nuclear Facilities SC-19 Designation Revealed Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning China's Ballistic Missile Programs More information on ASBM developments can be found here.

FARMERS' AGITATION : History of Farmers’ Movements in India

 SOURCE :                                                                                                                           

   (A) https://www.mvnadkarni.com/files/Farmers%20Movements%20in%20India.pdf     

  ( B )   https://spontaneousorder.in/so-musing-the-shetkari-sanghathana-and-history-of-farmers-movements-in-india/

                                                     PART  1 of  2 

    

                     FARMERS' MOVEMENTS IN INDIA

                                 M.V. NADKARNI

                                 To

                            GANGA 

                     For what you are 

                        and do for me 

                 no exchange is equal,

                  exchange it can't be

                   —this is just yours 

                 you made it possible. 

1. FARMERS AND INDIA'S POWER STRUCTURE ...........1

 Introduction.. ..................................................................I 

Movements and Power Structure ..................................4 

Peasants' Movements and Rise .....................................13 

2. AGRARIAN STRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE IN NATIONAL ECONOMY ...........................................................28 

Agrarian Structure ..........................................................28 

Agriculture in National Economy ...................................41 

3. THE COURSE OF THE MOVEMENTS -TAMI L NADU. MAHARASHTRA AND PUNJAB.............................................58

 At the National Level........................................................ 58 .

Tamil Nadu .........................................................................60 

Maharashtra 69 Punjab.................................................... 75 

4. THE COURSE OF MOVEMENTS IN KARNATAKA .......82 

Before Malaprabha.............................................................. 82 

The Malaprabha Agitation ..................................................84

 The Rise of Rudrappa's Ryota Sangha ..............................95 

Farmers' Demands and Government Response. 1980 ......100 

Post-1980 Issues and Developments.................................... 111 

Postscript ...............................................................................134

 5. POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE MOVEMENTS .........136 

Spatial Dimensions................................................................ 136 

Mass Movement or Class Movement?................................. 139 

Dalits and Farmers' Movements.......................................... 148 

In Inter-Sectoral Perspective................................................ 156 

6. PRICE POLICY ISSUES ......................................................162

 Introduction ............................................................................162

 Terms of Trade....................................................................... 162

 Cost of Production: Conceptual Issues .................................178

 A r e Costs Covered?............................................................. 189

 World Prices ...........................................................................197 

Procurement and Public Distribution ...................................203

 Market Instability................................................................... 210 

7. PRICES AN D DEVELOPMENT- A CONCLUSION ...... 215

For detailed information PLEASE CLICK / GOOGLE  the  URL below to read the PDF 

        https://www.mvnadkarni.com/files/Farmers%20Movements%20in%20India.pdf

                                                   

                                                  PART  2 of  2 

           The Shetkari Sanghathana and the History of 

         Farmers’ Movements in India

The crisis facing India’s farmers has been as old as time itself. And throughout history, there have been numerous struggles and demands for reforms by Indian farmers against all dispensations. The demand for reforming the agricultural sector, giving access to open markets and de-regulating the economic freedom of farmers has been time and again raised in the past decades.

While the debate surrounding the current agri-reforms refuses to settle, it is pertinent to go back in time and to recall the rise of the Shetkari Sanghathana spearheaded by Sharad Anantrao Joshi. The Shetkari Sanghathana mobilised one of the largest farmer’s movements in the country and their demands were clear, a freer and liberal market to allay the plight of India’s farmers.

Produced below is the excerpt from a booklet titled ‘ Visionaries of a New Bharat – Shetkari Sanghathana’ which traces the evolution, the ideology and the vision of the Shetkari Sanghatana and elaborately lays down their demands with their rationale. 

The Shetkari Sangathana (SS) in Maharashtra functioning since 1998 is a true representative of the present epoch of the farmer’s movement. The SS has been spearheading the developmental and ideological debate. The SS was kick-started in the late 1970s by Sharad Joshi. The SS is a non-political, non communal and non-pastoral union of peasants with a single point-programme – “Securing remunerative prices for the agricultural produce.” The single point may seem to be extremely simplistic, but, according to the thought of SS, it is the key to the economic development of India. 

                          

      

                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS  ON

VISIONARIES OF A NEW “BHARAT” 

                       “SHETKARI SANGHATANA”

                                                                   By

                          Sharad Joshi

 The Farmers’ Organization in Maharashtra The Shetkari Sanghatana (SS) in Maharashtra functioning since 1978 is a true representative of the present epoch of farmers’ movements.

 The SS has been spearheading the developmental and ideological debate. The SS was kick-started in the late 1970s by Sharad Joshi (For bio-data see Annexe1). The SS is a non-political, non-communal, non-violent and non-pastoral union of peasants with a single point programme - “Securing remunerative prices for the agricultural produce”. The single point may seem to be extremely simplistic, but, according to the thought of SS, it is the key to the economic development of India.

 HISTORY OF FARMERS’ MOVEMENTS IN INDIA 

Movements, agitations, uprisings and revolts by peasants are as old as history itself. The primary objective of the farmers’ uprisings, agitations and conquests during the period of British Rule was to seek abolition of the Zamindari as against the Ryotwari (lease holder) system. In the long tradition of Indian history, the land in the village belonged to the village Panchayat. The division of agricultural labour continued from generation to generation between the cultivators and the artisans. The British brought in their own revenue system based on private ownership of land. Land was measured, numbered and allotted to prominent villagers who undertook to collect their revenue for the government or to those whose traditional role came closest to that of the cultivator/accountant. 

The British land tenure system had two effects. ONE The invasion of the Indian domestic market by cheap products of the British industry, particularly textiles, crippled the village artisans and dried up the money inflows into the village economy. TWO  Under these circumstances, levy of land-taxes payable strictly in cash, drove even the relatively well-off farmers to borrow money from whoever happened to have some spare cash, howsoever paltry. In very short time, indebtedness mounted and the mortgaged lands passed on to the moneylenders/zamindars. The resultant discontent was directed at the moneylenders and revenue collecting landlords instead of the prime villains i.e. the Colonial State. The newly English educated and articulate nationalists movement blamed the state of Indian agriculture on the internal contradiction between the rich farmers and the small peasants. Till the independence in 1947, the poverty of the countryside was attributed to either the weaknesses of the cultivator or to the exploitation by the landlords and the moneylenders. The independence in 1947 brought in the abolition of both the revenue collector zamindars as also the moneylenders. The despised institutions were replaced by a rigid credit and bureaucratic institutions and that did not attenuate the level of exploitation but carried the agricultural surplus away from the countryside to the urban areas.

  The independence and the partition marked the beginning of the years of food shortages and famines. The new national State started taking draconian measures calculated to take-away food surplus from the villages to urban industrial areas. The commonly prevalent notion, at the time, was that the poverty of the farmers was due to low productivity, illiteracy, poorer health conditions and age-old social customs. The generally pervading spirit of nationalities did not permit the emergence of any farmers’ movement directed against the State.

The Green Revolution of 1960s changed all that. The agricultural productivity in most areas and crops multiplied manifold. The farmers found, nevertheless, that their income was inversely proportional to the yields they obtained. India had a “Green Revolution” producing abundance of crops but leaving the farmers indebted and poor.

This signaled the right moment for the emergence of a Nationalist farmers’ organization. The blame for the poverty could no more be put on the moneylenders or on the landlords. It was no more possible to blame the illiteracy, the indolence and wasteful social customs. The time survived for the emergence of the Shetkari Sanghatana.

The articulators in the Shetkari Sanghatana propounded a new thesis drawing lessons from the scissors debate on of the Stalinist epoch and  established an innovative normal genesis of the problem.

            The abysmal poverty in India of agricultural region was caused by the fact that the proceeds of the crops did not cover even the bare minimum cost of production. The situation was caused by deliberate policies followed by the national government under the banner of “low cost economy”. The policy, in brief, amounted to a deliberate neo-colonial exploitation of the agriculture in order to provide the cheap primary capital for the Indian industry.

THE NEW AGRARIAN MOBILIZION 

Though it manifested in full strength in the early 1980s, the new agrarian mobilization was launched in the early 70s. The farmers’ agitations did not start in the poorest of the states but in the more developed and progressive ones such as Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu in 1970 and Ludhiana district of Punjab in 1972. Unlike many parts of the country having subsistence agriculture, these districts were well endowed with irrigation facilities and their agriculture, by the late sixties, had already become heavily market-oriented. The leaders of agitations in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu showed a remarkable capacity to formulate effective political strategies and articulate powerful idioms for rural mobilization. Sharad Joshi, in Maharashtra in particular, stood out as the strategist and communicator, whose imaginative slogan of the ‘Bharat-India’ divide became a new idiom of rural mobilization

With “remunerative agricultural prices” and “Freedom of access to markets and Technology” as its principal slogans, the Shetkari Sanghatana and other associated farmers’ organizations led many successful agitations under the banner of the Kisan Co-ordination Committee (KCC), which attracted farmers in numbers ranging between 1,00,000 to 5,00,000 on successive occasions over the last three decades

By 1982, over 36 farmers were shot down by the police for the ‘crime’ of demanding fair prices. At the global level, this was far more massive movement than the one lead by Lech Walesa in Poland. The farmers’ cause is not a popular one in the urban intellectual milieu. Consequently, the farmers’ revolt in India went largely unnoticed.

THE ROLE OF SHETKARI SANGHATANA (SS) 

SS underlines five distinguishing features of the new agrarianism. 

First, the new agrarianism dose not put on a pedestal lifestyle as being particularly virtuous for its blissful simplicity and spiritual richness. 

Second, it does not glorify the pastoral/agrarian pattern. Rather, the new agrarianism is aimed at ensuring, for the farmers, highest possible degrees of freedom as also a life of self-respect on par with that of the non-farming communities. 

Thirdly, The SS recognizes that capital formation of the new industry needs to come out of  surplus from agriculture. In the Soviet Union, the matter was debated in during the Stalin reign, to the conclusion by Stalin sending tanks against farmers. In India, the debate was resolved by establishing a complex of economic system which encouraged higher production but denied the farmer remunerative prices.

Fourthly, unlike peasants’ movements of the past, which pitched tenants against the landlords, the lower castes against the higher castes the SS farmers’ movement was not ‘divisive’ of the rural community. The significant line of internal contradiction was between “Bharat” and “India”. Mahatma Gandhi as also Marx have emphasized the conflict between the town and the country. Sharad Joshi’s view does not make a geographical division. As he states it,

“Bharat is that notional entity which continues to be exploited by the same policies as those of the Colonial Rule even after the British left; while India is that notional entity which has obtained the inheritance of Colonial exploitation.” 

The misery in the village is not caused by the “slightly” better-off farmers in the neighborhood but by an “outside exploiter” - the urban India. “Transcontinental imperialism” represented by the British has been replaced by “internal colonialism.” 

Finally, since surplus in agriculture expropriated through a policy of cheap raw materials and artificially depressed prices constitute the main technique used by the exploiters (the government) the agenda of the SS has been to bring in a one-point programme of “Remunerative prices”

The remunerative prices for their agricultural produce are to be acquired not through a hackneyed system of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs), Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), Food Corporation of India (FCI), and Public Distribution System (PDS). These four institutions have been the basic instruments of exploitation of the farmers. A genuinely free market assures a price that adequately covers the cost of production. Freedom of market and opposition to all forms of State interventions in the market mechanism becomes the basic plank of the farmers’ movement.

The rationale for the remunerative price agenda is as follows: 

1. Farmers respond rationally to price movements; they will react to price incentives by increasing acreage and investment and by adopting improved technology. 

2. Farmers’ response will increase demand for labour and, hence, wage earners will benefit even more than the cultivators. 

3. As a consequence of additional income so received, farmers will undertake nonagricultural activities; thus, creating employment and the incremental income that  will bolster secondary, tertiary as also service sector growth.

 4. Trade and the exchange are beneficial for attaining higher levels of production and higher standards of living. Self-sufficiency is the virtue of less cerebral species. The system based on self-sufficiency will often be exposed to lists of droughts and famines 

5. The cerebral character of the human species would sit in a separate category. Human societies have ruled many Bloomsbury forecasters wrong through innovation and technology. The history of mankind shows that the good of the masses comes not so much from social or political institutions as form advancement of technology.

 6. All technologies have their good aspects and bad aspects. Societies accept technologies when their benign expressions are more relevant. Societies tend to question the use of those very technologies when the times change and the less savoury aspects thereof manifest themselves. 

7. The advancement of human societies has been achieved not by going back into obscurantist past but by innovating higher technology that will limit the bad effects of the old ones.

Thus, the overall philosophy of the Shetkari Sanghatana is that price incentives in agriculture and a “natural” process of capital accumulation driven by an agriculture revolution can benefit the entire economy and break the vicious circle of poverty. As opposed to this, an accumulation process driven by industrial revolution (before agricultural revolution takes place) is always premised upon a coercive expropriation of agricultural surplus.

The SS is the only farmers’ organization in favour of an uncontrolled market in agriculture produce and international free trade in both inputs and outputs in agriculture. Though regional in base, the Shetkari Sanghatana has been able to force a debate on the developmental path chosen by India in the context of its demands at the highest level. The organization has played a crucial role in shaping the ideology and the demands of the largest coalition of farmers’ organisations in India. 

In the 1980s, Sharad Joshi, the founder of the Shetkari Sanghatana, put forth his theory that, the primary contradiction in the country was between “Bharat” (primarily the villages but also including the unorganized urban sector: “refugees from Bharat in the cities”) and “India” (the westernized industrial bureaucratic elite, inheritors of colonial exploitation.).

The issue raised by this radically different farmers’ organization was one of exploitation, in which surplus was being extracted from the peasantry via the market mechanism and unequal exchange. The key to fighting this exploitation was the demand for higher prices to meet the costs of production for their crops, i.e. the “remunerative prices”.

In January 1982, the Shetkari Sanghatana held its first Plenipotentiary conference in a small taluka place in Nashik District, with 18,000 delegates representing more than half the districts in Maharashtra and a concluding rally of over one lakh. The one-lakh figure became the defining standard to gauge the success of major farmers’ agitations and rallies for years to come.

One of the issues consistently raised by the SS has been the Government’s imposition of negative subsidies. For over forty years since independence, the Indian planners maintained that Indian agriculture was highly subsidized, while the industrialists and the traders stood on their own feet. The big lie was exposed by the submissions of Ministry of Commerce, regarding agricultural subsidy, to the WTO in 1989.

It now stands recognized that Indian industry was the most protected in the whole world and that the Indian agriculture suffered from the worst negative subsidy estimated at - 87% (1996-997). Even the Government of India admitted that the so-called subsidies on farm inputs like water, electricity, fertilizers etc. have benefited everyone but the farmers for whom they were originally meant.

Planning in India was based on strategies calculated to deny farmers legitimate price through deployment of a large number of tactics including bans and restriction on commodity export, dumping of agricultural produce form abroad in the domestic market, restrictions on trade, movement and processing, compulsory levy procurement at prices at inadequate levels and high exchange rates. The planners and the established economists spread the message that low agriculture prices are good for the Country, for the farmer and finally, for the consumer. But, the experience of the post independence period has shown that higher prices and better terms of trade in agriculture benefit not only the surplus producers but also the agrarian community as a whole. The Dunkel proposals and the GATT treaty completely vindicated the stand of the Shetkari  Sanghatana and demolished the doctrines of Indian planners. 

The above-mentioned anti-farmer polices in the last six decades caused erosion of agricultural land, capital and high levels of income disparity between the agrarian sector vis-à-vis the non-agrarian sector. In 1951, the ratio between the per capita agrarian and non-agrarian income, at constant prices, was 1:1.4; now it stands at 1:10.6. In 1950-51, Agriculture contributed 63% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and supported 74% of the population. Today, agriculture contributes only 27% of the GDP but the proportion of agrarian population, nevertheless, persists at about 70%

The SS proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Essential Commodities Act was used deliberately as an instrument of depressing agricultural prices and obstruct the progress of Indian agriculture. This act was designed to deny the farmer access to latest international technologies, purchase of quality seeds and other inputs. The Act also encouraged dumping of imported commodities in the Indian market, thereby causing further losses to Indian farmers. A replica of the World War II days, this Act has been extended indefinitely from year to year. It gives the government parental powers to play mayhem under the guise of ensuring public distribution of essential commodities, but surprisingly omits really essential things like medicines, etc.

 NEED FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN AGRICULTURE  

AS early as 1991, Sharad Joshi had stated in his book “Answering before God” that:

 Establishment of an alternative package of technologies and practices is a matter of utmost importance and urgency. The research needs to be carried out in a highly professional manner, in a scientific spirit, as regards both the technical and economic aspects of exploitation at micro and also macro levels. This again emphasizes, the forward-looking attitude rather than the Luddite attitudes of environmentalists. New technology creates some problems, but they cannot be avoided by shutting down the doors of new technology but rather by welcoming future strides in technology, which resolve the problems of the past epoch. 

FORMATION OF A UNIFIED FARMERS’ MOVEMENT 

On 31 October 1982, an Interstate Coordination Committee (ICC) comprising of farmers’ organisations from twelve states was formed at Wardha (Maharashtra state). It was a historic step by itself, because until then most farmers’ agitations in the country arose on purely local issues and died down without spreading into surrounding regions. ICC was the first attempt at creating an all India representative body of farmers of divers states producing different crops. An earlier attempt to create a more unified All India body under one banner and one leader had floundered on the question of the role farmers’ organisations had to play in active politics. Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), in spite of diversity in thought and names, could have under one banner, one leader and one name, but floundered miserably because the convener himself gave up apolitical position and formed a political party. 

In 1989, some difficulties arose, because in certain states no one organization could claim a substantial following of the farmers. The ICC, therefore, was reconstituted as Kisan Co-ordination Committee (KCC) with 55 member-organisations coming from 14 states. 

The KCC has often mobilized its strength to lend support to farmers agitating in one state by mobilizing farmers from other states. For example, in 1984, the agitation of farmers in Punjab was dragging on for years without any solution. The ICC organized a Gherao of the Raj Bhavan in Chandigarh in which 80,000 farmers form different states participated. The Government was forced to appoint an expert committee on the dispute, which finally resulted in a solution acceptable to farmers.

In 1990, the farmers in Punjab were agitating against Government’s dumping of imported wheat. Over 50,000 farmers from other states came to Punjab and Haryana to lend their strength. Ultimately, the Prime Minister was forced to call the leaders of the KCC for discussion to seek the solution. 

The KCC is, on the lines of the SS, a nonpolitical, non-communal, non-violent and nonpastoral organization. It represents farmers from all across the country who demand free trade as a sinea-quo-non for progress in the next millennium. Shetkari Sanghatana has been the most active element in the agitations and advocacy of the KCC’s philosophy. The KCC acknowledged the fact that it cannot completely solve the problem of negative subsidy, but it could definitely ensure that whichever government came into power, it could assure that farmers were not affected by the change.

 TIME FOR A CHANGE IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE: 

THE ERA OF LIBERALIZATION. The 1990s was been a momentous decade. It witnessed great strides in India’s progress towards true freedom. Statism, Apartheid and Racism went on the retreat. Pre-1990s farmer had been the scapegoat for all repressive regimes in India. After a millennium, the farmer was finally able to hear the sound of his shackles cracking. The beneficiaries of the old regime are upset at the new trend and are still trying to prevent economic reforms. The beneficiaries of the old statist socialist regime include politicians, bureaucrats, organized labour and those producers who lack confidence in their capacity to survive in a free market without governmental intervention. Most of these groups have identified themselves by coming out openly against the Dunkel proposals and economic reforms in the field of agriculture. The anti-liberalization groups of NGOs and the protectionist farmers’ groups have demonstrated a sizeable capacity of misinforming and misleading the farmers and the general public against the benefits of liberalization in agriculture

The SS and the KCC are probably the only farmers’ organisations in this country to defend Dunkel proposals. In spite of opposition to the Dunkel proposal by the politicians and the economists, the Shetkari Sanghatana was successful in convincing the government to adopt the same. Today it continues to be the most articulate proponent of freedom of economy and technology in India. 

In the year 1991, Shetkari Sanghatana chose the Educational Approach to reach out its message to the farmers in the country. 

The educational approach had a four-pronged program to achieve the same. 

1. Farmer-level experimentation on appropriate technology. Experiment on our own on technological possibilities e.g. Marigold grown around green chillies reduces the impact of diseases (Seeta Sheti).

 2. Agri-Processing Raw agricultural produce should not be taken to the market from the farms in its brut form. But it should, at least, be cleaned thoroughly, be graded and then packaged adequately to get appropriate prices (Majghar Sheti).

 3. Marketing The Sanghatana believed in the corporate movement of farmers. It propagated the concept of “Entrepreneurism” within the farming community (Trading and Domestic Marketing i.e. Vyapar Sheti). 

4. Export market for domestic produce. To undertake these operations the SS encouraged farmers to start joint stock companies for their own business and not lend themselves to the bureaucratic co-operatives, which were controlled exclusively by the State. (Niryat Sheti).

(The SS opened a path-making initiative but questioning the pluralism as regards the forms of business organisations in agriculture and industry. Joint Stock Company is the most common form of business organization in the urban area. On the other hand, most agricultural business including banking and credit comes under the cooperative sector, which is largely State-dominated. Most of the farmers’ agitations were fought against the injustices inflicted on the farmers by the cooperative sugar factories, the cooperative banks as also the cooperative marketing agencies. A large number of farmers who committed suicide between 1995 and 2008 had borrowed money from the cooperative banks. In an epoch where cooperation was supposed to be the only pathway to progress, the SS launched a movement for formation of farmers’ joint stock companies. The normal feature of the farmers’ companies was formation of the equity capital by conversion of land, labour into share capital. This conversion of immovable land into movable equity also proved to be a major boost to the cause of the women’s property rights. The Shetkari Mahila Aghadi had even earlier promoted the cause of women’s property rights by launching a campaign for voluntary transfers of family’s land into the name of the domiciliary women.)

Shetkari Mahila Aghadi

Sanghatana is that it recognizes the principal role of women as toilers in the field and organized a separate Women’s Front of the Shetkari Sanghatana, the Shetkari Mahila Aghadi (SMA). It encouraged all farmers to participate in its Laxmi Mukti programme. The programme was a voluntary movement of farmers to transfer share of their landholdings and assets in the name of their wives. At least 2,00,000 documented transfer of land in name of their wives were registered during the period from 1991 to 1996. Sharad Joshi, the founder of the organization is the most revered farmer leader among the rural women folk. This is clearly evident from all the public gatherings organized by the Shetkari Sanghatana where the percentage of women was always more than 40%

 The Shetkari Sanghatana does not look upon government intervention as being beneficial to farmers at all. This approach created a lot of resentment from political leaders who were against the opening up of the system.

As put in the words of Sharad Joshi, 

“The quality of life of an individual, as also of a community is to be assessed by the degrees of freedom it enjoys. The four degrees of freedom are: 

1. Number of occasions available for making a choice. 

2. Number of options available at each point of choice. 

3. The range of the spectrum of the options. 

4. Novelty of the options for choice. 

The larger the number and the variety of means at disposal, the higher will be the degrees of freedom. Hence, material opulence is desirable in itself not for the enjoyment and happiness: it brings increased production, higher productivity and accumulation of capital form the very core of all social and economic activity. 

The Shetkari Sanghatana, over the past 30 years, has become the mainstream source of research information in the Indian agriculture sector. It is non-pastoral and does not glorify village-life. It always keeps a distance from environment lobbies as it feels that they do not understand the ground realities of agriculture

SS VIEWS ON ‘FARMERS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS’

The attitude of farmers on the IPR is diametrically opposite to that of the urban intellectuals, Luddite environmentalist groups and nonsensical NGOs. According to the SS, farmers have reason to welcome the breakdown of the license-permit Raj, the trade restrictions and subsidies. They appreciate that if all kinds of subsidies are being abolished, obviously, advantages of free R&D cannot be claimed as a right by any party. India lags behind the most advanced countries in the field of agricultural technology by 100 years. If the farmers can have immediate access to frontier technologies on payment for a period of twenty years and free of cost after that, we ought to be grateful to the developed world for that. The farmers are confident that they will be able to ensure that transfer of technology does not remain a one-way traffic. The third world countries have a natural advantage due to its rich bio-diversity. The advanced countries have substantial lead in the field of biotechnology, which permits invention or a new discovery or process. They will continue to make breakthroughs and farmers will be willing to pay for any worthwhile technological innovation rather than be forced to pay, not much less, for the shoddy wares of the ‘local peddlers’.

Challenges in the future

The SS started 30 years back like a thin rivulet demanding improvement of road linkages between villages and remunerative prices for onion. Over three decades by pursuing strenuously agitations for remunerative prices of onion, sugar cane, tobacco, Milk, paddy and wheat, it advanced logically with the generalized demand for abolition of all agriculture loans as being both illegal and immoral. It also became the front ranking articulator for economic performance, liberalization as also globalization.

Today it’s postulate that the government deliberately depressed agricultural prices, which had the effect of keeping agriculture a losing proposition and generating poverty has been widely accepted.

More recently, SS has been confronting the agricultural policies followed by the UPA government under the influence of its leftist parties aimed at reviving the old policies of imposing negative subsidies as also discouraging the most open of the free markets i.e. the spot and the future commodity markets.

SS has spread its wings to support a number of agriculture related industries like pesticides, micro and macro sprinkler irrigation systems, plantation, crop processing industries whenever these latter came in difficulties because of the protectionist anti-dumping policies of the government.

The SS has steadfastly supported the WTO rules of multilateral trade, disinvestment in nonviable public sector units, after giving them a chance to prove themselves by exposure to competition. It also supports generalized entry for foreign direct investment (FDI) as also the foreign institutional investment (FII). It holds that entry of electronics in future commodity markets has made them accessible even in far off villages. It is necessary to augment the level of liquidity and depth of these markets by opening them to the FDIs and FIIs. This will end all the problems of shortage of investment and credit in agriculture.

Unfortunately, the UPA government under the strong influence of its leftist allies tends to promote the stock markets but hesitates to give similar opening opportunities to agricultural marketing institutions.

Unfortunately, the UPA government under the strong influence of its leftist allies tends to promote the stock markets but hesitates to give similar opening opportunities to agricultural marketing institutions.

Contrary to a number of other farm outfits who oppose special economic zones (SEZs) for the development of industry in the country, the SS supports the formation of the special economic zones with the reservation that the land that they require there for should not been forcibly acquired from the farmers. It recognizes that almost 40 per cent of the farmers find agriculture not worthwhile proposition and are, therefore, seeking opportunities for a decent exit. The SS has always defended the fundamental right to property and opposed forcible acquisition of land. Nevertheless, under the present circumstances when the sale prices of land are going high, the SS has strongly supported both the farmers right to property as also their freedom of choice of vocation. A farmer has a right to continue agriculture as he has been practicing cultivation in some of the hardest epochs. The government can not claim the right to acquire the lands of such farmers. On the other hand, if farmer is unwilling to continue agriculture in future he will have the right to dispose of his land to any person, at any time and at any price that is acceptable to him.

 The soaring of international prices of crude oil has opened up the possibility of yet another revolution in agriculture. The development of the technology to extract bio-Diesel, bio-fuels from sugar cane, sugar beet, molasses, corn and almost any form of wet biomass is putting agriculture in an entirely new perspective. The peasant is now on par with the oil sheik of the middle-east. The farmer’s might yet to become the most preferred vocation in the society. The traditional enemies of the farmers have already started working to deny the farmers this opportunity. The government is trying to introduce a license-permit system for the manufacture of bio-fuels and keep in hand the right to decide the proportion in which the bio-fuels can be mixed with petrol/diesel as also the right to control the price regime thereof. The main confrontation of the farmers movement in the near future may not be for the freedom of access to markets/technology relating to agricultural produce; it may very well be for the freedom of bio-fuels.

 Yet another area in which the agriculture will face serious difficulties, is the manifold consequences of global warming. The global warming might accentuate food shortages and defeat the gains made over the last century in respect of the food grains, milk and food processing. The mankind with its infinite capacity for ingenuity and innovation has, in the past, overcome the constraints of land and resources that the environmentalists had threatened humanity with. Global warming cannot be overcome by going back into obscurantist modes of production. It will call for a further and more rapid advance of technology that will counter all suggestions of a retreat on the technology front. Recent discovery of water and possibilities of agriculture on planets that are not too far from the planet earth, has also added yet another dimension for the expression of human ingenuity and innovation.

                              ______________________________________________

THE "FARMER'S "AGITATION - 2020 : Protesting Farmers are Arguing for the Perpetuation of Colonial Rule

 SOURCE:  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/farmers-protest-agri-laws-apmc-mandis-msp-surjit-bhalla-7101406/

     PREVIEWs 

In what is turning out to be a replay of Shaheen Bagh, AIM marvels at the ineptness of the Modi govt

 VIDEO :  CLICK / GOOGLE TO OPEN

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scc12Nl3IeQ

 THE "FARMER'S "AGITATION - 2020

The new reformed law allows the farmer to sell through the APMC, and to sell outside the APMC. So why an agitation ?

The glaring drawback out in the article below is inaccurate data on exact number of farmers, non-landholding farming community, size and number of land holdings, both for India as a country and even much less by state and district.  Even folks like Surjit Bhalla who ought to be knowledgeable refers to broad numbers and back of envelope calculations (totally inexcusable).  Bad as data available may be, agriculture employed more than 50℅ of the Indian work force and contributed 17–18% to country's GDP per 2018 'figures'.  

Including animal husbandry, forestry and fisheries, the sector accounted for 15.4% of the GDP (gross domestic product) employing 31% of the workforce. Or balance 69% of workforce accounted for 85% of GDP, showing huge scope for improvement in agriculture and allied sectors. 

Put another way GDP per head from agricultural activities is both low and seemingly stuck in a rut. The country and economy can NOT grow and develop without huge improvements in these areas. Farmers burn stubble and deplete carbon and beneficial soil constituents (also quite unmindful of effects on air pollution and health of millions) because they supposedly cannot afford 'Happy Seeder' or a seed drill costing between Rs 40k and 150k. But they can afford to travel to Delhi borders and "be ready with ration for 6 months" sounds very very odd.

 Protesting Farmers are Arguing for the Perpetuation of Colonial Rule

                                    By

                         Surjit S Bhalla 

There is an old saying — no one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American public. If you think about it further, it probably works better with over-estimation. If you think about it more, it fits almost all democracies. And if you are patient enough, and think some more, it fits best if the word American is switched with the word Indian. Especially, now with all the “debate” around the long awaited, long argued, and vastly overdue farm bills.

A little detail on these bills: The old farm produce laws (the creation of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) came into existence almost 150 years ago to feed the colonial masters raw cotton for their Manchester mills. The output of these mills was then sold to the “natives” for a hefty profit. The farmer was obligated, required, forced to sell to the masters in a regulated market whose regulation was set by, you guessed it, the colonial masters. It is very likely that the people blindly supporting the “poor” farmers (who were recently seen distributing expensive dry fruit freely to all those coming to their “protest”) are unaware of some simple facts. By supporting these very (relatively) rich farmers, the protesters are in fact arguing for the perpetuation of colonial rule.

Some steps further in this historical lesson. The corrosive monopoly power held by the APMCs has been recognised by almost all political parties and farmer unions (for example, the Bharat Kisan Union took out a protest in 2008 arguing for the right of farmers to sell produce to corporates). The Congress party had these very same laws in its 2019 election manifesto.

Let us further follow this chain of logic of the farm protest supporters. In 1991, the government freed industry from its cage and the results are there for everybody to see, and applaud (except, of course, the wilfully blind). GDP growth in India doubled to an average of 6 per cent over the next 30 years, from the previous average of less than 3 per cent.

For reasons best known to the “political” economists, agriculture was not freed in 1991, or thereafter — until now. Farmers are forced to sell their marketable produce only through a mandi regulated by the government. The new reformed law allows the farmer to sell through the APMC, and to sell outside the APMC. It is her choice. The government procures all of its food through APMCs — only about 6 per cent of the farmers in India sell through the APMCs to the government. These 6 per cent are all large farmers, primarily residing in the two states of Punjab and Haryana. These two states typically account for close to 60 per cent of wheat procurement and close to a third of rice procurement. The government procures from these farmers in order to re-distribute the food via ration shops to the bottom two-thirds of the population. But there are leakages. This leakage was first openly discussed by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 when he stated that only 15 per cent of the food procured by the government reached the poor.

There are no more than two million farmers — total — in Punjab and Haryana and less than 5 per cent have holdings above 10 hectares. A rough back of the envelope calculation suggests that the protesting farmers from Punjab and Haryana total no more than 200,000 — that is two hundred thousand so there is no confusion with numbers. The number of all farmers in India, very small, small and large is 100 million. So about 0.2 per cent of all farmers in India have “reason” to protest. And what are they protesting for? Likely the licence to remain the richest farmers in India or the world because in addition to the exclusive APMC largesse, the income of these farmers is not taxed. The non-taxation of agricultural incomes does not benefit the poor farmer because she does not have enough income to be taxed.

Be honest — how many of you know a law in any of the 195 out of 200 countries in the world that prohibit an individual from selling her wares in the market? Count the countless street vendors in the world, in both developing and developed markets. Are they prohibited from selling who they want to sell to? Then why the demand that the APMC be the sole buyer for all farmers?

All these facts are well known, except to large elements of the ideologically motivated domestic and international media. “News” is making the rounds that the largest demonstration in the world has taken place in India and/or that 250 million workers have participated in that. Fake news can only be “influential” if there is some plausibility in the fakeness. What we are being asked to believe is that the richest 2,00,000 farmers are being supported by the considerably poorer 100 million farmers and all those who earn considerably less than the rich untaxed farmers! Remember the opening paragraph?

Opinion |Farm laws alter bargaining landscape in favour of corporate players

The political economy of the protest is also illustrated by the following comment from the former chief economic adviser to the government of India and former chief economist of the World Bank, Kaushik Basu. He recently tweeted: “I’ve now studied India’s new farm bills & realise they are flawed & will be detrimental to farmers. Our agriculture regulation needs change but the new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers. Hats off to the sensibility & moral strength of India’s farmers.”

The sensibility part is understandable — the rich do not want to let their richness go, especially if such richness is undeserved. The moral part is not obvious but maybe some digging will illustrate. Let us abstract from moral philosophy and examine what India’s unreformed markets have done to the farm economies of Punjab and Haryana. These two states were the pioneers of the Green Revolution. Electricity to these farmers is subsidised (so that they can destroy the water table), as is their extensive use of fertiliser (so that they have a license to over-use and destroy the environment). But maybe the rich Punjab-Haryana (PH) farmers have provided agricultural growth at a faster rate and thereby helped the state, the country, and the poor.

A comparison of growth in output in states other than Punjab and Haryana indicates a much lower growth in these two states. Output growth for three important crops — rice, wheat and pulses — and two time-periods — the last 15 years (2004 to 2018) and the last eight (2011 to 2018) are presented in the table. Neither APMC, nor subsidies, nor “favouritism” has resulted in higher output growth in Punjab-Haryana. No matter which crop, or which time-period, the results are a sad reflection on the misguided policy. For both periods, output growth of wheat in other states was more than double the growth achieved in Punjab and Haryana; ditto the case for pulses (between 2011-2018, pulses production growth in Punjab and Haryana was at a -0.4 per cent per annum, compared to 5.7 per cent per annum in 10 other states). In rice, the other states do much better than Punjab and Haryana, but the excess growth is not double that of the two states; however, it is nearly double for 2004-18 — two per cent for Punjab and Haryana, and nearly double (3.7 per cent) for nine other states.

All the above facts have been known, and discussed, by learned people for decades. Which is precisely why the intellectual gymnastics played by many learned people defending the farmer protests is so shocking. The “demand” by intellectuals that the farm bill should have been discussed before being passed is well beyond the bounds of conventional dishonesty.

       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article first appeared in the print edition on December 12, 2020 under the title ‘Socialism for rich farmers’. Bhalla is Executive Director IMF representing India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Bhutan. Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.

Must Read 

• Sense of permanence is the cause of the beginning of a downfallPM has been forced finally to step out of his echo chamber into the real world
• Whatever gets you through the day

CLICK HERE FOR MORE