31st Conference: Reports on Commissions

Convenor: Com. Benoy Konar.

1. The problems of consistent weakness in developing peasant movement are those of importance of campaign and propaganda on basic and policy issues and combining it with organising mass struggle on partial, regional and realisable issues, taking up of caste and social oppression issues as anti-feudal struggle; organising struggle with the objective of raising the political consciousness of the peasants and drawing them away from the influence of bourgeois- landlord classes to the camp of working class; problems of building peasant unity against feudalism, monopolists and MNCs as well as imperialism on the basis of fighting ability of agrilabourers and poor peasants; recruiting and rearing of cadres and whole-timers, building up of leadership at different levels; importance of raising fund and its means; importance of democratic functioning and doing away with feudal type authoritative or bureaucratic functioning. All these were discussed in a commission in Cuttuck conference and its recommendation was accepted by the conference as a guiding document.
2. Again in the presidential address in the Kozhikode Conference, some of the basic problems of organisation were explained. But ten years’ experience since then is far from satisfactory. Comrades in most of the weaker states are yet to implement the document and could not do much to put the guidelines in practice.
3. During Cuttuck conference time, the effects of imperialistic LPG were yet to manifest itself in the practical lives of the peasantry. But, during the last ten years, there has been serious changes in the economic scenario in general and particularly in agrarian sector of the country. The peasantry of different strata are experiencing the disastrous effect of this with the growing realisation about the effects of LPG. The alternative policy document of Kisan Sabha was updated in Thiruvananthapuram Session of the AIKC so that comrades can take up vigorous campaign and propaganda against it and organise struggle against its manifestation in the lives of the peasantry. In this period, we have witnessed even spontaneous outbursts of the peasantry in some places. Number of peasant suicides under debt burden is swelling alarmingly. Simply it can be said that so far the building of resistance struggle and conducting campaign for educating the peasants are concerned, the situation is most favourable. But unfortunately we, in most of the areas, could not rise to the occasion.
4. If membership is taken as a criterion there has been little change. In 1994-95 the share of three advanced states in the total membership was 90.17%. Now it stands at 88.5%. It may be noted that the scope of increase in the three states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura are decreasing and within few years their, scope of increase will be limited to the rate of population growth. Whereas in other states where feudal atrocities are severe and economic distress are graver, there has been scope of much sharper growth. If we take 7 states like Rajasthan, Karnataka, Haryana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Orissa together, they have registered a growth of 83.75 %. But the growth rate in Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Tamil Nadu is unstable. Sometimes it goes up and again goes down. The nature of enrolment in Andhra Pradesh, one of the states with revolutionary past, is somewhat erratic. This attitude about enrolment sometimes appears to be casual.

It has to be realised that enrolment is the primary condition for growth of organisation.

Regarding enrolment the Cuttuck Commission report said that it should.be conducted as a campaign and movement. Stronger states follow it. They observe one day, one week or one month for the purpose. However weak one state may be, it must be conducted as a campaign with proper organizational preparation for it. Cuttuck Commission further reported, “Just after any struggle, our cadres should appeal and approach the concerned peasants to be members of Kisan Sabha, a committee be formed with the best elements as choiced by the peasant themselves.” It further stated, “List of members be prepared and kept at the taluka or block level in weaker states and at district levels in areas where very large number of members are enrolled.

During this period only three states – Karnataka, Maharashtra and Orissa – have registered almost consistent growth whose rate stands at 259 %. Excepting the three advanced states, enrolment is not taken up as an organised movement. Bihar inspite of having enough potentials is not picking up. So far as Jharkand is concerned, our expectations have not been met.

All adults among agrarian population are entitled to become Kisan Sabha members. But in most states it is the practice to enrol only the head of the family. This practice has to be given up. In Rajasthan there was a strong and militant movement in 2004 which at the expense of six lives was a success. But there is no reflection in the strength of membership.

Rajasthan conducted another militant struggle in 2005. Its impact upon membership and organisation is yet to be known. We hope for improvement this year.

All these weaknesses were discussed in the earlier document. Now endeavour should be there to rectify it.

1. Campaign movement and struggle

Campaign and struggles that have been organised in states find its place in the general secretary’s report. In consideration of the nature of crisis, our achievement in this respect is not upto our expectations. In Maharashtra earlier we were confined in tribal areas only. Now, we have tried to cross the barrier. The impressive rally on 28.01.2006 has manifested its advance. In Orissa, though very weak, could organise movement for procurement of paddy and against eviction of tribals with success and it has its reflection in membership strength. In Karnataka, powerful movement could be organised against privatisation of power sector and for waiving the arrear power dues with success and also they organised movement against Agri- Produce Marketing Control Act in which both the traders and peasants parrticipated. It has its impact upon the strength of membership.

1. The accentuation of contradiction between entire peasantry with imperialism has widened the possibilities of bringing in newer sections of people into our fold of struggle thereby paving the way towards forging broadest possible democratic unity in rural India. While not abandoning our basic position of building up of peasant unity based on firm unity of agricultural workers and poor peasants with the middle peasants and taking up the cause of the rural poor in their sharpening contradictions with the rural rich the AIKS must strive to work together with these new sections, build up united struggles with other peasant organisations in order to win over newer allies even if they are working in some of the opportunist organisations. Our main concern is to make people move. As and when people move ahead the mass following of these opportunist organisation will abandon these organisations unwilling to take forward the struggle and will eventually come over to us.
2. Importance of local issues: Conducting campaign of basic issues, all-India issues or alternative policy is a must. It enriches our activists, help widening of democratic consciousness, but it has no role to rouse the people in action. Issues which touch the heart of the peasantry and appear to them as immediately realisable can only agitate them and rouse them in action. There is no dearth of small and partial issues agitating the peasantry, if one cares for it. Social atrocities against dalits, weaker section and women are random. As we fail to address it, the disruptive caste forces make use of it. Hunger and starvation go on. ‘Struggles for relief can be organised. Funds for poverty alleviation programmes are misappropriated and wasted. The peasantry can be organised and roused on this issue. Besides land and wage related issues, and issues of repression many other issues were mentioned in Cuttuck document. Except without building resistance movement on such issues, organisation can not grow, and new cadres never be built. But sometimes this task is avoided, because it is troublesome and requires hard working and tenacity. Rather some are more interested in campaigns on all-India issues as it does not require concrete accountability. This trend has to be fought out within the organisation.

Morover, every struggle on concrete issues requires widespread campaign movement to earn democratic support. We should not remain confined to the people affected by the issue alone, but spread our campaign to wider areas and sections of the people, raise fund from them. It will not only strengthen the struggle itself, but also bring realization among wider section of people that Kisan Sabha stands for the right cause and for any problem it is the right organisation to be approached. This way, our support base can be extended.

1. Whatever struggle is there, it failed to enrich the consciousness of the peasantry. In Kozhikode presidential address it was said, “whatever may be the struggles, however may be the militancy and sacrifices, the peasantry, by and large, like shuttle cocks are moving within the boundary of bourgeois – landlord parties in most of the states. Why so happen? Some serious introspection is required.” Though a mass organisation, the AIKS is not void of any noble objective and ideals. It is not a benevolent society like missionary organisations. It is an organisation of struggle. We dream of a society free from hunger, poverty, depression, anxiety and unemployment. In an underdeveloped country, the peasantry constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. It is our objective to draw away the peasantry through educative experiences of such struggles, from the ideological and political enslavement by the bourgeoisie and landlords and bring them in the camp of working class. Unless they learn to dream of such a society, unless they take this existing society as unjust and unreasonable, they will not fight for the change in the correlation of dass forces. All sorts of problems and miseries of the peasantry are inevitably off shoots of this unjust economic and social system. They are various symptoms of the basic disease. While organising peasants on partial issues as symptoms we have to make the peasantry apprise the disease itself. We have to expose the intricate relation between partial and basic problem while conducting struggle on partial issues. Many of our activists lacks this ideological conviction and direction. This weakness has to be removed.

The peasantry has enormous fighting ability but they are not aware of it. It remains in latent form. Through struggles, it can be unleashed by stages. Instead of spoonfeeding, the peasantry has to be taught that it is they who are to liberate themselves in bonds with other toiling people. Except without having training in practice, one cannot, with theoretical teachings on swimming only, swim across a river, rather he is destined to be drowned. So, it is only through active participation in struggles, their fighting potential can flourish. Sometimes resentment of peasants burst out in spontaneous struggles, but we must not leave it to spontaneity, rather we have to rush there with whatever little force we may have, and champion the cause. Again it may be remembered that movements automatically do not lead to organisation. Its development may be charted thus:

Propaganda campaign – movement on concrete issues – consolidation – advanced section of peasants – recruitment of cadres – cadres’ training – further expansion and so like spiral development. In this respect our weakness has to be removed.

1. Development of cadres and wholetimers are necessary for the expansion and consolidation. But, it cannot grow from vacuum. Development of cadres – wholetimers and that of movement is complimentary to each other like walking on two legs, one helps the other to grow. Little advanced is there in this respect.

Self sacrificing ideals and exemplary pursuation breeds wholetimers, but fund is also an initial factor. Stronger states should help the weaker states in the initial stage. West Bengal and Punjab committees have donated Rs. Five lakhs and Rs. one lakh respectively for this purpose to Rajasthan after their struggle in 2005.

The All India Centre may think of creating a fund for the purpose with help from stronger states. With financial support for one or two years, the concerned state committee should have the determination and planning for becoming self-supporting.

1. Proper planning: Proper planning is absolutely necessary to strengthen and expand the Kisan movement. One, who is enough rich, does not require to make an advance budget, but the poor has to make it and select priorities. In most of the states we are weak and badly suffer from the shortage of cadres. If we leave everything on spontaneity and fritter our limited resources, we will fail to advance. Proper planning is necessary, taking into consideration the concrete situation, our influence in particular areas, issues affecting the peasants and availability of cadres. Most of the states where we are weak are big in size and population. Comrades working at the state centre are very few and it is not possible for them to regularly look after the district centres. In case of any incident anywhere, it is very difficult to instantly rush from the state centre for effective intervention and giving continued guidance. Communication is not easy, fund is also very short. Even in weak states, we have some relatively strong pockets of influence scattered throughout the state. Some cadres are also available in such pockets. If we divide the state into several regions around one strong pocket of influence and regularly nurse those centres from the state centre, then a regional leadership may develop to spread our activities in contiguous areas and nurse the weaker districts around it. Cadres from strong pockets cannot be shifted at our will to the state centre by they may be used at the proposed regional centre. Tactically we have to select some priority areas and spread contiguously. In class society spontaneous outbursts will be there and we must take hold of that but spontaneity cannot substitute planned efforts.
2. Democratic functioning and cadre building: Feudal culture and habits prevail upon the society and it tends to influence our organisation also. Democracy is inconsistent with feudalism. In feudalism, the heroes and the lords decide everything. Lord when pleased can give reward to and when angry can also whip anybody. Hero like individual functioning as well as personal likings and dislikings spoil the organisation and impedes the process of cadre building. Habits of readymade prescription giving like mobile physician and hero-like functioning makes the cadres intellectually inert. Whatever problem is there in a locality, the responsible leader should go to the area, meet the committee, however weak it may be there, discuss the problem, analyse the situation and help the comrades to reach a decision. Only in this way comrades learn in practice how to analyse a given situation, judge the correlation of class forces and dialectically come to a conclusion. Individual prescription giving by different leaders always tends to create disruption within the organisation. The heroes forget that the peasantry itself are to emancipate themselves and they lack confidence in the capabilities of cadres. Again cadres can not be built except without projecting examples of lofty ideals, high degree of morality and self-sacrificing attitude of the leadership at all level. This basic teaching on organisation has to be followed.

In the Hindi-belt we are very weak. Socio-economic condition there is favourable for us. But, the leadership is inexperienced. Leaders from stronger states cannot help much because of language problem. Proper leadership has to be developed in this region. The CKC may think of setting up some sort of coordination in this region and meet it regularly. Political and organisational classes have to be organised in this region with special stress.

1. Fund: Fund is very much necessary for expanding organisation. Fund collection is a part of class struggle. Experience shows that it is the poor who can contribute enormous fund provided they think AIKS to be their own organisation. Even in weak areas, how selectively, at the initial stage, fund can be raised was settled by the Cuttuck Commission decade ago. But it remains to be implemented.
2. Cuttuck Commission stressed upon the strengthening the centre particularly at the state and district levels. In few states some improvement is there. But in many states, specially in the Hindu areas, the functioning even at the state level is not much improved. Emphasis has to be given upon it.
3. In conclusion, it can be said that the situation is favourable. Our organisation should rise to the occasion and strive to make headway. This commission report is a complimentary to and review of the Cuttuck Commission report.

Benoy Konar

31.01.06.

Annexure: Cuttack document on organisation.

Convenor: Com. Suryakant Mishra.

1. The Commission set up by 31st Conference of AIKS held at Nasik, Maharastra on January 28-31,2006 to discuss the report and recommendation of National Commission on Farmers (NCF) has to make following observations after deliberation and discussion in details.
2. The Terms of Reference (TOR) and composition of NCF along with the chapter wise executive summaries and Composite Financial Summaries have been annexed herewith for ready reference. It is impossible to circulate chapter wise details and annexure appended with the three voluminous reports of, which extend over 1000 pages. Composite Administrative Initiatives recommended by the Commission (NCF) have not been appended herewith the similar reasons. The entire report is available at the Website: http://www.kisanayog.gov.in.
3. It is important to mention at the outset that the first volume of the report was submitted in December, 2004 and the second report was submitted in early August, 2005 in the expectation that there will be adequate time for Central and State Governments to examine the suggestions for appropriate financial support in the respective budgets for 2006-07. Given the lack of political will, instead of responding to the urgent need of intervention to mitigate the deep-rooted crisis in agriculture and acute distress of peasantry unprecedented in independent India, the Government decided to kill time by setting up another Committee on Agriculture in.the National Development Council under the Chairmanship of the concerned Union Minister, Shri Sharad Pawar. This Committee in its turn has set up six subcommittees on identical issues in a futile repetative exercise. The manner in which this Committee has started functioning indicate that it will take no less than a year for a report to be finalized. Before taking up to the further details of the report and recommendations made by the NCF, AIKS wants to record its note of appreciation for the effort taken by the NCF to address most of the urgent needs of Indian agriculture and peasantry and formulating recommendations which could have been fully utilized as the basis of preparation of the ensuing budget and discussions in the NDC subcommittee. Thanks are due to Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, Chairman NCF also for eliciting views of AIKS and other farmers’ organizations in the process of preparation of the report.

The third report of NCF was submitted very recently, after the first draft of this note was circulated. This report seems to be appreciative of the Union Government taking “several significant steps” in the mean time, e.g. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREG), Bharat Nirman, National Horticulture Mission, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and some steps towards credit and market reforms(Chapter- II, Volume III).However, the fact remains that NREG Act legislated under pressure from the Left is yet to be implemented; Bharat Nirman is yet to take off and includes none of the items recommended by NCF in para 7 chapter I of Summary in the Third report; NRHM allocations made so far are in no way going to increase the public expenditure in health to 2-3% of GDP as promised in CMP since it is yet to cross the 1 % mark; not all the steps taken towards credit and market reforms by the Government are welcome and these have failed to reverse the suicide deaths rightly mentioned in the report. However, NCF makes a very welcome proposal to submit a Draft National Policy in April 2006 followed by discussions with farmer organisations between May and December 2006, so that it could be finally adopted before the 60th anniversary of Independence.

1. The report in general reflects the concerns of AIKS expressed in its two documents on Alternative Agricultural Policy, the first in the early years of liberalization and second about a decade thereafter, vindicating the apprehensions expressed in the first. While the AIKS document deals very briefly with the genesis of the present crisis originating from the bankrupt policies pursued by the successive bourgeois landlord governments at the Centre and different states along with the impact of change of the correlation of forces at the global scale in favour of imperialism, the NCF reports deal much more extensively with the immediate outcome of the aforesaid policies and developments, not going into the historical context which led to this outcome as detailed in AIKS documents. The conclusion with regard to the immediate causes of the maladies and the steps needed to mitigate them as proposed by the AIKS and NCF are by and large similar. The extensive outlay of NCF’s report makes it a very useful and essential reading for all Kisan leaders and activists interested in updating their understanding about the present agrarian problems and their possible solutions in fuller detail.
2. It is noteworthy to find “the five basic factors which are central to the present crisis” as per NCF’s report (see chapter I, Wake Up Call- vol 2) starts with the “unfinished agenda in land reforms’; quantity and quality of water, technology fatigue, the access, adequacy and timeliness of institutional credit and opportunities for assured and remuneration marketing” have rightly been highlighted. AIKS has always emphasized on the need of land reforms as the basis of all round development in the country and points out that the focus of attention that this single issue deserves has never been adequately addressed. A cursory and formal mention of this issue is not enough since government at the center and most of the States which shy away even from mentioning this, are actually reversing land reform in a big way. The NCF reports seem to be shying away from mentioning the experience and achievements of the Left led Governments in respect of agrarian reform.

Another very leading factor in the present crisis, namely declining investment in agriculture, though is dealt with adequately in other parts of the report, has somehow not been enlisted in ‘the five basic factors’. The second volume of the report highlights in the first chapter itself that investment in agriculture has stagnated at 13% of GNP and the share of agriculture and allied activities in the total allocation of all states/ UTs is a meagre 6.46% of the Tenth Five Year Plan and 5.62% for the Annual Plan of 2003- 04. The “Composite Financial Summary” of the two reports added together (Rs. 3496 crores + Rs. 8337 crores) amounts to Rs. 11,833 crores (the Third Report does not provide any) excluding the cost of certain items recommended, including those of the ‘Composite Administrative Initiative’ which are yet to be worked out. Considering that even this amount will not substantially change the investments in agriculture and allied sector in terms of percentage of .GNP and total budgetary outlay of the Central Government, the 31 st Conference of AIKS demands that this total amount must be provided in the Union Budget, 2006 – 07. It is difficult to agree with the finding of NCF that “the central component has grown faster in terms of investment… it is now realized that critical weaknesses lie in the State Component and this must be addressed, especially keeping in mind that agriculture is a State subject”(P31, Vol. III). It has to be remembered that the States are in fiscal crisis because of the very policies adopted by therCentral Government. However, the cost of ‘Composite Administrative Initiation’ may be shared by both Centre and the States on a 50: 50 basis. The report rightly reminds us of what Nehru said in 1948. “ Everything else can wait but not agriculture” – a statement that remains equally valid 58 years after it was made, though never to be implemented.

1. The issue of institutional credit and insurance, being the subject matter of discussion of another Commission set up in this conference, are not being taken up here. So also, the issues related to cost and price, Minimum Support Price (MSP) contract farming and APMC Act etc. which are under the preview of another Commission, are not included here. The chapters on ‘Enhancing Cotton Productivity, Quality and Global Competitiveness’ (P 129-147, Vol. I), ‘Mission for the Prosperity of Sugarcane Farmers’ (P298-352, Vol. II), Agricultural Market Reforms (P394-443,Vol II) AND Chapter III of the 3rd report advocating a “Single Indian Market” for agricultural products, notwithstanding some of the very controversial, debatable and even unacceptable formulations built into these, provides a lot of insight and inputs in this area which may be appropriately utilized by the concerned ‘Commission on Costs and Prices’. It can also take help of the Annexures III of the Second Report titled ‘Agricultural Credit; Some Issues’ (P458-466). Other two Annexure, namely the suggestions sent by NCF relating to NREG Bill 2004 and the Seed Bill 2004 are also not dealt with here for obvious reasons. The first has already been enacted and though AIKS has already taken a view about the second. Certain sections of these aspects in the NCF’s report requires updating. The Vyas Committee report on Cooperatives, for instance, has disappeared from the limelight for quite some time now. Vaidyanathan Committee report is the latest one in this series and it has been taken up by the Union Government for implementation. Above all, the whole range of these issues are inseparably linked with the outcome of the 6th Ministerial Meeting of WTO held at Plongkong. AIKS can claim genuine pride for not being fooled by the illusion spread by the Union Government in this regard ever since the days of Marrakesh. The only thing that is noted here is that it is not only Agreement on Agriculture but the entire outcome of Plong Kong discussions on NAMA, GATS and TRIPS, everything is going to adversely affect Indian agriculture and peasantry ever more than before and there is no justification in underplaying this danger.
2. Another important issue highlighted by the NCF is the very disturbing trend of the deceleration of the growth rate of agriculture since mid-1995. In particular, the fact that the growth rate of foodgrain sector has fallen behind the population growth rate has endangered national food security. Agriculture had grown at 3.2% from 1982 to 1996 and then decelerated to 2.1% in the Ninth Plan, followed by around 1.5% in the first 3 years of Tenth Plan against a target of 4%. However, it is difficult to understand the rationale of the strategy proposed to achieve a 4% agriculture growth rate based on 8% growth rate in horticulture. While having no reservation about the need for growth in horticulture, AIKS is of the view that the growth rate in the food grain sector cannot be compromised. Further, a higher growth rate for food grains per se cannot ensure food security to our starving millions, unless optimal consumption is ensured by increases in employment and real wage, both of which have been declining. The report rightly mentions that ‘in India producers are also major consumers of food grain’, (P 408 , Volt II) unlike the developed countries where farmers hardly constitute 5-10% of the population. In developed countries it is a consumer vs. producer situation whereas ours is a situation where producers are consumers as well. Enhancing their purchasing power by increasing the price of their produce, wages and employment can expand the market for our agricultural products inside the country. Our agriculture must not be dependent on export. Similarly, our food security must not depend on import. NCF’s recommendation for National Food Security Act on the lines of the Employment Guarantee Act is welcome, and AIKS will take up this issue in a big way. NCF however seems to be shy of recommending the restoration of a Universal PDS, one of the major target of onslaught of the neo-liberal policies.
3. Another issue dealt in much detail in the NCF’s report is the need to augment knowledge -intensive agriculture. In spite of repetitions, as these appear in relation to other items as well, the main thrust is sought to be given to the application of new developments in science and technology, be it in the field of soil health, water use, agroclimatic – region – based planning or coastal fishing. The use of information and communsication technology to develop Village Knowledge Centres, which has been successfully implemented in some villages of Pondichery to start with, can be successfully replicated in other areas. The Village Knowledge Centres run by marginalized women of middle school standard literacy with some training in computer could provide many useful informations to the farmers, ranging from weather forecasts to market information. If M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation could make it happen, there is no reason why Kisan Sabha in more organised areas would not be able to replicate it. The only word of caution relates to the choice of appropriate technology that can meet the felt needs of small farms of the particular locality. Technology driven growth minus redistributive land and asset reform is comparable to putting the cart before the horse i.e. a growth that cannot be sustained. The experience of green revolution is a case in point. The NCF report having claimed that the Green Revolution tripled food grain production (80% through yield enhancement) goes further to make the debatable claim that it halved the percentage of hungry and poor people ( Para 1, Chapter II, Summary, vol. III). There are numerous studies which establish that the Green Revolution increased the rich- poor and regional divide. A FAO sponsored study even showed that malnutrition increased 26-30% in the hey day of the Green Revolution. Further, no technology is class – neutral and therefore what we need is pro-poor, gender and eco-friendly, local need and resource based, labour intensive, low – cost and easily transferable technology relevant to concrete socio-economic situations.. Kisan Sabha will make every effort to adopt, use, develop and disseminate such technologies in the interest of the development of productive forces and class struggles. NCF’s proposal to form a ‘National Federation of Farm Technology Mission’ as an umbrella of all crop wise and other relevant technology missions best chaired by a practicing farm woman or man with proven record of creativity in small farm management’ (P 15- 16 Vol. I) is welcome. So also is the proposal to increase research and extension investment to 1 % of agricultural GDP from current level of 0.34% (Para 18, Chapter 2, Summary, Vol. III). However the proposal to provide tax holidays or increased tax concessions for private sector contributions to R&D from the present 14% to 33 % is not acceptable to AIKS.
4. It is important to note that the recommendations made by NCF were guided by the underlying principles of affordability and implementability (P 16, Vol. I) and not by some pious wishes. This leaves no excuse for the government to evade its responsibility. So far as the additional resources necessary to implement these recommendations are concerned, it is well within the affordability limits. Limitations of space prevent us from going into the details of the ‘Administrative Initiatives’ prescribed by NCF although we shall insert a word of caution. Apparently the administrative arrangements suggested envisage a large number of bodies to be set up at different levels, which runs the risk of multiplication of vertical chains of administration making integration, coordination and convergence more and more difficult. It is advisable to opt for one umbrella approach – as suggested elsewhere in the NCF report itself. The role of Panchayat Raj Institutions (P.R.I) taking a leading role to bring about this convergence with a holistic approach needs to be emphasized. A massive capacity -building component in the form of training, sensitization and empowerment of these bodies and their women, SC, ST, OBC, and practising small farmer members and functionaries in particular, has to be built into the entire gamut of ‘Administrative Initiatives’ recommended by NCF. The role of SHG, CBO, NGO etc in this process, considering the vast potentials they offer, has to be considered complementary to the leading role of constitutional bodies like Panchayats.
5. NCF has done an excellent job by widening the scope of agriculture to allied activities like fishery and livestock rearing. The chapters titled Livestock and Livelihood’ (P 174 – 179, Vol I) and ‘Fish for All ‘( P 51 — 141 Vol II ) provides a lot of insights into these sectors, and into their problems and potentials. AIKS will take appropriate initiative to take up these issues. The only point to be noted in this regard is that ‘Fish for All’ should not be primarily export dependent. Many local species are facing extinction and reckless catches at the coasts, which are being thrown open to Indian and foreign corporate houses is yet another danger threatening the rich biodiversity of our country. These ominous developments must be resisted.
6. Two other chapters, titled ‘Productivity and livelihood Enhancement in Rain fed Areas’ (P62- 89, Vol I ) and ‘Enhancing Productivity, Profitability , Stability and Sustainability’ (P142-393, Voi-ll) deserve special mention. These provide problems as well as options available in different agroclimatic zones e.g. hill, arid and coastal zones. They further deal with diverse potentials such as the cultivation of medicinal plants, organic farming, bio-fuel plantations etc. These are subjects that all Kisan leaders and activists must get aquainted with, in order to enable themselves to concretely intervene in concrete situations. Land and water use in different situations is one area of utmost importance. We are rightly reminded of the golden rule that yield per unit area of land should not be over emphasized. What is important is the return per rupee investment and (still more important) per litre water used. What is definitely debatable is whether land use should necessarily follow the market needs (P38,Vol I), entirely ignoring the sustainability. Responding to an immediate market need by way of converting lands growing food grain, for example, to brekish water pisciculture or tea plantation may not be sustainable in the long run. Land Use Boards ‘to be effective’ have to take such factors into consideration.
7. One cannot but agree with very useful recommendations made by NCF in relation to ‘Integrated Life saving support programme for Farm Families Facing Acute Distress’ ( P 33-61, Vol I), ‘A New Deal For Women in Agriculture’ (P 80 -112, Vol I) , Horticulture ( P 113 – 128, Vol I) , ‘ Beyond Tsunami’ (P 180 – 190, Vol – I) etc. The 31st Conference of AIKS resolves to take up these issues in right earnest with the masses and governments as well. Notwithstanding some of the points raised above, this conference considers the overall report and recommendations submitted by NCF to the union Government, and calls for immediate intervention.

There are many positive points regarding the report. It is perhaps the first effort after the National Commission on Agriculture in the 1970s that has attempted an analysis of indian agriculture in such detail. Almost all aspects of agriculture are dealt with and it is rich in the technical details of agricultural science. Some of the positions in the report that we could easily agree with are the following.

1. A comprehensive set of immediate relief measure suggested to address the agrarian distress (see Volume 2, pp. 9-18).
2. Recommendation of agricultural planning to be organized on a watershed basis.
3. Steps suggested to increase irrigated area and other measures, such as the implementation of a million wells recharge programme.
4. Establishment of a National Land Use Advisory Service, linked to State and Block Level Land Use Advisory Services.
5. Establishment of network of advanced soil testing laboratories.
6. Establishment of about 50,000 farm schools for the purpose of farmer-to-farmer learning.
7. Initiation of a National Horticulture Mission for capacity building in post-harvest technology.
8. Steps to specially promote dryland farming.
9. Organisation of Small Holders’ Horticulture Estates.
10. Integration of all crop-wise technology Missions.
11. Credit reform including an enhancement of the total amount available for farm loans and a reduction in interest rates.
12. Establishing an Indian Trade Organisation (ITO) and our own boxes for domestic agricultural support on the model of WTO’s Blue, Green and Amber Boxes.
13. Cataloguing of indigenous varieties of different crops to prevent biopiracy.
14. Promotion of organic farming.
15. Establishment of Village Knowledge Centres to promote the use of ICT in agriculture.
16. Suggestion to transform “microfinance to livelihood finance”; that is, the use of SHGs in agriculture and the formalization of their forward and backward linkages.
17. Emphasis on the revitalisation and democratisation of co-operatives.
18. Suggestion to revamp the crop insurance system by making it more farmer friendly and reducing premiums.
19. Careful use of biotechnology in agriculture: for instance, statements like “Biotechnology can help, but only if it is pro-poor, pro-women and pro-environment”, “the public sector must come up with competitive Bt cotton hybrids so as to lower the seed cost and benefit resource poor farmers”, and “insurance should be Introduced along with GM seed sale”.
20. Improvement in the implementation and expansion (to more crops) of the Minimum support Price system: “There is need for a much stronger protection of MSP in different regions of the country for all commodities” ( Vol. 2, p. 412).
21. Making regulated markets efficient and establishing more rural periodic markets.
22. Need to reform age-old marketing laws so as to reduce transaction costs for farmers.
23. Emphasis on the reduction of transport costs of agricultural commodities across the country.
24. Emphasis to raise the investment in agricultural research to at least 1 percent of the agricultural GDP. This is only a small list of positive suggestions put forward in the report.

The 31st conference of AIKS demands the UPA Government make necessary provisions in the Union Budget 2006 – 2007 and ensure the implementation of these recommendations pending further discussion in any other forum.

Convenors: Com. Tulsidas and V.K. Ramachandran

Convenors: Com. S. Malla Reddy and Venkatesh Athreya.

For more than a decade now, prices of agricultural commodities have been declining in relation to prices of manufactured goods. Costs of inputs such as fertilizer, power, transport and so on have been going up. Difference between the price paid by the consumers and the price paid to the producer has also been increasing because of high trade margins. The disastrous policies of the government in removing all restrictions on imports and in lowering import duties on agricultural products have led to a crash in prices of agricultural commodities. In short, the farmer is not getting a remunerative price for his produce and is often unable to recover even the cost of production. As a result, small and marginal farmers are leaving agriculture and desperately seeking other livelihood avenues or are resorting to suicides as they are overburdened with accumulated debts. A recent National Sample Survey report admits that 40% or more of farmers want to quit farming. A detailed examination of agricultural produce price policy is urgently called for.

1. Minimum Support Prices (MSP) and Government policy:

The commission on agricultural costs and prices (CACP) claims that it recommends minimum support prices (MSPs) to government based on costs of cultivation. Information on the details of cost of production and recommendations from the concerned State government are being obtained by the Centre before MSP fixation as a matter of form. However, the cost of production is not being taken into consideration by the government while deciding MSP. Last year, the CACP has recommended an arbitrary enhancement of MSP for paddy by Rs.20-30 per quintal without taking into consideration the information and recommendations of the State Government. It is claimed that there is a basis for deciding on these prices and that the purchasing power of people is taken into consideration while fixing these prices. It is argued that if the prices of agricultural products are enhanced, minimum wages payable also need to be enhanced. This casts an additional burden on the industrialists by way of higher wages. To protect their profits, agricultural prices are not being enhanced based on cost of production considerations The peasantry is being given a raw deal to protect the interests of the monopolists. This is one of the factors leading to increasing indebtedness of the farmers and making ‘agriculture’ an unremunerative profession.

1. Procurement – Government intervention in the Market:

Not only are MSP prices themselves not remunerative, farmers do not even get the MSP. Procurement policy is in shambles. Central agencies like FCI, CCI, NAFED and state agencies like MARKFED and Civil Supplies department should enter into the market and directly purchase the farmers’ produce When the public procuring agencies enter the market and start purchasing, private traders also enter the market and make purchases. Then prices realized by the farmers for their produce will rise. But, what is happening is totally different.

Public agencies are entering the market for purchase/ procurement. But they are refusing direct purchase from the farmers saying that the farmers’ produce is not as per the specifications. Such refused produce is being purchased by the private traders at reduced prices (below MSP). The same produce is then purchased by public agencies from the private traders accepting that the produce is satisfying the prescribed specifications. A substantial portion of procurement by public agencies is taking place through purchase from private traders in the above manner. As a result, public procurement has become profitable for private traders. Public agencies are incurring losses of thousands of crores of rupees due to purchase of produce without minimum specifications from private traders, even as farmers are compelled, in order to meet urgent cash needs, to sell at low prices to private traders for want of purchase by State agencies.

Following are the procurement details by the government during 2001-04 years:

	Wheat		Rice		Total
Year	Minimum	Actual	Minimum	Actual	Minimum	Actual
	Procurement	Procurement	Procurement	Procurement	Procurement	Procurement
Oct. 2001	11.6	36.8	6.5	21.5	18.1	58.3
Oct. 2002	11.6	35.6	6.5	15.8	18.1	51.4
Oct. 2003	11.6	18.4	6.5	5.2	18.1	23.6
Oct. 2004	4	6.9	11.8	13.1	15.8	20

Data in the above table indicates that actual procurement is much higher than the minimum targeted procurement. Purchases from traders account for the major portion of total procurement.

1. Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) of Rice and Wheat

In recent years, MSPs of rice and wheat have been practically stagnant. The data in Table 2 bring out this point.

Year	Wheat	Rice
		Common	A-Grade
2001-02	620	530	560
2002-03	620	530	560
2003-04	630	550	580

Note: In addition to above MSP, Rs.10/- per quintal of wheat and Rs.20/- per quintal of rice has been paid as drought assistance. This additional payment has been enjoyed by the traders/millers alone. Farmers were not benefited by this additional payment. There is only marginal adjustment of MSP. Cost of production is not being taken into consideration. Government is procuring only few crop produces. Many crops are not covered by government procurement policy.

4.Time to fix MSP:

MSP fixation announcement is made at the time of crop harvest. Small and marginal farmers are selling their produce by the time of MSP fixation announcement. Actually, MSPs have to be announced well before crop sowing season in June.

MSP is being announced only for a very few crops. Many crops are not covered by this policy. Important crops like chillies, castor, other oilseed crops and aromatics are not covered by MSP policy. As a result, farmers of these crops are forced to sell their produce at the price decided by the private traders.

1. Marginal enhancement of MSPs and steep increase of input prices:

Difference between MSP enhancement and input price increase is increasing day by day. Market rates that prevailed 10 years before in the regulated markets are prevailing even today. MSP has increased only marginally. However, as shown in Tables 4 to 6, all input prices have increased sharply. Over the last decade and a half, the rise in input prices has been of the order of 4-5 times and even more in some cases. Input use also has increased over the years, though the rise in input prices and the credit crisis in agriculture have led to some decline between 2002-03 and 2003-04 as shown in Table 3. This is a huge burden on the farmers.

Fertilizer Nutrients	2002-03	2003-04
Nitrogen(N)	10,474	11,324
Phosporus(P)	4,019	4,402
Potash(K)	1,601	1,748
N+P+K	16,094	17,474
Increase Over
Previous year(%)	-7.29	8.5

Fertilizer	2002	2003
Urea	206.00	250.80
DAP	427.00	485.60
MOP	190.25	231.25
SSP	149.00	162.36
SSP(G)	159.00	172.36
20:20:0	334.40	378.15
28:28:0	411.60	471.65

Pesticide	Unit	(Price, Rs. per Unit)
		2002	2005
Avanthi	200ml.	670	700
Tracer	100ml.	850	900
Monocrotophos	1 litre	180	220

Crop	2002	2005	Unit
Cotton	362-400	452-1850	Rs. per acre
Maize	180-220	250-450	Rs. per 5 kg.
Rice	280	320	Rs. per 30 kg. bag

Costs of inputs other than fertilizers, pesticides and seeds have also risen. Power charges for irrigation have been steeply increased. A new water policy has been formulated, which is designed to increase water charges many times of what it is at present. Water has been commodified through this policy and water is diverted for industrial use from agriculture. As a result, water use in agriculture has become very costly. There is also the crisis of the decline in the levels of the water table, and the failure of costly investments in tube wells and other irrigation efforts..

Prices of diesel and petrol have increased by 3-4 times. This has increased the cost of production, but the compensation allowed through enhanced prices is only for a part of it

Above data show that prices of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and all other inputs have steeply increased. Their use per acre also has increased. The enormous increase in costs of cultivation is not accompanied by higher produce prices.

1. Price Policy and Productivity

Productivity levels of several important crops in India are much lower than in many other countries, both advanced and developing. Some of the relevant data is presented in Table With terms of trade moving against agriculture, increasing input prices, stagnant output prices and a collapse in rural development and public investment expenditures, agricultural productivity is unlikely to increase. Price policy ought to change in favour of farming so that productivity of agriculture is improved, and Indian agriculture reaches levels of productivity already attained by China and other countries.

Crop	Country	Productivity(kg/ha.)	Ranking
Rice	World average	3662
	Japan	5822	8
	China	5900	7
	U.S.A	6378	5
	India	2880	51
Wheat	World average	2475
	China	3495	27
	France	6554	7
	U.K.	6774	3
	India	2394	43
Maize	India	1583	98
Pulses	India	588	126
Groundnut	India	919	70
Soyabean	India	977	62
Cotton	India	297	62
Tobacco	India	1413	56

1. Legislation on Agricultural Markets

Salient features of Agricultural Market Act now in force are given below:

Legal persons, growers and local authorities permitted to establish new markets in any area.

No compulsion on growers to sell their produce through existing regulated markets.

Establishment of direct purchase centers, Consumers/Farmers Markets for direct sale.

Promotion of Public-Private Partnership in the management and development of agricultural markets.

Separate constitution for special markets for commodities like onions, fruits, vegetables, and flowers.

A separate chapter to regulate and promote contract farming arrangements in the country has been provided..

Prohibition of commission agency in any transaction of agricultural commodities with the producers.

Market Committee to promote alternative marketing system, contract farming, direct marketing and farmers/consumers markets.

State Marketing Boards to promote standardization, grading, quality certification, market led extension and training of farmers and market functionaries in marketing related areas.

Constitution of State Marketing Standards Bureau for promotion of grading, standardisation and quality certification of agricultural produce.

1. Other market related issues:

Traders form syndicate and reduce the whole sale prices steeply at the time of crop harvest disregarding MSP or international price trends. No training is being imparted by the government to the farmers on maintenance of ‘Fair Average Quality’ (FAQ). Farmers are doing this on their own accord at present as they perceive it. Hence, no standard quality is being maintained. Government should train the farmers to maintain FAQ for their produce.

Manipulations and frauds are taking place in agricultural markets, as indicated below:

Cheating in weighment.

Collecting higher commission than prescribed.

Arbitrary fixing of purchase rate.

Thefts of farmers’ produce in the market

Collection of produce transport charges from market yard to traders’ godown from the farmers

Collection of considerable quantity of produce freely in the name of sample collection.

Declaration of bankruptcy by the trader after produce purchase without payment to the farmer – no compensation mechanism to the farmer.

‘Zero’ trading.

Collection of high interest from the farmers for the Advance made by the traders.

No facilities and protection to the farmer and his produce in the market.

Market committees are deliberately not taking any action to curb malpractices / frauds in the market yards.

1. Horticulture and Vegetable prices

These produces are perishable and have no shelf life. No cold storage facilities are accessible to the farmers. Traders are collecting 20% commission illegally. No regulations are operating in the marketing of these products. Consequently, prices realised by the farmers are highly fluctuating. During the peak harvest time, farmers are unable to realise even harvest and transport charges. As a result, the sights of produce being thrown on the road or of leaving the produce without harvest are not uncommon. Such farmers are landing in total ruin. Consumers, on the other hand, are forced to purchase the same produce at higher prices.

1. Steep decrease of prices in international markets

Price details for important crops in international markets are given below (in US $ per ton) in Table 8.

Crop	1995-96	1999-2000
Rice	324.42	192.23
Groundnut	494.36	366.78
Cotton	1810	1191
Sugar	295.0	129.08

It can be seen that prices of key crops have been falling rapidly in international markets, thus reminding us of the vulnerability and risks inherent in opening up agriculture under globalization.

1. Coffee, tea, rubber and aromatic products

Indiscriminate imports of these products are harming the interests of these farmers. A comprehensive protection mechanism should be evolved and grounded to protect the interests of these farmers.

1. Edible oils and sugar imports:

Large-scale imports of edible oils and sugar are harming the interests of oil seed and sugar cane growers. Develop and implement a comprehensive scheme to protect the interests of these farmers.

1. By-Products:

Farmers do not get the benefit of the value of their byproducts, as these are siphoned off by traders. The following cases of paddy and cotton are illustrative of this point.

a. Paddy: Value of main and bye-products from one quintal

i. Rice 66kg@ 12/- Rs. 792/-

ii. Broken 4kg@ 5/- Rs. 20/-

iii. Bran 6kg@ 7/- Rs. 42/-

iv. Husk 24kg Rs. 22/-

Sub total Rs. 876/-

Price paid to the farmer per quintal of paddy: Rs. 560/-

Milling and transport charges Rs. 36/-

Sub total Rs. 596/-

Value of bye-products: Rs. 876-596= 280/-

No share is given to the farmer in the bye-product value of Rs. 280/- per quintal.

b. Cotton: Value of bye-product from one quintal of seed cotton (kapas):

i. Cotton lint 35 kg @ 55/- Rs. 1925/- ( 355 kg lint priced at Rs. 19,500/-)

ii. Seed 62 kg :

Oil 5.5 kg @ 45/- Rs. 251/-

Cake 56 kg @ 7/- Rs. 395/-

Sub total Rs. 646/-

Total Value Rs. 2571/-

(-) Processing and transport charges Rs. 101/-

Net Value Rs. 2470/-

Price paid to the farmer Rs. 1800/-

Traders’ profit Rs. 670/-

It can be seen that traders are getting a net income of Rs. 280 and 670 per quintal of paddy and cotton, respectively. In a sample survey conducted during 2000-01, it was reported that traders are getting totally Rs. 30,000 crores from all agricultural products. Value addition is currently monopolized by traders and industrialists. It is not bringing any additional income to the farmers.

In India, 86% of the farmers are small and marginal cultivating about 40% of the land and producing more than 50% in total agricultural production. They are not in a position to have any kind of processing units or undertake any value addition activity, except by way of cleaning and grading.